Next Article in Journal
Ethical Leadership and Emotional Exhaustion: The Impact of Moral Intensity and Affective Commitment
Previous Article in Journal
Strategies, Methods, and Supports for Developing Skills within Learning Communities: A Systematic Review of the Literature
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Administrative Sciences
Volume 14
Issue 9
10.3390/admsci14090232
admsci-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

Employee Engagement and Innovative Work Behavior: The Mediating Role of Knowledge-Sharing Behavior in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) Service Context

by
Abdallah M. Elamin
,
Hazem Aldabbas
*,
Ahmed Zain Elabdin Ahmed
and
Abdulaziz N. Abdullah
Department of Management, College of Business Administration, University of Science and Technology of Fujairah, Fujairah P.O. Box 2206, United Arab Emirates
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Adm. Sci. 2024, 14(9), 232; https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14090232
Submission received: 10 August 2024 / Revised: 19 September 2024 / Accepted: 20 September 2024 / Published: 23 September 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Organizational Behavior)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The aim of this study was to examine the mediating role of knowledge-sharing behavior (KSB) in the relationship between employee engagement and innovative work behavior (IWB). We collected 193 completed survey responses from employees working in the service sector in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Drawing on social exchange theory (SET), we employed hierarchical regression to analyze the research framework and the mediation effect. The primary findings indicate a significant positive association between employee engagement and IWB, as well as between employee engagement and KSB. Additionally, there is a significant positive association between KSB and IWB. Furthermore, employee engagement has an indirect effect on IWB via the mediating role of KSB. We recommend further research and practical investigation into how employee engagement contributes to enhancing knowledge-sharing behavior and IWB, ultimately improving organizational performance.

1. Introduction

Creativity and innovation, essential elements of modern business, are seen as pivotal to achieving organizational growth (Kwon and Kim 2020). Innovative work behavior (IWB) consists of exploring opportunities and generating new ideas in addition to applying changes, exploiting new knowledge, and enhancing processes for developing individual and organizational performance (De Jong and Den Hartog 2008). As organizations encounter increasingly turbulent environments, innovation becomes integral to the roles of all employees (Scott and Bruce 1994). As a result, individuals are highly encouraged to engage in IWB, which includes generating new and valuable ideas, sharing their own or others’ ideas with co-workers, and implementing those ideas (Salam and Senin 2022).
The expertise and knowledge accumulated in a firm’s life are generally developed by employees; thus, companies aiming to adapt to market changes and survive competition should extract and utilize these assets (Lee and Song 2020). Firms are developing knowledge management applications and promoting knowledge-sharing behavior (KSB) to maximize the expertise of their employees and thereby enhance overall performance (Lee and Song 2020). The effectiveness of knowledge management projects relies on the practice of KSB (Wang and Noe 2010). Thus, knowledge sharing is crucial in business, as it serves as a strategy to gain competitive advantages, outperform competitors, retain employees, boost productivity, and foster human capital development through creativity and innovation (Razak et al. 2016).
Employee engagement is considered a highly central topic in management, attracting attention from both researchers and professionals alike (Saks 2022). Employee engagement, traditionally situated in the realm of human resource management, is now expanding into broader organizational contexts due to its beneficial effects in terms of various aspects, such as business, service, and operational effectiveness (Turner 2020). Engaged employees demonstrate strong commitment to their organization, showing no intention to leave while actively pursuing self-improvement, taking initiative, innovating, and maintaining high accuracy in their work (Schaufeli 2021).
Researchers have examined individual innovation through personality traits, outcomes, and actions (De Jong and Den Hartog 2008). We argue that empirical studies are needed in areas where numerous variables are combined to understand innovative behavior in different contexts. However, such studies specifically focused on the context of Arab countries are limited. The top-10 countries making an impact in the field of “innovative behavior” from 1961 to 2019 include the USA and China, which together account for approximately 27.92% of the research articles (Salam and Senin 2022). These data indicate that these two countries are leading the promotion of research on the topic of “innovative behavior”. Notably, none of the top-10 contributing countries are from the Arab world. Additionally, an examination of the literature on the determinants of IWB reveals that only a limited number of constructs have been examined, indicating that our understanding of the factors influencing IWB remains inadequate (Salam and Senin 2022). Furthermore, there are limited empirical studies examining the association between KSB and IWB, particularly within the service sector (Abukhait et al. 2019; Aldabbas et al. 2021).
This work aimed to investigate the influence of employee engagement and knowledge sharing on IWB in the UAE. It enhances the knowledge management and innovation management literature by exploring how work engagement can enhance individual KSB by improving the abilities, skills, and knowledge required for innovation in the context of service. Based on the research problem and objectives of this study, we formulate our main research question:
“Does knowledge-sharing behavior mediate the relationship between employee engagement and innovative work behavior?”
This work contributes to the literature by recognizing crucial antecedent factors, such as employee engagement and KSB, that may have an influence on employees in organizations, enabling them to create and effectively apply new ideas. One key challenge for organizations in the UAE and elsewhere is to understand how engagement can encourage employees to share their knowledge and motivate them toward IWB without leading to burnout, which can decrease their willingness to share knowledge and engage in innovation projects. Although IWB is widely believed to enhance long-term organizational effectiveness, the potential costs to individual workers who adopt innovative approaches have largely been overlooked (Janssen 2003). Thus, job resources serve to mitigate the impact of job demands by exerting buffering effects on stress (Kwon and Kim 2020).
To gain deeper insights into our research question, we draw on social exchange theory (SET), a prominent theoretical perspective in business management within the social sciences (Cropanzano et al. 2017). This theory provides a framework for maximizing benefits while minimizing costs through influencing individual actions (Blau 1964). Social exchange associations consist of ongoing interactions that generate undefined commitments (Xanthopoulou et al. 2009). When employees are engaged within their organization, they are more likely to be encouraged to obtain desired outcomes such as KSB and IWB. The study is organized as follows: the next section includes a review of the literature and the formulation of hypotheses, followed by an explanation of the research methodology, results, discussion, limitations, and suggestions for future research.

2. Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

2.1. Literature Review

2.1.1. Employee Engagement

In the context of this study, we build from the cognitive perspective by suggesting that employees who have a high level of engagement toward their work will be highly involved in generating creative behavior and have a greater overall focus on their work and its accomplishment. As such, several studies argue that individuals who are more engaged in their jobs are more likely to generate higher levels of IWB (Afsar et al. 2021).
Employee engagement is associated with a positive and constructive state of mind concerning work, which contributes to the overall development of the organization. It is an indication of the positive attitude that workers bring to their tasks (Saks 2022). Engaged employees can invest their best efforts into their work when they are dedicated and committed to this work (Van Tuin et al. 2021). Employee engagement is a significant force in an organization that reflects the degree of staff attitudes toward their work, particularly their dedication and proficiency in communicating with the organization. Generally, engagement is concerned with the level and quality of job performance. Additionally, engaged employees are significantly less inclined to depart from the organization (Malik and Garg 2020).

2.1.2. Knowledge Sharing

Organizations across various sectors are increasingly recognizing the benefits of knowledge sharing, with extensive research confirming its significant impact on achieving organizational goals and enhancing overall performance (Alassaf et al. 2020; Al-Kurdi et al. 2020). Allowing employees to benefit from the knowledge and expertise of others within an organization is known to provide valuable insights for managers and leaders. As such, this effect of knowledge sharing on employee engagement is a powerful and practical indicator and driver of sustainable business success. Researchers have recently highlighted knowledge sharing as social or interpersonal behavior in organizations (Arsawan et al. 2022). Knowledge sharing promotes a transparent organizational climate that, in turn, results in the effective exchange of conversational knowledge-sharing constructs, which are essential and should be supported in task performance (Khassawneh et al. 2022).

2.1.3. Innovative Work Behavior

The findings of empirical studies validate the conceptualization of innovation as a multifaceted phenomenon. Creativity was shown to be positively associated with the creation of novel products or services, the initiation of new business activities, and efforts to reduce costs (Nasifoglu Elidemir et al. 2020). However, assessments of the relationship between creativity and continuous improvement have been overlooked. The criteria developed for measuring creativity do not emphasize divergent thinking, which reflects a concern for novelty, originality, and the cognitive aspects of creativity (Al Hosani et al. 2023). These criteria instead focus on organizational interventions, i.e., routine work behaviors and innovative efforts, while paying limited attention to the quality of the relationship between management and employees (AlEssa and Durugbo 2022).

2.2. Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses Development

2.2.1. Relationship between Employee Engagement and Innovative Work Behavior

A comprehensive review of 34 studies shows that workers are most engaged when there is a balanced combination of moderate demands and sufficient resources, with IWB resulting from these nuanced interactions and engaged employees being more likely to exhibit innovation by employing coping strategies to address challenges (Kwon and Kim 2020). Work engagement is defined as “a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption” (Schaufeli et al. 2002, p. 74). Employee engagement has become essential in today’s professional setting, not only due to its three dimensions (vigor, dedication, and absorption) but also because the synergy of these dimensions can significantly influence employees in achieving positive results (e.g., IWB). Definitions of employee engagement include both emotional and cognitive aspects, such as passion, fulfilment, self-confidence, empowerment, and optimistic attitudes (Turner 2020). It represents an individual’s optimal behavior that strengthens connections to their work and colleagues (Turner 2020). Work engagement also signifies healthy functioning. Consequently, it encompasses the full range of outcomes (e.g., challenges and hindrances) arising from workload and can thus account for the impact of workload on employee innovativeness (Montani et al. 2020). Additionally, Saks (2019), in his revised model of engagement, confirms that engagement leads to positive consequences such as organizational citizenship behavior and job satisfaction. However, in this study, we argue that engagement will lead to positive outcomes for the individual employee (e.g., IWB).
Previous studies found that when individuals are highly engaged, they display greater IWB in the workplace (Afsar et al. 2021; Ali et al. 2022; Elamin et al. 2024; Ghani et al. 2023; Kim and Park 2017; Vithayaporn and Ashton 2019). An empirical study conducted on a sample of 180 respondents from the manufacturing sector in Pakistan found that employee engagement drives IWB (Ghani et al. 2023). A study of 372 senior employees across various industries in China found that employee engagement is positively linked to IWB, and employee engagement is considered an essential prerequisite for IWB (Ali et al. 2022). Another study found that engagement and innovation mutually enhance each other; specifically, IWB is influenced by having engaged employees, who are more likely to act innovatively. Furthermore, each employee’s interactions with customers increase their likelihood of exhibiting IWB (Vithayaporn and Ashton 2019). An empirical study that gathered data from 381 participants working in multinational corporations in Saudi Arabia found that work engagement leads to higher IWB activities among employees, which can be explained by the SET norm of reciprocity (Afsar et al. 2021). Based on these previous discussions, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H1. 
Employee engagement is positively related to innovative work behavior.

2.2.2. Relationship between Employee Engagement and Knowledge-Sharing Behavior

Knowledge sharing can be defined as a culture in which employees are able to freely exchange their knowledge, ideas, perspectives, skills, and experiences (Ahmed et al. 2020; Kim and Park 2017; Joo et al. 2023). Engaged employees possess elevated levels of energy and enthusiasm toward their work (Ahmed et al. 2020). The literature on job design demonstrates that higher levels of engagement result in improved performance (e.g., knowledge sharing) (Martinez 2015). In general, engaged employees tend to be more productive and share knowledge within their organization (Fatima and Khan 2017).
Previous studies found that when individuals are highly engaged, they display greater KSB in the workplace (Ahmed et al. 2020; Chen et al. 2011; Fatima and Khan 2017; Rasheed et al. 2020; Wu and Lee 2020). A survey conducted with 139 respondents from two software firms in China revealed that task conflict enhanced psychological states and employee engagement, which subsequently led to increased KSB (Chen et al. 2011). An empirical study conducted with 302 knowledge employees from a leading telecommunications firm in South Korea found that work engagement is significantly related to knowledge sharing (Joo et al. 2023). A positive and significant association between employee engagement and knowledge-sharing behavior was found from a survey of 354 respondents from ICT sector organizations in Pakistan (Fatima and Khan 2017). When employees engage in knowledge sharing at work, it can benefit them personally. For instance, engaging in knowledge-sharing activities can enhance their self-affirmation and foster stronger associations with co-workers (Wu and Lee 2020). Based on these previous discussions, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H2. 
Employee engagement is positively related to knowledge-sharing behavior.

2.2.3. Relationship between Knowledge-Sharing Behavior and Innovative Work Behavior

Knowledge sharing involves transforming experiences, skills, and information into practical applications, such as innovation (Castaneda and Cuellar 2020). Previous studies found that when individuals exhibit KSB, they display greater IWB (Abukhait et al. 2019; Akram et al. 2020; Aldabbas et al. 2021; Islam et al. 2024; Kim and Park 2017; Yasir et al. 2023). Abukhait et al. (2019) surveyed a sample of 305 employees from the service sector in the UAE and found that knowledge sharing has a strong and significant impact on employee IWB. Similarly, from 340 surveys completed by employees working in the service sector in the UAE, Aldabbas et al. (2021) found that knowledge sharing positively and significantly influences IWB. A survey employed to gather data from 769 employees working in SMEs in Pakistan revealed that KSB has a positive association with IWB (Yasir et al. 2023). An empirical study involving 270 employees in the IT sector found a positive impact of knowledge sharing on employee IWB (Islam et al. 2024). Kmieciak (2021) found that knowledge sharing is significantly linked to idea generation. Survey responses from 345 employees in the Chinese telecommunications sector were gathered. The results indicate that KSB has a significant impact on IWB (Akram et al. 2020)
SET fundamentally describes an exchange of valuable resources, wherein two parties anticipate mutual benefits (Razak et al. 2016). Thus, knowledge sharing is a key factor that drives innovation, indicating that innovation relies heavily on effective knowledge sharing (Castaneda and Cuellar 2020). Furthermore, knowledge sharing has the potential to significantly enhance IWB, since it plays a key role in enhancing innovation culture, improving performance, and achieving a competitive edge (Arsawan et al. 2022). Based on the previous arguments, we formulate our third hypothesis:
H3. 
Knowledge-sharing behavior is positively related to innovative work behavior.

2.2.4. Mediating Role of Knowledge-Sharing Behavior

In this section, we delve into how employee engagement influences innovative work behavior (IWB), with a particular focus on the mediating role played by knowledge-sharing behavior (KSB) (Figure 1). Knowledge sharing is a widely discussed subject in business management, recognized for its advantages to both employees and employers alike (Islam et al. 2024). Because KSB is self-motivated, employees are more likely to exchange work-related ideas and expertise with their co-workers when they are committed to and passionate about their job (Kim and Park 2017). KSB is a culture of social interaction in which employees exchange knowledge, skills, and competencies (Fatima and Khan 2017).
An empirical study involving 389 employees from the UAE police administration revealed that knowledge sharing mediates the association between knowledge-oriented leadership and IWB (Gharama et al. 2020). In their empirical study, Fatima and Khan (2017) found that KSB mediates the association between work engagement and IWB. An empirical study based on 388 survey responses from Korean IT companies found that KSB significantly influences the association between employee engagement and IWB (Lee and Song 2020).
According to its principles, SET is a theory that explains individuals’ rational behavior in assessing the potential rewards they might receive from social exchanges (Razak et al. 2016). Therefore, high levels of employee engagement may favor positive outcomes in organizations, such KSB and IWB. KSB is frequently viewed as crucial for fostering IWB (Aldabbas et al. 2021). When management promotes knowledge sharing among employees, this fosters a climate of positive associations between employer and staff. This atmosphere encourages employees to engage in innovative behaviors and participate in additional innovation activities. Based on the previous arguments, we formulate our final hypothesis:
H4. 
Knowledge-sharing behavior mediates the relationship between employee engagement and innovative work behavior.

3. Methods

3.1. Approach

The research design was based on surveys and utilizes cross-sectional data. The use of cross-sectional data has become a prevalent method in recent research for evaluating causal associations (Wynen et al. 2020; Badru et al. 2024). In this work, a positivist approach was adopted in examining the connections between employee engagement, IWB, and the specified mediating variable of KSB.

3.2. Participants

This study, conducted using a cross-sectional methodology, aimed to examine the associations between the variables under investigation among employed individuals. Data collection in the Middle East region is often deemed challenging and associated with various methodological constraints (Elamin and Tlaiss 2015). Consequently, a convenience sample was utilized for this research. The survey was disseminated among individuals employed in the service sector of the UAE, which includes a diverse range of economic activities, such as commercial services, financial institutions, higher education, and government agencies. The survey was administered using an online platform, with distribution commencing in January 2024 and concluding in June 2024. Participation in the survey was voluntary, and all participants provided written, informed consent to partake in the study. A total of 350 surveys were distributed, and 215 responses were received, corresponding to a response rate of 61.4%. However, due to inconsistencies in response patterns and incomplete surveys, only 193 surveys were deemed suitable for inclusion in this study. This sample size is considered adequate for the statistical analyses required to test the study’s hypotheses and draw meaningful conclusions.

3.3. Measurements

The questionnaire consisted of twenty-nine questions derived from relevant research and was divided into four categories: demographic information, employee engagement, KSB, and IWB. Employee engagement was the independent variable, while IWB was the dependent variable. KSB served as the mediator. Employee engagement was measured using the short version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES), developed by Schaufeli et al. (2002). This scale consists of nine items and has three sub-scales: vigor, dedication, and absorption. These items were combined into a single variable representing employee engagement. Each item in this section was rated on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 0 (never) to 6 (always). KSB was measured using four items adopted from the work of Lee (2001), also rated on a 7-point scale from 0 (never) to 6 (always). IWB was assessed using measures from Janssen (2000), which were based on Kanter’s (1988) stages of innovation, including idea generation, idea promotion, and idea realization. These items were combined into a single variable for IWB, also measured on a 7-point scale from 0 (never) to 6 (always).

