JOURNAL OF SECURITY AND SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES

ISSN 2029-7017 print/ISSN 2029-7025 online

2019 September Volume 9 Number 1
http://doi.org/10.9770/jssi.2019.9.2(25)

KNOWLEDGE SHARING AND TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP

Leonardus W.W Mihardjo1*, Sasmoko2, Firdaus Alamsjah3, Elidjen4

1
Bina Nusantara University, Jalan Hang Lekir I no. 6, Senayan, Jakarta 10270, Indonesia
2,3,4
School of Business, Bina Nusantara University, Jl. Kebon Jeruk Raya No. 27. Kebon Jeruk Jakarta Barat 11530,
Indonesia

E-mails: 1*[email protected] (corresponding author)

Received 8 January 2019; accepted 29 June 2019; published 30 September 2019

Abstract. The principal objective of the current study is to explore the link between knowledge sharing transformational leadership
style, team performance, and mutual trust. In addition to that moderating role of mutual trust is also examined. The study has broached
the argument that knowledge sharing and transformational leadership style improves team performance. Findings of the current study
suggest creativity is a process that starts in the team through the sharing of knowledge. The currents study is also of the view that the that
the process of creativity starts in the situation when the team members share knowledge through coordination and it is also argued that
the much of the knowledge is shared when team members meet to share knowledge in a given area, much of which is tacit. Sharing such
tacit knowledge creates a flow of novel ideas that contribute to successful outcomes, such as new products, processes and patents. The
findings of the study have shown agreement with the proposed or hypothesize results. The study has used PLS-SEM to analyses the data.
The study will be helpful for policy makers in the researcher in understanding the issues related to supply chain, its integration, flexibility,
and internal performance.

Keywords: knowledge sharing, transformational, leadership

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Mihardjo, L.W.W.; Sasmoko, Alamsjah, F.; Elidjen. 2019. Knowledge sharing and
transformational leadership, Journal of Security and Sustainability Issues 9(1): 333-346. http://doi.org/10.9770/jssi.2019.9.2(25)

JEL Classifications: D8

1. Background

In the current era of globalization, there exists immense competition due to local and international competitors.
For this reason, organizations are forced to adopt activities that are performance oriented and plays a central
role in organizational development. A number of support mechanisms are adopted by organizations to improve
the human resource available to them. These mechanisms were developed at organizational and employee level
in which teams and employees of the organization were given learning opportunities, leadership support and
empowerment as well (Yoon, Song, Lim, & Joo, 2010; Mughal et al., 2019).

There is an increase in the demand for highly skilled labors among the organizations due to increased globalization
and competition. There is an increase in problem solving at the level of the team since the last few years.
Organizations are trying to find different methods by which they can encourage the employees to work in a
team and cooperate with other team members. For the performance, every employee is the basic asset for an
organization. To improve organizational performance, team-based activities should be given importance by the
organization. The team plays a critical role in bridging the relationship between organizational performance
and individual performance (Edmondson, 2002; Setiyawati et al, 2018; Stübinger et al, 2017; Tyagi & Siddiqui,
2017; Giedraitis et al., 2017; Černevičiūtė, Strazdas, 2018; Slávik et al., 2019).
JOURNAL OF SECURITY AND SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES
ISSN 2029-7017 print/ISSN 2029-7025 online

So, the performance of the team is an important indicator of the success of the organization in considering
factors related to the organizational environment and individual environment. The core of a team lies with its
members who play a critical role in organizational performance as these players collaborate with each other
and are also competitors as well. There exist different criteria related to the team formation and working, so
effectivity of the team may vary in different organization. Therefore, general criteria’s and construct related
to the team development and performance are discussed by a number of researchers (Sheikh, Soomro, Magsi,
& Siddiqi).

Teams can be formed based on a large or small number of people. The number of people within the group
depends upon the task to be achieved. When a group is formed, there is a mutual performance objective of the
group, who all are committed to achieve a set goal and work together worth mutual responsibility. Therefore,
the size of the team should be manageable, and there should be a commitment among all the employees of the
group to achieve the mutual objective of the team. On the other hand, all of the team members should be equally
accountable for their actions. It is because the overall performance of the team will be impacted by their indi-
vidual acts (Tabassi, Ramli, Roufechaei, & Tabasi, 2014).

This is the era of knowledge intensive services provided by professionals. The resource provided by the knowl-
edge provides a competitive advantage to the firm. The mechanism of knowledge sharing within the firm plays
a significant role in the performance of the team because of one-to-one interaction among team players. Knowl-
edge provides intellectual direction to the individuals regarding knowing how and knowing what. The factor of
knowledge sharing has played a critical role in attracting a lot of interest because the organization as recognized
knowledge as an important source to improve the performance of teams. Working in the teams is the core issue
being faced by the organization now a days. Moreover, teams are the core structure of the organizations. So it
is very important that team players share their experiences and information (Endres & Rhoad, 2016).

Organizations have to put a lot of effort to develop and form the team within the organization that is high func-
tioning. They have to go through a lot of pains and struggles to form such a team. There are different stages
of team formation which need proper guidance to the leaders to form a team. The stages of formation of team
development are faced by all organization. The difference occurs is in the time of transition of team stages,
which vary in different organizations and teams within the same organization as well. Leadership is the major
factor of the success or failure of the team. The collective success of the team is achieved by the contribution of
every team member. So, there can be a number of reasons for the failure of tea, including the inability of team
members to perform, coordination resulting in collective failure and synchronization among team members
(Zaccaro, Rittman, & Marks, 2001; Unaam et al, 2018; Widhiastuti et al, 2018; Wonyra, 2018). This shows that
a lack of proper guidance and leadership can be a major cause of team failure.

