Mediating Influence of Knowledge Sharing Behaviour of Pharmaceutical Leaders on the Relationship between Cultural Intelligence Dimensions and Leadership Effectiveness

Mediating Influence of Knowledge Sharing Behaviour of Pharmaceutical Leaders on the Relationship between Cultural Intelligence Dimensions and Leadership Effectiveness

Zubair Hassan¹ , Zabeda Abdul Hamid²

¹Islamic University of Maldives

²International Islamic University of Malaysia

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.905000264

Received: 28 April 2025; Accepted: 07 May 2025; Published: 10 June 2025

ABSTRACT

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to examine the influence of cultural intelligence on leadership effectiveness through knowledge sharing behaviour of pharmaceutical leaders, particularly in Malaysia.

Methodology: This study was conducted among the pharmaceutical leaders, who are from nine (9) pharmaceutical companies located in Klang Valley in Malaysia. A questionnaire with 53 items with a Likert scale was distributed among the target populations of pharmaceutical leaders. Data was collected from an effective sample size of 502 respondents.  The collected data was analysed using SEM-SMART-PLS via SMART-PLS 3.0.

Findings: The study found that knowledge sharing behaviour has significantly positive mediating influence on the relationship between all the dimensions of cultural intelligence and leadership effectiveness, except behavioural cultural intelligence and leadership effectiveness.  Furthermore, the finding indicated that knowledge sharing behaviour is a full mediator between cognitive cultural intelligence and leadership effectiveness, while acts as partial mediator between metacognitive and leadership effectiveness as well as motivational cultural intelligence and leadership effectiveness. Moreover, the study found that metacognitive, cognitive and motivational cultural intelligence has significantly positive influence on knowledge sharing behaviour, while metacognitive and motivational cultural intelligence has significantly positive influence on leadership effectiveness.  In addition, knowledge sharing behaviour has significantly positive influence on leadership effectiveness.

Implications for theory and practice: This study has contributed to establish the link between cultural intelligence and leadership effectiveness through knowledge sharing behaviour. Also, this study contributed to establish the relevance of cultural intelligence in predicting leadership effectiveness and knowledge sharing behaviour among the pharmaceutical leaders. Therefore, managers should focus on developing and designing effective training programs to cultivate and build capacity among the leaders through cultural intelligence to improve leadership effectiveness.

Originality and value: The novelty of this research is that this research was carried out among the pharmaceutical leaders in Malaysia as first empirical research that examined the influence of mediating effect of knowledge sharing behaviour among the relationship between cultural intelligence and leadership effectiveness.   This research contributed to close the research gap by establishing the fact that only metacognitive and cognitive cultural intelligence influences leadership effectiveness.

Keywords: Leadership effectiveness, knowledge sharing behaviour, cultural intelligence, pharmaceutical leaders,

INTRODUCTION

Due to organisations’ intense global competition, leaders are expected to be highly productive and make fast decisions, be committed, and motivated to face the challenges of constant changes occurring in the internal and external environments (Owens & Hekman, 2015), to compete effectively, cultural intelligence must be improved to enhance the memory and knowledge base to avoid making mistakes during decision-making at various locations of the world (Stoermer, Davies & Froese, 2021).  Cultural intelligence is considered an important factor that could improve knowledge sharing and dissemination to improve leadership effectiveness in today’s global business environment (Presbitero, 2021; Stoermer et al., 2021). Cultural diversity creates more challenges for global leadership effectiveness when host nations resist and hold their cultural values and norms (Ahmad & Saidalavi, 2019; Elia, Petruzzelli & Piscitello, 2019). Today, urbanization and globalization continuously draw people with various cultural and traditional backgrounds to come together and function socially in organisations (Spooner, 2015; Paulus, van der Zee & Kenworthy, 2016; Misoc, 2017).  In improving the leadership effectiveness in such organisations, leaders have to be able to build trust between themselves and other people (Pieterse, 2019; Kouzes & Posner, 2019).

To improve leadership effectiveness, organisations must emphasise the leaders to act and express appropriately during their interactions with followers of different cultures (Kouzes & Posner, 2019; Ang, Ng & Rockstuhl, 2020). The extant literature shows that CQ enables leaders to be more effective and far better when performing within culturally heterogeneous environments (Livermore & Ang, 2016; Ang et al, 2020). Literature on Malaysian context indicated that culturally intelligent leaders were found to be more effective in decision making, adjusting themselves to the various new settings and applies their knowledge to increase the performance of employees (Basit, Sethumadavan & Hassan, 2020).  Also, literature on CQ and leadership effectiveness in Malaysian context showed that leaders who can adjust to various cultural setting become more effective in building trust and confidence of the subordinates and peers (Sambasivan, Sadoughi & Esmaeilzadeh, 2017). In this way, leaders gain trust of the workforce and enhance leadership effectiveness (Theriou, Chatzoudes & Diaz Moya, 2020). Similarly, studies done in Malaysian pharmaceutical context indicated that culturally heterogenous environment enable leadership effectiveness (Fazal, 2013; Javidan, Waldman & Wang, 2021) in terms of building trust, effective teamwork and improving overall performance of the leaders (Haider, Nisar, Baig & Azeem, 2018).   In Malaysian context, a study found that motivational and behavioral cultural intelligence has a significant and positive impact on the leadership effectiveness outcomes (Hassan, Basit & Sethumadevan, 2020). Another study indicated that the degree of understanding the international cultural setting among the pharmaceutical leaders enhances their performance in terms of negotiation (Kawaguchi-Suzuki, Hogue, Khanfar et al., 2019; Rezaei-Zadeh, Hackney & Zeng, 2022), team effectiveness (performance) and decision making (Kawaguchi-Suzuki et al., 2019; Charoensukmongkol & Pandey, 2021) in Malaysian context.  Moreover, it was indicated that leadership effectiveness is enhanced when leaders are able to adjust or change the way they work based on the new cultural setting in Malaysian context (Sharabati, 2023). Overall, the inter-cultural setting in Malaysia enhances leadership commitment to gain competitive advantage via ethical leadership practices (Sharabati, 2023).

However, the literature on leadership effectiveness in pharmaceutical sector is under-researched and little is known about the global and Malaysia’s status of pharmaceutical leaders (Bader & Bates, 2017). Also, leadership development in terms of enhancing leadership effectiveness remains a challenge, and concerted action is required to drive evidence-generation in this area (Bader & Bates, 2017). Furthermore, the research done on Malaysian context are few and the existing research carried out in Malaysia which were emphasized on CQ dimensions links with various organizational and leadership outcomes such as (Sambasivan et al., 2017; Hu, Liu, Zhang, & Wang, 2020), job performance and/or job adjustment (Sambasivan et al, 2017; Nam & Park, 2019), task and contextual performance (Hartini, Fakhrorazi & Islam, 2019) as well as sales performance (Hassan et al., 2020).

The inconsistent findings on the topic were evident across the literature available across the world. The available literature on linking CQ and LE suggested that the past literature lacks strong empirical evidence to establish the link between four CQ dimensions and leadership effectiveness (Bader & Bates, 2017; Rahman, Kabir, Haque & Rahamad, 2022). Moreover, the measurement of leadership effectiveness lacks clarity and agreement as outcomes of CQ among the scholars as well as inconclusive findings and methodological rigour demands further research in the field.  Finally, this needs to be rigorously tested to establish the conceptual framework to establish a statistically significant relationship between CQ and leadership effectiveness (Osman-Gani & Hassan, 2018; Basit et al., 2020; Hassan et al., 2020).

In terms of knowledge sharing behaviour among the leaders, several studies have attempted to establish the determinants of leadership effectiveness using knowledge sharing behaviour. Some of the studies which emphasizes on examining the influence of knowledge sharing behaviour on leadership effectiveness include team knowledge sharing behaviour determines the leadership effectiveness (Alsharo, Gregg & Ramirez, 2017: Lin & Huang, 2020).  Many other studies have established the link between knowledge sharing behaviour and leadership effectiveness in terms of creative ideas and new knowledge (Goh, Jayaraman, Mostafiz & Leow, 2020; Derin, Toker & Gorener, 2021; Harb, Zahrawi, Shehabat & Zhang, 2021). In case of Malaysia’s pharmaceutical sector, the influence of KSB of pharmaceutical leaders’ leadership effectiveness in terms of creativity, innovation, decision-making, and effective teamwork or high performance are not clearly established (Nair & Munusami, 2020; Rasdi & Tangaraja, 2022). Despite the acknowledged importance of knowledge sharing, many employees and leaders avoid engaging in KSB at the individual level (Shamim, Cang & Yu, 2019). This avoidance of KSB among the leaders often causes the loss of the intellectual capital due to employee turnover (Shamim et al., 2019). Therefore, this study has emphasized examining the influence of cultural intelligence on leadership effectiveness through knowledge sharing behaviour.  This means the mediation influence of KSB on the causal influence of CQ on leadership effectiveness has been examined.  To contribute to the exiting literature, the following research objectives are being formulated:

• Influence of cultural intelligence on pharmaceutical leadership effectiveness
• Influence of knowledge sharing behaviour on leadership effectiveness
• Mediation influence of knowledge sharing behaviour on the causal influence of cultural intelligence on leadership effectiveness

This paper is organized as follows: the first section is an introduction followed by literature review. Then the research methods and procedures are discussed followed by findings. Finally, the overall conclusion, recommendations, implication of the research as well the significance of the research are discussed.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Leadership Effectiveness

The word “leadership”, which origins from an ancient Greek word, can be modestly defined as a “path maker” (Spooner, 2015).  Leadership is the capability to influence, motivate, and empower others moving towards the effectiveness and success of an organization (Tang, Chen, van Knippenberg & Yu, 2020; Mutonyi, Slåtten & Lien, 2020). On the other hand, leadership effectiveness was defined as attainment of desired goals through a process of interaction and dialogue with the subordinates and colleagues to make them agree to achieve the goals (Singh, Mazzucchelli, Vessal & Solidoro, 2021). Alternatively, leadership effectiveness was defined as achieving shared objectives by influencing one or many individuals to accomplish the desired goals (Sims, Carter & De Peralta, 2021).  Also, leadership effectiveness was defined as accomplishment of shared objectives through willingness of individuals (Singh et al., 2021). Furthermore, leadership effectiveness is the use of appropriate leadership style in a given situation (Kwiotkowska, Wolniak, Gajdzik & Gębczyńska, 2022). Moreover, leadership effectiveness was theorised with five exemplary practices of leadership mainly derived from transformational leadership, which includes challenge the process, inspire a shared vision, enable others to act, model the way, and encourage the heart.   Ajanaku and Lubbe (2021), Basit et al (2020) as well Osman-Gani and Hassan (2018) have proposed the revised leadership effectiveness model which was originally developed by Kouzes and Posner (1995) and was considered as one of the most relevant and appropriate leadership effectiveness models (Hassan & Hamid, 2023).

Cultural Intelligence

Cultural intelligence (CQ) is a collection of intellectual, inspirational and behavioural abilities (Idrus, 2021). Also, it was reported that CQ is unique and different from other intelligences as emotional and other intelligences are culture constrained (Akpan & Inyang, 2022). One of the key definitions of CQ is ‘an individual’s capability to function and manage effectively in culturally diverse settings’ (Ang, Van Dyne, Koh, Ng, Templer, Tay & Chandrasekar, 2007, p.337). Also, CQ is defined as ‘ability to adapt effectively to new cultural settings’ (Ng & Earley, 2006, p.7). Alternatively, CQ is referred to as ‘individual’s capability to detect, assimilate, reason, and act on cultural cues appropriately in situations characterized by cultural diversity’ (Earley & Ang, 2003, p.297). Similarly, CQ was defined as awareness and motivation to provide rooms for cultural adaptation and adjustments where necessary (Akpan & Inyang, 2022).

Knowledge Sharing Behaviour

Knowledge Sharing Behaviour (KSB) is ‘organization member’s perceived tendency and predisposition to share their knowledge and expertise with their co-workers’ (Dalati & Alchach, 2018, p.194).  For an organization, KSB is about capturing, organizing, reusing, and transferring experience-based knowledge that resides within the organization between and among employees (Lakshmanan & Latha, 2018; Iftikhar & Ahola, 2020). This means that knowledge sharing is the process of exchanging knowledge between people, community, organization or groups (Mahmood et al., 2016; Ganguly, Talukdar & Chatterjee, 2019). KSB can be communicated from leaders to subordinates, or subordinates to subordinates, and knowledge sharing can exist in groups (Intezari et al., 2017). Therefore, knowledge sharing behaviour is an activity when knowledge is exchanged between two or more people.

Underlying Theories

There are three key theories employed in this study to underpin the theoretical or conceptual framework for this study.  The three (3) theories are (1) Cultural Intelligence Model of Ang et al., (2007), (2) Knowledge Sharing Behaviour elements of Dalati and Alchach (2018), and (3) Leadership Effectiveness practices of Kouzes and Posner (1995).

Leadership effectiveness is measured using the model developed by Kouzes and Posner (1995). The construct of Kouzes and Posner’s (1995) leadership model is grounded on their five-year extensive research involving thousands of high-performing leaders and their followers (Kouzes & Posner, 2016; 2017; 2019). Many researchers have well received this model as truly representing the highly effective leadership practice (Koohang, Paliszkiewicz & Goluchowski, 2017; Osman-Gani & Hassan, 2018; Basit et al., 2020). The five practice Exemplary Leadership indicators (LPI) provides a framework for the development of a reliable and validated instrument to measure leadership effectiveness (Posner, 2016; Kouzes & Posner, 2016; 2017; 2019). The Kouzes and Posner’s leadership practices suggest that even though the five components are dependent, they are intertwined to yield a performance that is beyond expectations (Ajanaku & Lubbe, 2021). The leadership effectiveness was measured using Kouzes and Posner’s exemplary leadership practices by Salleh and Khalid (2018). The study indicated that ‘Enable Others to Act’ was the most effective practiced with the highest mean score, and the second highest was ‘Challenge the Process’, the third highest was ‘Encourages the Heart’ followed by ‘Inspired a Shared Vision’ (Salleh & Khalid, 2018). Another study has measured leadership effectiveness of principals using Kouzes and Posner’s (1995) leadership practices and found that leadership practices were moderately exhibited by them (Bakhsh, Abbas & Iqbal, 2020). Yet another study examines the influence of humour and honesty on leadership effectiveness, where leadership effectiveness was measured using Kouzes and Posner’s LPI (Bakhsh, Rasool & Azim, 2019). Their study indicated that humour and honesty has significantly positive influence on leadership effectiveness (Bakhsh et al., 2019).

In terms of Cultural Intelligence Framework, the cultural intelligence of Earley and Ang (2003) was studied in association with leadership effectiveness by many scholars in the past (Stephanou & Mpiontini, 2017; Hartini, Yaakub, Abdul-Talib & Saud, 2017; Osman-Gani & Hassan, 2018., Ali, Ali, Leal-Rodríguez, & Albort-Morant, 2019; Hartini et al., 2019; Nosratabadi, Bahrami, Palouzian & Mosavi, 2020). The four cultural intelligence elements such as metacognitive, cognitive, motivational and behavioural cultural intelligence were studied and have established its causal influence on leadership effectiveness (Hartini et al., 2019; Ahmad & Saidalavi, 2019; Nosratabadi et al., 2020; Velarde, Ghani, Adams & Cheah, 2020).

In terms of knowledge sharing behaviour, many studies in the past have examined the relationship between KSB and leadership effectiveness (Song, Park & Kang, 2015; Obeidat & Tarhini, 2016; Hussain, Abbas, Lei, Haider & Akram, 2017). KSB was examined by other studies as well to establish the link between KSB and leadership effectiveness (Lei & Le, 2019; Lin & Huang, 2020; Derin et al., 2021). Past research has indicated that knowledge sharing behaviour significantly predicted leadership effectiveness in terms of team performance (Alsharo et al., 2017; Lin & Huang, 2020).  Research found that leader supportive behaviours are directly and indirectly related to employee creative problem-solving capacity through internal and external knowledge sharing (Tasneem & Quresh, 2020). Knowledge sharing could also stimulate individual creativity (Lei & Le, 2019; Derin et al., 2021).  This means KSB is a key concept that determines leadership effectiveness.

Conceptual Framework

Figure 1: Conceptual Framework

The four dimensions of CQ are metacognitive CQ, cognitive CQ, motivational CQ, and behavioural CQ. Similarly, KSB mediates the causal relationship between CQ dimensions and leadership effectiveness.

Mediating effect of metacognitive CQ and leadership effectiveness

Metacognitive intelligence refers to “awareness and control of cognition used to acquire and understand information” (Ng, Van Dyne & Ang, 2009, p.514). It was found that metacognitive CQ positively affects the global leader’s effectiveness (Rockstuhl, Seiler, Ang, Van Dyne & Annen, 2011; Guang & Charoensukmongkol, 2020). Also, it was found that metacognitive CQ has a significant direct influence on knowledge sharing behaviour (KSB) of leaders (Presbitero & Attar, 2018). This means those leaders with high metacognitive CQ are more willing to engage in KSB (Ratasuk & Charoensukmongkol, 2020). Furthermore, it was found that KSB mediated the relationship between metacognitive CQ and innovation performance of leaders (Berraies, 2019).  Similarly, it was found that KSB has mediated the relationship between metacognitive CQ and leadership effectiveness in terms of successful idea implementation (Bogilović & Škerlavaj, 2016). In addition to this, it was found that metacognitive CQ allowed leaders, especially middle level leaders to enhance their capacity to absorb new information, knowledge of new ideas leading to leadership effectiveness (Chua, Morris & Mor, 2012). Therefore, the following hypotheses are formulated:

H1: Knowledge sharing behaviour (KSB) has a positive and significant mediating influence on the relationship of metacognitive CQ and leadership effectiveness.

Mediating effect of cognitive CQ and leadership effectiveness

Cognitive CQ means knowledge and how leaders’ structure that knowledge to make effective decisions (Ng et al., 2009; Stoermer et al., 2021). It was found that cognitive CQ positively influences leadership effectiveness (Nosratabadi et al., 2020). Cognitive CQ was found to significantly influence knowledge sharing behaviour among the leaders (Berraies, 2019).  Lack of cognitive CQ may lead to knowledge hinderance and conflict between employees among multi-ethnic group (Bogilović, Černe & Škerlavaj, 2017) making it more challenging to achieve leadership effectiveness in terms of innovation (Afsar, Shahjehan, Shah & Wajid, 2019). Therefore, pharmaceutical leaders require high cognitive CQ to engage with KSB to integrate knowledge from diverse cultural or multi-ethnic groups effectively (Korzilius, Bücker & Beerlage, 2017). Subsequently, influence of KSB successfully mediates the relationship between cognitive CQ and leadership effectives by promoting and implementing novel and innovative thoughts of leaders (Wang, Yang & Xue, 2017). Therefore, the following hypothesis is formulated:

H2: Knowledge sharing behaviour (KSB) has a positive and significant mediating influence on the relationship of cognitive CQ and leadership effectiveness.

Mediating effect of motivational CQ and leadership effectiveness

Motivational CQ includes intrinsic interest, extrinsic interest and self-efficacy (Ang et al., 2020). Also, motivational CQ is a strong determinant of global leadership effectiveness (Ahmad & Saidalavi, 2019). The motivational CQ of leaders enables them to engage in a greater degree of KSB (Jyoti, Pereira & Kour, 2019). Past research has shown that motivational CQ tends to influence a leader’s intention to engage in KSB (Berraies, 2019). By knowledge sharing behaviour, people can get high-quality knowledge and information, and combine them with their knowledge, which would finally result in creative ideas and new knowledge, thus enhancing leadership effectiveness (Goh et al., 2020; Derin et al., 2021; Harb et al., 2021). When motivational CQ boost KSB among the team leaders (Ratasuk & Charoensukmongkol, 2020), KSB would facilitate the transformation of collective individual knowledge to organizational knowledge without the existence of orphaned knowledge and knowledge depreciation (Nugroho, 2018; Akram, Lei, Haider & Hussain, 2020) causing KSB to mediate the causal influence of motivational CQ on LE. Therefore, KSB mediates the relationship between motivational CQ and LE.  Recent research revealed that when motivational CQ were increased, it causes to enhance conventional and reverse knowledge transfer (Vlajčić, Caputo, Marzi & Dabić, 2019), whereby KSB of leaders improves LE. Therefore, the following hypothesis is formulated:

H3: Knowledge sharing behaviour (KSB) has a positive and significant mediating influence on the relationship of motivational CQ and leadership effectiveness.

Mediating effect of behavioural CQ and leadership effectiveness

The behavioural intelligence of CQ focuses on leaders’ capabilities in implementing it or reflecting in their behaviour (Ang et al., 2020). Behavioural intelligence manifests themselves in every aspect of the global leadership competence framework, which determines global leadership effectiveness (Osman-Gani & Hassan, 2018; Ang et al., 2020).  Leaders with high behavioural CQ entails interpersonal skills and has the capability to encounter to engage with people from diverse cultural background (Ang et al., 2020) to socialize resulting KSB. Also, it was argued that behavioural CQ and KSB have a positive and direct relationship with each other (Bogilović et al., 2017). It was reported that behavioural CQ has a positive and significant influence on KSB among middle management leaders (Vlajčić et al., 2019). It was found that leader with high behavioural CQ were likely to engage with KSB (Ang, Van Dyne & Rockstuhl, 2015) and when leaders engaged with KSB, it causes to create ideas and organizational creativity (Lee, Smith & Chen, 2020; Lei & Le, 2019), thus improved leadership effectiveness. Also, it was found that KSB of leaders mediates the relationship between behavioural CQ and leadership effectiveness (Vlajčić et al., 2019), where KSB of leaders stimulate leader’s creativity (Lei & Le, 2019; Derin et al., 2021) thus improves LE (Harb et al., 2021). Therefore, the following hypothesis is formulated:

H4: Knowledge sharing behaviour (KSB) has a positive and significant mediating influence on the relationship of behavioural CQ and leadership effectiveness.

Methods and Procedure

Target Population and Sampling

The researcher used those employees working at any leadership position (at supervisory or managerial levels) and who have employment with the organization. Any employee who has subordinates reporting to him or her was considered to participate in the survey as a leader of pharmaceutical company.  Most of these employees are in leadership position but at different level of organization and makes decision that are relevant to operations, management, and strategic level of organisations. The research instrument has clearly required to indicate whether they are in first level, middle management or strategic level leadership of the organization. Since many leadership experts referred leaders as those who have followers than subordinates (Wen, Ho, Kelana et al., 2019; Hunt & Fedynich, 2019; Setyaningrum, Setiawan & Irawanto, 2020), it is important to classify leaders of pharmaceutical companies as leaders with followers who make important strategic, functional and tactical decision to improve performance of the employees and the organization (Özbek & Bozkurt, 2020; Nugraha, Noermijati & Suryadi, 2022). Respondents were selected from the 13 pharmaceutical companies in terms of annual revenue. Also, the companies are selected based on (1) These pharmaceutical companies producing and selling pharmaceutical products in the Klang Valley area of Malaysia. (2) Large numbers of employees are working in these companies. The initial 13 companies selected in this research employed more than 600 employees in leadership positions. (3) Employees are chosen randomly by their department heads and HR managers. This allowed the researcher to access the relevant respondents in the leadership positions and share the google link with their relevant managers.

According to Hair Jr, Black, Babin and Anderson (2009), if the multivariate analysis is to be conducted effectively and reliably, a minimum of 10 respondents must be used per item in the construct. Since the constructs of this study have a total of 54 items, and if ten (10) times rule per item in the construct is applied as proposed by Hair Jr et al., (2009), the minimum sample size required would be 540. As this research required 540 respondents out of 624 employees in the leadership positions, each employee was given a number due to the restriction imposed by the companies. Therefore, selection of 540 as a desired sample is justified. A random probability sampling technique was applied to select the 540 employees in leadership positions in the organisations out of 624 employees in leadership position.

Demographic Profile of Respondents

Table 1. Demographic Profile

The table showed that 43.6% are male and 56.4% are female participants in this survey. In terms of level of employment, 48.2% of respondents are currently working at the first level of management as supervisors or supervisory level. 28.7% of respondents were team leaders such as sales team leader, marketing team leader or project team leader. 19.5% of respondents were from mid-level management such as managers while 3.6% of respondents were from top-level management such as CEO, managing director or founders or board of directors. From this demographic analysis, 24.1% of the respondents were currently holding a middle management to top management positions while the remaining 48.2% of respondents are first level managers who are support officers with subordinates and supervisors.

In terms of current job position, 37.1% of respondents were supervisors, 24.9% of respondents are managers, 20.1% of respondents are team leaders where they have two to three followers. 7% of respondents were associate managers indicating their leadership position.  3.2% of the respondents were senior managers. 2.8% respondents are pharmacists in-charge while 2.7% of respondents were directors. 1.2% of respondents were CEO, Founders and General managers (each 0.4%).

Reliability and Validity of Research Instrument

The research instrument was developed based on four item constructs developed by earlier scholars in the relevant field of discipline.

Table 2. Research Tool Adapted

The three concepts were adopted to develop the scale items. First cultural Intelligence, where Ang et al., (2007)’s CQS was used to measure cultural intelligence. This scale consists of 20 items. This scale divides 20 items into four dimensions. These are Metacognitive CQ-four items, Cognitive CQ-six items, Motivational CQ-five items, and Behavioural CQ-five items. Second, knowledge sharing behaviour was measured using the scale validated by Dalati and Alchach (2018). They established the reliability and validity of the 7 (seven) items to measure knowledge sharing behaviour. These 7 items are adopted to measure the KSB among the respondents in the leadership position.  Third, leadership effectiveness was measured by using the scale of  Kouzes  and Posner (1995). The Leadership Practice Inventory (LPI) scale was adopted to measure leadership effectiveness, which comprises five dimensions: challenging the process, inspiring a shared vision, enabling others to act, modelling the way, encouraging the heart (Kouzes & Posner, 1995). The Table 3 below shows the reliability and validity of the items in the construct.

Table 3. Reliability and Validity

In terms of convergent validity, the minimum limit of 0.5 is considered a significant indicator in explaining or measuring the factor.  Since all the items in the construct has a loading factor of 0.5, the convergent validity was established (Hair et al., 2017; 2019). According to Hair et al., (2019), AVE must be greater than 0.5. However, it was argued that even if AVE is less than 0.5, convergent validity of the construct can be considered adequate provided that composite reliability (CR) is higher than 0.6 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Since the composite reliability values exceed 0.7, and the loading was above 0.5, it is considered that the items in the construct are convergent valid (Andersen & Gerbing, 1988; Das, Paul & Swierczek, 2008).

In terms of discriminant validity, it was assessed using cross-loading and Fornell-Larcker Criterion (Voorhees, Brady, Calantone & Ramirez, 2016).  Similarly, AVE and the square root of AVE were used to assess the discriminant validity (Ibrahim, Shiratuddin & Wong, 2015).  Most of the literature on discriminant validity suggested to use the Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) ratio of correlation as a better or suitable criterion to assess discriminant validity (Henseler, Ringle & Sarstedt, 2015).  HTMT shows two ways to assess discriminant validity: (1) as a criterion or (2) as a statistical test. In this research, HTMT is used as a criterion.

Table 4. Fornell–Larcker criterion test

Based on Table 4, discriminant validity can be accepted for this reflective measurement model and supports the discriminant validity between the constructs. Since all the values under the construct is below the AVE of each construct, the reflective measurement model is accepted as discriminant validity is established. This research satisfied both HTMT criteria (HTMT≤0.85 and HTMT≤0.90) as all the HTMT correlation values are below 0.85 and 0.9 (Hair et al., 2019). Therefore, it is confirmed that the construct is discriminately valid. In terms of cross-loading, the outer loading values are exceeding the cross-loading values for all thus the discriminant validity between all constructs in the model have been established as the item loads were higher on its own construct compared to the item loading on other constructs.

According to the reported value in Table 3, under PLS-SEM, Cronbach’s Alphas of metacognitive, cognitive, motivation, behavioural cultural intelligence constructs, knowledge sharing behaviour and leadership effectiveness constructs meets the acceptable level of 0.70, consistent reliability measures of rho-A values of all the constructs were above 0.70. It was suggested that if the CR values are above 0.70, the internal reliability of the measurement items should be acceptable under PLS-SEM (Lam, 2012). Therefore, the reliability of the construct was established to proceed with SEM analysis to determine the causal influence of cultural intelligence on leadership effectiveness mediated by knowledge sharing behaviour.

RESULTS

In this study, the coefficient determination (R²) for knowledge sharing behaviour (KSB) was 0.359 and for leadership effectiveness (LE) was 0.536. This indicated that the four (4) independent construct explains 35.9% of variance in KSB while five (5) independent constructs explain 53.6% variance in LE. Since the values of R² are above 0.35 and 0.5, both are considered as moderate (Hair et al., 2019). This means the model is a good fit model to determine the influence of exogenous variables on the endogenous variables (Ozili, 2023).

Hair et al., (2019) stated that if the value of Q² is greater than zero (0) for a particular endogenous latent construct, then the endogenous variable has predictive relevance. it shows that Q² values for this research are equal to 0.250 and 0.350 for knowledge sharing behaviour (KSB) and leadership effectiveness (LE) respectively. Since the Q² values are higher than the threshold limit, and supports the path models, predictive relevance is adequate for endogenous construct, hence it is concluded that the model has predictive relevance.

This study (research) shows that all the VIF values are less than 3 based on the below Table 5. The VIF values range between 1.528 and 2.02 for KSB while for LE, the VIF range between 1.546 and 2.078. Therefore, it is concluded that the dataset did not suffer from a common biased issue. Also, since all the correlation values were below 0.7, which confirmed the absence of multicollinearity (Kline, 2023), this has confirmed that there were no significant problems in SEM-PLS (Kline, 2023). The results should be presented in a clear, logical manner, using tables and figures effectively. The presentation must be neutral, allowing data to speak for itself, and comparisons with existing literature should be made where relevant.

Table 5.VIF

In terms of Goodness of Fit (GoF), GoF can be used to determine the overall predictive power of large complex model in assessing the performance of both measurement and structural model (Hair Jr, Howard & Nitzl, 2020). According to Lam (2012) the values of 0.1 indicate a small explanation of the model, 0.25 explains medium (large), and 0.36 indicate a large explanation of empirical data suggests that global validation of the path model. It was calculated from table below that the GoF index for this study model was measured as 0.470, which shows that empirical data fits the model satisfactory and has substantial predictive power in comparison with baseline values as 0.470 exceeds the threshold value of 0.35.

Table 6. GoF Index

In terms of model fitness, SRMR values were below 0.08 for estimated (0.056) and saturated (0.056) model suggested that the model fitness was established (Henseler, Dijkstra, Sarstedt et al., 2014). For to establish the model fit criteria, d_ULS and d_G were used as where the original value was compared against the confidence interval created from the sampling distribution. According to Hair et al., (2017), the upper bound of the confidence interval value should be larger than original value of the exact d-ULS and d-G in order to consider the model has a ‘good fit’. In other words, the discrepancy between the correlation matrix implied by the mediating model and the empirical correlation matrix should be non-significant (p>0.05).  In the case of current study, the original d_ULS was 4.614 and d_G was 1.16.  Under 95% and 99% confidential intervals, the d_ULS values were 2.6 and 2.748 respectively. Also, the d_G values under 95% and 99% confidential interval were 0.842 and 0.888 respectively. Since the p-values were higher than 0.05 indicating correlation matrix were non-significant, thus the model was a ‘good fit’ model. In terms of NFI, the values are below 0.9 (0.726) suggesting that model is not good fit as the values are below 0.9 (Hair et al., 2017). However, since all other model fitness shows model fitness, it is considered that the model was a ‘good fit’ model to analyse the mediating influence of KSB on the relationship between CQ and LE.

Figure 2 below showed the mediating influence of KSB on the causal influence of CQ on LE. The path coefficients, including all the direct and indirect influence were illustrated.

Figure 2 Path-Analysis-Mediating Influence of KSB

Source: Smart PLS 3.0 output

To analyse the mediating influence of KSB on the relationship between CQ and LE, the path coefficients were considered.  This means that the specific and total indirect influence were only considered to establish the mediating effect of KSB on the causal influence of CQ on LE. One of the popular techniques to calculate or assess the mediating influence is Variance Accounted For (VAF) approach to conclude the mediation type (Ramayah, Cheah, Chuah, Ting & Memon, 2018). The popular formular to assess the VAF is the ratio of the indirect-to-to-total effect (Ramayah et al., 2018). VAF determines the extent to which the mediation process explains the dependent variable’s variance (Ramayah et al., 2018). For a simple mediation, the proportion of mediation is defined as:

Furthermore, according to Hair et al., (2017), VAF is used to determine whether the mediating factor is a partial or full mediator, or whether there is no mediating influence at all.  Moreover, as a rule of thumb, it was indicated that where VAF is less than 20 percent means nearly zero mediation occurs where VAF is larger than 20 percent, but less than 80 percent, than it could be characterized as a typical partial mediation and a VAF above 80 percent indicates a full mediation (Hair et al., 2017).

Table 7.  Mediating influence of KSB on the causal influence of CQ on LE

*p-value of indirect effect and direct effect is less than 0.05 indicates mediation influence  is partial (Hair et al., 2017)

Based on the Table 7 above, cognitive CQ has a significant positive indirect influence on LE, while direct effect of cognitive CQ has no significant influence on LE. Therefore, KSB has a significantly positive full mediating influence on the relationship between cognitive CQ and LE as VAF is larger than 80% (Ramayah et al., 2018). Furthermore, when the direct influence of cognitive CQ is not significant while indirect influence is significant, it means, the KSB has full mediation (Hair et al., 2017).

In terms of metacognitive CQ has a significant positive direct and indirect influence on LE.   This means that KSB has a partial mediating influence on the relationship between metacognitive CQ and LE (Hair et al., 2017).  In addition to this, VAF of this relationship was 24.7%, which confirmed that the KSB has a partial mediating influence as 24.5% fall between the range of 20% to 80% (Ramayah et al., 2018). This study found that metacognitive CQ has significantly positive influences on leadership effectiveness as direct beta-coefficient value of 0.177 is associated with a p-value of 0.000, which is less than 0.05.

In terms of motivational CQ, it has significant positive direct (β=0.368, p-value=0.000) and indirect (β=0.035, p-value=0.037) influence on LE. Therefore, according to Hair et al., (2017), KSB has a partial mediating effect on the causal influence of motivational CQ on LE or the relationship between motivational CQ and LE as both direct and indirect influence of motivational CQ on LE were significantly positive. However, in terms of VAF, there was no mediating influence of KSB on the relationship between motivational CQ and LE as VAF was only 8.7%, which was below the recommended value of 20% (Ramayah et al., 2018). Yet, the current study confirmed KSB has a significant partial mediating influence on the relationship between motivational CQ and LE as the influence was significantly positive (p-value <0.05) (Hair et al., 2017).

DISCUSSION

In terms of the mediating influence of KSB on the relationship between metacognitive CQ and LE, it was found that KSB has significant and positive mediation influence on the relationship between metacognitive CQ and LE. This means H1 was accepted. This finding was congruent with past literature as it was found that KSB mediated the relationship between metacognitive CQ and innovation performance of leaders (Berraies, 2019). Also, the finding of the current research was consistent with the research of Tsai, Joe, Lin, Wu and Cheng (2017) who found that KSB has significantly positive influence on the causal influence of metacognitive CQ on various dimensions associated with leadership effectiveness such as social interaction, trust and shared vision of leaders. Furthermore, the finding of the current research was congruent with past research where it was found that KSB has mediated the relationship between metacognitive CQ and leadership effectiveness in terms of successful idea implementation (Bogilović & Škerlavaj, 2016). However, it was argued that when employee work in culturally diverse environment or multi-ethnic societies such as Malaysia, might hinder the intention to engage with KSB and use of knowledge (Bogilović & Škerlavaj, 2016). In most cases, this could occur when leaders generate or initiated unfamiliar ideas when they are working with multi-ethnic workforce or teams (Bogilović & Škerlavaj, 2016). The assertion of Bogilović and Škerlavaj (2016) stressed that metacognitive CQ could reduce the propensity to social categorisation process, which in turn increases leader’s intention to engage with KSB leads to leadership effectiveness in terms of creativity and idea implementation.  Furthermore, it was found that metacognitive CQ allowed leaders, especially middle level leaders to enhance their capacity to absorb new information, knowledge of new ideas leading to leadership effectiveness (Chua et al., 2012). Therefore, H1 was accepted as enhancing KSB among the pharmaceutical leaders would enhance the relationship between metacognitive CQ and leadership effectiveness in Malaysian context.

In terms of cognitive CQ, KSB of pharmaceutical leaders significantly mediated the causal influence of cognitive CQ on LE, thus H2 was accepted. This means the relationship between cognitive CQ and LE was strengthened by enhancing KSB among the pharmaceutical leaders. In aligned with the findings of the current research, it was argued that when leaders interact with people from diverse cultural background, it exposes leaders to diverse knowledge and understanding from their own (Fan, Song, Nepal & Lee, 2020).  As earlier mentioned, KSB leaders enable them to lead to an epistemic knowledge and then cultivate innovative behaviour (Chua et al., 2012). Also, it was asserted that cognitive CQ was needed for leaders to combine and connect the knowledge from employees with multi-ethnicity into innovative effectiveness (Elenkov & Manev, 2009). Furthermore, lack of cognitive CQ may lead to knowledge hinderance and conflict between employees from multi-ethnic groups (Bogilović et al., 2017) making it more challenging to achieve leadership effectiveness in terms of innovation (Afsar et al., 2019). Therefore, pharmaceutical leaders require high cognitive CQ to engage with KSB to integrate knowledge from diverse cultural or multi-ethnic groups effectively, because leaders and employees from multi-ethnic groups can develop more precise and clear understanding of cultural differences (Korzilius et al., 2017). Subsequently, effective KSB successfully mediates the relationship between cognitive CQ and leadership effectives by promoting and implementing novel and innovative thoughts of leaders (Wang et al., 2017). Therefore, H2 was accepted.

In terms of motivational CQ, H3 was accepted as it was found that KSB of pharmaceutical leaders has significant and positive influence on the relationship between motivational CQ and leadership effectiveness. This was aligned with several past research.  The past research that was congruent with the finding of the current research indicated that motivational CQ tends to promote KSB among the leaders (Finestone & Snyman, 2005; Bogilović et al., 2017) and such increase in KSB among the leaders causes to enhance leadership effectiveness (Song et al., 2015; Obeidat & Tarhini, 2016; Hussain et al., 2017).  Also, it was reported that motivational CQ of leaders were positively associated with KSB (Messarra, Karkoulian & Younis, 2008). Subsequently team leader’s knowledge sharing behaviour significantly predicted leaders’ team performance ratings (Alsharo et al., 2017: Lin & Huang, 2020), thus mediates the relationship between motivational CQ and LE. Furthermore, when motivational CQ boost KSB among the team leaders (Chen & Lin, 2013: Ratasuk & Charoensukmongkol, 2020), and such boost in KSB would facilitate the transformation of collective individual knowledge to organizational knowledge without the existence of orphaned knowledge and knowledge depreciation (Yang, 2007; Nugroho, 2018; Akram et al., 2020) causing KSB to mediate the causal influence of motivational CQ on LE.  Subsequently, it was argued that leaders with high motivational CQ were more flexible in verbal and non-verbal communication behaviour that facilitates better communication in a culturally diverse organization, thus improving KSB among the leaders (Tsai et al., 2017). This causes KSB to promote leader’s supportive behaviours, which are directly and indirectly related to employee creative problem-solving capacity through internal and external knowledge sharing (Tasneem & Quresh, 2020). Therefore, KSB mediates the relationship between motivational CQ and LE.  Recent research revealed that when motivational CQ were increased, it causes to enhance conventional and reverse knowledge transfer (Vlajčić et al., 2019), whereby KSB of leaders improves LE. Therefore, H3 was accepted as KSB of pharmaceutical leaders significantly mediated the relationship between motivational CQ and LE.

In terms of behavioural CQ, H4 was rejected as the finding of the current study found that there was no significant mediating influence of KSB of pharmaceutical leaders on the relationship between behavioural CQ and LE in Malaysia. There was few research that were congruent with the finding of the current research, where it was found that leader’s KSB does not significantly mediates the relationship between behavioural CQ and innovative performance of leadership effectiveness (Berraies, 2019). Furthermore, the finding of the current research corroborates the findings of Chen and Lin (2013) who showed that KSB leaders do not significantly mediate the causal influence of behavioural CQ on LE. However, the result of the current research was not consistent with past research. For instance, in past it was found that leader with high behavioural CQ were likely to engage with KSB (Ang et al., 2015), and when leaders engaged with KSB, it causes to create ideas and organizational creativity (Lei & Le, 2019), thus improved leadership effectiveness. In addition to this, in past, it was found that KSB of leaders mediates the relationship between behavioural CQ and leadership effectiveness (Vlajčić et al., 2019), where KSB of leaders stimulate leader’s creativity (Lei & Le, 2019; Derin et al., 2021) thus improves LE (Harb et al., 2021). However, as the finding of the current study suggested that there was no mediating influence of KSB on the relationship between behavioural CQ and LE of pharmaceutical leaders in Malaysia, the H4 was rejected.

CONCLUSION

Based on the theoretical propositions and past research, it was concluded that KSB mediates the influence of CQ dimensions on LE (Berraies, 2019; Ratasuk & Charoensukmongkol, 2020).  However, based on the current research findings, it is concluded that a leader’s KSB only mediates the causal influence of metacognitive, cognitive, and motivational CQ on leadership effectiveness. Therefore, it was concluded that by enhancing metacognitive, cognitive and motivational CQ, it will improve leadership effectiveness indirectly through the KSB of pharmaceutical leaders in Malaysia. Therefore, by enhancing behavioural CQ would not enhance LE through KSB. Overall, it is concluded that by enhancing KSB among the pharmaceutical leaders will not enable increase the level of indirect influence of CQ on leadership effectiveness of pharmaceutical leaders in Klang Valley of Malaysia

Implications

The findings of the current study enhance the knowledge of CQ as an effective intercultural competency construct by providing support for the relationship between CQ and leadership effectiveness (LE). The research contributed valuable knowledge to the field of leadership development theory by enhancing the knowledge of leadership effectiveness (Kouzes & Posner, 2019) as a leadership development construct by establishing empirical evidence that CQ is a key determinant of leadership effectiveness.   The current study enhanced the knowledge of CQ by establishing that metacognitive and motivational CQ are two key determinants of LE, especially in the pharmaceutical industry in Malaysia. Furthermore, the current study confirmed that the KSB of leaders is a key competence to determine and improve leadership effectiveness (LE). This finding added additional knowledge to the literature by linking KSB and LE.

Similarly, the findings of the current research contributed to the existing literature as it was confirmed that metacognitive, cognitive and motivational CQ, adds more understanding about the mechanism by which it makes pharmaceutical leaders more effective in terms of inspiring the shared vision, modelling the way and encouraging to act, model the way and enabling others to challenge the process by being innovative and creative in a multi-ethnic work environment.

 Furthermore, KSB successfully mediates the relationship between CQ (metacognitive, cognitive and motivational CQ) and LE. Since there was a huge literature gap, the findings of the current research demonstrated the importance of indirect influence of metacognitive, cognitive and motivational CQ on the LE by establishing the mediating influence of KSB on the relationship between CQ (metacognitive, cognitive and motivation). Thus, for the KSB literature, the findings of the current research added valuable knowledge about the KSB among pharmaceutical leaders and within the pharmaceutical context.

Another set of theoretical implication is based on the context-specific relationship demonstrated in this study whereby it contributes to the lacking literature on CQ within the field of pharmaceutical leaders in a multi-ethnic workplace among pharmaceutical companies as one of the first studies on this phenomenon.

The business management implications of the current study emphasised to prioritize the organizations for developing high potential programmes to identify leaders who show the potential towards cultural diversity learning, to facilitate cultural diversity training facilities, to implement effective succession planning, to provide inclusive cultural diversity education and feedback and finally to confirm that each higher level manager of the organization personally accepted responsibility for developing culturally intelligent workplaces and  culturally fit leaders (Ahmed & Saidalavi, 2019).

RECOMMENDATION AND FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTION

Based on the result, it is highly recommended to cultivate or foster KSB among the pharmaceutical leaders to enhance leadership effectiveness. As the result suggested, by enhancing KSB only causes cognitive CQ indirectly influence leadership effectiveness. Since there is no direct significant influence of cognitive CQ, it is crucial for pharmaceutical companies to foster KSB among the leaders.

Furthermore, it is also important for human resource managers to train and foster motivational and metacognitive CQ among the leaders. Training programs should be design in order to provide motivational and metacognitive CQ along with KSB sessions among the leaders. These programs must be conducted continuously to ensure leaders adhere to the importance of KSB and its role in enhancing leadership effectiveness.

Moreover, future research must emphasis on the cross-sectional design, with self-reporting at one point in time, could affect a causal relationship among the variables, despite each relationship is built on strong theoretical perspective. Therefore, future studies might need to employ a longitudinal design to assess the causes and its influences between variables over time and avoid common method variance.

Data was collected from one single source such as the pharmaceutical industry of Malaysia. The data was collected from respondents who were working in any leadership positions of the company. This means the current research relied on self-reports and therefore subjected to social desirability bias. Therefore, future research could include subordinates or client’s rating on the leadership effectiveness of pharmaceutical leaders or replicating the model using experimental methods (Rezaei et al., 2022).

The quantitative data used in this research can reveal the causal relationship between different variables (between LS and LE, or CQ and LE), but cannot explain why such a causal relationship exists. Therefore, future researchers can employ mixed methods or qualitative data that can be used in future studies.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT(S)

Text……………………………….

REFERENCES

1. Afsar, B., Shahjehan, A., Shah, S. I., & Wajid, A. (2019). The mediating role of transformational leadership in the relationship between cultural intelligence and employee voice behavior: A case of hotel employees. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 69 (2019), 66-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2019.01.001
2. Ahmad, S., & Saidalavi, K. (2019). Cultural intelligence and leadership effectiveness in global workplaces. International Journal on Leadership, 7(1), 1-7. Retrieved from http://publishingindia.com/Research/User-Not-Subscriber.aspx (Accessed June 18th, 2020)
3. Ajanaku, O. J., & Lubbe, W. (2021). Applying transformational leadership in nursing through the lens of Kouzes and Posner leadership practices. Gender and Behaviour, 19(2), 17788-17794.
4. Akpan, A. P., & Inyang, A. B. (2022). Academic staff cultural intelligence and job performance in Nigerian universities. International Journal of Management Science and Business Administration, 8(3), 7-14.
5. Akram, T., Lei, S., Haider, M. J., & Hussain, S. T. (2020). The impact of organizational justice on employee innovative work behavior: Mediating role of knowledge sharing. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 5(2), 117-129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2019.10.001
6. Ali, I., Ali, M., Leal-Rodríguez, A. L., & Albort-Morant, G. (2019). The role of knowledge spillovers and cultural intelligence in enhancing expatriate employees’ individual and team creativity. Journal of Business Research, 101, 561-573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.11.012
7. Alsharo, M., Gregg, D., & Ramirez, R. (2017). Virtual team effectiveness: The role of knowledge sharing and trust. Information & Management, 54(4), 479-490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2016.10.005
8. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological bulletin, 103(3), 411-423. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411
9. Ang, S., Ng, K. Y., & Rockstuhl, T. (2020). Cultural intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of intelligence (p. 820–845). Cambridge University Press
10. Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., & Rockstuhl, T. (2015). Cultural intelligence: Origins, conceptualization, evolution, and methodological diversity. In M. J. Gelfand, C.-Y. Chiu, & Y.-Y. Hong (Eds.), Handbook of advances in culture and psychology, Vol. 5, pp. 273–323). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190218966.003.0006
11. Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., Koh, C., Ng, K. Y., Templer, K. J., Tay, C., & Chandrasekar, N. A. (2007). Cultural intelligence: Its measurement and effects on cultural judgment and decision making, cultural adaptation and task performance. Management and organization review, 3(3), 335-371. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8784.2007.00082.x
12. Bader, L., & Bates, I. (2017). Research, development and evaluation strategies for pharmaceutical education and the workforce: a global report (p.1-72). International Pharmaceutical Federation. Retrieved from https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10024658/1/FIPEd_RDES%202017%20Final.pdf (accessed 15^th February 2023)
13. Bakhsh, K., Abbas, T., & Iqbal, J. (2020). Principals’ Leadership Effectiveness: The Teachers’ Perceptions. Ilkogretim Online, 19(4), 2886-2891. https://doi.org/17051/ilkonline.2020.04.764658
14. Bakhsh, K., Rasool, S., & Azim, M. (2019). Humor orientation and honesty as predictors of leadership effectiveness. Dialogue, 14(2), 23-31.
15. Basit, A., Sethumadavan, D., & Hassan, Z. (2020). Effect of Cultural Intelligence and Learning Style on Leadership Effectiveness: Conceptual Analysis. The International Journal of Business Management, 8(6), 179-185. https//doi.org/10.24940/theijbm/2020/v8/i6/BM2006-048
16. Bogilović, S., Černe, M., & Škerlavaj, M. (2017). Hiding behind a mask? Cultural intelligence, knowledge hiding, and individual and team creativity. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 26(5), 710-723. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2017.1337747
17. Bogilović, S., & Škerlavaj, M. (2016). Metacogonitive and motivational cultural intelligence: Superpowers for creativity an a culturally diverse environment. Economic and Business Review, 18(1), 55-75. . https://doi.org/10.15458/85451.18
18. Berraies, S. (2019). Effect of middle managers’ cultural intelligence on firms’ innovation performance. Personnel Review, 49(4), 1015-1038. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-10-2018-0426
19. Chen, M. L., & Lin, C. P. (2013). Assessing the Effects of Cultural Intelligence on Team Knowledge Sharing from a Socio‐Cognitive Perspective. Human Resource Management, 52(5), 675-695. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21558
20. Chua, R. Y., Morris, M. W., & Mor, S. (2012). Collaborating across cultures: Cultural metacognition and affect-based trust in creative collaboration. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 118(2), 116-131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.03.009
21. Das, A., Paul, H., & Swierczek, F. W. (2008). Developing and validating total quality management (TQM) constructs in the context of Thailand’s manufacturing industry. Benchmarking: an international journal, 15(1), 52-72.
22. Derin, O. B., Toker, K., & Gorener, A. (2021). The Relationship between Knowledge Sharing and Innovative Work Behaviour: The Mediating Role of Ethical Climate. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/14778238.2020.1860666
23. Dalati, S., & Alchach, H. (2018). The effect of leader trust and knowledge sharing on staff satisfaction at work: investigation of universities in Syria. Business, Management and Education, 16(1), 190-205. https://doi.org/10.3846/bme.2018.2852
24. Earley, P. C., & Ang, S. (2003). Cultural intelligence: Individual interactions across cultures. Stanford University Press.
25. Elenkov, D. S., & Manev, I. M. (2009). Senior expatriate leadership’s effects on innovation and the role of cultural intelligence. Journal of World Business, 44(4), 357-369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2008.11.001
26. Elia, S., Petruzzelli, A. M., & Piscitello, L. (2019). The impact of cultural diversity on innovation performance of MNC subsidiaries in strategic alliances. Journal of Business Research, 98 (2019), 204-213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.01.062
27. Fan, P., Song, Y., Nepal, S., & Lee, H. (2020). Can cultural intelligence affect employee’s innovative behavior? evidence from chinese migrant workers in south Korea. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.559246
28. Fazal, J. (2013). The moderating effect of individual culture orientation on the relationship between leadership styles with perceived employees’ performance (Doctoral dissertation, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia).
29. Finestone, N., & Snyman, R. (2005). Corporate South Africa: Making multicultural knowledge sharing work. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(3), 128–141. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270510602827
30. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of marketing research, 18(1), 39-50. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022243781018001
31. Ganguly, A., Talukdar, A., & Chatterjee, D. (2019). Evaluating the role of social capital, tacit knowledge sharing, knowledge quality and reciprocity in determining innovation capability of an organization. Journal of Knowledge Management, 23(6), 1105-1135. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-03-2018-0190
32. Goewey, D. F. (2012). Examining the Kouzes and Posner leadership practices of elementary principals in central New York. PhD Thesis. St. John Fisher University
33. Goh, S. K., Jayaraman, K., Mostafiz, M. I., & Leow, Y. M. (2020). The Effect of Organisational Climate on Employees’ Creative Performance through Knowledge Sharing Behaviour. Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 18(1), 1-14. Retrieved from http://shura.shu.ac.uk/id/eprint/25739 (Accessed April 14th, 2018)
34. Guang, X., & Charoensukmongkol, P. (2020). The effects of cultural intelligence on leadership performance among Chinese expatriates working in Thailand. Asian Business & Management, 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41291-020-00112-4
35. Haider, S., Nisar, Q. A., Baig, F., & Azeem, M. (2018). Dark Side of Leadership: Employees’ Job Stress & Deviant Behaviors in Pharmaceutical Industry. International Journal of Pharmaceutical Research & Allied Sciences, 7(2), 125-138. Retrieved from http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=976d1768-7e0d-448b-bfbf-11459970ffbc%40sdc-v-sessmgr01 (Accessed June 20^th, 2019)
36. Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM), 2nd Ed., Sage: Thousand Oaks.
37. Hair Jr, J. F., Howard, M. C., & Nitzl, C. (2020). Assessing measurement model quality in PLS-SEM using confirmatory composite analysis. Journal of Business Research, 109, 101-110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.11.069
38. Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European business review, 31(1), 2-24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203
39. Hair Jr, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. & Anderson, R.E (2009) Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th Edition. Pearson Education Limited, UK.
40. Harb, Y., Zahrawi, A., Shehabat, I., & Zhang, Z. (2021). Managing knowledge workers in healthcare context: role of individual and knowledge characteristics in physicians’ knowledge sharing. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 121(2), 381-408. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-02-2020-0097
41. Hartini, H., Fakhrorazi, A., & Islam, R. (2019). The Effects of Cultural Intelligence on Task Performance And Contextual Performance: An Empirical Study on Public Sector Employees In Malaysia. Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews, 7(1), 215-227. https://doi.org/10.18510/hssr.2019.7126
42. Hartini, H., Yaakub, S., Abdul-Talib, A. N., & Saud, M. B. (2017). The effects of cultural intelligence on international students’ engagement. International Journal of Business, Economics and Law, 12(2), 18-25. https://www.ijbel.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/BUS-89.pdf
43. Hassan, Z., Basit, A., & Sethumadavan, D. (2020). Role of Sales Representative’s Cultural Intelligence in Enhancing Customer Satisfaction among the Tenants and Property Buyers in Malaysia. International Journal of Business Marketing and Management, 5(7), 37-56. http://www.ijbmm.com/paper/July2020/8340436103.pdf
44. Hassan, Z., & Hamid, Z. B. A. (2023). Impact of Cultural Intelligence and Learning Styles on Leadership Effectiveness: A Conceptual Analysis. International Journal of Management, Accounting & Economics, 10(8), 589-616. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8419202.
45. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A New Criterion for Assessing Discriminant Validity in Variance-based Structural Equation Modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115-135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
46. Henseler, J., Dijkstra, T. K., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., Diamantopoulos, A., Straub, D. W., Ketchen, D. J., Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., & Calantone, R. J (2014). Common Beliefs and Reality about Partial Least Squares: Comments on Rönkkö & Evermann (2013), Organizational Research Methods, 17(2), 182-209.
47. Hu, S., Liu, H., Zhang, S., & Wang, G. (2020). Proactive personality and cross-cultural adjustment: Roles of social media usage and cultural intelligence. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 74 (2020), 42-57.
48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2019.10.002
49. Hunt, T., & Fedynich, L. (2019). Leadership: Past, present, and future: An evolution of an idea. Journal of Arts and Humanities, 8(2), 22-26. http://dx.doi.org/10.18533/journal.v8i2.1582
50. Hussain, S. T., Abbas, J., Lei, S., Haider, M. J., & Akram, T. (2017). Transactional leadership and organizational creativity: Examining the mediating role of knowledge sharing behavior. Cogent Business & Management, 4(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2017.1361663
51. Ibrahim, N., Shiratuddin, M. F., & Wong, K. W. (2015). Instruments for measuring the influence of visual persuasion: validity and reliability tests. European Journal of Social Science Education and Research, 2(3), 25-37.
52. http://dx.doi.org/10.26417/ejser.v4i1.p25-37
53. Idrus, F. (2021). Exploring Cultural Intelligence Skills among International Postgraduate Students at a Higher Education Institution. International Journal of Higher Education, 10(4), 220-234. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v10n4p220
54. Iftikhar, R., & Ahola, T. (2020). Knowledge sharing in an interorganizational setting empirical evidence from the Orange Line metro train project. Journal of Knowledge Management, ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print). https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-06-2020-0485
55. Intezari, A., Taskin, N., & Pauleen, D. J. (2017). Looking beyond knowledge sharing: an integrative approach to knowledge management culture. Journal of knowledge management, 21(2), 492-515.
56. Javidan, M., Waldman, D. A., & Wang, D. (2021). How life experiences and cultural context matter: A multilevel framework of global leader effectiveness. Journal of Management Studies, 58(5), 1331-1362. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12662
57. Jyoti, J., Pereira, V., & Kour, S. (2019). Examining the impact of cultural intelligence on knowledge sharing: role of moderating and mediating variables. In Understanding the role of business analytics (pp. 169-188). Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-1334-9_9
58. Kawaguchi-Suzuki, M., Hogue, M. D., Khanfar, M., Lahoz, M. R., Law, M. G., Parekh, J., … & Van Thang, V. (2019). Cultural sensitivity and global pharmacy engagement in Asia: India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, and Vietnam. American journal of pharmaceutical education, 83(4), 7215.
59. Koohang, A., Paliszkiewicz, J., & Goluchowski, J. (2017). The impact of leadership on trust, knowledge management, and organizational performance: A research model. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 117(3), 521-537. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-02-2016-0072
60. Korzilius, H., Bücker, J. J., & Beerlage, S. (2017). Multiculturalism and innovative work behavior: The mediating role of cultural intelligence. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 56, 13-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2016.11.001
61. Kouzes, T. K., & Posner, B. Z. (2019). Influence of managers’ mindset on leadership behavior. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 40(8), 829-844. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-03-2019-0142
62. Kouzes, J.M. & Posner, B.Z. (2017). The leadership challenge: making extraordinary things happen in organizations, 6th edition. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
63. Kouzes, J.M. & Posner, B.Z. (2016). Learning leadership: the five fundamentals of becoming an exemplary leader.  Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
64. Kouzes, J.M & Posner, B.Z. (1995). The Leadership Challenge: How to Keep Getting Extraordinary Things Done in Organisations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
65. Kwiotkowska, A., Wolniak, R., Gajdzik, B., & Gębczyńska, M. (2022). Configurational paths of leadership competency shortages and 4.0 leadership effectiveness: an fs/QCA study. Sustainability, 14(5), 2795. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14052795
66. Lakshmanan, B., & Latha, L. K. (2018). Knowledge Self-Efficacy, Knowledge Sharing Behaviour and Organizational Climate among Medical Faculty Members in India. Management Today, 8(3), 232-239. http://dx.doi.org/10.11127/gmt.2018.09.03
67. Lam, L. W. (2012). Impact of competitiveness on salespeople’s commitment and performance. Journal of business research, 65(9), 1328-1334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.10.026
68. Lee, V., Smith, D., & Chen, Y. J. (2020). An Integrated Perspective: Applying Team Learning and Knowledge Creation through Team Learner Styles. International Journal of Business and Economics, 5(2), 83-116. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4384760
69. Lei, H., Gui, L., & Le, P. B. (2021). Linking transformational leadership and frugal innovation: the mediating role of tacit and explicit knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowledge Management, ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print), pp-pp. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-04-2020-0247
70. Lin, C. Y., & Huang, C. K. (2020). Understanding the antecedents of knowledge sharing behaviour and its relationship to team effectiveness and individual learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 36(2), 89-104. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.4549
71. Lin, C. Y., & Huang, C. K. (2020). Understanding the antecedents of knowledge sharing behaviour and its relationship to team effectiveness and individual learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 36(2), 89-104. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.4549
72. Livermore, D., & Ang, S. (2016). Virtual chaos at Worldwide Rx: How cultural intelligence can turn problems into solutions. In C. Barmeyer, & P. Franklin (Eds.), Intercultural management: A case-based approach to achieving complementarity (sic) and synergy (pp. 167-173). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
73. Mahmood, M., Uddin, M. A., Ostrovskiy, A., & Orazalin, N. (2020). Effectiveness of business leadership in the Eurasian context: empirical evidence from Kazakhstan. Journal of Management Development, 39(6), 793-809. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-05-2019-0154
74. Messarra, L., Karkoulian, S. & Younis, A. (2008). Four facets of cultural intelligence predictors of knowledge sharing intentions. Review of Business Research, 8(5), 126-131.
75. Misoc, I. (2017). The effects of cultural diversity on team performance: A comparison between the performance of monocultural teams and the performance of multicultural teams in tourism organizations. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 7(7), 207-218. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/V7-I7/3090
76. Mutonyi, B. R., Slåtten, T., & Lien, G. (2020). Empowering leadership, work group cohesiveness, individual learning orientation and individual innovative behaviour in the public sector: empirical evidence from Norway. International Journal of Public Leadership, 16(2), 175-197. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPL-07-2019-0045
77. Nair, B.V, & Munusami, C. (2020). Knowledge management practices: An exploratory study at the Malaysian higher education institutions. Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning, 13(2), 174-190. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIT-01-2019-0008
78. Nam, K. A., & Park, S. (2019). Factors influencing job performance: organizational learning culture, cultural intelligence, and transformational leadership. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 32(2), 137-158. https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.21292.
79. Ng, K. Y., Van Dyne, L., & Ang, S. (2009). From experience to experiential learning: Cultural intelligence as a learning capability for global leader development. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8(4), 511-526. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.8.4.zqr511
80. Ng, K. Y., & Earley, P. C. (2006). Culture+ intelligence: Old constructs, new frontiers. Group & Organization Management, 31(1), 4-19. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601105275251
81. Nosratabadi, S., Bahrami, P., Palouzian, K., & Mosavi, A. (2020). Leader cultural intelligence and organizational performance. Cogent Business & Management, 7(1), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2020.1809310
82. Nugraha, K. W., Noermijati, N., & Suryadi, N. (2022). The role of engagement leadership and motivation in pharmaceutical companies during pandemic Covid-19. Jurnal Manajemen Industri dan Logistik, 6(1), 132-148. http://doi.org/10.30988/jmil.v6i1.1033
83. Nugroho, M. A. (2018). The effects of collaborative cultures and knowledge sharing on organizational learning. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 31(5),1138-1152. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-10-2017-0385
84. Obeidat, B. Y., & Tarhini, A. (2016). A Jordanian empirical study of the associations among transformational leadership, transactional leadership, knowledge sharing, job performance, and firm performance: A structural equation modelling approach. Journal of Management Development, 35(5), 681-705. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-09-2015-0134
85. Osman-Gani, A. M., & Hassan, Z. (2018). Impacts of spiritual and cultural intelligence on leadership effectiveness: A conceptual analysis. Journal of Islamic Management Studies, 1(2), 12-23. Retrieved from http://publications.waim.my/index.php/jims/article/view/79/17 (Accessed September 18^th, 2019
86. Owens, B. P., & Hekman, D. R. (2016). How does leader humility influence team performance? Exploring the mechanisms of contagion and collective promotion focus. Academy of Management Journal, 59(3), 1088-1111. https://doi.org/5465/amj.2013.0660
87. Özbek, Ö., & Bozkurt, S. (2020). The Investigation of Generational Differences in the Effect of Transformational Leadership on Organizational Commitment and Job Satisfaction: A Research in the Pharmaceutical Industry. Istanbul Management Journal, (89), 23-46. https://doi.org/10.26650/imj.2020.89.0002
88. Ozili, P. K. (2023). The acceptable R-square in empirical modelling for social science research. In Social research methodology and publishing results: A guide to non-native English speakers (pp. 134-143). IGI global.
89. Paulus, P. B., van der Zee, K. I., & Kenworthy, J. (2016). Cultural diversity and team creativity. In the Palgrave handbook of creativity and culture research (pp. 57-76). Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-46344-9_4
90. Pieterse, J. N. (2019). Globalization and culture: Global mélange. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
91. Posner, B. Z. (2016). Investigating the reliability and validity of the Leadership Practices Inventory. Administrative Sciences, 6(4), 17. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci6040017
92. Presbitero, A. (2021). Communication accommodation within global virtual team: The influence of cultural intelligence and the impact on interpersonal process effectiveness. Journal of International Management, 27(1), 1-17.
93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intman.2020.100809
94. Presbitero, A., & Attar, H. (2018). Intercultural communication effectiveness, cultural intelligence and knowledge sharing: Extending anxiety-uncertainty management theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 67, 35-43.
95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2018.08.004
96. Rahman, Z. S. A., Kabir, S. M. H., Haque, A., & Rahamad, M. S. B. (2022). Influence of Cultural Intelligence on Socio-cultural Adaptation for Expatriate Leaders in Malaysia. Asian Journal of Economics, Business and Accounting, 22(21), 98-111. https://doi.org/10.9734/ajeba/2022/v22i2130693
97. Ramayah, T., Cheah, J., Chuah, F., Ting, H., & Memon, M. A. (2018). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) using smartPLS 3.0. An updated guide and practical guide to statistical analysis (2nd Edition). Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Pearson.
98. Rasdi, R.M, & Tangaraja, G. (2022). Knowledge-sharing behaviour in public service organisations: determinants and the roles of affective commitment and normative commitment. European Journal of Training and Development, 46(3/4), 337-355. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-02-2020-0028
99. Ratasuk, A., & Charoensukmongkol, P. (2020). Does cultural intelligence promote cross-cultural teams’ knowledge sharing and innovation in the restaurant business? Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, 12(2), 183-203. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJBA-05-2019-0109
100. Rezaei, Zadeh, M., Hackney, R., & Zeng, J. (2022). Augmenting learning processes of absorptive capacity for innovation: Insights for effective leadership within global pharmaceutical companies. European Management Review, 19(2), 263-284.
101. Rockstuhl, T., Seiler, S., Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., & Annen, H. (2011). Beyond general intelligence (IQ) and emotional intelligence (EQ): The role of cultural intelligence (CQ) on cross‐border leadership effectiveness in a globalized world. Journal of Social Issues, 67(4), 825-840. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2011.01730.x
102. Salleh, M. J., & Khalid, R. (2018). Effectiveness of principals’ exemplary leadership practices on school achievement: Stakeholder’s perception. European Journal of Education Studies, 5(1), 208-220. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1410062
103. Sambasivan, M., Sadoughi, M., & Esmaeilzadeh, P. (2017). Investigating the factors influencing cultural adjustment and expatriate performance: The case of Malaysia. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 66 (8), 1002-1019. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-10-2015-0160
104. Setyaningrum, R.P. Setiawan, M & Irawanto, S. D. W. (2020). Servant leadership characteristics, organisational commitment, followers’ trust, employees’ performance outcomes: A literature review. European Research Studies Journal, 23(4), 902-911.
105. Shamim, S., Cang, S., & Yu, H. (2019). Impact of knowledge-oriented leadership on knowledge management behaviour through employee work attitudes. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 30(16), 2387-2417. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2017.1323772
106. Sharabati, A. A. A. (2023). Lean operations and competitive advantage in the pharmaceutical industry. International Journal of Services and Operations Management, 44(3), 293-316.
107. Sims, C., Carter, A., & De Peralta, M.A. (2021). Do servant, transformational, transactional, and passive avoidant leadership styles influence mentoring competencies for faculty? A study of a gender equity leadership development program. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 32(1), 55-75.
108. Singh, S. K., Mazzucchelli, A., Vessal, S. R., & Solidoro, A. (2021). Knowledge-based HRM practices and innovation performance: Role of social capital and knowledge sharing. Journal of International Management, 27(1), 100830. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intman.2021.100830
109. Song, C., Park, K. R., & Kang, S. W. (2015). Servant leadership and team performance: The mediating role of knowledge-sharing climate. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 43(10), 1749-1760. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2015.43.10.1749
110. Spooner, B. (2015). Globalisation: The Crucial Phase. University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, USA
111. Stephanou, G., & Mpiontini, M. H. (2017). Metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive regulation in self-regulatory learning style, and in its effects on performance expectation and subsequent performance across diverse school subjects. Psychology, 8(12), 1941-1975. https://doi.org/4236/psych.2017.812125
112. Stoermer, S., Davies, S., & Froese, F. J. (2021). The influence of expatriate cultural intelligence on organizational embeddedness and knowledge sharing: The moderating effects of host country context. Journal of International Business Studies, 52(3), 432-453. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-020-00349-3
113. Tang, G., Chen, Y., van Knippenberg, D., & Yu, B. (2020). Antecedents and consequences of empowering leadership: Leader power distance, leader perception of team capability, and team innovation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 41(6), 551-566. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2449
114. Tasneem, K. A., & Quresh, S. F. (2020). The Role of Leadership Behaviours and Organizational Culture on Effective Knowledge Sharing; Case of State-owned Enterprises in Pakistan. St. Theresa Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 6(2), 168-193. Retrieved from https://journal.stic.ac.th/index.php/sjhs/article/view/208/76 (Accessed April 24^th, 2021)
115. Theriou, G., Chatzoudes, D., & Diaz Moya, C. A. (2020). The effect of ethical leadership and leadership effectiveness on employee’s turnover intention in SMEs: the mediating role of work engagement. European Research Studies Journal, 23(4), 947-963
116. Tsai, Y. H., Joe, S. W., Lin, C. P., Wu, P. H., & Cheng, Y. H. (2017). Modeling knowledge sharing among high-tech professionals in culturally diverse firms: mediating mechanisms of social capital. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 15(2), 225-237. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41275-017-0048-8
117. Velarde, J. M., Ghani, M. F., Adams, D., & Cheah, J. H. (2020). Towards a healthy school climate: The mediating effect of transformational leadership on cultural intelligence and organisational health. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, .https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143220937311
118. Vlajčić, D., Caputo, A., Marzi, G., & Dabić, M. (2019). Expatriates’ managers’ cultural intelligence as promoter of knowledge transfer in multinational companies. Journal of Business Research, 94, 367-377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.01.033
119. Voorhees, C. M., Brady, M. K., Calantone, R., & Ramirez, E. (2016). Discriminant validity testing in marketing: an analysis, causes for concern, and proposed remedies. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 44, 119-134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-015-0455-4
120. Wang, J., Yang, J., & Xue, Y. (2017). Subjective well-being, knowledge sharing and individual innovation behavior: The moderating role of absorptive capacity. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 38(8), 1110-1127. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-10-2015-0235
121. Wen, T. B., Ho, T. C., Kelana, B. W. Y., Othman, R., & Syed, O. R. (2019). Leadership styles in influencing employees’ job performances. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 9(9), 55-65. http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v9-i9/6269