3.4. Procedures

In this study, one of the methods employed was back translation. This involved translating the questionnaire from English to Arabic, which was essential for non-English-speaking participants (Arabs) who completed the questionnaire, and then back to English to ensure its accuracy and validity. The translated content was reviewed for accuracy by two management professors. Various statistical analyses were used to evaluate the research findings. Descriptive statistics, including means, frequencies, and standard deviations, were first used to describe demographic data and general results. Hierarchical regression analysis was then applied to test the hypotheses, as it determines whether or not the variables significantly explain variance in the dependent variable after considering other variables. Additionally, mediation analysis was performed to assess if the mediator had a significant indirect effect on the dependent variable. The statistical software used for analyzing the quantitative data was SPSS, chosen for its customizable and reliable analytical capabilities.

4. Results

4.1. Sample Description

The dataset was analyzed using SPSS version 29.0. Table 1 provides a detailed breakdown of the study sample’s demographics, including gender, nationality, age, organizational tenure, job rank, and educational level. As shown in Table 1, the sample consisted of one hundred and four males (53.9%) and eighty-nine females (46.1%). Of these participants, 53.4% were Emirati and 46.6% were non-Emirati. The majority of the participants were aged between 21 and 29 years (61.7%), with the remainder being over 30 years old. Additionally, Table 1 shows that 55.4% had less than 3 years of organizational tenure, and most were in entry-level positions. In terms of education, 88.6% of the participants had a bachelor’s degree or lower, while only 11.4% held a master’s or Ph.D. degree.

4.2. Descriptive Results

To achieve the study’s objective of examining employee engagement, KSB, and IWB among UAE service employees, a descriptive analysis was conducted. Table 2 presents a summary of the mean scores, standard deviations, Pearson intercorrelations, and reliability scores for the study variables. The findings indicated a high overall level of employee engagement, with a mean score of 4.62. Similarly, the level of KSB was also high, reflected by a mean score of 4.54. Furthermore, the results show that employees had a positive response to IWB, with a mean score of 4.57. This analysis highlights the strong perceptions of employee engagement, active knowledge sharing, and a favorable attitude toward IWB among employees in the UAE service sector. The reliability of the responses was confirmed through Cronbach’s alpha values, demonstrating strong consistency for each construct. The reliability coefficients for employee engagement (α = 0.963), KSB (α = 0.863), and IWB (α = 0.961) all indicate robustness (see Table 2).
The results offer preliminary support for the hypotheses, particularly H1, H2, and H3. The observed correlations are statistically significant at the 0.001 level among the variables examined in the study. The statistical test used for the initial hypothesis was Pearson correlation. As shown in Table 2, the analysis reveals a positive correlation between employee engagement and IWB (r = 0.836, p < 0.001) as well as between employee engagement and KSB (r = 0.756, p < 0.001). These findings lend support to the first and second hypotheses. Additionally, there was a strong positive association between KSB and IWB (r = 0.742, p < 0.001), further substantiating the H3 hypothesis.

4.3. Hypotheses Testing

To examine the association between employee engagement and IWB (H1), a hierarchical regression technique was performed in two stages. The first step involved entering control variables related to demographics, such as age, organizational tenure, job rank, and level of education, into the analysis. Subsequently, in the second step, the variable of employee engagement was introduced. The outcomes of this analysis are presented in Table 3. The hierarchical regression analysis revealed that diversity management is an effective predictor of IWB. As depicted in Table 3, employee engagement accounts for an average of 71.9% of the variance in IWB. It was found that employee engagement significantly influences IWB (β = 0.818, p < 0.001). Furthermore, upon introducing employee engagement in step 2, there was a notable 0.615 change in R2 (F (5,187) = 99.406, p < 0.001). These results, derived from examining the linear association between employee engagement and IWB, fully support H1.
To examine the correlation between employee engagement and KSB (H2), a hierarchical regression technique was carried out in two stages. Control variables related to demographics, such as age, organizational tenure, job rank, and level of education, were initially included in the analysis. Subsequently, in the second step, the employee engagement variable was introduced. The outcomes of this analysis are summarized in Table 4. The hierarchical regression analysis revealed that employee engagement effectively predicts knowledge-sharing behavior. As demonstrated in Table 4, employee engagement accounts for an average of 63.8% of the variance in knowledge-sharing behavior. It was found that employee engagement significantly influences knowledge-sharing behavior (β = 0.694, p < 0.001). Furthermore, upon introducing employee engagement in the second step, there was a substantial 0.443 change in R2 (F (5,187) = 68.558, p < 0.001). These results, derived from exploring the linear association between employee engagement and knowledge-sharing behavior, fully support H2.
To examine the association between KSB and IWB (H3), a hierarchical regression technique was conducted in two stages. Control variables related to demographics, including age, organizational tenure, job rank, and level of education, were initially included in the analysis. Subsequently, in the second step, the KSB variable was introduced. The findings of this analysis are summarized in Table 5. The hierarchical regression analysis revealed that KSB significantly contributes to IWB. As indicated in Table 5, KSB accounted for an average of 54.8% of the variance in IWB. It was observed that KSB has a substantial impact on IWB (β = 0.751, p < 0.001). Furthermore, upon introducing KSB in the second step, there was a notable 0.448 change in R2 (F (5,187) = 47.537, p < 0.001). These results, derived from examining the linear association between KSB and IWB, strongly support H3.
Finally, the mediating effect of KSB on the association between employee engagement and IWB (H4) was examined using Baron and Kenny’s (1986) four-step approach for establishing mediation. The outcomes are outlined in Table 6. In the first step, it was revealed that employee engagement significantly and positively predicts IWB (β = 0.818, p < 0.001). Moving to the second step, employee engagement and KSB showed a positive and robust association (β = 0.694, p < 0.001). Upon entering it into the regression model in the third step, KSB was observed to have a significant impact on IWB (β = 0.214, p < 0.01). However, the β coefficient for the relationship between employee engagement and IWB is reduced yet significant, experiencing a substantial decline (β = 0.670, p < 0.001). Ultimately, the results for the fourth step confirm that KSB partially mediates the connection between employee engagement and IWB. To support this mediation model, the Sobel (1982) test was conducted. The calculated Sobel test statistic of 3.17 exceeds the critical value of 1.96, confirming significance at the 95% confidence interval. This indicates that KSB significantly mediates the relationship between employee engagement and IWB (z = 3.17, p < 0.01). These findings lend support to the fourth hypothesis (H4).

5. Discussion

This work examines the impact of employee engagement on IWB, particularly through KSB. Drawing on SET, we investigated how employee engagement influences IWB. We also examined the mediating effect of KSB on the association between employee engagement and IWB. For testing our first hypothesis, the impact of employee engagement on IWB was assessed, with a significant link found between employee engagement and IWB. This finding aligns with previous studies (Afsar et al. 2021; Ali et al. 2022; Ghani et al. 2023; Kim and Park 2017; Vithayaporn and Ashton 2019) and is consistent with SET, which emphasizes the importance of employee engagement toward IWB. Employees who are actively engaged often demonstrate innovative behavior by utilizing coping strategies to effectively address challenges (Kwon and Kim 2020).
Our second hypothesis posited that employee engagement positively influences KSB. Our findings are consistent with previous studies (Ahmed et al. 2020; Chen et al. 2011; Fatima and Khan 2017; Rasheed et al. 2020; Wu and Lee 2020). Therefore, these significant findings support our assertion that increased engagement fosters a sense of reciprocity among employees, encouraging them to share knowledge with other co-workers, ultimately leading to enhanced KSB. Employee engagement has been extensively studied within the framework of SET, which provides a solid theoretical foundation (Saks 2019). The dedication and energy of employees are not generated in isolation; they are often influenced by leaders who motivate them to become more engaged in their work. When employees are encouraged and engaged in their roles, they exert additional effort, resulting in greater efficiency and enhanced KSB.
The third hypothesis posited that KSB positively affects IWB. Our findings are aligned with previous studies (Abukhait et al. 2019; Akram et al. 2020; Aldabbas et al. 2021; Islam et al. 2024; Kim and Park 2017; Yasir et al. 2023) indicating that KSB is a strong predictor of IWB. The flow of knowledge sharing within a firm facilitates the generation of more innovative ideas, leading to improved innovative performance (Jaaffar et al. 2024). When employees participate in knowledge sharing with each other, it creates a positive climate within the organization. This, in turn, will encourage those employees to direct this accumulated knowledge toward more innovative activities (e.g., IWB).
Finally, we hypothesized that KSB mediates the relationship between employee engagement and IWB. The results show a significant positive association between employee engagement and IWB through KSB. This supports previous findings that knowledge sharing mediates the association between employee engagement and IWB (Escribá-Carda et al. 2023; Fatima and Khan 2017; Lee and Song 2020). In our study, 73.4% of the variance in IWB was attributed to employee engagement and KSB. These results confirm the importance of employee engagement and KSB as crucial determinants of IWB.

6. Limitations and Future Studies

This work has several limitations that should be considered in guiding future research. While we considered knowledge sharing as an intervening variable between employee engagement and IWB, additional individual-level aspects could serve as mediating variables, potentially enriching the framework (e.g., psychological empowerment). Furthermore, our research focused on selected organizations, and industry-specific factors may limit the generalizability of our findings to other sectors, such as manufacturing.
Additionally, while we examined the role of knowledge sharing in mediating the relationship between employee engagement and IWB, various psychological factors could influence this association. For instance, the impact of KSB on IWB may depend on trust among co-workers, individual self-efficacy, and organizational factors, like the climate, for innovation. Future research should explore other significant determinants of employee IWB, such as bundles of HR practices and caring HRM practices (Saks 2022). In future studies, researchers could explore the impact of well-being on employee engagement and innovative behavior, which may offer deeper insights into the factors that drive both employee performance and innovation. Therefore, future studies should incorporate these and other relevant factors to foster innovative behavior in employees.

7. Conclusions

Although extensive research has been conducted on employee engagement, knowledge sharing, and IWB in Western countries, there is a notable gap in research within the Middle East context, including the UAE. This study offers empirical evidence on the connections between employee engagement, KSB, and IWB in the UAE. Our findings indicate that KSB can facilitate the association between employee engagement and IWB.
From a theoretical viewpoint, this work enriches the current literature on employee engagement, KSB, and IWB in several ways. First, it provides empirical support for the validity of these three crucial constructs by assessing their relevance outside Western contexts, utilizing a sample from the UAE. Specifically, there has been limited examination of the association between employee engagement, KSB, and IWB in non-Western contexts, particularly in the Arab region. This research extends on existing knowledge by showing that employee engagement enhances knowledge sharing and IWB. Second, in our theoretical framework, knowledge sharing is considered an antecedent to both employee engagement and IWB, an outcome many firms strive to attain. We conclude that KSB is a crucial mediator in the relationship between employee engagement and IWB. Lastly, when the organization encourages teamwork in organizational activities and recognizes the importance of employee engagement, this significantly enhances the level of employee engagement, leading employees to reciprocate with increased commitment to their co-workers and therefore greater knowledge sharing and enhanced IWB.
There are several key implications for managers regarding how to maximize the advantages of IWB. First, organizational managers should recognize the value of employee engagement for enhancing KSB and IWB, given that employee engagement in the UAE exceeds the global average on the basis of scores (Aldabbas et al. 2023). Managers should promote strong ties among employees, as this can enhance cooperation, KSB, and problem solving. Second, managers should create challenging work for employees to leverage their engagement and IWB. Specifically, creativity and innovation pose risks, necessitating employees to adapt and behave in new ways (Qi et al. 2019). Therefore, managers should create an organizational culture that motivates and enables knowledge sharing among employees. This can be achieved by implementing regular team-building activities and creating collaborative workspaces that support communication and knowledge exchange. Third, managers should invest in training and development programs focused on enhancing both employee engagement and knowledge-sharing capabilities. These programs can include workshops on collaborative problem-solving and innovation techniques. Implementing these strategies is likely to increase employee engagement, knowledge sharing, and IWB.

Author Contributions

A.M.E. and H.A.; methodology, A.M.E.; software, A.M.E.; validation, A.M.E., H.A. and A.Z.E.A.; formal analysis, A.M.E.; investigation, A.M.E.; data curation, A.M.E. and A.N.A.; writing—original draft preparation, H.A. and A.Z.E.A.; writing—review and editing, A.M.E., H.A. and A.Z.E.A.; visualization, H.A.; supervision, A.Z.E.A.; project administration, A.Z.E.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Ethics Committee of University of Science and Technology of Fujairah (USTF) (protocol code USTF/REC/2023-11/05 and date of approval 11 December 2023).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors report no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Abukhait, Rawan Mazen, Shaker Bani-Melhem, and Rachid Zeffane. 2019. Empowerment, knowledge sharing and innovative behaviours: Exploring gender differences. International Journal of Innovation Management 23: 1950006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Afsar, Bilal, Basheer M. Al-Ghazali, Sadia Cheema, and Farheen Javed. 2021. Cultural intelligence and innovative work behavior: The role of work engagement and interpersonal trust. European Journal of Innovation Management 24: 1082–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Ahmed, Tanveer, Muhammad Shahid Khan, Duangkamol Thitivesa, Yananda Siraphatthada, and Tawat Phumdara. 2020. Impact of employees engagement and knowledge sharing on organizational performance: Study of HR challenges in COVID-19 pandemic. Human Systems Management 39: 589–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Akram, Tayyaba, Shen Lei, Muhammad Jamal Haider, and Syed Talib Hussain. 2020. The impact of organizational justice on employee innovative work behavior: Mediating role of knowledge sharing. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 5: 117–29. [Google Scholar]
  5. Al Hosani, Khawla Ali, Anne Rienke van Ewijk, and Matloub Hussain. 2023. Determinants of employee creative behavior in the UAE public sector. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 72: 532–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Alassaf, Deemah, Marina Dabić, Dara Shifrer, and Tugrul Daim. 2020. The impact of open-border organization culture and employees’ knowledge, attitudes, and rewards with regards to open innovation: An empirical study. Journal of Knowledge Management 24: 2273–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Aldabbas, Hazem, Ashly Pinnington, Abdelmounaim Lahrech, and Lama Blaique. 2023. Extrinsic rewards for employee creativity? The role of perceived organisational support, work engagement and intrinsic motivation. International Journal of Innovation Science. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Aldabbas, Hazem, Ashly Pinnington, and Abdelmounaim Lahrech. 2021. The mediating role of psychological empowerment in the relationship between knowledge sharing and innovative work behaviour. International Journal of Innovation Management 25: 2150014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. AlEssa, Hanan S., and Christopher M. Durugbo. 2022. Systematic review of innovative work behavior concepts and contributions. Management Review Quarterly 72: 1171–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ali, Hzem, Min Li, and Xunmin Qiu. 2022. Employee engagement and innovative work behavior among Chinese millennials: Mediating and moderating role of work-life balance and psychological empowerment. Frontiers in Psychology 13: 942580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Al-Kurdi, Osama F., Ramzi El-Haddadeh, and Tillal Eldabi. 2020. The role of organisational climate in managing knowledge sharing among academics in higher education. International Journal of Information Management 50: 217–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Arsawan, I. Wayan Edi Arsawan, Viktor Koval, Ismi Rajiani, Ni Wayan Rustiarini, Wayan Gede Supartha, and Ni Putu Santi Suryantini. 2022. Leveraging knowledge sharing and innovation culture into SMEs sustainable competitive advantage. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 71: 405–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Badru, Akinjide F., Georgiana Karadas, and Olusegun A. Olugbade. 2024. Employee voice: The impact of high-performance work systems and organisational engagement climate. The Service Industries Journal 44: 563–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Baron, Reuben M., and David A. Kenny. 1986. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51: 1173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Blau, Peter. 1964. Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: Wiley. [Google Scholar]
  16. Castaneda, Delio Ignacio, and Sergio Cuellar. 2020. Knowledge sharing and innovation: A systematic review. Knowledge and Process Management 27: 159–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Chen, Zhen Jiao, Xi Zhang, and Douglas Vogel. 2011. Exploring the underlying processes between conflict and knowledge sharing: A work-engagement perspective. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 41: 1005–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Cropanzano, Russell, Erica L. Anthony, Shanna R. Daniels, and Alison V. Hall. 2017. Social exchange theory: A critical review with theoretical remedies. Academy of Management Annals 11: 479–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. De Jong, Jeroen P., and Deanne N. Den Hartog. 2008. Innovative work behavior: Measurement and validation. EIM Business and Policy Research 8: 1–27. [Google Scholar]
  20. Elamin, Abdallah M., and Hayfaa A. Tlaiss. 2015. Exploring the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and organizational justice in the Islamic Saudi Arabian context. Employee Relations 37: 2–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Elamin, Abdallah M., Hazem Aldabbas, and Ahmed Zain Elabdin Ahmed. 2024. The Impact of Diversity Management on Innovative Work Behavior: The Mediating Role of Employee Engagement in an Emerging Economy. Frontiers in Sociology 9: 1441109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Escribá-Carda, Naiara, Teresa Canet-Giner, and Francisco Balbastre-Benavent. 2023. The role of engagement and knowledge-sharing in the high-performance work systems–innovative behaviour relationship. European Journal of Management and Business Economics. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Fatima, Afheen, and Muhammad Asif Khan. 2017. Do hope foster innovative work behavior through employee engagement and knowledge sharing behavior? A conservation of resources approach using MPLUS tool. Business & Economic Review 9: 181–212. [Google Scholar]
  24. Ghani, Bilqees, Syed Irfan Hyder, Sunghoon Yoo, and Heesup Han. 2023. Does employee engagement promote innovation? The Facilitators of innovative workplace behavior via mediation and moderation. Heliyon 9: e21817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Gharama, Abdulla Naser Abdulqawi, Gamal S. A. Khalifa, and Ahmed Hamoud Al-Shibami. 2020. UAE police administrative employee innovative behavior: The integration of knowledge sharing and leadership. International Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation 24: 1930–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Islam, Talat, Iram Zahra, Saif Ur Rehman, and Saqib Jamil. 2024. How knowledge sharing encourages innovative work behavior through occupational self-efficacy? The moderating role of entrepreneurial leadership. Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication 73: 67–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Jaaffar, Amar Hisham, Nurshahirah Abd Majid, Saraswathy Kasavan, Aerni Isa, Mohd Nur Ruzainy Alwi, and Abdul Rahman Zahari. 2024. The effect of innovative mindset and behavior on innovation performance and competitive advantage: A case of halal SMEs owner-managers from Malaysian energy-intensive industry. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship 13: 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Janssen, Onne. 2000. Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness and innovative work behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 73: 287–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Janssen, Onne. 2003. Innovative behaviour and job involvement at the price of conflict and less satisfactory relations with co-workers. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 76: 347–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Joo, Baek-Kyoo, Jeong-Ha Yim, Young Sim Jin, and Soo Jeoung Han. 2023. Empowering leadership and employee creativity: The mediating roles of work engagement and knowledge sharing. European Journal of Training and Development 47: 881–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kanter, Rosabeth Moss. 1988. Three tiers for innovation research. Communication Research 15: 509–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Khassawneh, Osama, Tamara Mohammad, and Rabeb Ben-Abdallah. 2022. The impact of leadership on boosting employee creativity: The role of knowledge sharing as a mediator. Administrative Sciences 12: 175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Kim, Woocheol, and Jiwon Park. 2017. Examining structural relationships between work engagement, organizational procedural justice, knowledge sharing, and innovative work behavior for sustainable organizations. Sustainability 9: 205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Kmieciak, Roman. 2021. Trust, knowledge sharing, and innovative work behavior: Empirical evidence from Poland. European Journal of Innovation Management 24: 1832–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Kwon, Kibum, and Taesung Kim. 2020. An integrative literature review of employee engagement and innovative behavior: Revisiting the JD-R model. Human Resource Management Review 30: 100704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Lee, Jae-Nam. 2001. The impact of knowledge sharing, organizational capability and partnership quality on IS outsourcing success. Information & Management 38: 323–35. [Google Scholar]
  37. Lee, Kwangho, and Hae-Deok Song. 2020. Linkages between social goal orientation and innovative behavior: Examining the mediating role of knowledge sharing and employee engagement. Sustainability 12: 9886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Malik, Parul, and Pooja Garg. 2020. Learning organization and work engagement: The mediating role of employee resilience. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 31: 1071–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Martinez, Marian Garcia. 2015. Solver engagement in knowledge sharing in crowdsourcing communities: Exploring the link to creativity. Research Policy 44: 1419–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Montani, Francesco, Christian Vandenberghe, Anis Khedhaouria, and François Courcy. 2020. Examining the inverted U-shaped relationship between workload and innovative work behavior: The role of work engagement and mindfulness. Human Relations 73: 59–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Nasifoglu Elidemir, Servet, Ali Ozturen, and Steven W. Bayighomog. 2020. Innovative behaviors, employee creativity, and sustainable competitive advantage: A moderated mediation. Sustainability 12: 3295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Qi, Lei, Bing Liu, Xin Wei, and Yanghong Hu. 2019. Impact of inclusive leadership on employee innovative behavior: Perceived organizational support as a mediator. PLoS ONE 14: e0212091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Rasheed, Muhammad Imran, Muhammad Jawad Malik, Abdul Hameed Pitafi, Jawad Iqbal, Muhammad Khalid Anser, and Mazhar Abbas. 2020. Usage of social media, student engagement, and creativity: The role of knowledge sharing behavior and cyberbullying. Computers & Education 159: 104002. [Google Scholar]
  44. Razak, Norfadzilah Abdul, Faizuniah Pangil, Md Lazim Md Zin, Noor Azlina Mohamed Yunus, and Nini Hartini Asnawi. 2016. Theories of knowledge sharing behavior in business strategy. Procedia Economics and Finance 37: 545–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Saks, Alan Michael. 2019. Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement revisited. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance 6: 19–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Saks, Alan Michael. 2022. Caring human resources management and employee engagement. Human Resource Management Review 32: 100835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Salam, Sidra, and Aslan Amat Senin. 2022. A bibliometric study on innovative behavior literature (1961–2019). Sage Open 12: 21582440221109589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Schaufeli, Wilmar. 2021. Engaging leadership: How to promote work engagement? Frontiers in Psychology 12: 754556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Schaufeli, Wilmar B., Marisa Salanova, Vincente González-Romá, and Arnold B. Bakker. 2002. The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies 3: 71–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Scott, Susanne G., and Reginald A. Bruce. 1994. Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal 37: 580–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Sobel, Michael E. 1982. Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. Sociological Methodology 13: 290–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Turner, Paul. 2020. Employee engagement and the employee experience. In Employee Engagement in Contemporary Organizations: Maintaining High Productivity and Sustained Competitiveness. Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer Nature, pp. 1–26. [Google Scholar]
  53. Van Tuin, Lars, Wilmar B. Schaufeli, and Anja Van den Broeck. 2021. Engaging leadership: Enhancing work engagement through intrinsic values and need satisfaction. Human Resource Development Quarterly 32: 483–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Vithayaporn, Sanhakot, and Ann Suwaree Ashton. 2019. Employee engagement and innovative work behavior: A case study of Thai Airways International. ABAC ODI Journal Vision Action Outcome 6: 45. [Google Scholar]
  55. Wang, Sheng, and Raymond A. Noe. 2010. Knowledge sharing: A review and directions for future research. Human Resource Management Review 20: 115–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Wu, Wei-Li, and Yi-Chih Lee. 2020. Do work engagement and transformational leadership facilitate knowledge sharing? A perspective of conservation of resources theory. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17: 2615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Wynen, Jan, Jan Boon, Bjorn Kleizen, and Koen Verhoest. 2020. How multiple organizational changes shape managerial support for innovative work behavior: Evidence from the Australian Public Service. Review of Public Personnel Administration 40: 491–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Xanthopoulou, Despoina, Arnold B. Bakker, Evangelia Demerouti, and Wilmar B. Schaufeli. 2009. Reciprocal relationships between job resources, personal resources, and work engagement. Journal of Vocational Behavior 74: 235–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Yasir, Muhammad, Abdul Majid, Zahid Yousaf, Abdelmohsen A. Nassani, and Mohamed Haffar. 2023. An integrative framework of innovative work behavior for employees in SMEs linking knowledge sharing, functional flexibility and psychological empowerment. European Journal of Innovation Management 26: 289–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Admsci 14 00232 g001
Figure 1. Hypothesized model.
Figure 1. Hypothesized model.
Admsci 14 00232 g001
Table 1. Demographic profile of the research sample.
Table 1. Demographic profile of the research sample.
Frequency
Variablesn (Total—193)% (Total—100%)
Gender
Male10453.9
Female8946.1
Nationality
Emirati10353.4
Non-Emirati9046.6
Age
21–29 119 61.7
30–343417.6
35–392010.4
40 and above2010.4
Organizational Tenure
Less than 3 years10755.4
3—less than 6 years4121.2
6—less than 10 years168.3
10 years and more2915.0
Job Rank
Employee12866.3
Asst. Mgr./Supervisor/Chief Employee199.8
General Manager63.1
Senior Manager31.6
Director52.6
Other3216.6
Level of Education
High School2311.9
Diploma115.7
Bachelor’s Degree13771.5
Graduate (Masters/Ph.D.)2211.4
Table 2. Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations among study variables.
Table 2. Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations among study variables.
VariablesMSD123
Employee Engagement4.621.18−0.963
Knowledge-Sharing Behavior4.541.050.756 ***−0.863
Innovative Work Behavior4.571.10.836 ***0.742 ***−0.961
Notes: *** p < 0.001.
Table 3. Results for hierarchical regression testing of the relationship between employee engagement and innovative work behavior.
Table 3. Results for hierarchical regression testing of the relationship between employee engagement and innovative work behavior.
Criterion VariablesInnovative Work Behavior
PredictorsΔR2β
Age −0.223
Organizational Tenure 0.163
Job Rank −0.052
Level of Education −0.009
Step 2:0.615 ***
Employee Engagement 0.818 ***
N193
Adjusted R20.719
Equation F-value99.406 ***
Notes: β, standardized beta. *** p < 0.001.
Table 4. Results from hierarchical regression testing of the relationship between employee engagement and knowledge-sharing behavior.
Table 4. Results from hierarchical regression testing of the relationship between employee engagement and knowledge-sharing behavior.
Criterion VariablesKnowledge-Sharing Behavior
PredictorsΔR2β
Step 1: Controls0.204
Age −0.267
Organizational Tenure 0.02
Job Rank −0.084
Level of Education −0.037
Step 2:0.443 ***
Employee Engagement 0.694 ***
N193
Adjusted R20.638
Equation F-value68.558 ***
Notes: β, standardized beta. *** p < 0.001.
Table 5. Results from hierarchical regression testing of the relationship between knowledge-sharing behavior and innovative work behavior.
Table 5. Results from hierarchical regression testing of the relationship between knowledge-sharing behavior and innovative work behavior.
Criterion VariablesInnovative Work Behavior
PredictorsΔR2β
Step 1: Controls0.111
Age −0.076
Organizational Tenure 0.116
Job Rank −0.005
Level of Education 0.054
Step 2:0.448 ***
Knowledge-sharing behavior 0.751 ***
N193
Adjusted R20.548
Equation F-value47.537 ***
Notes: β, standardized beta. *** p < 0.001.
Table 6. Results from hierarchical regression testing of the mediating effect of employee engagement in the relationship between diversity management and innovative work behavior.
Table 6. Results from hierarchical regression testing of the mediating effect of employee engagement in the relationship between diversity management and innovative work behavior.
Criterion VariableKnowledge-Sharing BehaviorInnovative Work Behavior
Predictorββ
Step 1:
Employee Engagement 0.694 ***0.818 ***
Adjusted R2 0.638 ***
Step 2:
Employee Engagement 0.670 ***
Knowledge-Sharing Behavior 0.214 **
Adjusted R2 0.734 ***
ΔR2 0.631
F for ΔR2 (Steps 1 and 2) 228.262 ***
Notes: β, standardized beta. ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
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

Elamin, A.M.; Aldabbas, H.; Ahmed, A.Z.E.; Abdullah, A.N. Employee Engagement and Innovative Work Behavior: The Mediating Role of Knowledge-Sharing Behavior in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) Service Context. Adm. Sci. 2024, 14, 232. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14090232

AMA Style

Elamin AM, Aldabbas H, Ahmed AZE, Abdullah AN. Employee Engagement and Innovative Work Behavior: The Mediating Role of Knowledge-Sharing Behavior in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) Service Context. Administrative Sciences. 2024; 14(9):232. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14090232

Chicago/Turabian Style

Elamin, Abdallah M., Hazem Aldabbas, Ahmed Zain Elabdin Ahmed, and Abdulaziz N. Abdullah. 2024. "Employee Engagement and Innovative Work Behavior: The Mediating Role of Knowledge-Sharing Behavior in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) Service Context" Administrative Sciences 14, no. 9: 232. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14090232

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