When the teams are being formed, there exists a link among the team members in terms of motivation, profi-
ciencies and personalities. It is expected that the team will perform several complex goals in a short period of
time. It is expected that there will be proper leadership within the team who will communicate and define the
established goals. Moreover, the leader will also outline the goals to be achieved by the team. There are a num-
ber of styles of leadership adopted by organizations to achieve a common goal. Transformational leadership is
one of the most common and discussed styles of leadership. The transformational leaders are the role model of
all the followers and team members who share knowledge and creative ideas so the team can work efficiently
and cooperatively (Choi, Kim, Ullah, & Kang, 2016; Dappa et al., 2019).

The purpose of this paper is to have an empirical examination to evaluate the impact of Knowledge Sharing and
Transformational Leadership on team performance in order to determine that if these most vital human resource
variables have significant influence for development and performance of teams. Also, the study has investigated
that mutual trust among the team members moderates the relationships of knowledge sharing and team perfor-
mance; as well as the association of transformational leadership and team performance.

334
 JOURNAL OF SECURITY AND SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES
ISSN 2029-7017 print/ISSN 2029-7025 online

2. Literature Review

Team Performance

The scholars have found that association among the performance of the team and the factors influencing team
performance are multifaceted. Therefore, they need a rigorous evidence-based investigation to strengthen team
performance. The most important factor discussed in past literature regarding team performance is the informa-
tion sharing among the team members. Researchers pointed out that the base of the group is in the members
of the group and the way they interact with each other. This is basically social interaction among two or more
people (Shin, Kim, Choi, & Lee, 2016).

Team performance is deined the extent to which the predictable goals are achieved by the team and comple-
tion of task in terms of quality. There are a number of factors revealed in the past studies regarding the team
performance including (1) unity among the members of team to achieve a goal (2) the goal of the team to be
homogeneous (3) information sharing and mechanism of communication (2) cohesiveness of the team and
(2) commitment and role identity. Therefore, there is always a chance to improve performance. Generally, the
performance of the team is based on the effectivity of the team work which supports the notion that informa-
tion sharing among the member of the team increase the productivity and performance through interaction
(Mesmer-Magnus & DeChurch, 2009).

Emotional intelligence of the team members is another factor that influences the team performance, and also
it is discussed on a number of occasions by the researchers on the past. Its been reported by a number of
researchers that employee who has pleasant and consistent emotional intelligence will be very crucial for the
performance and cohesion of team (Rapisarda, 2002; Yazici, 2018; Zhang et al, 2017; Obiunu & Rachael,
2018).

There are several characteristics of effective team performance. First of all, the actions of the team members
should be integrated to achieve a goal. Secondly, members of the team are required to perform in dynamic
and complex environments. The third characteristic is the leadership of the team. These leaders are the critical
members of the team who define the goals and objectives of the team. They also assign tasks to the team mem-
bers to achieve these goals (Zaccaro & Klimoski, 2002).

Knowledge Sharing

There is a major difference between knowledge sharing and other terms, like knowledge exchange and knowl-
edge transfer. There is an acquisition of knowledge source with sharing of knowledge source in the knowledge
transfer. Whereas, knowledge sharing Is related to communication but its not the communication. in the strict
sense, it is not possible to share the information, like the good, information or knowledge cannot be shared
freely. Sharing of knowledge is a cognitive subject. Rebuilding the behavior of employees is indispensable to
get knowledge from others. The knowledge used by it is to be acquired, thus sharing the knowledge. The rela-
tion among at least two parties is the sharing knowledge because one of the two parties have the knowledge and
other side acquire the knowledge (Zheng, 2017).

Researchers have defined knowledge sharing as the exchange of knowledge or behavior of the employee, which
helps the other through knowledge (Ipe, 2003). Researchers observed that sharing of knowledge between indi-
viduals is the process that individual with private knowledge understand, absorb and use by other, knowledge
sharing at the individual level has the significant positive outcome on the performance of the organization
including improved capability of the organization, creativity in the work environment, cohesion in the perfor-
mance of team, integration of knowledge and decision satisfaction. This shows that knowledge sharing is the
behavior of the individual in which source of the knowledge does not want to give the ownership of knowledge
(Güver & Motschnig, 2017).

335
JOURNAL OF SECURITY AND SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES
ISSN 2029-7017 print/ISSN 2029-7025 online

Additionally, researchers asserted that sharing of knowledge is a social system that supports integration and
collaboration that is supported by technology in normal circumstances. Researchers also supported the point of
view that technology should be part of knowledge sharing by individuals. Exchanging and creating knowledge
are the activities that are integrated, which cannot be imposed or supervised. Knowledge sharing can only hap-
pen when employees of the organization’s voluntary collaborate with each other. New knowledge is created
due to the exchange of knowledge. this creation of knowledge is important to developa competitive advantage
(Tasmin & Woods, 2007).

Researchers also stated that often, knowledge sharing is unnatural. People, most of the times, think that knowledge
is important and valuable, so they do not share the knowledge. most of the researchers agree that knowledge shar-
ing is at the individual level of the organization. Even in those organization where there are no norms regarding
knowledge sharing, people tend to share information on the basis of their individual benefits. In the end, activi-
ties related to knowledge sharing are important for maximization of revenue and profitability of the organization
(Bock & Kim, 2002). Research study conducted by (Mittal & Dhar, 2015) have examined the moderating impact
of knowledge sharing on the relationship between transformational leadership and creativity of employees. It is
observed that knowledge management significantly moderates the relationship between the both. Masa’deh, Obei-
dat, and Tarhini (2016) have examined the factor of knowledge sharing and its adoption in business organization.
Findings through empirical analysis indicates that both the factors of transformational leadership and transactional
leadership have their significant relationship with the job performance of the employees.

Transformational Leadership

Leaders and leadership fascinate all. Individuals, corporation and nations all are inspired by the leaders. Since
a number of years, academicians, researchers and scholars tried to understand and define the process of leader-
ship. First time Stogdill (1974) pointed out that, there exists as many definitions of leadership as the number
of scholars who have tried to define this concept. Among these definitions and explanations, the concept of
transformational leadership attracted scholars. Most of the studies conducted in the last 20 years regarding
leadership are based on transformational leadership (Judge & Bono, 2000; Nxumalo & Naidoo, 2018).

The descriptive research was involved through which the transformational leadership concept was formulated.
Researchers defined and explained transformational leadership as the process in which followers and leaders
raise each other to a higher level of motivation and morality. The political leaders try to increase the follower’s
consciousness by ideal appealing and moral values like humanitarianism, peace, equality, justice and liberty not
baaed on emotions like hatred, jealousy, greed and fear. There occurs elevation in the followers to their better
selves from everyday selves (Yaghoubi, Mahallati, Moghadam, & Fallah, 2014). Some other studies have also
focused on the similar idea (Dong, Bartol, Zhang, & Li, 2017; Han, Seo, Yoon, & Yoon, 2016).

Researchers have defined transformational leadership in terms of its impact on followers: they feel respect,
loyalty, admiration and trust towards their leader. Moreover, followers are tending to act beyond the expecta-
tions from the. Researchers mentioned that leaders motivate and transform followers by (1) activation of their
higher level of needs (2) induce their own self interest for the betterment of team and organization (3) making
followers more aware of the importance of their individual goals. In transformational leadership, the followers
are motivated by the leaders to improve their performance (Krishnan, 2007).

Components of transformational leadership are identified by the factor studies as laissez faire, manage-
ment by exception, contingent reward, individualized consideration, intellectual stimulation, inspirational
motivation and idealized influence (Erkutlu, 2008). Researchers further categorized these factors into sub
scales (a) individualized consideration, intellectual stimulation, inspirational motivation, idealized influence
as transformational leaders (Avolio & Bass, 1995)(b) management by exceptions and contingent reward as
transactional leadership components and (c) Laissez-Faire is considered as component of non-leadership
(Krishnan, 2007).

336
 JOURNAL OF SECURITY AND SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES
ISSN 2029-7017 print/ISSN 2029-7025 online

Researchers confirmed that the leadership potential of transformational leaders is more than those who are cat-
egorized as transactional leaders by the subordinates of the leaders. The performance appraisal of subordinates
of transformational leaders is much better than those of other categories of leadership. The teams who are led
by the transformational leaders have much better outcomes as well (Geyery & Steyrer, 1998).

Knowledge Sharing and Team Performance

The performance of the team is improved within the team as a result of knowledge sharing. It is because of three
reasons: enhanced creativity, better problem solving and improvement in the decision-making process. The team
members can consider more options due to knowledge sharing. Followers can learn from the experience of other
employees and team members. By this way, knowledge is used within the team in a better way, which leads to an
improvement in the decision-making process (Mahmood, Hussan, Sarfraz, Abdullah, & Basheer, 2016; Hussain,
Sallehuddin, Shamsudin, & Jabarullah, 2018). The problem faced by the organization can easily be solved by the
knowledge sharing because the problem can be better understood, more alternatives to solve the problem can be
explored, and the issues causing the problem can be found out earlier. A number of studies have supported the
argument that team performance is improved by knowledge sharing (Jamshed & Majeed, 2018).

Its been evident from the past empirical studies that knowledge sharing has several benefits for the employees and
employers. Past studies have proven empirically that employee’s performance at the individual level is significantly
impacted by knowledge sharing (Mahmood et al., 2016; Pangil & Moi Chan, 2014). Sharing of knowledge within
the team occurs when employees or team members assist other team members in terms of judgements, expertise,
facts and ideas so new skills can be developed. So, the factor of knowledge sharing is key for the members of the
team to improve their performance. Knowledge sharing within the team shows team members sharing information,
opinion and expertise reading specific problem or task (Cummings, 2004; Le & Lei, 2018; Yang & Farn, 2009).

Transformational Leadership and Team Performance

Leadership at the level of the team is very important for the firm to be successful because more and more firms
are adopting the culture of team-based work. Transformational leaders are confident and optimistic about the
future. Moreover, they express the goals and objectives to the followers. By this way, followers are encour-
aged as they view the vision of the organization to be meaningful. Employees also consider their work as an
important contributor to achieve organizational goals (Elrehail, Emeagwali, Alsaad, & Alzghoul, 2018; Le &
Lei, 2018; Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006).

Transformational leaders encourage intellectual stimulation, recognize the work which is a good one, com-
municate high expectation and provide development opportunities, thus take a keen interest in the followers
(Mahmood et al., 2016). The role of the leaders is very active in providing guidance and direction, supporting
and coordinating the activities to organizations or team members due to which they are able to synergize their
work to achieve the organizational goals (Mahmood et al., 2016; Wang & Howell, 2010).

Transformational leadership has a significant impact on the performance of the team. On the other hand, there
are a number of studies that have found a positive relationship between team performance and leadership initia-
tions. A system is developed, initiated and maintained by the transformational leaders who value performance
and rewards through policies related to people and develop the relationship of high quality with the followers
so the team performance can be enhanced (Wu, Tsui, & Kinicki, 2010).

