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

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please move the “8.Limitation and Future Research” section to 6.3.Limitation and Future Research in 6.Discussion.

Thank you for your effort.

Author Response

Comment 1: Please move the “8. Limitation and Future Research” section to 6.4. Limitation and Future Research in 6.Discussion.

RE: The author's suggestion is very important. Following the reviewer's advice, we have moved the "8. Limitation and Future Research" section to section 6.4, "Limitation and Future Research," within the Discussion. This adjustment has made the overall structure of the paper more compact and logical.

Simultaneously, the section 6.4 "Limitations and Future Research" has been adjusted for formatting and content. Following the reviewers' suggestions, the paper has been revised and now appears more standardized and coherent in both content and format. Special thanks for this improvement.The details are as follows.

6.4. Limitations and Future Research

Due to limitations in time, energy, and resources, this study has the following shortcomings:

(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.

   We appreciate the reviewers for their detailed and thoughtful suggestions. Following their recommendations, the paper has been revised and now appears more standardized and coherent in both content and format.

 We would like to express my sincere gratitude for the reviewers' suggestions and meticulous attention to detail. Their feedback has not only been valuable in improving this manuscript but has also significantly contributed to enhancing my ability to write English papers.We extend our sincere thanks for this improvement.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to thank for the opportunity to review the revised version of the manuscript. I appreciate that the Authors have significantly improved their paper. However, there are still several areas that should be focused on:

Abstract:

-        The novelty/contribution of the study is not mentioned.

Introduction:

-        The results of the study should not be presented in the introduction; instead, the Authors should focus on how the study aims to fill in the gap in the existing knowledge/literature, which can be considered the contribution/novelty of the study.

2.2.2 Dimensions of Employee Trust:

-        First paragraph: the sources of the presented information are not mentioned.

-        Last paragraph: referencing style.

Subchapter 2.3:

-        Lines 1-5 – sources?

-        Information about the research instrument should not be included in the theoretical part, it should be moved to the empirical part of the study.

Discussion:

-        The results should be compared with the findings of relevant international studies, as the results cannot be interpreted solely on the basis of authors’ knowledge, experience, or observations.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are several linguistic problems that should be fixed.

Author Response

Comment 1: Abstract:   The novelty/contribution of the study is not mentioned.

RE: Thank you for the reviewer’s suggestions. We have added a statement regarding the novelty and contribution of the study in the Abstract. Due to word count constraints, we included this information in a single sentence, as follows:

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 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.

Comment 2: Introduction:

-        The results of the study should not be presented in the introduction; instead, the Authors should focus on how the study aims to fill in the gap in the existing knowledge/literature, which can be considered the contribution/novelty of the study.

RE: After careful consideration of the reviewer's suggestions, I agree and accept them. I have revised the sections on Theoretical Significance and Practical Significance in the Introduction, removing the related research conclusions to better highlight how this study contributes to filling the gaps in existing knowledge and literature. The specific changes are as follows:

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 to Study the Impact of Knowledge Sharing 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 [13,16]. 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 betweenLMX and knowledge sharing.

Comment 3:2.2.2 Dimensions of Employee Trust:

-        First paragraph: the sources of the presented information are not mentioned.

-        Last paragraph: referencing style.

RE: Based on the reviewer’s suggestions, I have added relevant citations to section 2.2.2 Dimensions of Employee Trust and improved the formatting of the references. The two specific references that have been added are:

Blau, P. M. Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.1964

Butler, J. K., Cantrell, R. S., & Flick, R. J. (1999). Transformational leadership behaviors, upward trust, and satisfaction in self-managed workteams. Organizational Development Journal, 17(1), 13–28.

Comment4: Subchapter 2.3:

-        Lines 1-5 – sources?

-        Information about the research instrument should not be included in the theoretical part, it should be moved to the empirical part of the study.

RE: The reviewer's suggestions were detailed and valuable. Based on their feedback, I have moved the section on the measurement tools from 2.3 Concept Definition and Measurement of Team Knowledge Sharing to 4 Research Sample and Measurement Tools. After making these adjustments according to the reviewer's comments, the structure of the article is now more coherent and logically organized.

Comment 5: Discussion:

-        The results should be compared with the findings of relevant international studies, as the results cannot be interpreted solely on the basis of authors’ knowledge, experience, or observations.

RE: After careful consideration of the reviewer's suggestion, I reviewed relevant literature and added a new section, 6.3 Compared with the Findings of Relevant International Studies, in 6. Discussion. The specific details are as follows:

6.3compared with the findings of relevant international studies

By comparing the conclusions of this study with relevant international literature, the following insights were found:

1.LMX and Team Knowledge Sharing: The study demonstrates a significant positive correlation between LMX (Leader-Member Exchange) 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. 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, Liden and Parsons (1989) 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.

  We appreciate the reviewers for their detailed and thoughtful suggestions. Following their recommendations, the paper has been revised and now appears more standardized and coherent in both content and format.

 We would like to express my sincere gratitude for the reviewers' suggestions and meticulous attention to detail. Their feedback has not only been valuable in improving this manuscript but has also significantly contributed to enhancing my ability to write English papers.We extend our sincere thanks for this improvement.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciated the opportunity to review the manuscript.

The abbreviations should be expanded the first time they are mentioned, and then you can use the it throughout the rest of the text.

For each hypothesis, it would be more effective to provide literature support separately, rather than combining all the hypotheses at the end. Although the manuscript references several theories, it doesn't clearly explain how the theory support the hypotheses.

The methodology lacks rigor, and the analysis is rather straightforward.

While "future research" is listed as a heading, it is not discussed in the content.

Additionally, the limitations should be presented in a paragraph format.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of the English language is required to improve the clarity and readability of the manuscript. 

Author Response

Comment 1: The abbreviations should be expanded the first time they are mentioned, and then you can use the it throughout the rest of the text.

RE: Thank you for the reviewer's suggestions. I have made the revisions as requested, and the modifications have made the manuscript more polished and standardized.

Comment 2: For each hypothesis, it would be more effective to provide literature support separately, rather than combining all the hypotheses at the end. Although the manuscript references several theories, it doesn't clearly explain how the theory supports the hypotheses.

RE: I am grateful for the reviewer’s detailed and insightful suggestions. To enhance the readers' understanding of the theoretical foundation of the research hypotheses, I have first enriched 2. Literature Review, including the sections 2.1 The Proposal and Development of LMX Theory, 2.2 The Concept and Dimension Division of Employee Trust, 2.3 Concept Definition and Measurement of Team Knowledge Sharing, and 2.4 The Relationship Between Team Knowledge Sharing and LMX. Additionally, I have rewritten 3. Theoretical Model and Research Hypotheses. The specific revisions are as follows:

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. 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 [38-40] ： 

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.

The formulation of the research hypotheses takes into account both the findings from relevant international literature and the influence of traditional Chinese culture. I hope these adjustments meet the reviewer’s expectations.

Comment 3: The methodology lacks rigor, and the analysis is rather straightforward.

RE: To provide a clearer and more concise understanding of the research methods for both the authors and reviewers, the following summary is provided:

Literature Review: A thorough search of relevant literature was conducted to summarize, classify, and review existing research findings. Gaps and unverified conclusions were identified, serving as the basis for formulating the research hypotheses and theoretical model.

2. Selection of Appropriate Research Tools: The Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) scale, Trust scale, and Knowledge Sharing scale were reviewed, selected, and revised to fit the study.
3. Questionnaire Revision: A pilot study was conducted using a small sample. Factor analysis and reliability analysis were performed on the collected data to ensure that the questionnaire's reliability met the acceptable standards for psychological research.

4.Formal Data Collection: The final questionnaire was distributed both online and in paper form through networks of colleagues, friends, clients, and classmates from psychology courses to collect the necessary research data.

5.Data Analysis and Conclusion: The collected data were analyzed using SPSS 24.0 statistical software. The specific data processing techniques included reliability analysis, one-way ANOVA, correlation analysis, and multiple regression analysis, leading to the final conclusions of the study.

Overall, the research methods used are standard and commonly adopted. The discussion in the article was not very detailed. I hope these revisions will help the reviewer better understand the applied research methods. Thank you.

Comment 4: While "future research" is listed as a heading, it is not discussed in the content.

RE: Thank you for the reviewer’s suggestions. Based on the feedback, I have revised 6.4 Limitations and Future Research. The subsequent improvements will focus on three main areas: sample size, research subjects, and research methods. The details are as follows.

6.4. Limitations and Future Research

Due to limitations in time, energy, and resources, this study has the following shortcomings:

(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.

Comment 5: Additionally, the limitations should be presented in a paragraph format.

RE: Thank you for the reviewer’s detailed suggestions. I have made adjustments to both the format and content of 6.4 Limitations and Future Research according to the feedback. After these revisions, the overall format of the paper appears more standardized, and the content structure is now more coherent.

  We appreciate the reviewers for their detailed and thoughtful suggestions. Following their recommendations, the paper has been revised and now appears more standardized and coherent in both content and format.

 We would like to express my sincere gratitude for the reviewers' suggestions and meticulous attention to detail. Their feedback has not only been valuable in improving this manuscript but has also significantly contributed to enhancing my ability to write English papers.We extend our sincere thanks for this improvement.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to revise this manuscript again. The paper has been significantly improved, but, unfortunatelly, the Authors did not consider the most important recommendation regarding comparing the present findings with the findings of relevant international studies in the Discussion section. In the entire section, there is only one publication mentioned (Liden and Parsons (1989), which is not acceptable. The rest of the paper is fine.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are some minor linguistic problems.

Author Response

Comment 1:Thank you for the opportunity to revise this manuscript again. The paper has been significantly improved, but, unfortunatelly, the Authors did not consider the most important recommendation regarding comparing the present findings with the findings of relevant international studies in the Discussion section. In the entire section, there is only one publication mentioned (Liden and Parsons (1989), which is not acceptable. The rest of the paper is fine.

RE:Special thanks to the reviewers for their insightful suggestions. After careful consideration, the following revisions have been made to Section 6.3, Compared with the Findings of Relevant International Studies, under 2. Cultural and Organizational Differences, based on the recommendations:

1. A citation has been added to the first sentence.
2. Key literature previously reviewed has been highlighted, specifically those related to the argument 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."Additionally, references have been added, and the citation sequence has been adjusted accordingly.

The specific modifications are as follows:

2. Cultural and Organizational Differences:
   The organizational culture of Chinese enterprises and the value orientations of employees differ significantly from those in Western countries [21,28]. As a result, the importance of different dimensions of Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) and their roles during its development can vary. Certain dimensions are critical in the early stages of LMX development, while others become more prominent as the relationship matures. For example, James MacGregor Burns (1978) [41], Bernard M. Bass (1985) [42], Liden and Parsons (1989) [43], Edgar Schein (2010) [44], and Kim Cameron & Robert Quinn (2011) [45] suggest that emotions begin to develop shortly after the initial interaction between leader and subordinate, whereas loyalty may require a longer period to fully cultivate.

Cited references include:

41.Burs, J. M. (1978). Leadership. Harper & Row.

42.Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. Free Press.

43.Liden, R. C., & Parsons, C. K. (). Leader-member exchange theory: The past and the future. In R. A. Giacalone & P. L. Rosenfeld (Eds.),Impress. Manag. Organ. 1989, 37-64.

44.Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.

45.Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (2011). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: Based on the competing values framework (3rd ed.). Jossey-Bass.

We appreciate the reviewers for their detailed and thoughtful suggestions. Following their recommendations, the paper has been revised and now appears more standardized and coherent in both content and format.

 We would like to express my sincere gratitude for the reviewers' suggestions and meticulous attention to detail. Their feedback has not only been valuable in improving this manuscript but has also significantly contributed to enhancing my ability to write English papers.We extend our sincere thanks for this improvement.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I enjoyed reviewing this manuscript. The primary objective of this manuscript is to examine trust relationships through the lenses of social identity and emotional interaction, utilizing trust as a mediating variable to evaluate the impact of leader-subordinate interactions on knowledge-sharing behavior. The manuscript is both interesting and timely. However, several areas require improvement:

1. The research gaps are not identified, leaving the “so what” question unanswered. The author(s) need to underscore the significance of the study, addressing how it fills these gaps and contributes to the field of human resources.
2. While discussing the latest issues, the references used are relatively outdated. It is suggested to incorporate the latest relevant articles.
3. The research methodology is descriptive and lacks rigor. Theories are not linked to support hypothesis development. Specifically, the Contingency Theory of Leadership requires appropriate references.
4. Adequate literature does not support the hypotheses. Each hypothesis needs to be supported with relevant and adequate literature. 
5. Need to explain the data collection process
6. The theoretical and practical implications need to be added.
7. The limitations and directions for future study need to be outlined to provide a comprehensive understanding of the research scope and future research opportunities.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Satisfactory

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to thank for the opportunity to review this manuscript. The topic is interesting and important, as knowledge sharing at the workplace is important from the aspects of organizations’ competitiveness, as well as employees’ job satisfaction. Also, mutual trust is a basic prerequisite for positive interactions at the workplace. There are several key areas that need further work before accepting the paper for publication. I have summarised my recommendations and the required changes in the hope that the feedback will be useful to you.

1) Abstract – It is necessary to rewrite the abstract. I recommend avoiding questions and also to mention the objectives of the research study, the methods, the results, and the novelty/contribution.

2) Introduction and literature review – They are poorly written and do not refer adequately to previously published studies in the field. More relevant empirical data from international studies should be added and the authors should provide their readers with a deeper insight into the topic and thus create a solid theoretical background for the empirical study. In the Introduction, I also recommend highlighting the significance of the present research and its contribution to current knowledge in the field. Information about the research instrument should be moved to section 3.

3) Regarding the methodology, the rationale behind the approach and the specification of the objectives in this context are logical and appropriate.

4) Discussion – this part of the study needs to be improved significantly as well. More explanations and interpretations are needed. Furthermore, connections with the literature review part should be included and the results should be compared with the findings of relevant international studies, as the results cannot be interpreted solely on the basis of authors’ knowledge, experience, or observations. The listed theoretical and practical implications are general and vague.

5) Conclusion – I recommend to add one or two paragraphs summarizing the most important findings of the study and highlighting its novelty and contribution.

6) References – More references are needed, I recommend to focus on resources published between 2020 and 2024.

Kind regards,

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are some linguistic and typo mistakes that need to be fixed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1 Introduction

-          For readers to connect with the findings of this paper the Introduction will need to be expanded to ‘set the stage’. The traditional relationship is outlined but the new relationship is not outlined using the same criteria. I think this is necessary to create a foundation for the rest of the paper.

-          please briefly define ‘organizational development’ as it is being used in this paper

-          Please elaborate on how the stable employment paradigm has been disrupted, what are the indications of that.

-          Please note what organizations are moving away from as they move toward “short-term and flexible arrangements’ and how this relates to the rest of this section. These ideas feel disconnected and that connection is necessary to set up a good foundation for the reader for the rest of the paper.

-          This section should also briefly introduce, define, and connect the key concepts for the paper: Leader-Member Exchange, Trust, and Knowledge Sharing; before proceeding to the literature review.

2 Literature Review

This section needs to include the definition (and measurement) of each of the concepts included in the paper: Leader-Member Exchange, Trust, and Knowledge Sharing. Currently, Leader-Member Exchange is not defined or operationalized for the study. Currently Trust, is addressed as a concept but is not defined or operationalized for the study.

2.1 As this section closes with a focus on employee trust in their supervisor (the focus for the paper) it should also address employee trust in the section on risk where leader trust is the focus.  

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper is a study on leader, employee trust, and team knowledge sharing.

First of all, thank you for your hard work on writing your thesis.

The structure of a general paper consists of research introduction including the research background, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion. However, the structure of the paper you submitted does not show the above structure. It seems necessary to reorganize the content of the currently written paper within the framework mentioned above. In particular, the description of the method is not very systematic and there is no conclusion. The purpose of the paper is also not clear. Therefore, it appears that the composition of the paper will need to be reorganized for publication.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf