Next Article in Journal
Sustainable Decarbonization of Road Transport: Policies, Current Status, and Challenges of Electric Vehicles
Previous Article in Journal
Does Green Finance Development Enhance the Sustainability Performance of China’s Energy Companies?
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 18
10.3390/su16188057
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Empirical Study on the Relationship between Leader–Member Exchange, Employee Trust, and Team Knowledge Sharing

by
Qingqing Liang
1,* and
Fang Yin
2
1
School of Earth Science and Resources, Chang’an University, Xi’an 710054, China
2
Shaanxi Key Laboratory of Land Consolidation, School of Land Engineering, Chang’an University, Xi’an 710054, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(18), 8057; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16188057
Submission received: 18 August 2024 / Revised: 12 September 2024 / Accepted: 13 September 2024 / Published: 14 September 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Psychology of Sustainability and Sustainable Development)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Knowledge sharing is influenced not only by the attributes of the knowledge itself and the hierarchical differences among knowledge holders but also by micro-level factors such as interpersonal communication and psychological dynamics. As the demands of the new economic environment evolve, the role of knowledge sharing among team members in knowledge management has become increasingly critical. A growing body of research emphasizes the importance of sharing knowledge resources as a means of gaining strategic advantages in enterprises. Previous studies have shown that leadership behavior plays a crucial role in fostering knowledge sharing among team members. However, there is limited research on the specific pathways and mechanisms through which leadership behavior influences knowledge sharing. Additionally, existing research lacks a comprehensive examination of the structure and measurement methods of leader–member exchange (LMX), as well as its impact on employee work outcomes. This study addresses this gap by examining trust relationships through the lenses of social identity and emotional interaction, with trust serving as a mediating variable to explore the impact of leader–subordinate interactions on knowledge sharing behavior. Drawing on the relevant literature, the study focuses on 358 employees, investigating the relationship between LMX as the independent variable, team knowledge sharing as the dependent variable, and employee trust as the mediating factor. The research findings are as follows: (1) The quality of the LMX relationship significantly influences employees’ team knowledge sharing; higher-quality LMX relationships are associated with increased knowledge sharing among subordinates. (2) Employee trust in both leaders and colleagues has a substantial impact on team knowledge sharing, with higher levels of trust positively affecting knowledge sharing behaviors. (3) Employee trust serves as a mediating factor in the relationship between LMX and team knowledge sharing. This study delves into the dynamics between LMX, team knowledge sharing, and trust, providing practical recommendations for strengthening these relationships.

1. Introduction

The rapid advancement of global technology has exerted significant pressure on organizational development within enterprises [1,2]. Traditionally, employment relationships were based on a mutual exchange: Employees offered loyalty, identification, and commitment to the organization in return for competitive salaries, opportunities for promotion, harmonious interpersonal relationships, and recognition from supervisors [3,4]. However, increasing global competition and evolving organizational environments have disrupted this stable employment paradigm [5]. To stay competitive, many enterprises have restructured their organizational frameworks, shifting towards new employment relationships marked by short-term and flexible arrangements [6,7,8].
In today’s dynamic environment, employees increasingly seek recognition from their leaders in order to thrive. Thus, fostering team knowledge sharing through the trust built between leaders and subordinates carries significant theoretical and practical importance.

1.1. Theoretical Significance

In today’s modern society, marked by intense global competition and rapid technological advancement, traditional hierarchical organizational models are increasingly insufficient for adapting to external environmental changes. To meet the demands of the new economic system, modern organizations must adopt more flexible organizational designs [9]. In this context, the concept of teams has emerged and evolved to address these needs effectively.
When faced with a large volume of complex information, not every team member can access all the data, nor do all members have the capacity or time to process and absorb it. Consequently, knowledge sharing among team members has become increasingly crucial.
How can the impact of knowledge sharing be studied from the perspective of leader–subordinate interactions? How do leaders influence team knowledge sharing through various methods and approaches, and what measures can be implemented to better promote this knowledge sharing? This paper examines trust relationships through the lenses of social identity and emotional interaction, using trust as a mediating variable to assess its impact on the interaction between LMX and knowledge sharing behavior. The theoretical significance of this study is as follows [10,11]: (1) The quality of LMX is not the sole direct factor influencing team knowledge sharing. Instead, the positive impact of employees’ cognitive and emotional trust relationships is crucial for achieving effective team knowledge sharing. (2) Organizational culture and employee value orientations in Chinese enterprises differ significantly from those in Western countries [12]. Furthermore, emotional trust mediates the relationship between LMX and knowledge sharing, while cognitive trust also mediates this relationship, thereby contributing to local research efforts.

1.2. Practical Significance

LMX significantly impacts team knowledge sharing within enterprises. In the modern era, employees place not only importance on economic exchanges with the organization but also on emotional exchanges [13,14]. Emotional trust is developed when managers and employees share a common identity and align with organizational goals. Both cognitive trust and emotional trust play positive mediating roles in the relationship between LMX and knowledge sharing.

2. Literature Review

2.1. The Proposal and Development of LMX Theory

Graen and Dansereau first introduced the LMX theory in 1972. Their research on the Vertical Dyad Linkage (VDL) model led them to conclude, through purely theoretical reasoning [15,16], that leaders form varying levels of exchange relationships with different subordinates. Due to time constraints, leaders establish special relationships with a select few subordinates who become part of the “in-group”. These in-group members gain the leader’s trust, receive more attention, and are more likely to enjoy additional privileges [17,18]. This group represents the small portion of high-quality exchange relationships within the leader–subordinate dynamic. Conversely, other subordinates are categorized as part of the “out-group”. They receive less of the leader’s time and have fewer opportunities for rewards, representing the majority of low-quality exchange relationships. Their leader–subordinate interactions are based primarily on the formal power system.

2.2. The Concept and Dimension Division of Employee Trust

2.2.1. The Concept of Employee Trust

Scholars in psychology, sociology, and organizational behavior provide various definitions of trust from their respective perspectives [19]. Despite these disciplinary differences, a common thread emerges. Interpersonal trust, when viewed through a rational cognition lens, generally comprises two primary components [20,21,22].
Firstly, trust involves an individual’s ability to assess risks and uncertainties associated with others’ behaviors. In this context, risk refers to the perceived likelihood of potential losses by the decision-maker. For example, if a leader notices that subordinate employees frequently arrive late, take excessive leave, and display a lack of diligence—such as completing tasks perfunctorily and showing reduced enthusiasm in team activities and discussions—the leader may become increasingly reluctant to communicate openly with them. If these negative behaviors persist without intervention, the trust established between the leader and employees may gradually erode, potentially leading to higher employee turnover.
Secondly, trust is rooted in the perception of whether one’s own interests and preferences align with those of the other party [23]. When an individual can accurately assess the uncertainties in another party’s behavior and foresee a mutual alignment of interests, a trusting relationship can be established. These two aspects—risk assessment and interest alignment—are mutually dependent; both parties’ interests rely on each other to be fulfilled. The degree of this mutual dependency directly impacts the level of trust between them [21]. In a business context, if leaders and subordinate employees have aligned goals and share an implicit understanding—such as similarities in personality, compatibility in work styles, and common interests—leaders are more likely to classify these employees as “insiders” and place trust in them.
This study focuses on employees’ trust in their direct supervisor. In Chinese culture, emotional factors have traditionally played a significant role in the development of interpersonal trust. Emotional trust stems from the understanding that, as social beings, humans seek not only economic rewards but also a sense of belonging and identity within organizations. When employees feel that their organization provides them with these intangible rewards, they are more likely to experience a sense of fulfillment. A strong sense of identification enables one party to empathize with the needs of another, to think and feel as the other does, and to engage in interpersonal interactions with their well-being in mind.
When leaders not only focus on the progress, work environment, and pressure levels of their subordinate employees but also show genuine interest in their personal lives—such as their physical health, emotional well-being, life circumstances, and personal thoughts—they create an atmosphere that nurtures personal growth within the organization. This attentiveness to individual development needs deepens employees’ trust in their leader, reinforcing a positive and supportive workplace culture.

2.2.2. Dimensions of Employee Trust

The study of trust within organizations can be divided into two main areas [19,24]: The first is intra-organizational trust, which focuses on trust among coworkers, management, and the organization as a whole. Empirical research in this area examines trust at various levels within the organization. The second area is interorganizational trust, which explores trust between different organizations, with studies focusing on one organization’s trust in another. In summary, trust is a multifaceted construct that operates at both intra- and interorganizational levels.
This study focuses on trust within the organization, specifically trust in direct supervisors. In Chinese culture, emotional aspects of interpersonal trust have been highly valued since ancient times. As social beings, individuals seek emotional trust when joining an organization. Beyond the pursuit of economic rewards, they also desire a sense of belonging and recognition. When an organization fosters a sense of identity and acknowledgment, employees are more likely to experience a sense of fulfillment.
On the other hand, according to social exchange theory, mutual trust is essential for social exchange to occur. The key challenge, however, is how to effectively demonstrate one’s trustworthiness [24]. To foster employees’ trust in their supervisors and the organization, both must actively demonstrate their reliability. Previous research has shown that factors such as a supervisor’s fairness, openness, promise-keeping, and support for subordinates significantly enhance their credibility [25]. Additionally, organizational procedural fairness and respectful treatment of employees—including valuing their contributions, involving them in decision-making, and considering their suggestions—greatly strengthen employees’ trust in the organization. Consequently, when employees perceive their supervisors and organization as trustworthy, believing that they act in the employees’ best interests and consider their perspectives, it leads to higher job satisfaction, increased organizational loyalty, and reduced turnover intentions.

2.3. Concept Definition and Measurement of Team Knowledge Sharing

In traditional work teams, leaders held absolute authority, overseeing all aspects of their subordinates’ professional lives, including monthly performance reviews, annual employee evaluations, year-end salary adjustments, and promotions. However, with rapid economic development, businesses are increasingly focused on the leadership styles team leaders employ to manage their teams. There is a growing emphasis on how leaders can effectively promote knowledge sharing, enhance team cohesion, and, in turn, improve overall team performance. As a result, team development and knowledge sharing are now built on the foundation of individual members. Within teams, all individuals work toward common goals, follow company guidelines, cooperate with one another, and share knowledge to uphold collective interests. In this process, members cannot act solely based on personal desires; they must shoulder some of the team’s responsibilities [26,27]. This responsibility involves not only safeguarding the team’s collective interests but also balancing and protecting individual interests.

2.4. The Relationship between Team Knowledge Sharing and LMX

In 1933, Mayo introduced the Human Relations Theory, which was grounded in the Hawthorne experiments and marked a significant shift in human relations management. Mayo argued that individuals, seen as integral parts of broader familial and group structures, are not solely motivated by financial incentives. Instead, their motivation is significantly influenced by factors such as rationality, emotions, trust, and other social dynamics. When a leader distrusts their subordinates and excludes them from their inner circle, it can profoundly diminish employee motivation [28,29]. This lack of trust affects employees’ emotions and attitudes, potentially leading to negative work behaviors such as decreased productivity and reluctance to engage in team activities. As a result, employees may withhold valuable knowledge and suggestions from the leader, creating a detrimental cycle that exacerbates leader dissatisfaction, reduces team performance, and increases turnover rates.
The Contingency Theory of Leadership posits that leadership effectiveness depends on situational factors, including the quality of the LMX, which influences both leader behavior and performance outcomes. A central element of this theory is the application of the Confucian principle articulated by Mencius: “Love those whom you should love, respect those whom you should respect”.
Leaders are encouraged to “love those whom you should love” by showing genuine concern for their subordinates’ professional development and personal well-being. This includes actively engaging with their team, fostering open communication, and offering support to help them overcome work-related challenges. In turn, subordinates are expected to reciprocate by demonstrating commitment to the organization, respecting leadership directives, and diligently fulfilling their assigned tasks.
Effective leaders foster a culture of trust by empowering their employees to take initiative and unleash their creativity. When individuals feel trusted and valued, they experience heightened happiness and job satisfaction, which in turn fuels greater enthusiasm for work [30]. This positive atmosphere promotes greater knowledge sharing within teams, leading to improved collective performance and innovation.
Therefore, leaders should prioritize building a foundation of trust with their subordinates, encompassing both professional and personal dimensions [31]. In the workplace, leaders must skillfully assess the strengths and weaknesses of their team members, leveraging their strengths while offering timely guidance to address areas needing improvement [32,33]. Providing effective methods and perspectives is crucial in preventing issues from escalating.

3. Theoretical Model and Research Hypotheses

Based on the literature review, the article systematically examines the interrelationships among variables such as LMX, trust, and team knowledge sharing [34,35]. It proposes logical causal relationships and mediation effects among these variables, integrating them into a coherent framework.
The quality of LMX can affect employee trust. Researchers have examined the impact of LMX on team knowledge sharing, and the study shows a significant positive correlation between LMX and team knowledge sharing. The better the LMX, the higher the knowledge sharing within subordinate teams. Due to cultural differences between the West and China, employment relationships in Western cultures emphasize the role of rules and legal constraints, while in Chinese culture, employment relationships focus on social norms, interpersonal trust, and emotional bonds [36,37]. Therefore, it is necessary to examine the relationship between LMX, trust, and team knowledge sharing within the context of Chinese culture. Based on this, the study proposes the following [38,39,40]:
Hypothesis 1.
LMX is positively correlated with team knowledge sharing.
Hypothesis 2.
Affective trust is positively correlated with knowledge sharing.
Hypothesis 3.
Cognitive trust is positively correlated with knowledge sharing.
Hypothesis 4.
Affective trust mediates the relationship between LMX and knowledge sharing.
Hypothesis 5.
Cognitive trust mediates the relationship between LMX and knowledge sharing.

4. Research Sample and Measurement Tools

4.1. Research Sample

The study involved 358 employees from various industries, including finance, IT, real estate, and electricity, located in cities such as Shanghai, Beijing, Tianjin, Nanjing, and Dalian. Data were collected through a voluntary and anonymous questionnaire survey. Participants were assured of complete confidentiality, with a promise that their information would be used solely for this research and not for any other purpose, thereby addressing any concerns they might have had.
These measures were designed to minimize potential interfering factors, ensuring the quality of the collected data and the authenticity of the feedback. The questionnaires were distributed from February 2023 to March 2023. Out of 300 online questionnaires distributed, 270 valid responses were received, and out of 100 paper questionnaires distributed, 88 valid responses were obtained. The overall response rate was 89.5%. Specific details of the sample are presented in Table 1.
To assess the reliability of the questionnaires and test related hypotheses, this study utilized SPSS 24.0 professional statistical software for data processing and analysis. Initially, Pearson’s correlation analysis was conducted to explore the relationships among the three variables: LMX, employee trust, and team knowledge sharing. ANOVA was then used to examine demographic differences in each variable. Finally, multiple regression analysis was performed to investigate the mediating roles of affective trust and cognitive trust in the relationships between LMX and knowledge sharing.

4.2. Measurement Tools

The knowledge sharing scale used in this research was developed by Bock and Kim and consists of six items. Participants responded using a 7-point Likert scale, where 1 represents “strongly disagree”, 2 represents “disagree”, 3 represents “somewhat disagree”, 4 represents “neutral”, 5 represents “somewhat agree”, 6 represents “agree”, and 7 represents “strongly agree”. The items are as follows:
“My department colleagues consider me very knowledgeable”.
“My department colleagues consider me a valuable resource for consulting specialized skills”.
“My department colleagues think I have many good ideas”.
“My department colleagues see me as generous”.
“My department colleagues believe I am helpful”.
“My department colleagues see me as cooperative”.

5. Research Results

5.1. Reliability Analysis of Each Scale

As shown in Table 2 and Table 3, the Cronbach’s alpha for the trust scale was 0.82 for affective trust and 0.91 for cognitive trust. The Cronbach’s alpha for the knowledge sharing scale was 0.89, and for the LMX scale, it was 0.83. All reliability coefficients exceeded 0.70, indicating that the measurement scales demonstrated high reliability.

5.2. The Correlation Analysis

The results indicate that all pairs of the four variables are significantly positively correlated at the 0.01 level. Therefore:
Hypothesis 1.
The positive correlation between LMX and team knowledge sharing is supported.
Hypothesis 2.
The positive correlation between affective trust and knowledge sharing is supported.
Hypothesis 3.
The positive correlation between cognitive trust and knowledge sharing is supported.
These findings also provide a basis for validating Hypotheses 4 and 5.

5.3. Analysis of Variance Results

5.3.1. Differential Testing of Variables by Gender

As shown in Table 4, a one-way ANOVA was conducted to test for differences in LMX, team knowledge sharing, and employee trust (including both affective and cognitive trust) between genders. The results indicated no significant differences between genders for any of the variables (p > 0.05). Therefore, the analysis suggests that gender does not significantly affect LMX, team knowledge sharing, or employee trust (both affective and cognitive trust).

5.3.2. Testing Differences in Variables by Age

Using one-way ANOVA, differences in LMX, team knowledge sharing, and employee trust (both affective and cognitive trust) across age groups were tested. The results, as shown in Table 5, indicate no significant differences across age groups for knowledge sharing, LMX, and cognitive trust (sig > 0.05). However, a significant difference was observed for affective trust across age groups (sig = 0.023 < 0.05).
Further least significant difference (LSD) tests reveal that employees under the age of 24 have significantly lower scores in affective trust compared to those aged 24 to 30 years (sig = 0.008 < 0.05). Additionally, employees under 24 score significantly lower in affective trust compared to those aged 45 to 55 years (p = 0.041 < 0.05) and those aged 56 years and older (p = 0.049 < 0.05). Conversely, employees aged 24 to 30 years score significantly higher in affective trust compared to those aged 31 to 44 years (sig = 0.026 < 0.05).

5.3.3. Testing Differences in Variables by Length of Service

Using one-way ANOVA, the differences in LMX, team knowledge sharing, and employee trust (both affective and cognitive trust) across length of service were tested. The results, as shown in Table 6, indicate no significant differences across length of service for LMX, team knowledge sharing, and employee trust (both affective and cognitive trust) (sig > 0.05). Therefore, no significant differences were observed in LMX, team knowledge sharing, and employee trust based on length of service.

5.3.4. Testing Differences in Variables by Company Nature

Using one-way ANOVA, differences in LMX, team knowledge sharing, and employee trust (both affective and cognitive trust) across different types of companies were tested. The results, shown in Table 7, indicate no significant differences across company nature for LMX, team knowledge sharing, and employee trust (both affective and cognitive trust) (sig > 0.05). Therefore, no significant differences were observed in LMX, team knowledge sharing, and employee trust based on company nature.

5.3.5. Testing Differences in Variables by Educational Level

A one-way ANOVA was conducted to test for differences in LMX, team knowledge sharing, and employee trust (both affective and cognitive trust) across different educational levels, with the results presented in Table 8. The analysis indicated no significant differences across educational levels for LMX, team knowledge sharing, or employee trust (both affective and cognitive trust) (p > 0.05). Therefore, no significant differences were observed in LMX, team knowledge sharing, or employee trust (both affective and cognitive) across educational levels.

5.3.6. Testing Differences in Variables by Company Size

A one-way ANOVA was conducted to test differences in LMX, team knowledge sharing, and employee trust (both affective and cognitive trust) across different company sizes, with the results presented in Table 9. The analysis indicated no significant differences across company size for LMX, team knowledge sharing, or employee trust (both affective and cognitive trust) (p > 0.05). Therefore, no significant differences were observed in LMX, team knowledge sharing, or employee trust based on company size.

5.4. Multivariate Regression Analysis of Variables on Job Behaviors

5.4.1. The Mediating Role of Affective Trust in LMX and Knowledge Sharing

Based on the tests conducted, we found that LMX is significantly positively correlated with affective trust, affective trust is significantly positively correlated with knowledge sharing, and LMX is significantly positively correlated with knowledge sharing. To examine the mediating role of affective trust in the relationship between LMX and knowledge sharing, we performed a multilevel hierarchical regression analysis. The regression results revealed that after accounting for affective trust, the coefficient of LMX on knowledge sharing decreased from 0.652 (p < 0.01) to 0.384 (p < 0.01). This reduction indicates that affective trust partially mediates the relationship between LMX and knowledge sharing, thus supporting the hypothesis.

5.4.2. The Mediating Role of Cognitive Trust in LMX and Knowledge Sharing

Based on the correlation tests, it was found that LMX is significantly positively correlated with cognitive trust, cognitive trust is significantly positively correlated with knowledge sharing, and LMX is significantly positively correlated with knowledge sharing. To investigate the mediating role of cognitive trust in the relationship between LMX and knowledge sharing, a multilevel hierarchical regression analysis was conducted. The results revealed that, after controlling for cognitive trust, the coefficient of LMX on knowledge sharing decreased from 0.420 (p < 0.01) to 0.253 (p < 0.01). This reduction indicates that cognitive trust partially mediates the relationship between LMX and knowledge sharing, thereby supporting the hypothesis.

6. Discussion

6.1. Differences in LMX, Employee Trust, and Team Knowledge Sharing across Demographic Variables

6.1.1. Affective Trust and Age Group Differences

The study investigated differences in LMX, team knowledge sharing, and employee trust (both affective and cognitive) across various age groups using one-way ANOVA. The results revealed that although knowledge sharing, LMX, and cognitive trust did not exhibit significant age-related differences, affective trust varied significantly across different age groups.
1. Employees under 24 years old: Employees under the age of 24 exhibited significantly lower levels of affective trust with leaders and colleagues compared to those in the groups aged 24 to 30 years, 45 to 55 years, and 56 years and older. This lower level of trust is largely attributed to their recent transition from academic to professional environments. Young employees, who are still adapting from their educational background, may find the complexities of workplace interactions challenging. Their limited experience and the expectation of leniency from colleagues and leaders often result in frequent mistakes and perceptions of irresponsibility. Furthermore, their tendency towards self-centered behavior and lack of consideration for others can further impede the development of trust.
2. Employees aged 24 to 30 years: In contrast, employees aged 24 to 30 years generally exhibit higher levels of affective trust. This group benefits from having several years of professional experience and often has fewer family responsibilities, which allows them to engage more deeply with colleagues and leaders. Their proactive attitude, willingness to work overtime, and eagerness to positively contribute to the work environment enhance their emotional connections and trust. Characterized by their optimism, teamwork, and dedication, they contribute to a supportive and collaborative atmosphere.
3. Employees aged 31 to 44 years: Employees in this age group, particularly those with significant family responsibilities, tend to have lower levels of affective trust. Their focus on family care and stable work positions may limit their emotional engagement with the workplace. As they progress in their careers, their perspectives and levels of emotional investment often shift, resulting in a decline in trust compared to younger employees. This group may prioritize fulfilling job responsibilities during regular hours and may be less inclined to engage in extra efforts for recognition.
4. Employees aged 45 to 55 years and 56 years and older: Older employees generally display high levels of affective trust, likely due to their extensive work experience and reduced family responsibilities. Their deep emotional connections with colleagues and leaders stem from their longer tenure and stable career paths. They have adapted well to the workplace culture and often exhibit a high degree of loyalty and trust.
Overall, the findings indicate that age-related differences in affective trust are significant, with younger employees typically having lower levels of trust compared to their older counterparts. This variation is influenced by factors such as work experience, family responsibilities, and personal development stages.

6.1.2. No Significant Differences across Gender, Length of Employment, Educational Level, Company Nature, and Company Size

The analysis revealed no significant differences in LMX, employee trust, and team knowledge sharing across various demographic variables, including gender, length of employment, educational level, company nature, and company size.
1. Gender: Both female and male employees, regardless of their length of employment or educational background, show similar levels of engagement in LMX, trust, and knowledge sharing. Female employees often maintain a stable focus on work due to their family responsibilities and roles, which fosters meticulous work habits, positive relationships with leaders and colleagues, and a willingness to share experiences. This dedication contributes to a supportive work environment where emotional trust and knowledge sharing thrive.
Male employees, similarly, prioritize their career development and value opportunities for advancement. They engage actively in communication with leaders and strive for positive emotional exchanges with colleagues to gain recognition. Their commitment to maintaining interpersonal relationships and achieving career goals is consistent across different educational levels and tenures.
2. Length of employment: The length of employment does not significantly affect LMX, employee trust, or knowledge sharing. Both recent hires and long-term employees exhibit similar levels of commitment to fostering positive workplace relationships and sharing knowledge.
3. Educational level: Educational background does not create significant differences in trust or knowledge sharing. Employees with various educational qualifications, from vocational diplomas to advanced degrees, demonstrate similar engagement and commitment to their roles and responsibilities.
4. Company nature and size: The nature and size of the company also show no significant impact on LMX, employee trust, and team knowledge sharing. Employees across different company types and sizes exhibit similar levels of involvement and dedication to building positive relationships and sharing knowledge.
In summary, the findings indicate that individual dedication and the universal pursuit of career advancement and interpersonal harmony are key factors in LMX, trust, and knowledge sharing, regardless of gender, length of employment, educational level, or company characteristics. This consistency highlights the significance of personal commitment and the shared aspiration for a positive and collaborative work environment.

6.2. The Mediating Role of Trust in LMX and Knowledge Sharing

This study examines the mediating role of trust in the relationship between LMX and knowledge sharing, focusing on two dimensions of trust: cognitive trust and affective trust. Our findings reveal significant positive correlations: LMX is positively associated with affective trust, affective trust is positively linked to knowledge sharing, and LMX is positively correlated with knowledge sharing.
To gain deeper insights into these relationships, we conducted multiple hierarchical regression analyses, examining the mediating roles of both affective and cognitive trust between LMX and knowledge sharing. The results indicate that both forms of trust partially mediate the LMX and knowledge sharing relationship, thus affirming our hypotheses.
This study highlights the critical importance of both emotional (affective trust) and rational (cognitive trust) dimensions of trust in fostering effective leader–subordinate relationships and promoting knowledge sharing within organizations. These findings suggest that trust acts as a crucial bridge, enhancing the positive effects of LMX on knowledge sharing.
The connection between LMX and knowledge sharing is deeply intertwined with the levels of trust within an organization. Trust among colleagues, and particularly between employees and leaders, is indispensable but can be fragile and easily compromised if not carefully managed. Building and sustaining trust requires consistent, long-term efforts and the demonstration of consistent, trust-building behaviors by leaders.
Employees often prioritize clear objectives and place high value on timely rewards, making them acutely sensitive to economic benefits and organizational fairness. Thus, the leader–subordinate relationship demands continuous attention and proactive management. Leaders must consistently embody qualities such as integrity, fairness, and reliability to foster and maintain trust among their subordinates. Moreover, creating an environment of open communication, transparency, and a supportive organizational culture is essential for nurturing and preserving trust over time.
In conclusion, trust is the bedrock of effective leader–subordinate relationships and is vital for enabling knowledge sharing within teams. Leaders must devote continuous effort to cultivating a positive and trusting organizational atmosphere, which in turn fosters a conducive environment for organizational success.

6.3. Compared with the Findings of Relevant International Studies

By comparing the conclusions of this study with the relevant international literature, the following insights were found:
1. LMX and team knowledge sharing: The study demonstrates a significant positive correlation between LMX and team knowledge sharing. The quality of LMX is positively associated with higher levels of knowledge sharing within subordinate teams. Cultural differences between the East and the West play a role in this relationship. In Western cultures, employment relationships emphasize rules and legal constraints, while in the Chinese cultural context, they focus on social norms, interpersonal trust, and emotional bonds.
2. Cultural and organizational differences: The organizational culture of Chinese enterprises and employees’ value orientations differ significantly from those in Western countries [21,28]. Consequently, the importance of various dimensions of LMX and their roles during its development can vary. Some dimensions are crucial in the early stages of LMX development, while others become more significant as the relationship matures. For instance, James MacGregor Burns (1978) [41], Bernard M. Bass (1985) [42], Liden and Parsons (1989) [43], Edgar Schein (2010) [44], and Kim Cameron and Robert Quinn (2011) [45] suggest that emotions begin to develop shortly after the initial interaction between leader and subordinate, whereas loyalty may require a considerable amount of time to cultivate.

6.4. Limitations and Future Research

Due to limitations in time, energy, and resources, this study has the following shortcomings [46,47]:
(1) Sample limitations: The participants were drawn from specific provinces such as Shanghai, Tianjin, Nanjing, and Qingdao, and the sample size was relatively small. As a result, the generalizability of the findings requires further validation.
(2) Focus on specific employee levels: The study primarily targeted frontline and middle-level employees and relied solely on self-reports for data collection rather than incorporating a combination of self-reports and other-assessments. This approach presents limitations in sampling and assessment.
(3) Cross-sectional design: The study’s cross-sectional nature makes it difficult to examine the dynamic processes through which LMX relationships, employee trust, and team knowledge sharing influence each other over time.

7. Conclusions and Recommendation

Through the analysis and discussion of the results, this study draws the following conclusions:
(1) There is a significant positive correlation between LMX relationships and team knowledge sharing.
(2) There is a significant positive correlation between employee trust and team knowledge sharing.
(3) Trust plays a mediating role in the relationship between LMX and team knowledge sharing.
This paper offers the following recommendations [48,49]: (1) Manage and maintain trust: Building trust requires significant time and effort, so once established, it should be carefully managed and maintained. Leaders should proactively communicate with employees if there is a risk of trust being compromised, analyze the reasons for potential issues, seek employees’ understanding, and work to restore and preserve the existing trust. (2) Support and development: Leaders should respect, support, and care for their subordinate employees by providing a positive work environment and career development opportunities. This approach enhances employees’ organizational loyalty and sense of dependence [50]. (3) Foster a supportive atmosphere: Create a harmonious and supportive company atmosphere that encourages mutual assistance and care among colleagues. Strengthening shared organizational values and corporate spirit, and fostering common ideals and value goals will help develop a genuine sense of trust towards both the organization and fellow employees.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Q.L. and F.Y.; methodology, Q.L.; software, Q.L.; validation, Q.L. and F.Y.; formal analysis, Q.L.; investigation, Q.L.; resources, Q.L.; data curation, Q.L.; writing—original draft preparation, Q.L.; writing—review and editing, F.Y.; visualization, Q.L.; supervision, F.Y.; project administration, Q.L.; funding acquisition, Q.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This paper is funded by the 14th Five-Year Plan for Education Science of Shaanxi Province, grant number SGH23Y2291 and the Soft Science Research of Shaanxi Science and Technology Plan Project in 2021, grant number 2021KRM011.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article; further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Omidi, A.; Dal Zotto, C. Socially Responsible Human Resource Management: A Systematic Literature Review and Research Agenda. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Chen, C.Y.; Cheng, Y.T. The impact of employee trust in management on knowledge sharing and innovation: The moderating role of work-life balance. J. Knowl. Manag. 2022, 26, 1642–1663. [Google Scholar]
  3. Foss, N.J.; Husted, K.; Michailova, S. Governing knowledge sharing in organizations: Levels of trust, governance mechanisms, and knowledge sharing. J. Manag. Stud. 2010, 47, 455–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Yang, X.; Tan, L. Leader-member exchange: Definition, measurement, influencing factors, and mechanisms. Sci. Technol. Prog. Policy 2016, 156–160. [Google Scholar]
  5. Yilmaz, A.K.; Ergeneli, A. Supervisor’s self-monitoring and leader-member exchange: The mediating role of trust and motivation. Leadersh. Org. Dev. J. 2019, 40, 91–106. [Google Scholar]
  6. Xia, T.; Liu, M. Media attention, firm performance, and CEO background characteristics. Econ. Syst. Reform. 2017, 6, 190–196. [Google Scholar]
  7. Graen, G.B.; Cashman, J.F. A review of role-making theories. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1973, 24, 513–531. [Google Scholar]
  8. Liden, R.C.; Maslyn, J.M. Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange: An empirical assessment through scale development. J. Manag. 1998, 24, 43–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Matta, F.K.; Scott, B.A.; Koopman, J.; Conlon, D.E. Does seeing “eye to eye” affect work engagement and OCB? A role theory perspective on LMX agreement. Acad. Manag. J. 2015, 58, 1686–1708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Yao, L.; Zhang, M.; Zhang, Y.; Feng, Y. How does leader trust in team members promote knowledge sharing? The mediating role of team identification and the moderating role of perceived task complexity. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 596780. [Google Scholar]
  11. Shin, D.; Konrad, A.M. Causality between high-performance work systems and organizational performance. J. Manag. 2017, 43, 973–997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Qiu, C.; Luo, Z.; Guan, K.; Sun, H. The mediating role of leader-member exchange in the relationship between leadership and team satisfaction. Chin. J. Health Psychol. 2013, 4, 580–583. [Google Scholar]
  13. Graen, G.B.; Cashman, J.F. A role-making model of leadership in formal organizations: A developmental approach. J. Manag. 1975, 1, 29–44. [Google Scholar]
  14. Chen, Z.; Lam, W.; Zhong, J. Leader-member exchange and member performance: A new look at individual-level negative feedback-seeking behavior and team-level empowerment climate. Leadersh. Q. 2007, 18, 71–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Graen, G.B.; Novak, M.A.; Sommerkamp, P. The effects of leader-member exchange and job design on productivity and satisfaction: Testing a dual attachment model. Organ. Behav. Hum. Perform. 1982, 30, 109–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Graen, G.B.; Scandura, T.A. Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. Res. Organ. Behav. 1987, 9, 175–208. [Google Scholar]
  17. Wu, W.; Lee, Y.C. The effects of team trust and knowledge sharing on dynamic capabilities: The moderating role of task environment. J. Knowl. Manag. 2017, 21, 1283–1304. [Google Scholar]
  18. Zeng, C. An empirical study of LMX and organizational citizenship behavior among knowledge workers. Sci. Res. Manag. 2012, 10, 114–120. [Google Scholar]
  19. Graen, G.B.; Uhl-Bien, M. Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadersh. Q. 1995, 6, 219–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Zhu, Y.; Wang, Y.; Jia, L. Transformational leadership, trust, and team knowledge sharing: A multilevel analysis. J. Organ. Chang. Manag. 2018, 31, 355–369. [Google Scholar]
  21. Chen, J.K.; Sriphon, T. Authentic leadership, trust, and social exchange relationships under the influence of leader behavior. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Guo, Y.; Chun, D.; Yin, F.; Zhou, Y. Exploring Motivations and Trust Mechanisms in Knowledge Sharing: The Moderating Role of Social Alienation. Sustainability 2023, 15, 16294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Harris, K.J.; Wheeler, A.R.; Kacmar, K.M. Leader-member exchange and empowerment: Direct and interactive effects on job satisfaction, turnover intentions, and performance. Leadersh. Q. 2011, 22, 549–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Blau, P.M. Exchange and Power in Social Life; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1964. [Google Scholar]
  25. Butler, J.K.; Cantrell, R.S.; Flick, R.J. Transformational leadership behaviors, upward trust, and satisfaction in self-managed work teams. Org. Dev. J. 1999, 17, 13–28. [Google Scholar]
  26. Chen, M.; Babar, M.; Ahmed, A.; Irfan, M. Analyzing the Impact of Enterprise Social Media on Employees’ Competency through the Mediating Role of Knowledge Sharing. Sustainability 2023, 15, 9499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Dulebohn, J.H.; Bommer, W.H.; Liden, R.C.; Brouer, R.L.; Ferris, G.R. A meta-analysis of antecedents and consequences of leader-member exchange: Integrating the past with an eye toward the future. J. Manag. 2012, 38, 1715–1759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Wang, Z.; Su, T.; Lei, X. Employee knowledge sharing behavior from an interaction perspective. Ind. Eng. Manag. 2014, 3, 13–17. [Google Scholar]
  29. Park, S.; Kim, E.J. Fostering organizational learning through leadership and knowledge sharing. J. Knowl. Manag. 2018, 22, 1408–1423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Wei, H.; Song, J.; He, C. Virtuous leadership and employee creativity: The mediating role of LMX and team identification. Soft Sci. 2017, 10, 76–80. [Google Scholar]
  31. Li, C.; Cheng, Z. The impact of leader-member exchange on team innovation. Syst. Eng. 2013, 7, 71–77. [Google Scholar]
  32. Mei, Z.; Yang, B.; Jin, S. The impact mechanism of leader-member exchange on organizational citizenship behavior and job performance. J. Manag. Sci. China 2014, 5, 675–682. [Google Scholar]
  33. Liang, H.; Saraf, N.; Hu, Q.; Xue, Y. Assimilation of Enterprise Systems: The Effect of Institutional Pressures and the Mediating Role of Top Management. MIS Q. 2007, 31, 59–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Cao, Y.; Zhang, L.; Cao, Q. How and when leader-member exchange affects team creativity: The role of knowledge sharing and team identification. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 2021, 42, 415–431. [Google Scholar]
  35. Taura, N.; Radicic, D. Intra-Cluster Knowledge Exchange and Frequency of Product Innovation in a Digital Cluster. J. Small Bus. Manag. 2019, 57, 350–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Yang, X.; Pan, L.; Song, A.; Ma, X.; Yang, J. Research on the strategy of knowledge sharing among logistics enterprises under the goal of digital transformation. Heliyon 2023, 9, e15191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Alyami, A.; Pileggi, S.F.; Hawryszkiewycz, I. Knowledge development, technology and quality of experience in collaborative learning: A perspective from Saudi Arabia universities. Qual. Quant. 2023, 57, 3085–3104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Bratianu, C.; Bejinaru, R. The Theory of Knowledge Fields: A Thermodynamics Approach. Systems 2019, 7, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Sun, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Shen, X.L. Will extrinsic motivation motivate or demotivate knowledge contributors? A moderated mediation analysis. J. Knowl. Manag. 2022, 26, 2255–2274. [Google Scholar]
  40. Zhang, M.; Zhu, M.; Liu, X.; Yang, J. Why Should I Pay for E-Books? An Empirical Study to Investigate Chinese Readers’ Purchase Behavioural Intention in the Mobile Era; The Electronic Library: Hong Kong, China, 2017; Volume 35, pp. 472–493. [Google Scholar]
  41. Burns, J.M. Leadership; Harper & Row: New York, NY, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar]
  42. Bass, B.M. Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations; Free Press: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 1985. [Google Scholar]
  43. Liden, R.C.; Parsons, C.K. Leader-Member Exchange Theory: The Past and the Future; Giacalone, R.A., Rosenfeld, P.L., Eds.; Impression Management in the Organization: Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 1989; pp. 37–64. [Google Scholar]
  44. Schein, E.H. Organizational Culture and Leadership, 4th ed.; Jossey-Bass: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  45. Cameron, K.S.; Quinn, R.E. Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture: Based on the Competing Values Framework, 3rd ed.; Jossey-Bass: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  46. AlDhaheri, H.; Hilmi, M.F.; Abudaqa, A.; Alzahmi, R.A.; Ahmed, G. The relationship between HRM practices, innovation, and employee productivity in UAE public sector: A structural equation modelling approach. Int. J. Process Manag. Benchmarking 2023, 13, 157–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Harvey, J.F.; Cromwell, J.R.; Johnson, K.J.; Edmondson, A.C. The Dynamics of Team Learning: Harmony and Rhythm in Teamwork Arrangements for Innovation. Adm. Sci. Q. 2023, 68, 601–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Song, Y.; Tian, Q.T.; Kwan, H.K. Servant leadership and employee voice: A moderated mediation. J. Manag. Psychol. 2022, 37, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Chen, Y.; Yu, E.; Son, J. Beyond leader–member exchange (LMX) differentiation: An indigenous approach to leader—Member relationship differentiation. Leadersh. Q. 2014, 25, 611–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Boies, K.; Fiset, J.; Gill, H. Communication and trust are key: Unlocking the relationship between leadership and team performance and creativity. Leadersh. Q. 2015, 26, 1080–1094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Basic characteristics of the research sample (n = 358).
Table 1. Basic characteristics of the research sample (n = 358).
Demographic CharacteristicsIndicatorNumberPercentage (%)Demographic CharacteristicsIndicatorNumberPercentage (%)
GenderMale14239.665 General Staff14941.620
Female21560.056 Job TitleJunior Manager10729.888
AgeUnder 24 years old164.469 Middle Manager8624.022
24–30 years old11131.006 Senior Manager154.190
30–44 years old20657.542 Company SizeLess than 50 employees8323.184
44–55 years old215.866 50–200 employees11331.564
Over 55 years old30.838 200–500 employees6117.039
Educational BackgroundHigh school or below164.469 500–1000 employees164.469
Associate degree9827.374 More than 1000 employees8423.464
Bachelor’s degree20858.101 Company TypePrivate Enterprise11832.961
Master’s degree or above359.777 Joint Venture/Foreign-Owned Enterprise13036.313
Years of Service1–2 years13036.313 Government Agency41.117
3–5 years8022.346 State-Owned Enterprise/Public Institution9526.536
6–10 years7520.950
11–20 years5415.084
Over 20 years185.028 Other102.793
Table 2. Means and standard deviations of related variables.
Table 2. Means and standard deviations of related variables.
VariablesMSD
Gender0.6010.491
Age2.6820.691
Educational Level2.7300.700
Years of Work Experience2.3111.241
Job Title1.9100.910
Type of Ownership2.3211.263
Company Size2.7321.474
Knowledge Sharing4.9600.952
LMX3.3610.612
Affective Trust4.8431.181
Cognitive Trust4.6051.274
Table 3. Correlation matrix of variables.
Table 3. Correlation matrix of variables.
Variables1234
1 Knowledge Sharing10.443 **0.534 **0.505 **
2 LMX0.443 **10.385 **0.366 **
3 Affective Trust0.534 **0.385 **10.729 **
4 Cognitive Trust0.505 **0.366 **0.729 **1
** represent the 1% significance level.
Table 4. Results of variance analysis by gender.
Table 4. Results of variance analysis by gender.
VariablesDegrees of Freedom 1Degrees of Freedom 2FSig
1 Knowledge Sharing13553.0610.081
2 LMX13550.1950.659
3 Affective Trust13553.0260.083
4 Cognitive Trust13550.7960.373
Table 5. Results of variance analysis by age.
Table 5. Results of variance analysis by age.
VariablesDegrees of Freedom 1Degrees of Freedom 2FSig
1 Knowledge Sharing13552.0730.084
2 LMX13550.6990.593
3 Affective Trust13552.8800.023
4 Cognitive Trust13552.3690.052
Table 6. Results of variance analysis by length of service.
Table 6. Results of variance analysis by length of service.
VariablesDegrees of Freedom 1Degrees of Freedom 2FSig
1 Knowledge Sharing13551.4390.221
2 LMX13551.1620.328
3 Affective Trust13550.3700.830
4 Cognitive Trust13551.0860.363
Table 7. Results of variance analysis by company nature.
Table 7. Results of variance analysis by company nature.
VariablesDegrees of Freedom 1Degrees of Freedom 2 FSig
1 Knowledge Sharing13550.8830.474
2 LMX13550.4750.754
3 Affective Trust13551.1680.325
4 Cognitive Trust13550.5450.703
Table 8. Results of variance analysis by educational level.
Table 8. Results of variance analysis by educational level.
VariablesDegrees of Freedom 1Degrees of Freedom 2FSig
1 Knowledge Sharing13551.1560.326
2 LMX13552.5030.059
3 Affective Trust13551.4360.232
4 Cognitive Trust13551.6320.182
Table 9. Results of variance tests for variables by educational level.
Table 9. Results of variance tests for variables by educational level.
VariablesDegrees of Freedom 1Degrees of Freedom 2FSig
1 Knowledge Sharing13550.4030.807
2 LMX13550.5170.723
3 Affective Trust13551.2370.295
4 Cognitive Trust13550.3150.868
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Liang, Q.; Yin, F. Empirical Study on the Relationship between Leader–Member Exchange, Employee Trust, and Team Knowledge Sharing. Sustainability 2024, 16, 8057. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16188057

AMA Style

Liang Q, Yin F. Empirical Study on the Relationship between Leader–Member Exchange, Employee Trust, and Team Knowledge Sharing. Sustainability. 2024; 16(18):8057. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16188057

Chicago/Turabian Style

Liang, Qingqing, and Fang Yin. 2024. "Empirical Study on the Relationship between Leader–Member Exchange, Employee Trust, and Team Knowledge Sharing" Sustainability 16, no. 18: 8057. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16188057

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop