1 Department of General Management & Strategy, Indian Institute of Foreign Trade, Kolkata, West Bengal, India
Creative Commons Non Commercial CC BY-NC: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-Commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed.
This study examines the influence of transformational leadership on constructive deviance (CD) by examining two potential mediating variables: perceived organisational support (POS) and knowledge-sharing behaviour. The findings provide vital empirical evidence supporting a strong positive impact on CD in employees. The mediatory effect of POS and knowledge-sharing behaviour on the relationship between transformational leaders and CD has also been empirically substantiated by the study. Moreover, the study sheds light on sequential mediation of the POS, knowledge sharing and POS behaviours translating transformational leader–employee interactions into CD. Some of the implications of the study suggestsfocussing on transformational leaders to promote positive behaviours among workforce and encouraging knowledge sharing to increase CD at work. The study will offer valuable insights for organisations seeking to promote positive deviant behaviours and create a supportive and innovative work environment.
constructive deviance, transformational leadership, perceived organisational support, knowledge sharing, leadership
Constructive deviance (CD) which is defined as ‘behaviours that deviate from organisational norms but benefit the organisation’ has received increasing attention in organisational and human resource management research (Neubert et al., 2008; Sharma & Singh, 2018). This phenomenon is significant to organisations, as it can lead to innovation, creativity, higher engagement levels and improved performance (Sharma & Singh, 2018). Therefore, understanding the factors that influence CD within organisations is important for promoting a positive and efficient work culture. One such factor that has been identified in relation to CD is leadership style (Neubert et al., 2008).
Within organisations, leadership style has a major impact on how employees behave and think. According to research, different leadership philosophies have varying impacts on aberrant conduct. For instance, it has been proposed that transformational leadership, which is characterised by its focus on inspiring and motivating followers (Neubert et al., 2008), may actually inspire CD. Other leadership philosophies, such as transactional, laissez-faire, and abusive leadership, on the other hand, can have distinct impacts on aberrant behaviour (Qi et al., 2022). Organisations must comprehend how different leadership philosophies affect CD in order to properly manage and encourage such behaviours.
Despite the growing body of research on CD and leadership (Li & Wang, 2021; Zhang et al., 2022), there are still significant gaps in the general understanding, particularly when it comes to the relationship between transformational leadership and CD. While some studies have suggested a link between the two, the mechanisms underlying this relationship remain unclear (Shabbir & Hassan, 2022). Although previous studies have pointed out the role leadership style plays in influencing deviant behaviours that are beneficial to the organisation, the specific mechanisms via which transformational leadership affects CD dominantly remain unexplored. This highlights the need for further exploration of mediating variables that may help explain how transformational leadership influences CD. Furthermore, the literature lacks an in-depth understanding of how transformational leadership can foster a sense of organisational support and promote knowledge-sharing behaviour (KSB), thus creating an environment conducive to CD.
With a focus on two potential mediating variables, perceived organisational support (POS) and KSB, this study aims to close this gap by studying the impact of transformational leadership on CD. According to Connelly and Kelloway (2003), POS measures how much employees believe their employer values and care about their contributions. The voluntary sharing of knowledge and information among employees is referred to as KSB , which is essential for innovation and organisational development (Kim & Park, 2020). How does the degree of POS influence KSB, or vice versa, and what impact does this interaction have on CD? This multifaceted association requires a comprehensive and rigorous exploration to truly advance our understanding of the dynamics of CD in organisational settings.
This study’s findings will have a significant impact on both theory and practise. From a theoretical standpoint, this study will advance the body of knowledge on CD by elucidating the link between transformational leadership (TL) and CD. Two mediating variables that have not been considered in prior studies will also be highlighted in this study. From a practical standpoint, the findings will offer valuable insights for organisations seeking to promote positive deviant behaviours and create a supportive and innovative work environment (Lamsam & Charoensukmongkol, 2022). By identifying factors that facilitate CD, organisations can develop strategies to enhance employee engagement, creativity and overall performance (Lamsam & Charoensukmongkol, 2022).
The subsequent segment of this article introduces a review of the existing literature and hypotheses formation to guide the study. Further, the methodology section elucidates the procedures employed for data collection and analysis. This is succeeded by a section focused on the presentation of the collected data and its subsequent analysis, encompassing all obtained results alongside their corresponding interpretations. Later, subsequent sections delve into the discussion of findings, their implications, acknowledged limitations and the conclusion for the study.
Transformational Leadership and Employee Behaviours
According to the well-researched concept of TL (Erkutlu, 2008), followers must be inspired and motivated to put aside their own interests in order to meet the demands of the group or organisation as a whole. Although charismatic-transformational leadership is very common, several people have expressed reservations about its conceptual clarity and underdeveloped causal model (Knippenberg & Sitkin, 2013). According to research (Yahaya & Ebrahim, 2016), TL increases organisational commitment, employee satisfaction with the leader and leadership effectiveness (Dana et al., 2022). Additionally, it has been discovered that TL influences innovative work behaviour, with knowledge sharing moderating this link and job crafting behaviours mediating it (Afsar et al., 2019). Work withdrawal, organisational commitment and family-friendly programmes have all been studied in relation to TL. According to these research works (Wang & Walumbwa, 2007), TL was found to influence the correlations between these variables.
The results of previous studies consistently show that transformational leaders have a good influence on the behaviours of workers. For instance, Afsar & Umrani (2020) looked at the connection between TL and innovative work behaviour and discovered that employees’ motivation to learn was positively impacted by transformational leadership. Through a mediation of employees’ organizational citizenship behavior, Jiang et al. (2017) found that TL significantly improved employee sustainable performance. In another study by Carter et al. (2013), it was found that transformational leadership, employee commitment to change and job performance throughout an organisational shift have a favourable association. Li et al. (2019) investigated how empowerment, work engagement and trust in the leader all affect how innovatively individuals behave at work. The psychological empowerment of followers acted as a moderator in correlations between transformational leadership and employee task performance and organisational citizenship behaviours, according to research by Dust et al. (2014) on the empowering impacts of transformational leaders. These studies demonstrate that by building a positive organisational culture and motivating staff to go above and beyond the call of duty, transformational leaders can improve employee performance.
Constructive Deviance at Work
CD, also known as positive deviance, involves behaviours that challenge established norms and rules to bring about positive change within an organisation (Sharma & Chillakuri, 2023). While much of the existing research on workplace deviance has focused on its negative aspects, there is a growing recognition of the potential benefits of deviant behaviour (Brown & Mitchell, 2010; Sharma & Chillakuri, 2023). For example, studies have shown that a positively deviant workforce can foster radical innovations and enhance organisational interests in turbulent environments (Liu et al., 2021). One specific benefit is increased creativity and innovation within the organisation. Research has demonstrated that employees engaged in CD may help organisations with its required human resource creativity (Abbasi et al., 2020; Dana et al., 2022). Additionally, workplace spirituality, which has been linked to CD behaviour, has been found to increase positive organisational outcomes (Garg & Saxena, 2020). Meaningful work, associated with workplace spirituality, has the potential to increase positive organisational outcomes (Garg & Saxena, 2020). Furthermore, work–family enrichment has been found to have a direct and positive relationship with CD (Khan & Rehman, 2019). As such, by encouraging and supporting constructive deviant behaviours, organisations can reap the benefits of deviance while minimising its negative consequences.
Extant research focuses on the leadership role in fostering CD. Neubert et al. (2008) found that servant leadership influences employees’ creative behaviour and suggested that different leadership styles may have distinct effects on employee behaviour. Zhang et al. (2022) identified leader’s moral humility as one of the predictor of CD and found that it positively affects the positively deviant behaviour of an employee through employee moral identity. This suggests that leaders who exhibit moral humility can inspire employees to engage in CD behaviour. Kim and Beehr (2017) suggested that empowering leadership encourages employees to search for innovative methods to achieve work goals, even if these methods may be considered ‘incorrect’ by the organisation’s current practices and procedures. Liu et al. (2021) found that ethical leadership positively affects employee creative deviance, with job autonomy mediating this relationship. However, the role of transformational leadership in employees’ indulgence in CD remains unexplored and warrants more scholarly attention.
According to Brown and Treviño (2006), socialised charismatic leadership, a form of transformational leadership, has been shown to positively impact workplace deviance. The authors suggest that organisations should actively promote this leadership style among their managers and incorporate the reduction of workplace deviance into leadership training programmes (Brown & Treviño, 2006). Similarly, Vadera et al. (2013) found that transformational leadership positively influenced extra-role behaviours, which can be considered as CD (Vadera et al., 2013). Shang and Yang (2022) also identified leadership style as a key factor in employees’ CD, with empowering leadership encouraging employees to engage in such behaviours. This result lends support to the idea that transformational leadership, which is frequently connected to empowering leadership, might have a favourable impact on CD (Shang & Yang, 2022). According to a study by Liu et al. (2021a,b), transformational leadership can increase the structural strain brought on by an individual’s striving orientation, encouraging workers to exhibit creative deviance. Although Liu et al.’s study concentrated on creativity, creative deviance might be seen of as a type of CD. Transformational leadership increased positive deviance among workers through psychological empowerment, as Zhang et al. (2022) showed. Even though their research focused on leaders’ moral humility, it backs up the notion that transformational leadership can reduce CD (Zhang et al., 2022). Based on these findings, it is hypothesised that:
H1: Transformational leadership positively affects employees’ indulgence in CD.
According to Gagné’s (2009) knowledge-sharing incentive model, transformational leadership can encourage KSB by promoting sharing norms and meeting employees’ fundamental psychological needs. Research by Masa’deh et al. (2016) that found a strong link between knowledge-sharing practises and TL later confirmed this conclusion. Kim and Park (2020) discovered that KSB among employees was directly influenced by TL. Transformational leadership, according to Wu and Lee (2020), can have a major impact on team members’ behaviour, particularly their desire to share expertise. The psychological resources of the workforce, such as self-efficacy and good mood, can also be positively influenced by this style of leadership, which will boost output and job satisfaction. Through information sharing, Bednall et al. (2018) found a curvilinear association between transformational leadership and innovative conduct. According to Afsar et al. (2019), the association between transformational leadership and workers’ innovative work behaviour was moderated by job crafting behaviours. They also discovered that this link was regulated by information exchange, which emphasises the significance of these elements in encouraging creativity at work. Similar to this, Lei et al. (2021) found that transformational leaders are crucial for developing staff members’ knowledge and abilities and promoting information sharing. Further research by Bryant (2003) supported the claim that transformational leadership is superior for both individual and group knowledge creation and sharing. The differences between these two leadership philosophies are highlighted by the fact that transactional leadership is more successful at utilising knowledge at the organisational level. According to Son et al. (2020), transformational leadership enhanced information exchange, which enhanced the operational and financial performance of the company. According to research by Park and Kim (2018), transformational leaders can improve a variety of employee behaviours, including atmosphere for knowledge sharing inside the workplace and interpersonal trust. Based on these findings, it is hypothesised that:
H2: Transformational leadership positively affects employees’ KSB.
Numerous studies have found a connection between employees’ knowledge-sharing habits and their willingness to engage in CD. According to Malik and Malik (2021), employee engagement was greatly impacted by perceived knowledge-sharing mechanisms, which may have a favourable association with CD. According to this study, employees are more likely to engage in productively deviant behaviours that are advantageous to the company when they share their expertise. Wang (2022) also emphasised the need of enabling leaders in encouraging staff to engage in positive deviance, such as sharing of knowledge. Sharma (2021) noted that CD had a beneficial impact on worker productivity. Knowledge sharing can be viewed as a type of constructive deviant behaviour that boosts employee productivity, even though the relationship between the two was not specifically discussed. Based on these findings, it is hypothesised that:
H3: KSB has a positive effect on employees’ indulgence in CD.
Based on the hypotheses H1, H2 and H3, it is further hypothesised that
H4: Transformational leadership has a positive effect on employees’ indulgence in CD through KSB.
An increasing amount of research confirms the link between CD and POS. For instance, Colbert et al. (2004) discovered a connection between workplace deviation and POS. According to organisational support theory, employees are more likely to feel obligated to aid the organisation in achieving its objectives and promoting its welfare when they believe that their company values their contributions and is concerned about their wellbeing. Employees may be deterred from engaging in unconventional behaviours that are detrimental to the company by this sense of commitment. According to Shore et al.’s (2010) research, POS was a factor in perceived insider status. They discovered that this insider position had a favourable relationship with altruistic actions and a detrimental relationship with productivity deviation. This shows that when staff members experience company support, they are more likely to exhibit constructively deviant behaviours that advance the organisation’s performance. An investigation of the connection between POS and CD was done by Kura et al. (2017). They discovered a constructive link between the two, with organisational trust serving as a partial mediating factor. This shows that when workers feel appreciated by their company, they are more inclined to engage in positive deviations because they have faith in the company. Additionally, underscoring the significance of organisational support in encouraging constructive deviant behaviours, Malik and Malik (2021) discovered that employees who were engaged and perceived a high level of organisational support were more likely to display constructive deviation. Based on these findings, it is hypothesised that:
H5: POS has positive effect on employees’ indulgence in CD.
According to research by Lin (2007), organisational elements that affect knowledge-sharing procedures include top-level management’s backing and organisational rewards. This shows that employees are more willing to share expertise when they feel appreciated by their employer. Similar to this, Choi et al. (2022) looked into how affective commitment affected employees’ KSB and how POS affected it. They discovered that affective commitment, which in turn promoted more knowledge-sharing activities, was positively associated with POS. Furthermore, underscoring the significance of organisational support in fostering knowledge sharing at work, Wang et al. (2022) discovered a positive link between POS and employees’ intention to share knowledge. Based on these findings, it is hypothesised that:
H6: POS has a positive effect on employees’ KSB.
Through, H5 and H6, it is further hypothesised that:
H7: POS has positive effect on employees’ indulgence in CD through KSB.
Numerous studies have found indirect evidence that suggests there is a link between POS and TL. For instance, Epitropaki (2012) studied the connection between organisational identification and transformational leadership. They discovered that psychological contract breach played a mediating role in the indirect impact of TL on organisational identification. This implies that transformational leadership can affect how staff members feel about their organisation’s support, emphasising the crucial role that this leadership style plays in fostering successful workplace outcomes. This implies that TL has the power to affect how employees view their interaction with the company, which is connected to organisational support. The effect of TL on the innovation climate—which is connected to organisational performance and employee satisfaction—was examined by Aarons and Sommerfeld (2012). Although the POS was not specifically measured in this study, it is possible that transformational leadership can foster an atmosphere that promotes both organisational objectives and employee well-being. A meta-analysis was done in a different study by Kleine et al. (2019), and they discovered that transformational leadership was linked to flourishing at work. Similar to this, Suifan et al. (2018) focused on the mediating function of POS when examining the impact of transformational leadership on employees’ creativity. They discovered that TL had a favourable effect on employees’ creativity as well as their perception of organisational support. This indicates that effective transformational leadership can raise staff members’ feelings of support, boosting their sense of overall pleasure and dedication to the firm. Based on these findings, it is hypothesised that:
H8: Transformational leadership has a positive effect on employees’ POS.
Further, based on previous hypotheses H1–H8, we further propose the following three hypotheses:
H9: Transformational leadership has a positive effect on employees’ indulgence in CD e through POS.
H10: Transformational leadership has a positive effect on employees’ KSB through POS.
H11: Transformational leadership has a positive effect on employees’ indulgence in CD through POS and KSB.
Sample and Data Collection
The sample for this study was drawn from IT enterprises in India. Attempts were made to contact top 10 companies (by market capitalisation); however, due to lack of response, later two more enterprises from the list were further contacted. Finally, seven enterprises agreed to cooperate with the data collection. With the support of the HR team, the contact details (name and email address) of employees were obtained and we directly contacted them to participate in the survey once they were informed about the same from their respective HR department.
A total of 490 email requests (70 for each firm as most companies shared details of only selected employees and none of the companies shared a list of more than 85 employees) were sent to randomly selected employees from the list provided. After some required repeated requests, 281 completed questionnaires were received and further analysed, resulting in 269 fully completed and valid questionnaires for the study. The entire data collection process took about 3 months.
The demographic characteristics of the sample were as follows: males accounted for 73.6% of the sample; most participants were aged 25–30 years (69.5%); most were unmarried (74.3%); the majority held a graduate engineering degree (85.5%); and 66.9% had 3–5 years of work experience.
