Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Exploring the relationship of perceived strengths-based human system with knowledge sharing

  • Published:
Current Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Drawing upon affective events theory, this study investigated the relationship between perceived strengths-based human resource (HR) system and employee knowledge sharing behavior and the mediating role of positive affect as well as the moderating role of proactive personality in the relationship. Data from a sample of 998 employees working in various Chinese organizations were collected at two points in time. Structural equation modeling and a moderated mediation path analysis were carried out to test our hypotheses. The results demonstrated that perceived strengths-based HR system is positively related to knowledge sharing behavior even after controlling for perceived high commitment work system, and positive affect partially mediates the association of perceived strengths-based HR system with knowledge sharing behavior. Furthermore, this study also found that proactive personality boosts the direct relationship between perceived strengths-based HR system and positive affect and the indirect relationship of perceived strengths-based HR system with knowledge sharing behavior through positive affect. The theoretical contributions, practical implications, and limitations and directions for future research were discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ahmad, F., & Karim, M. (2019). Impacts of knowledge sharing: A review and directions for future research. Journal of Workplace Learning, 31(3), 207–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alfes, K., Shantz, A. D., Bailey, C., Conway, E., Monks, K., & Fu, N. (2019). Perceived human resource system strength and employee reactions toward change: Revisiting human resource’s remit as change agent. Human Resource Management, 58(3), 239–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arthur, J. B., & Boyles, T. (2007). Validating the human resource system structure: A levels-based strategic HRM approach. Human Resource Management Review, 17(1), 77–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakker, A. B., & van Woerkom, M. (2018). Strengths use in organizations: A positive approach of occupational health. Canadian Psychology, 59(1), 38–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakker, A. B., Hetland, J., Olsen, O. K., & Espevik, R. (2019). Daily strengths use and employee well-being: The moderating role of personality. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 92(1), 144–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior: A measure and correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14(2), 103–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergeron, D. M., Schroeder, T. D., & Martinez, H. A. (2014). Proactive personality at work: Seeing more to do and doing more? Journal of Business and Psychology, 29(1), 71–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bono, J. E., & McNamara, G. (2011). Publishing in AMJ—part 2: Research design. Academy of Management Journal, 54(4), 657–660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bos-Nehles, A. C., & Veenendaal, A. A. (2019). Perceptions of HR practices and innovative work behavior: The moderating effect of an innovative climate. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 30(18), 2661–2683.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burić, I., & Moe, A. (2020). What makes teachers enthusiastic: The interplay of positive affect, self-efficacy and job satisfaction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 89, 103008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cabrera, E. F., & Cabrera, A. (2005). Fostering knowledge sharing through people management practices. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(5), 720–735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caesens, G., Stinglhamber, F., & Ohana, M. (2016). Perceived organizational support and well-being: A weekly study. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 31(7), 1214–1230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, M., Charlin, V., & Miller, N. (1988). Positive mood and helping behavior: A test of six hypotheses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(2), 211–229.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C. C., & Chiu, S. F. (2008). An integrative model linking supervisor support and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Business and Psychology, 23(1), 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, H., Nunes, B., Ragsdell, M., G., & An, X. (2018). Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation for experience grounded tacit knowledge sharing in chinese software organisations. Journal of Knowledge Management, 22(2), 478–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiang, H. H., Han, T. S., & Chuang, J. S. (2011). The relationship between high-commitment HRM and knowledge-sharing behavior and its mediators. International Journal of Manpower, 32(5/6), 604–622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiang, Y. H., Shih, H. A., & Hsu, C. C. (2014). High commitment work system, transactive memory system, and new product performance. Journal of Business Research, 67(4), 631–640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chong, S., Van Dyne, L., Kim, Y. J., & Oh, J. K. (2021). Drive and direction: Empathy with intended targets moderates the proactive personality–job performance relationship via work engagement. Applied Psychology, 70(2), 575–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chumg, H. F., Seaton, J., Cooke, L., & Ding, W. Y. (2016). Factors affecting employees’ knowledge-sharing behaviour in the virtual organisation from the perspectives of well-being and organisational behaviour. Computers in Human Behavior, 64, 432–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, L. A., Watson, D., & Leeka, J. (1989). Diurnal variation in the positive affects. Motivation and Emotion, 13(3), 205–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, C. J., & Smith, K. G. (2006). Knowledge exchange and combination: The role of human resource practices in the performance of high-technology firms. Academy of Management Journal, 49(3), 544–560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cropanzano, R., Dasborough, M. T., & Weiss, H. M. (2017). Affective events and the development of leader-member exchange. Academy of Management Review, 42(2), 233–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cui, Z., Wang, H., & Nanyangwe, C. N. (2022). How does coaching leadership promote employee’s constructive deviance? Affective events perspective. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 43(2), 279–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Vries, R. E., Van den Hooff, B., & De Ridder, J. A. (2006). Explaining knowledge sharing: The role of team communication styles, job satisfaction, and performance beliefs. Communication Research, 33(2), 115–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ding, H., & Lin, X. (2020). Individual-focused transformational leadership and employee strengths use: The roles of positive affect and core self-evaluation. Personnel Review, 50(3), 1022–1037.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ding, H., & Liu, J. (2022). The dark side of strengths-based approach in the workplace: Perceived strengths-based human resource system spurs unethical pro-organizational behavior.Current Psychology,1–10.

  • Ding, H., & Yu, E. (2022). A cross-level examination of the relationship of strengths-based human resource system with employee performance. Journal of Career Development, 49(6), 1337–1350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ding, H., & Liu, J. (2023). Perceived strengths-based human resource system and thriving at work: The roles of general self-esteem and emotional exhaustion. The Journal of Psychology, 157(2), 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ding, H., Lin, X., & Su, W. (2021). Employee strengths use and innovative behavior: A moderated mediation model. Chinese Management Studies, 15(2), 350–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ding, H., Yu, E., & Xu, S. (2022). Preliminary development and validation of the perceived strengths-based human resource system scale. International Journal of Manpower, 43(4), 1019–1032.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12(1), 1–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2002). Approach-avoidance motivation in personality: Approach and avoidance temperaments and goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(5), 804–818.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Elrehail, H., Rehman, S. U., Chaudhry, N. I., & Alzghoul, A. (2021). Nexus among cyberloafing behavior, job demands and job resources: A mediated-moderated model. Education and Information Technologies, 26, 4731–4749.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferraris, A., Degbey, W. Y., Singh, S. K., Bresciani, S., Castellano, S., Fiano, F., & Couturier, J. (2022). Microfoundations of strategic agility in emerging markets: Empirical evidence of italian MNEs in India. Journal of World Business, 57(2), 101272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56(3), 218–226.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fritz, C., & Sonnentag, S. (2009). Antecedents of day-level proactive behavior: A look at job stressors and positive affect during the workday. Journal of Management, 35(1), 94–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giebels, E., de Reuver, R. S., Rispens, S., & Ufkes, E. G. (2016). The critical roles of task conflict and job autonomy in the relationship between proactive personalities and innovative employee behavior. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 52(3), 320–341.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Glasø, L., Vie, T. L., Holmdal, G. R., & Einarsen, S. (2011). An application of affective events theory to workplace bullying: The role of emotions, trait anxiety, and trait anger. European Psychologist, 16(3), 198–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Göhler, G. F., Hattke, J., & Göbel, M. (2022). The mediating role of prosocial motivation in the context of knowledge sharing and self-determination theory.Journal of Knowledge Management,1–21.

  • Good, J. R., Halinski, M., & Boekhorst, J. A. (2022). Organizational social activities and knowledge management behaviors: An affective events perspective.Human Resource Management,1–15.

  • Han, S., Harold, C. M., & Cheong, M. (2019). Examining why employee proactive personality influences empowering leadership: The roles of cognition-and affect‐based trust. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 92(2), 352–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodges, T., & Clifton, D. O. (2004). Strengths-based development in practice. In P. A. Linley, & S. Joseph (Eds.), Positive psychology in practice (pp. 256–268). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hung, S. Y., Durcikova, A., Lai, H. M., & Lin, W. M. (2011). The influence of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation on individuals’ knowledge sharing behavior. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 69(6), 415–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeon, S., Kim, Y., & Koh, J. (2011). An integrative model for knowledge sharing in communities-of‐practice. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(2), 251–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiang, Z., & Hu, X. (2016). Knowledge sharing and life satisfaction: The roles of colleague relationships and gender. Social Indicators Research, 126(1), 379–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jyoti, J., & Rani, A. (2017). High performance work system and organisational performance: Role of knowledge management. Personnel Review, 46(8), 1770–1795.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kang, F., Li, J., & Hua, Y. (2022). How and when does humble leadership enhance newcomer well-being.Personnel Review,1–16.

  • Kehoe, R. R., & Collins, C. J. (2017). Human resource management and unit performance in knowledge-intensive work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(8), 1222–1236.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y. W., & Ko, J. (2014). HR practices and knowledge sharing behavior: Focusing on the moderating effect of trust in supervisor. Public Personnel Management, 43(4), 586–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, S. L., Son, S. Y., & Yun, S. (2018). Abusive supervision and knowledge sharing: The moderating role of organizational tenure. Personnel Review, 47(1), 22–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kong, D. T., & Ho, V. T. (2016). A self-determination perspective of strengths use at work: Examining its determinant and performance implications. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 11(1), 15–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuvaas, B., Buch, R., & Dysvik, A. (2012). Perceived training intensity and knowledge sharing: Sharing for intrinsic and prosocial reasons. Human Resource Management, 51(2), 167–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lam, A., & Lambermont-Ford, J. P. (2010). Knowledge sharing in organisational contexts: A motivation-based perspective. Journal of Knowledge Management, 14(1), 51–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, S., Kim, S. L., & Yun, S. (2018). A moderated mediation model of the relationship between abusive supervision and knowledge sharing. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(3), 403–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, N., Liang, J., & Crant, J. M. (2010). The role of proactive personality in job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior: A relational perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(2), 395–404.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Liao, C. H. (2022). Exploring the impacts of network mechanisms on knowledge sharing and extra-role behavior. Journal of Knowledge Management, 26(8), 1901–1920.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, H., & Hwang, Y. (2014). Do feelings matter? The effects of intrinsic benefits on individuals’ commitment toward knowledge systems. Computers in Human Behavior, 30, 191–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Littman-Ovadia, H., Lavy, S., & Boiman-Meshita, M. (2017). When theory and research collide: Examining correlates of signature strengths use at work. Journal of Happiness Studies, 18(2), 527–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lu, L., Leung, K., & Koch, P. T. (2006). Managerial knowledge sharing: The role of individual, interpersonal, and organizational factors. Management and Organization Review, 2(1), 15–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lu, X., Tu, Y., Li, Y., & Ho, C. C. (2016). Affective and normative forces between HCHRM and turnover intention in China. Employee Relations, 38(5), 741–754.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malinowski, P., & Lim, H. J. (2015). Mindfulness at work: Positive affect, hope, and optimism mediate the relationship between dispositional mindfulness, work engagement, and well-being. Mindfulness, 6(6), 1250–1262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McClean, E., & Collins, C. J. (2019). Expanding the concept of fit in strategic human resource management: An examination of the relationship between human resource practices and charismatic leadership on organizational outcomes. Human Resource Management, 58(2), 187–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyers, M. C., & van Woerkom, M. (2017). Effects of a strengths intervention on general and work-related well-being: The mediating role of positive affect. Journal of Happiness Studies, 18(3), 671–689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyers, M. C., van Woerkom, M., de Reuver, R. S. M., Bakk, Z., & Oberski, D. L. (2015). Enhancing psychological capital and personal growth initiative: Working on strengths or deficiencies. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 62(1), 50–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Meyers, M. C., Adams, B. G., Sekaja, L., Buzea, C., Cazan, A. M., Gotea, M., & van Woerkom, M. (2019). Perceived organizational support for the use of employees’ strengths and employee well-being: A cross-country comparison. Journal of Happiness Studies, 20(6), 1825–1841.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mielniczuk, E., & Laguna, M. (2020). Positive affect mediates the relationship between self-efficacy and innovative behavior in entrepreneurs. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 54(2), 267–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitte, K., & Kämpfe, N. (2008). Personality and the four faces of positive affect: A multitrait-multimethod analysis using self-and peer-report. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(5), 1370–1375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mostafa, A. M. S. (2017). High-performance HR practices, positive affect and employee outcomes. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 32(2), 163–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mullen, E., & Skitka, L. J. (2009). Comparing Americans’ and Ukrainians’ allocations of public assistance: The role of affective reactions in helping behavior. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 40(2), 301–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naim, M. F., & Lenka, U. (2017). Linking knowledge sharing, competency development, and affective commitment: Evidence from indian Gen Y employees. Journal of Knowledge Management, 21(4), 885–906.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nguyen, T. M., & Malik, A. (2020). Cognitive processes, rewards and online knowledge sharing behaviour: The moderating effect of organisational innovation. Journal of Knowledge Management, 24(6), 1241–1261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Obrenovic, B., Jianguo, D., Tsoy, D., Obrenovic, S., Khan, M. A. S., & Anwar, F. (2020). The enjoyment of knowledge sharing: Impact of altruism on tacit knowledge-sharing behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1496.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Owens, R. L., Allan, B. A., & Flores, L. Y. (2019). The strengths-based inclusive theory of work. The Counseling Psychologist, 47(2), 222–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, S., & Kim, E. J. (2018). Fostering organizational learning through leadership and knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowledge Management, 22(6), 1408–1423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, S. K., & Sprigg, C. A. (1999). Minimizing strain and maximizing learning: The role of job demands, job control, and proactive personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(6), 925–939.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 979–903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pressman, S. D., & Cohen, S. (2005). Does positive affect influence health? Psychological Bulletin, 131(6), 925–971.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Radaelli, G., Lettieri, E., Mura, M., & Spiller, N. (2014). Knowledge sharing and innovative work behaviour in healthcare: A micro-level investigation of direct and indirect effects. Creativity and Innovation Management, 23(4), 400–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rego, A., Sousa, F., Marques, C., & e Cunha, M. P. (2014). Hope and positive affect mediating the authentic leadership and creativity relationship. Journal of Business Research, 67(2), 200–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rehman, S. U., Bresciani, S., Ashfaq, K., & Alam, G. M. (2022). Intellectual capital, knowledge management and competitive advantage: A resource orchestration perspective. Journal of Knowledge Management, 26(7), 1705–1731.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rehman, S. U., Ashfaq, K., Bresciani, S., Giacosa, E., & Mueller, J. (2021). Nexus among intellectual capital, interorganizational learning, industrial Internet of things technology and innovation performance: a resource-based perspective.Journal of Intellectual Capital,1–26.

  • Renkema, M., Meijerink, J., & Bondarouk, T. (2017). Advancing multilevel thinking in human resource management research: Applications and guidelines. Human Resource Management Review, 27(3), 397–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reychav, I., & Weisberg, J. (2009). Good for workers, good for companies: How knowledge sharing benefits individual employees. Knowledge and Process Management, 16(4), 186–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds Kueny, C. A., Francka, E., Shoss, M. K., Headrick, L., & Erb, K. (2020). Ripple effects of supervisor counterproductive work behavior directed at the organization: Using affective events theory to predict subordinates’ decisions to enact CWB. Human Performance, 33(5), 355–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowley, J. (2000). From learning organization to knowledge entrepreneur. Journal of Knowledge Management, 4(1), 7–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sang, L., Xia, D., Ni, G., Cui, Q., Wang, J., & Wang, W. (2019). Influence mechanism of job satisfaction and positive affect on knowledge sharing among project members: Moderator role of organizational commitment. Engineering Construction and Architectural Management, 27(1), 245–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santhose, S. S., & Lawrence, L. N. (2023). Understanding the implementations and limitations in knowledge management and knowledge sharing using a systematic literature review.Current Psychology,1–16.

  • Seibert, S. E., Crant, J. M., & Kraimer, M. L. (1999). Proactive personality and career success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(3), 416–427.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Crant, J. M. (2001). What do proactive people do? A longitudinal model linking proactive personality and career success. Personnel Psychology, 54(4), 845–874.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seligman, M. E., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2014). Positive psychology: An introduction. Flow and the foundations of positive psychology (pp. 279–298). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Seligman, M. E. P., Steen, T. A., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005). Positive psychology progress: Empirical validation of interventions. American Psychologist, 60(5), 410–421.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sheng, X., & Zhou, H. (2022). The effect of decent work on voice behavior: The mediating role of thriving at work and the moderating role of proactive personality. Current Psychology, 41(12), 8524–8537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simao, L., & Franco, M. (2018). External knowledge sources as antecedents of organizational innovation in firm workplaces: A knowledge-based perspective. Journal of Knowledge Management, 22(2), 237–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spence, J. R., Brown, D. J., Keeping, L. M., & Lian, H. (2014). Helpful today, but not tomorrow? Feeling grateful as a predictor of daily organizational citizenship behaviors. Personnel Psychology, 67(3), 705–738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Srikanth, P. B., Jomon, M. G., & Thakur, M. (2022). Developmental idiosyncratic i-deals and its influence on promotability decisions: The joint roles of proactive personality and developmental challenge. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 33(10), 2083–2108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stenius, M., Haukkala, A., Hankonen, N., & Ravaja, N. (2017). What motivates experts to share? A prospective test of the model of knowledge sharing motivation. Human Resource Management, 56(6), 871–885.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suppiah, V., & Sandhu, M. (2011). Organisational culture’s influence on tacit knowledge-sharing behaviour. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(3), 462–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tangaraja, G., Rasdi, R. M., Ismail, M., & Samah, B. A. (2015). Fostering knowledge sharing behaviour among public sector managers: A proposed model for the malaysian public service. Journal of Knowledge Management, 19(1), 121–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Umar, M., Sial, M. H., & Ali, S. A. (2021). Significance of job attitudes and motivation in fostering knowledge sharing behaviour among bank personnel. Journal of Information & Knowledge Management, 20(01), 2150003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Woerkom, M., & Meyers, M. C. (2015). My strengths count! Effects of a strengths-based psychological climate on positive affect and job performance. Human Resource Management, 54(1), 81–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Woerkom, M., Oerlemans, W., & Bakker, A. B. (2016b). Strengths use and work engagement: A weekly diary study. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 25(3), 384–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Woerkom, M., Mostert, K., Els, C., Bakker, A. B., De Beer, L., & Rothmann, S. Jr. (2016a). Strengths use and deficit correction in organizations: Development and validation of a questionnaire. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 25(6), 960–975.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Velez, M. J., & Neves, P. (2018). Shaping emotional reactions to ethical behaviors: Proactive personality as a substitute for ethical leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(6), 663–673.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, S., & Noe, R. A. (2010). Knowledge sharing: A review and directions for future research. Human Resource Management Review, 20(2), 115–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wegge, J., Dick, R. V., Fisher, G. K., West, M. A., & Dawson, J. F. (2006). A test of basic assumptions of affective events theory (AET) in call centre work 1. British Journal of Management, 17(3), 237–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory. Research in Organizational Behavior, 18(1), 1–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilt, J., Noftle, E. E., Fleeson, W., & Spain, J. S. (2012). The dynamic role of personality states in mediating the relationship between extraversion and positive affect. Journal of Personality, 80(5), 1205–1236.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, A. M., Linley, P. A., Maltby, J., Kashdan, T. B., & Hurling, R. (2011). Using personal and psychological strengths leads to increases in well-being over time: A longitudinal study and the development of the strengths use questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(1), 15–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xue, Y., Bradley, J., & Liang, H. (2011). Team climate, empowering leadership, and knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(2), 299–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yan, Y., Zhang, J., Akhtar, M. N., & Liang, S. (2021). Positive leadership and employee engagement: The roles of state positive affect and individualism-collectivism.Current Psychology,1–10.

  • Yang, C., & Chen, L. C. (2007). Can organizational knowledge capabilities affect knowledge sharing behavior? Journal of Information Science, 33(1), 95–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yi, J. (2009). A measure of knowledge sharing behavior: Scale development and validation. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 7(1), 65–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Youssef, M., Haak-Saheem, W., & Youssef, E. M. (2017). A structural equation model for knowledge sharing behavior in an emerging economy. Journal of Knowledge Management, 21(4), 925–945.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, R. P. (2016). Positive affect and self-efficacy as mediators between personality and life satisfaction in chinese college freshmen. Journal of Happiness Studies, 17(5), 2007–2021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, Y. Q. (2017). Why and how knowledge sharing matters for R&D engineers. R&D Management, 47(2), 212–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors are grateful to the employees who participated in this study. This study was supported by the National Nature Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 72202063) and the State Key Program of National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 72132009).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Economics and Management, North China Electric Power University, No. 2, Bei Nong Road, Changping District, Beijing, China

    He Ding

  2. School of Management, Wuhan University of Technology, 122 Luoshi Road, Wuhan, Hubei, 430070, PR China

    Jun Liu

  3. Ecole de Psychologues Praticiens de Paris Equipe d’accueil Religion, culture et société, Institut Catholique de Paris, École de Psychologues Praticiens of the Catholic Institute of Paris Catholic Institute of Paris, APEMAC UR, 23, rue du Montparnasse, Paris, Metz, 75006, 4360 UDL, France

    Charles Martin-Krumm

Authors
  1. He Ding
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jun Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Charles Martin-Krumm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to He Ding.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

The manuscript has not been submitted elsewhere for publication, in whole or in part.

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Participation for this study is voluntary.

The data that support the findings of this study are available from HD (believedh@126.com), upon reasonable request.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ding, H., Liu, J. & Martin-Krumm, C. Exploring the relationship of perceived strengths-based human system with knowledge sharing. Curr Psychol 43, 4337–4351 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-04497-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-04497-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation