The article “Modeling knowledge sharing and team performance: The interactions of ethical leadership and ambidexterity with politics and job complexity” by Liu et al. (2019) explores the association between knowledge sharing and team performance. The scholars have made an attempt to illustrate how a balance between such aspects as corporate politics and job complexity can be achieved through ethical leadership.
The researchers acknowledge that it is a common phenomenon that corporate members are unwilling to share knowledge, which tends to hurt the survival of the business. Such behaviors are considered unethical and the result of competitiveness within the teams. Therefore, organizational leadership will need to develop means and mechanisms to facilitate team performance through knowledge sharing. Ambidexterity and ethical leadership are the primary elements of the framework because they are seen as being critical factors for team performance and knowledge sharing.
Literature Review
The article does not have a literature review section, but much of the literature regarding the subject is presented in the introduction and theory and conceptual framework sections. The key themes that have been explored include knowledge sharing, ambidexterity, team performance, and ethical leadership. These concepts have all be used to discuss team dynamics from a performance point of view. The term knowledge sharing has been defined as exchanging professional knowledge relevant to a particular team setting. Team performance is described as the degree to which the collective objectives are achieved, including internal processes, efficiency, and coordination. Both of these concepts are also viewed as the major outcomes of teamwork.
The researchers have used several previous studies as the basis for the literature discussed. Most importantly, the relationship between knowledge sharing and team performance has been discussed in the light of studies by such scholars as Havelka (2016), who found mixed results regarding how knowledge sharing is linked to team performance. Additionally, Tsai et al. (2016) argue that the focus among scholars should be on what motivates knowledge sharing and team performance instead of the relationship as opposed to examining their relationship. The main point is that Liu et al. (2019) have considered the current literature on the subject to inform the course of their exploration. The literature determines how the researchers will approach the subject and validate the claims made in the article.
The concept of ambidexterity is also described in the article and proposed as the mechanism for pursuing greater team performance and knowledge sharing. Ambidexterity is defined as the scenario where team efficiency is aligned with team management to deal with the business demand while, at the same time, being flexible and adaptable in a dynamic environment. Scholars such as Wang et al. (2017) have been used to support this opinion and justify why Liu et al. (2019) feel that ambidexterity can be a catalyst for both team performance and knowledge sharing.
The basic idea is that ambidexterity allows teams to pursue two disparate objectives simultaneously. In addition to ambidexterity, Liu et al. (2019) believe that ethical leadership is equally important in facilitating team performance and knowledge sharing. The argument given is that ethical leadership positively influences collective behavior and performance.
The theory and conceptual framework section of the article have been used to model the relationships between the four variables: ethical leadership, team performance, ambidexterity, and knowledge sharing. On the one hand, team development and competition are influenced by both ambidexterity and ethical leadership, in addition to other organizational aspects such as politics and job complexity. On the other hand, team development and competition directly affect knowledge sharing and team performance. These relationships have been used to develop the hypotheses of the paper, as will be shown in the following section.
Leadership, knowledge sharing, team performance, and ambidexterity have been modelled in the research. To achieve the purpose of their study, the researchers have developed six hypotheses (Liu et al., 2019). The first hypothesis states that ambidexterity positively affects knowledge sharing and team performance with the help of team development competition. The second hypothesis expresses that ethical leadership positively affects team performance and knowledge sharing also through team development competition. Third, organizational politics have a negative effect on the positive relationship between ambidexterity and team development competition.
The same effect of politics is hypothesized for the relationship between ethical leadership and team development competition. The fifth hypothesis expresses a three-way association between politics, ambidexterity, and job complexity. In other words, teams with higher politics report a more positive relationship between ambidexterity and team development competition at higher levels of job complexity. The last hypothesis proposes a similar three-way relationship between ethical leadership, job complexity, and politics.
Research Aims and Objectives
The article aims to model the relationship between ethical leadership, team performance, ambidexterity, and knowledge sharing. Liu et al. (2019) state that the paper seeks to deepen the understanding of team performance and to explain how ethical leadership and ambidexterity can improve team performance and knowledge sharing. Therefore, each of the aforementioned concepts is defined and their associations outlined. The basic idea is that firms need to boost team performance due to the implications such an effort has on the overall organizational success. Therefore, both the antecedents and outcomes of good teamwork need to be understood comprehensively.
Research Methodology
The research methods used include a survey of professionals working across different teams in Taiwan’s high-tech and banking industries. The main inclusion criteria were that the subjects had to be working in teams and that the minimum team size was three members. All measures were taken to eliminate researcher bias, including making sure the respondents remained anonymous. Such an approach was intended to make sure honest answers to questions were provided. Liu et al. (2019) had hoped to use 450 questionnaires in 90 teams. However, a return rate of 75.56% meant that 340 usable questionnaires from 78 teams were used.
A five-point Likert scale was drawn to measure the constructs of the study. Other measures for such concepts as ambidexterity have also been outlined in the methods section. In terms of data analysis, Liu et al. (2019) have used data aggregation because the team was the focus of the study. Additionally, the hypotheses were tested using hierarchical regression analysis.
Discussion
The relevance of the discussion is a hard topic to discuss regarding the research article. The argument is that only a single paragraph has been presented in the discussion section, which is used to summarize the research findings. A discussion of the results has seemingly been merged with the data analysis and hypotheses testing sections. However, it can be argued that Liu et al. (2019) have not made any efforts to elaborate on their finding. The statements made by the researchers are clear. However, the representation of the paper can be described as below standard, either due to the missing sections or the lack of a better flow of ideas. Therefore, it hard to determine whether or not the authors have been objective enough in their discussion of the research topic.
Use of Qualitative Approach
The empirical analysis used in the article gives the article some features of a quantitative study. However, the survey approach means that a qualitative approach could also be used to address the research problem. First, the variables used have abstract qualities, which implies that quantification can pose major problems. For example, there are no defined metrics for measuring knowledge sharing, ethical leadership, or ambidexterity. In terms of team performance, only a few aspects can be measured numerically, for example, the efficiency of resources used and financial outcomes of teamwork.
However, team performance is also a subjective concept, which can better be assessed qualitatively. Second, the survey questionnaires can be designed to collect qualitative data, including the opinions of the respondents. Lastly, the relationships between the variables used in the study can be expressed differently depending on the perspectives of the respondents. For example, some corporate members may feel that team performance depends on aspects other than knowledge sharing, job complexity, and organizational politics. The subjectivity of the research subject means it can be approached using qualitative methods.
Paper Critique
A critique of the research article “Modeling knowledge sharing and team performance: The interactions of ethical leadership and ambidexterity with politics and job complexity” by Liu et al. (2019) appreciates several aspects. First, the title can be considered clear and appropriate because it states exactly what the researchers sought to achieve. The title is long, which gives it adequate room to comprehensively express the purpose of the article in a single complex sentence. However, it can be argued that the maximum number of words for a research title is 12 words because a longer title tends to take the readers’ attention away from the main point. Liu et al. (2019) have given a shorter title and an extension, which makes the total number of words 18. There is no major problem with the title as it simply summarizes the objectives of the entire paper.
In contrast to the research title, the abstract can be considered too short and hardly representative of the article. The purpose is clearly stated, and the findings are summarized in a single sentence. While there may not be many complaints regarding these two aspects, there is little information regarding the research methodology used by the paper. A closer examination will reveal that the same shortcoming is reflected in the methods section, where a more comprehensive detail of how the study was conducted could have been more desirable. Such aspects as research design, philosophy, sampling, data collection, and analysis have not been conclusively described both in the abstract and in the methods section.
The introduction section of the paper has reiterated the purpose of the study to make it clearer. However, this section can be considered to be more of a literature review than a background to the study. The argument is that the section has attempted to review the areas in which previous studies agree with the subject and to lay the foundation for the research. Regardless of such an approach by Liu et al. (2019), it is important to acknowledge the ability of the scholars to stipulate the research problem and to offer a mechanism through which a solution can be implemented. The most important section of the article in terms of outlining both the problem and solution is the theoretical and conceptual framework. The rationale for this argument is that the study examines several variables whose relationships need to be clearly defined.
Additionally, the associations between the variables are the key to establishing how an improvement in one facilitates an improvement in another. Through the framework, the researchers have successfully communicated how the problem can be addressed. The theoretical and conceptual framework lays the foundation for data collection.
Despite a successful description of the problem and the proposed solution, the study design and methods are shallow and lack some key components. First, the design has not been communicated as Liu et al. (2019) focus on the data collection, measurement, and analysis. Such aspects as the research philosophy and sampling strategies have not been outlines. However, these shortcomings have not made the section extremely deficient or inadequate in highlighting the approach taken to address the subject of exploration. Overall, the methods described are appropriate for the purpose of the study. The argument is that focusing on team leaders allows the researchers to gather higher quality data because such respondents understand the team dynamics better, including the aspects of job complexity, politics, and team performance.
One of the key observations with the paper is the need for more details. Several sections of the paper should be expanded to give it a more scientific appeal. First, the article lacks a literature review section, which should discuss previous studies on the subject and their findings and conclusion. Such a section could make it easier to assess the usefulness of the paper in terms of what contributions it makes to the existing body of literature. Secondly, the methods section should be expanded to discuss how sampling was made. In a study where surveys are used, it is important to make sure the respondents meet the inclusion criteria to make it possible to generalize the results. With the current information, it is hard to understand the research population and, hence, impossible to determine the degree to which the findings can be generalized.
Additionally, the discussion section is lacking in detail because the authors have not made any attempts to explain the research findings. A discussion section often elaborates the outcomes of the exploration and links with other sections, including the literature review. Most importantly, a discussion section illustrates how the current research agrees or differs from previous studies. Lastly, a discussion section should have been followed by a conclusion chapter, which summarizes the paper and discusses the considerations for future research. Overall, the missing sections would have made it possible for the paper to have a standard structure.
Conclusion
The search paper’s critical review reveals that t ambidexterity and ethical leadership facilitate team performance and knowledge sharing. In other words, the researchers have managed to present compelling evidence linking these elements. However, the review finds several strengths and weaknesses as explained in the paper critique, including the current and proposed structure of the article. Some sections have been shown to be missing, the addition of which could have the effect of making the paper appear more scientific. Lastly, it has been illustrated that the current variables used would make it possible to use a qualitative approach.
References
Liu, M., Lin, C., Joe, S., & Chen, K. (2019). Modeling knowledge sharing and team performance: The interactions of ethical leadership and ambidexterity with politics and job complexity. Management Decision, 57(7), 1472-1495. Web.
Havelka, D. (2016). Antecedents to team performance on student IT projects. Journal of Information Systems Education, 27(1), 51-60. Web.
Tsai, Y., Joe, S., Chen, M., Lin, C., Ma, H. & Du, J. (2016). Assessing team performance: Moderating roles of transactive memory, hypercompetition, and emotional regulation. Human Performance, 29(2), 89-105. Web.
Wang, M.-C., Chen, S.-S. and Chiang, J.-M. (2017). Rationality of the personal loan interest-rate markups of banks, Corporate Management Review, 37(1), 115-163. Web.