Mutual Trust

As there exists no definition of trust which is universally accepted, the term trust is referred to as the willing-
ness of one party which rely on the interpersonal relationship of another. Which is, mutual trust is defined as a
psycho-logical state consist of the intention of accepting the vulnerability on the basis of positive expectations
of behavior or intentions of another (Kim, Wang, & Chen, 2018).

337
JOURNAL OF SECURITY AND SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES
ISSN 2029-7017 print/ISSN 2029-7025 online

Researchers have identified two elements of trust: cognitive and effective. Emotional bonds and interpersonal
care are the bases of affective trust between trustee and trustor. On the other hand, belief regarding integrity,
reliability and ability about the trustee is reflected in cognitive trust. Employee performance is significantly
impacted by the cognitive and effective trust (Burke, Sims, Lazzara, & Salas, 2007).

Trust is a very complex relationship among persons. But at the level of teams, this relationship is even more
complex. Loyalty, commitment and communication among the team members is increased due to trust. Trust is
basically the foundation among the team member, which enables them to work together. The team performance
is improved by the trust among the team members, which would lead to an increase in revenue and profitability
of the organizations. Trust is considered as factor that plays crucial among the team members for networks,
startups and teams that are being created. In the current era of modernization, trust among the team members is
considered key because, in the presence of rigid rules, policies of the organization cannot be formed (Hakanen
& Soudunsaari, 2012).

One of the basic units of any organization is its team; it keeps together the insight, experience and skills of a
number of people. Most of the time, the team which is performing very good do not consist of brightest people.
Basically, such teams consist of people who possess diverse knowledge and skills required to be successful.
If the team is built on trust, it will be built on the high level of trust among the employees (Fapohunda, 2013)

Association of Mutual trust with Knowledge Sharing and Leadership

In the past, the relationship between mutual trust and transformational leadership within a team setting has been
widely discussed in studies (Chou, Lin, Chang, & Chuang, 2013; Ryan, 2012). As well the association of mu-
tual trust and knowledge sharing has also been discussed in the literature (Casimir, Lee, & Loon, 2012; Cheng,
Hailin, & Hongming, 2008; Jain, Sandhu, & Goh, 2015; Sankowska, 2013).

In the current study, trust is considered faith in the goodwill and behavior of other’s that can be vanished or
grow due to experience or interaction. Lack of trust among the team members may impact the productivity, em-
powerment, delegation and communication. Trust is very sensitive, that can be lost quickly because of negative
experiences. Researchers have reported four elements of trust building, namely, respect, consistency, openness
and honesty. Without any one of these dimensions, trust can even break or fray (Hakanen & Soudunsaari, 2012).

Research Framework

Based on the previous literature, the following framework of research has been developed (Figure 1):

Mutual
Trust

Knowledge
sharing
Team
performance

Transformational
Leadership

Figure 1. Research framework

338
 JOURNAL OF SECURITY AND SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES
ISSN 2029-7017 print/ISSN 2029-7025 online

The research framework presents the following hypotheses

H1: Knowledge sharing has a significant direct impact on team performance.
H2: Transformational leadership has a significant direct impact on team performance.
H3 Mutual trust has a significant direct impact on team performance.
H4: Mutual trust moderates the relationship between knowledge sharing and team performance.
H5: Mutual trust moderates the relationship between transformational leadership and team performance.

3. Methodology

In order to address the objectives and research questions of the current study, a survey method is used. A
primary research technique is employed taking the questionnaire as a tool for data collection. The structural
equation modeling for analyzing the structural relation is selected. SEM is a combination of multiple regres-
sion and factor analysis and observes the structural relation between the latent and measured constructs as
well as the direct and indirect connection between the constructs. Selection of sample size is an important as-
pect of Structural Equation Modelling. In the process of choosing the appropriate sample size, a sample of 310
is selected for this research. However, in order to avoid response-bias, the sample size has increased to 600.
The overall response rate came out to be 62.5 percent having 435 well addressed questionnaires. Therefore,
keeping in view the research capabilities and objectives, SEM-PLS is employed for analyzing the structural
equation modelling.

In addition, the Statistical Package of Social Sciences (SPSS) is also employed for assembling of data and
for advanced statistical analysis. Initially, the responses obtained through questionnaires are coded into the
software, and statistical analysis is performed through PLS. SEM is an advanced multivariate analysis and
has been broadly used in business research. It involves data analysis of multiple variables observing the direct
and indirect causal relation with simultaneous estimation of separate, multiple, and interdependent regression
equations. The SEM technique is preferable as compared to multiple regression because SEM simultaneously
observes the nature of the association between the multiple variables, whereas multiple regression observes the
relation between these variables separately and independently.

4. Results

Structural Equation Modeling operates for identifying the extent to which the determination of the structural
model is in line with the sample data and how appropriately fits the data. It particularly observes the structure
of relation among the existing observed variables (F. Hair Jr, Sarstedt, Hopkins, & G. Kuppelwieser, 2014; Ha-
feez, Basheer, Rafique, & Siddiqui, 2018). On the other hand, observed variables explain the latent variables as
well as make inferences about them. Where latent variables are the unobserved variables that require more and
more constructs for defining them (Basheer, Siam, Awn, & Hassan, 2019). Furthermore, a maximum likelihood
approach is used for the advanced evaluation of the model. The analysi sis Measurement model, together with
the confirmatory factor analysis, examine the estimates from the CFA (Basheer et al., 2019).

339
JOURNAL OF SECURITY AND SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES
ISSN 2029-7017 print/ISSN 2029-7025 online

Figure 2. Measurement Model

Confirmatory Factor Analysis is also used to assess whether the constructs of both proposed and measured model
show consistent results (see Figure 2, Table 1).

Table 1. Outer Loadings

  KS MT TL TP
KS1 0.896      
KS2 0.912      
KS3 0.898      
KS4 0.894      
MT1   0.932    
MT2   0.916    
MT3   0.926    
MT4   0.877    
TL1     0.899  
TL2     0.891  
TL3     0.918  
TL4     0.872  
TP2       0.910
TP3       0.905
TP4       0.874
TP5       0.885
TP6       0.825
TP7       0.871
TP8       0.851

340
 JOURNAL OF SECURITY AND SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES
ISSN 2029-7017 print/ISSN 2029-7025 online

The coefficient value of 0.80, 0.70, and 0.60 are considered to be good, acceptable, and poor reliability. Accord-
ing to a rule of thumb, a value above 0.50 depicts adequate reliability, and less than 0.50 depicts inadequate
reliability of the constructs (Basheer et al., 2019; Hafeez et al., 2018). However, 0.50-0.60 is a suitable and
acceptable range for the measures of reliability. All the constructs for the present study turned out to be reliable
(Table 2). Based on previous researches, 0.60 is taken as the threshold value for the Cronbach alpha estimate.

Table 2. Reliability Analysis

  Cronbach’s Alpha rho_A Composite Reliability Average Variance Extracted (AVE)

KS 0.866 0.967 0.969 0.68
TS 0.93 0.95 0.96 0.799
MT 0.968 0.949 0.96 0.829
TP 0.867 0.968 0.97 0.667

The goodness of fit indices turned out as TLI= 0.938, PNFT= 0.933, RMSEA= 0.05, and CFI=0.94. The values
of all estimates are within the acceptable levels, explaining the goodness of fit (Hafeez et al., 2018). However,
the SEM-PLS is used for the estimation of the inner model, i.e. determining the composite reliability, discrimi-
nant validity, and factor loadings of the constructs.

Discriminant validity is also obtained for the current study by comparing the item and cross loadings (Table
3). Discriminant validity determines the extent of distinctiveness and visibility of the measures of constructs.
Afterwards, the structural equation model is estimated using a path diagram, which is an effective technique of
measuring the indirect and direct association between the observed constructs (Hafeez et al., 2018). Therefore,
SEM is preferred for this research and for the hypotheses testing.

Table 3. Discriminant Validity

  KS TS MT TP
KS 0.825      
TS 0.827 0.894    
MT 0.815 0.892 0.911  
TP 0.885 0.723 0.730 0.817

Furthermore, the hypothesized structural model is developed for assessing the relation between the latent con-
structs. However, path coefficients are also obtained to observe the association between the variables and to
conclude the proposed hypotheses. After assessing the structural model, the fitness of the model is checked
through the Goodness of Fit test. It determines if the proposed model is appropriate for hypothesis testing
(Hameed, Basheer, Iqbal, Anwar, & Ahmad, 2018). Finally, the measurement model is then converted into
the structural form for identifying the association between exogenous and endogenous constructs. The table 4
shows the findings of direct hypotheses, depicting the significant acceptance of all direct hypotheses.

Table 4. Direct Relations

Standard Deviation T Statistics (|O/

  Original Sample (O) Sample Mean (M) P Values
(STDEV) STDEV|)
H1 0.414 0.416 0.048 3.672 0.001
H2 0.563 0.353 0.068 3.516 0.001
H3 0.652 0.654 0.059 4.912 0.000

The moderation of mutual Trust in the relationship between knowledge sharing, transformational leadership
style, and team performance is shown in table 5.

341
JOURNAL OF SECURITY AND SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES
ISSN 2029-7017 print/ISSN 2029-7025 online

Table 5. Indirect Relations

Standard
Original Sample Sample Mean T Statistics (|O/
  Deviation P Values
(O) (M) STDEV|)
(STDEV)
H4 0.524 0.635 0.078 4.372 0.001
H5 0.474 0.764 0.070 3.239 0.000

Nonetheless, Table 6 shows R2. According to Chin (1998), R2 value above 0.67 considered as substantial, more
than 0.33 considered as moderate, however, value below 0.33 but above 0.19 describe weak determination.

Table 6. R2

Latent Variable Variance Explained (R2)

TP 48.4%

In the current study R2 value is 0.484 which is substantial.

5. Conclusion

The principal objective of the current study is to explore the link between knowledge sharing transformational
leadership style, team performance, and mutual trust. In addition to that moderating role of mutual trust is also
examined. The study has broached the argument that knowledge sharing and transformational leadership style
improves team performance. Findings of the current study suggest creativity is a process that starts in the team
through the sharing of knowledge. The currents study is also of the view that the that the process of creativ-
ity starts in the situation when the team members share knowledge through coordination and it is also argued
that the much of the knowledge is shared when team members meet to share knowledge in a given area, much
of which is tacit. Sharing such tacit knowledge creates a flow of novel ideas that contribute to successful out-
comes, such as new products, processes and patents. The findings of the study have shown agreement with the
proposed or hypothesize results. The study has used PLS-SEM to analyses the data. The study will be helpful
for policy makers in the researcher in understanding the issues related to supply chain, its integration, flexibil-
ity, and internal performance. The findings of the study revealed the fact that, though trust is complicated yet
is a key to team level performance. It is argued that the trust considered as a foundation of working together as
it helps in enhancing social interactions. Trust plays a crucial role when global business teams, startups, and
networks are being created.

References
Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1995). Individual consideration viewed at multiple levels of analysis: A multi-level framework for examin-
ing the diffusion of transformational leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 199-218. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-
9843(95)90035-7

Basheer, M., Siam, M., Awn, A., & Hassan, S. (2019). Exploring the role of TQM and supply chain practices for firm supply perfor-
mance in the presence of information technology capabilities and supply chain technology adoption: A case of textile firms in Pakistan.
Uncertain Supply Chain Management, 7(2), 275-288. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5267/j.uscm.2018.9.001

Bock, G. W., & Kim, Y.-G. (2002). Breaking the myths of rewards: An exploratory study of attitudes about knowledge sharing. Informa-
tion Resources Management Journal (IRMJ), 15(2), 14-21. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4018/irmj.2002040102

Burke, C. S., Sims, D. E., Lazzara, E. H., & Salas, E. (2007). Trust in leadership: A multi-level review and integration. The Leadership
Quarterly, 18(6), 606-632. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.09.006

Casimir, G., Lee, K., & Loon, M. (2012). Knowledge sharing: influences of trust, commitment and cost. Journal of Knowledge Manage-
ment, 16(5), 740-753. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/13673271211262781

Černevičiūtė, J., Strazdas, R. (2018). Teamwork management in Creative industries: factors influencing productivity. Entrepreneurship
and Sustainability Issues, 6(2), 503-516. http://doi.org/10.9770/jesi.2018.6.2(3)

342
 JOURNAL OF SECURITY AND SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES
ISSN 2029-7017 print/ISSN 2029-7025 online

Cheng, W., Hailin, L., & Hongming, X. (2008). Does knowledge sharing mediate the relationship between trust and firm performance?
Paper presented at the 2008 International Symposiums on Information Processing.

Choi, S. B., Kim, K., Ullah, S. E., & Kang, S.-W. (2016). How transformational leadership facilitates innovative behavior of Korean
workers: Examining mediating and moderating processes. Personnel Review, 45(3), 459-479. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/pr-
03-2014-0058

Chou, H.-W., Lin, Y.-H., Chang, H.-H., & Chuang, W.-W. (2013). Transformational leadership and team performance: The mediating roles
of cognitive trust and collective efficacy. Sage Open, 3(3), 2158244013497027. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244013497027

Cummings, J. N. (2004). Work groups, structural diversity, and knowledge sharing in a global organization. Management science, 50(3),
352-364. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1030.0134

Dappa, K., Bhatti, F., & Aljarah, A. (2019). A study on the effect of transformational leadership on job satisfaction: The role of gender,
perceived organizational politics and perceived organizational commitment. Management Science Letters, 9(6), 823-834. http://dx.doi.
org/10.5267/j.msl.2019.3.006

Dong, Y., Bartol, K. M., Zhang, Z. X., & Li, C. (2017). Enhancing employee creativity via individual skill development and team knowl-
edge sharing: Influences of dual‐focused transformational leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(3), 439-458. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2134

Edmondson, A. C. (2002). The local and variegated nature of learning in organizations: A group-level perspective. Organization science,
13(2), 128-146. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.2.128.530

Elrehail, H., Emeagwali, O. L., Alsaad, A., & Alzghoul, A. (2018). The impact of transformational and authentic leadership on innova-
tion in higher education: the contingent role of knowledge sharing. Telematics and Informatics, 35(1), 55-67. Available at: https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.09.018

Endres, M. L., & Rhoad, K. T. (2016). What makes a high performer share knowledge? Team Performance Management, 22(5/6), 269-
283. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/tpm-05-2016-0022

Erkutlu, H. (2008). The impact of transformational leadership on organizational and leadership effectiveness: The Turkish case. Journal
of management development, 27(7), 708-726. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710810883616

Fapohunda, T. M. (2013). Towards effective team building in the workplace. International Journal of Education and Research, 1(4),
1-12.

Geyery, A. L., & Steyrer, J. M. (1998). Transformational leadership and objective performance in banks. Applied Psychology, 47(3),
397-420. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/026999498377917

Giedraitis, A., Stašys, R., Skirpstaitė, R. (2017). Development possibilities of the management team within a production company.
Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, 5(2), 212-222. http://doi.org/10.9770/jesi.2017.5.2(4)

Güver, S., & Motschnig, R. (2017). Effects of Diversity in Teams and Workgroups: A Qualitative Systematic Review. International
Journal of Business, Humanities and Technology, 7(2), 1-29.

Hafeez, M. H., Basheer, M. F., Rafique, M., & Siddiqui, S. H. (2018). Exploring the Links between TQM Practices, Business Innova-
tiveness and Firm Performance: An Emerging Market Perspective. Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences (PJSS), 38(2).

Hair, Jr, J., Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L., & Kuppelwieser, V. (2014). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) An
emerging tool in business research. European Business Review, 26(2), 106-121. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/ebr-10-2013-0128

Hakanen, M., & Soudunsaari, A. (2012). Building trust in high-performing teams. Technology Innovation Management Review, 2(6).

Hameed, W. U., Basheer, M. F., Iqbal, J., Anwar, A., & Ahmad, H. K. (2018). Determinants of Firm’s open innovation performance and
the role of R & D department: an empirical evidence from Malaysian SME’s. Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, 8(1), 29.
Available at: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40497-018-0112-8

Han, S. H., Seo, G., Yoon, S. W., & Yoon, D.-Y. (2016). Transformational leadership and knowledge sharing: Mediating roles of em-
ployee’s empowerment, commitment, and citizenship behaviors. Journal of Workplace Learning, 28(3), 130-149. Available at: https://
doi.org/10.1108/jwl-09-2015-0066

Hussain, H.I., Sallehuddin, S., Shamsudin, M.F. & Jabarullah, N.H. (2018) Debt Maturity Structure and Shari’ah Compliance: Evidence
from Malaysia, European Research Studies Journal, 21 (1), 179–189.

343
JOURNAL OF SECURITY AND SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES
ISSN 2029-7017 print/ISSN 2029-7025 online

Ipe, M. (2003). Knowledge sharing in organizations: A conceptual framework. Human Resource Development Review, 2(4), 337-359.
Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484303257985

Jain, K. K., Sandhu, M. S., & Goh, S. K. (2015). Organizational climate, trust and knowledge sharing: insights from Malaysia. Journal
of Asia Business Studies, 9(1), 54-77. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/jabs-07-2013-0040

Jamshed, S., & Majeed, N. (2018). THE EFFECT OF KNOWLEDGE SHARING ON TEAM PERFORMANCE THROUGH LENS OF
TEAM CULTURE. Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review (Oman Chapter), 7(2), 64-80.

Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2000). Five-factor model of personality and transformational leadership. Journal of applied psychology,
85(5), 751. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.5.751

Kim, T.-Y., Wang, J., & Chen, J. (2018). Mutual trust between leader and subordinate and employee outcomes. Journal of Business Eth-
ics, 149(4), 945-958. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3093-y

Krishnan, V. R. (2007). Effect of transformational leadership and leader’s power on follower’s duty-orientation and spirituality. Great
Lakes Herald, 1(2), 48-70.

Le, P. B., & Lei, H. (2018). The mediating role of trust in stimulating the relationship between transformational leadership and knowl-
edge sharing processes. Journal of Knowledge Management, 22(3), 521-537. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/jkm-10-2016-0463

Mahmood, A., Hussan, S. G., Sarfraz, M., Abdullah, M. I., & Basheer, M. F. (2016). Rewards satisfaction, perception about social status
and commitment of nurses in Pakistan. European Online Journal of Natural and Social Sciences, 5(4), pp. 1049-1061.

Masa’deh, R. e., Obeidat, B. Y., & Tarhini, A. (2016). A Jordanian empirical study of the associations among transformational leader-
ship, transactional leadership, knowledge sharing, job performance, and firm performance: A structural equation modelling approach.
Journal of Management Development, 35(5), 681-705. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/jmd-09-2015-0134

Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & DeChurch, L. A. (2009). Information sharing and team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of applied
psychology, 94(2), 535. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013773

Mittal, S., & Dhar, R. L. (2015). Transformational leadership and employee creativity: mediating role of creative self-efficacy and
moderating role of knowledge sharing. Management Decision, 53(5), 894-910. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/md-07-2014-0464

Mughal, M., Bahaudin, A., & Salleh, N. (2019). Behavioral factors for IT project success in Pakistan: Moderating effect of leadership
styles. Management Science Letters, 9(7), 987-996. http://dx.doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2019.4.006

Nxumalo, N. L., & Naidoo, L. D. (2018). A Case Study of Local Government Implementation of the Ward Based Local Economic De-
velopment (LED) Program. International Journal of Public Policy and Administration Research, 5(1), 1-23.

Obiunu, J. J., & Rachael, O. (2018). Home Background, Peer Group Pressure and Truancy among Secondary School Adolescent Stu-
dents in Edo State, Nigeria. International Journal of Emerging Trends in Social Sciences, 3(1), 46-51.

Pangil, F., & Moi Chan, J. (2014). The mediating effect of knowledge sharing on the relationship between trust and virtual team effec-
tiveness. Journal of Knowledge Management, 18(1), 92-106. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/jkm-09-2013-0341

Piccolo, R. F., & Colquitt, J. A. (2006). Transformational leadership and job behaviors: The mediating role of core job characteristics.
Academy of Management journal, 49(2), 327-340. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.20786079

Rapisarda, B. A. (2002). The impact of emotional intelligence on work team cohesiveness and performance. The International Journal
of Organizational Analysis, 10(4), 363-379. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/eb028958

Ryan, S. (2012). The relationship between shared vision, cohesion, role clarity, mutual trust and transformational leadership within a
team setting. Stellenbosch: Stellenbosch University.

Sankowska, A. (2013). Relationships between organizational trust, knowledge transfer, knowledge creation, and firm’s innovativeness.
The Learning Organization, 20(1), 85-100. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/09696471311288546

Sheikh, H., Soomro, A. H., Magsi, A., & Siddiqi, H. Research Issues in Social Sciences.

Shin, Y., Kim, M., Choi, J. N., & Lee, S.-H. (2016). Does team culture matter? Roles of team culture and collective regula-
tory focus in team task and creative performance. Group & Organization Management, 41(2), 232-265. Available at: https://doi.
org/10.1177/1059601115584998

Setiyawati, H., Iskandar, D., & Basar, Y. S. (2018). The Quality of Financial Reporting through Increasing the Competence of Internal

344
 JOURNAL OF SECURITY AND SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES
ISSN 2029-7017 print/ISSN 2029-7025 online

Accountants and Accrual Basis. International Journal of Economics, Business and Management Studies, 5(1), 31-40.

Slávik, Š., Hagarová, R., Ljudvigová, I., Zagoršek, B. (2019). Business model and team as preconditions of a start-up viability. Entre-
preneurship and Sustainability Issues, 6(3), 1204-1227. http://doi.org/10.9770/jesi.2019.6.3(25)

Stübinger, J., Walter, D., & Knoll, J. (2017). Financial market predictions with Factorization Machines: Trading the opening hour based
on overnight social media data (No. 19/2017). FAU Discussion Papers in Economics.

Tabassi, A. A., Ramli, M., Roufechaei, K. M., & Tabasi, A. A. (2014). Team development and performance in construction design teams:
an assessment of a hierarchical model with mediating effect of compensation. Construction Management and Economics, 32(9), 932-
949. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2014.935739

Tasmin, R., & Woods, P. (2007). Relationship between corporate knowledge management and the firm’s innovation capability. Interna-
tional Journal of Services Technology and Management, 8(1), 62-79. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1504/ijstm.2007.012219

Tyagi, S., & Siddiqui, S. (2017). Yield Curve and Momentum Effects in Monthly US Equity Returns: Some Nonparametric Evidence.
Asian Journal of Economics and Empirical Research, 4(2), 61-67.

Unaam, A. O., Adim, C. V., & Adubasim, E. I. (2018). Employee Loyalty and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour in the Port Harcourt
Area Command of the Nigeria Police Force. International Journal of Business, Economics and Management, 5(6), 135-145.

Wang, X.-H. F., & Howell, J. M. (2010). Exploring the dual-level effects of transformational leadership on followers. Journal of applied
psychology, 95(6), 1134. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020754

Widhiastuti, S., Murwaningsari, E., & Mayangsari, S. (2018). The effect of business intelligence and intellectuals capital of company
value moderated by management of profit riil. Journal of Accounting, Business and Finance Research, 2(2), 64-78.

Wonyra, K. O. (2018). Impact of Telecommunications Market Liberalization on Labor Productivity in Economic Community of West
African States. Journal of Social Economics Research, 5(2), 63-74.

Wu, J. B., Tsui, A. S., & Kinicki, A. J. (2010). Consequences of differentiated leadership in groups. Academy of Management journal,
53(1), 90-106. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.48037079

Yaghoubi, H., Mahallati, T., Moghadam, A. S., & Fallah, M. A. (2014). Transformational leadership: Enabling factor of knowledge
management practices. J. Mgmt. & Sustainability, 4, 165. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5539/jms.v4n3p165

Yang, S.-C., & Farn, C.-K. (2009). Social capital, behavioural control, and tacit knowledge sharing—A multi-informant design. Interna-
tional Journal of Information Management, 29(3), 210-218. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2008.09.002

Yoon, S. W., Song, J. H., Lim, D. H., & Joo, B.-K. (2010). Structural determinants of team performance: the mutual influences of learn-
ing culture, creativity, and knowledge. Human Resource Development International, 13(3), 249-264. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1
080/13678868.2010.483815

Yazici, O. (2018). Erosion Surfaces of the Land between Iznik-Mekece (Turkey). International Journal of Geography and Geology, 7(1),
1-13.

Zaccaro, S. J., & Klimoski, R. (2002). The interface of leadership and team processes: Sage Publications Sage CA: Thousand Oaks, CA.

Zaccaro, S. J., Rittman, A. L., & Marks, M. A. (2001). Team leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 12(4), 451-483.

Zhang, K., Ji, C., & Ren, H. (2017). Improving Economic Benefits through Coal Products Optimization in a Given Group. International
Journal of Economics, Business and Management Studies, 4(1), 57-64.

Zheng, T. (2017). A literature review on knowledge sharing. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 5(1), 51-58.

345
JOURNAL OF SECURITY AND SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES
ISSN 2029-7017 print/ISSN 2029-7025 online

Leonardus W Wasono MIHARDJO is a Doctor candidate in Management at Bina Nusantara University, West Jakarta, Indonesia.
His research has attracted funding award from Indonesia Ministry of research and higher education in 2019, as well as awarded as best
paper in Malaysian conference 2018. Currently, he is a director of Financial and Business Partner at PT Telekomunikasi Indonesia In-
ternational (Telin) focus on financial and development of Human capital. He is also chairman of PT Telin Australia and Board member
of Telin Singapore. He has more than 20 years in Telecommunication Industry. His research interest includes digital transformation,
business model innovation, financial system, digital leadership and strategic management
ORCID ID: .org/0000-0002-3820-4960

SASMOKO is a Professor of Research Methods of Faculty of Humanities at Bina Nusantara University, Jakarta. He is currently work-
ing at the RIG-Education Technology, Binus University. Their most recent publication is ‘Applying Indonesian teacher engagement
index (ITEI) apps: Self-diagnostic apps for teachers in Indonesia’, including the use of Artificial Intelligent for education and social
Science. His researches have attracted funding award from Indonesia Ministry of research and higher education and also from Bina
Nusantara university. His research interest includes teaching methods, teacher education and educational assessment, including the use
of Technology for Education
ORCID ID: org/0000-0001-9219-9237

Firdaus ALAMSJAH is currently the Executive Dean and Provost of the Bina Nusantara Business School, where he also serves as
a faculty member. He is a managing partner at Binus Consulting and Training. He has more than 20 years of extensive experience is
in consulting, training, and teaching, which complements his research interests in strategy execution, supply-chain management and
business process management He earned his PhD in Industrial Engineering and his MSIE from the University of Houston, USA. His
Bachelor in Mechanical Engineering was completed at ITB.

ELIDJEN is an Associate Professor of Computer Science at Bina Nusantara University. He obtained his Doctoral in Management from
Bina Nusantara University. He has research background in computer science and more than 20 years extensive experience in Teaching
and research. He has appointed as head of Binus corporation management focus on development knowledge management and innova-
tion, including the use of artificial intelligent for social science. His research interest includes knowledge management, organization
learning innovation, computer engineering and software engineering. He was graduated PhD in Strategic growth from Bina Nusantara
University, and M. InfoCommTech from University of Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia.

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY).
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

346