In this study, we used standardised scales to measure responses. Participants were asked to indicate their level of agreement with each statement on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from ‘Strongly Disagree’ to ‘Strongly Agree’. This allowed us to accurately assess their attitudes and perceptions. For measuring the transformational leadership (TL), a 7-item scale by Carless et al. (2000) was used. A sample item from the scale being ‘Leader treats staff as individuals, supports and encourages their development’. KSB were measured using an adapted version of the 5-item KSB scale developed by Cummings (2004), with a sample item being ‘I actively participate in knowledge-sharing activities’. POS was measured using the shorter version of the Perceived Organisational Support Scale (POS-8) developed by Eisenberger et al. (1986), which contains eight statements measuring employees’ views regarding the extent to which employers value their contributions and care about their well-being. A sample item from this scale is ‘The organization really cares about my well-being’. CD was measured using the scale developed by Galperin (2012), which includes a total of nine items across two dimensions: five items for constructive organisational deviance and four items for constructive interpersonal deviance. A sample item from this scale is ‘Reported a wrong-doing to co-workers to bring about a positive organizational change’.
To evaluate the suitability of the research instrument, tests for validity and reliability were conducted. These tests are classified as outer model tests, which are requirements for PLS-SEM. An outer model analysis examines the relationship between each indicator and its corresponding latent variable.
As can be seen in Table 1, external model testing in this study includes evaluations of general reliability, convergent validity, discriminant validity, average variance extracted (AVE) and reliability using Cronbach’s alpha. The weighting factor values of each construct can be used to evaluate the convergent validity of the reflective indicators. Hair et al. (2014) state that the weighting factor value needs to be bigger than 0.7. The threshold value of 0.7 was attained in this investigation, as evidenced by the weighted factor construct values, which ranged from 0.724 to 0.853. Additionally, the AVE, which is the mean value of the squared weights related to the construct, is used to test the convergent validity of the construct. The AVE has a threshold value that is often 0.50 or higher (Hair et al., 2014).
Table 1. Reliability and Validity.
All 28 research items from the questionnaire were analysed using the Smart PLS application. All research items were found to be valid, with an AVE of at least 0.50 for each construct. Further, we conducted a reliability test to verify the quality of the survey instruments. Cronbach alpha and composite reliability were used to measure the reliability. Both measures have a threshold value of 0.7 (Hair et al., 2014). Table 1 presents the obtained results and indicates that all constructs have reliability scores greater than 0.7, meeting the required threshold for Cronbach alpha and composite reliability.
The discriminant validity of the constructs was then evaluated by contrasting the correlation of latent variables with the square root of AVE. For each construct, the square root of the AVE must be greater than the highest correlation value with other constructions. The TL, CD, KSB and POS constructs all match this requirement, as shown in Table 2, demonstrating strong discriminant validity (Hair et al., 2014).
Table 2. Discriminant Validity.
Note: The AVE of each construct is shown in bold, and its square root should be bigger than its highest correlation with any other construct.
Additionally, the variance inflation factor (VIF), R2 and path coefficient values derived from Smart-PLS were included in the study’s inner model testing. In order to confirm that there was no appreciable collinearity among the exogenous variables, we also did multicollinearity testing. According to the findings, the constructs under research were not multicollinear because the VIF values connecting the exogenous variables were below the cutoff value of 5.00 (Hair et al., 2014). Table 3 displays the results.
Further, a coefficient of determination test was used to determine how accurate the model’s predictive value was. For endogenous constructs, the squared correlation between the actual and predicted values was determined. With values ranging from 0 to 1, the coefficient of determination represents the cumulative impact of exogenous variables on endogenous variables. Higher values suggest that our study model’s predictions were more accurate (Hair et al., 2014). The CD, KSB and POS variables in our study were endogenous, and Table 4 shows their R2 values.
Table 3. Multicollinearity Test.
Table 4. Coefficient Determinant Test.
Table 5 presents the results of the hypotheses testing for the proposed model. H1 presents that TL positively impacts employees’ indulgence in CD. The data support this hypothesis, as evidenced by a path coefficient of 0.297 and a significant p value of .001. H2 is also supported as TL positively influences employees’ KSB as observed through the path coefficient of 0.331 and a p value of .001. H3 implies that KSB has a positive effect on CD. The data back this up with a substantial sample mean, standard deviation and a statistically significant p value of .000. Similarly, we found the support of all the 11 hypotheses; thus, the suggested model has found the empirical validation.
Table 5. Hypotheses Testing.
Note: *All hypotheses were supported.
Analysis of the hypotheses testing strongly supports the influence of TL on employees’ indulgence in CD, with a statistically significant path coefficient (β = 0.297, p < .001) as shown in Figure 1. They also suggest a crucial mediating role of KSB in this relationship, as evidenced by the statistically significant path coefficient between TL?KSB?CD (β = 0.189, p < .001) and a mediating role of POS evidenced by the values (β = 0.407, p < .000).
Figure 1. Path Coefficients.
Our study findings provide vital empirical evidence supporting a strong positive impact of TL on key employee behaviours that go beyond their job requirements but may benefit the organisation in the process such as CD and knowledge sharing (but not explicitly mentioned earlier). This stands in corroboration with prior studies like Kim and Park (2020), Wu and Lee (2020) and Brown and Mitchell (2010). Through our study, it is empirically proved that TL instigates constructive deviation in employees and motivates them to share knowledge, enriching our understanding of the leader–employee dynamic. We postulate this might be due to leaders imbuing trust, generating inspiration and encouraging innovation, thereby creating a supportive environment for both constructive deviation and knowledge sharing.
Our findings also ascertain the role of POS in influencing CD and knowledge sharing among employees. This aligns with the literature that suggests transformational leaders create a sense of belonging and shared purpose, indirectly fostering POS which leads to some positive behaviours (Colbert et al., 2004; Kim & Park, 2020). Interestingly, our results demonstrate POS as a critical link between TL and employees’ behaviours, adding a fresh perspective to the TL discourse.
The mediatory effect of KSB and POS on the relationship between TL and employees’ indulgence in CD has also been empirically substantiated by our study. This finding enhances our comprehension of how TL can yield intended outcomes by cultivating a supportive organisational culture and promoting knowledge exchange.
Lastly, our study sheds light on sequential mediation of POS and KSB translating TL into CD. This intricate relationship expands upon the research suggesting transformational leaders can foster KSB by creating supportive environments, thus resulting in productive deviations.
Theoretical and Practical Implications
The work significantly deepens our theoretical knowledge of TL. It presents TL as a concept that encourages positive deviation and information sharing among workers, not just aligning with previous literature but also drawing new connections. The focus on POS highlights its crucial role in modulating the effect of TL on employee behaviours, illuminating an intriguing dynamic. This complicated relationship supports the hypothesis that transformational leaders encourage a sense of belonging and shared purpose, which in turn promotes POS. It also highlights their effects on knowledge sharing and CD.
The study offers organisational leaders useful insights that may be put into practise. Organisations may use transformational leaders as a powerful lever to encourage positive behaviours that go above and beyond the call of duty because they are the key drivers of constructive deviation and knowledge sharing among employees. Furthermore, the claim that TL practises lead to POS provides executives with a road map for achieving positive employee outcomes. These advantages go beyond simply encouraging better levels of employee engagement and trust; they also, and perhaps more importantly, encourage constructive divergence and the eagerness to impart knowledge. Organisations now have the chance to develop supportive environments that can result in quantifiable performance improvements. When put into practise, this knowledge can promote collaborative, inventive and dynamic workplaces while enhancing organisational effectiveness.
Limitations and Future Research
Despite careful planning and execution, some constraints are unavoidable in every study. Employees from seven Indian IT companies made up the sample size for the current study, which may limit the findings’ applicability to a larger population or to situations involving various cultures. For full insights, future study may consider a wider and more varied dataset that includes additional nations or industries.
Additionally, the analyses only used self-reported data, which opens the door to common method variance. For better validity, future research could use multi-source data collecting. Although the study concentrated on TL and CD, there may be other leadership philosophies and organisational factors that are interesting to investigate. Future studies could look at various leadership styles and how they interact with people’s or organisations’ level factors that could affect how they share knowledge.
The study also employed a cross-sectional design. Longitudinal research may offer new perspectives on the consistency and evolution of variables.
With additional mediation from POS and knowledge-sharing conduct, this investigation has explored the enormous influence that TL possesses in fostering CD in an organisational setting. Each of these components is essential to creating a setting that encourages innovation.
The propensity of employees to engage in CD was discovered to have a favourable association with TL. This demonstrates how transformational leaders can inspire staff members to push the envelope and defy expectations in a way that is advantageous to the organisation.
Furthermore, POS and KSB were found to have a substantial mediation effect. Employees become more devoted, share more information and exhibit CD when they feel that their efforts are acknowledged and supported. This demonstrates how organisational support can positively impact employees’ creative behaviours.
It was discovered that knowledge sharing, a frequently ignored behaviour, is crucial to CD. Employee openness to sharing knowledge, exchanging ideas and learning from others is vital to the culture of innovation and promotes healthy deviation.
In conclusion, our research confirms the complex interactions between TL, POS, KSB and CD. The research adds to and broadens the existing body of work on organisational behaviour and leadership. They also offer a thorough framework that practitioners, in particular CEOs and HR specialists, may use to foster a culture of creativity and CD. Due to the study’s limitations, caution should be used, and further research on these links in diverse circumstances is suggested.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
Naman Sharma https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7151-7360
Aarons, G. A., & Sommerfeld, D. H. (2012). Leadership, innovation climate, and attitudes toward evidence-based practice during a statewide implementation. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 51(4), 423–431.
Abbasi, A., Ismail, W. K. W., Baradari, F., & Shahreki, J. (2020). Trust in management and work satisfaction as predictor of workplace deviance in SMEs of Malaysia. European Journal of Business and Management, 12(21), 196–207.
Afsar, B., Masood, M., & Umrani, W. A. (2019). The role of job crafting and knowledge sharing on the effect of transformational leadership on innovative work behavior. Personnel Review, 48(5), 1186–1208.
Afsar, B., & Umrani, W. A. (2020). Transformational leadership and innovative work behavior: The role of motivation to learn, task complexity and innovation climate. European Journal of Innovation Management, 23(3), 402–428.
Bednall, T. C., Rafferty, E. A., Shipton, H., Sanders, K., & Jackson, J. C. (2018). Innovative behaviour: How much transformational leadership do you need? British Journal of Management, 29(4), 796–816.
Brown, M., & Treviño, L. (2006). Socialized charismatic leadership, values congruence, and deviance in work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 4(91), 954–962.
Brown, M. E., & Mitchell, M. S. (2010). Ethical and unethical leadership: Exploring new avenues for future research. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20(4), 583–616.
Bryant, S. E. (2003). The role of transformational and transactional leadership in creating, sharing and exploiting organizational knowledge. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9(4), 32–44.
Carless, S. A., Wearing, A. J., & Mann, L. (2000). A short measure of transformational leadership. Journal of Business and Psychology, 14, 389–405.
Carter, M. Z., Armenakis, A. A., Feild, H. S., & Mossholder, K. W. (2013). Transformational leadership, relationship quality, and employee performance during continuous incremental organizational change. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(7), 942–958.
Choi, W., Goo, W., & Choi, Y. (2022). Perceived organizational support and knowledge sharing: a moderated-mediation approach. Sage Open, 12(2), 21582440221089950
Colbert, A., Mount, M., Witt, L., Barrick, M. (2004). Interactive effects of personality and perceptions of the work situation on workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 4(89), 599–609.
Connelly, C., & Kelloway, E. (2003). Predictors of employees’ perceptions of knowledge sharing cultures. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 5(24), 294–301.
Cummings, J. N. (2004). Work groups, structural diversity, and knowledge sharing in a global organization. Management Science, 50(3), 352–364.
Dana, L. P., Sharma, N., & Singh, V. K. (Eds.). (2022). Managing human resources in SMEs and start-ups: International challenges and solutions (Vol. 5). World Scientific.
Dust, S. B., Resick, C. J., & Mawritz, M. B. (2014). Transformational leadership, psychological empowerment, and the moderating role of mechanistic–organic contexts. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(3), 413–433.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 500.
Epitropaki, O. (2012). A multi-level investigation of psychological contract breach and organizational identification through the lens of perceived organizational membership: Testing a moderated–mediated model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(1), 65–86.
Erkutlu, H. (2008). The impact of transformational leadership on organizational and leadership effectiveness: The Turkish case. Journal of Management Development, 27(7), 708–726.
Gagné, M. (2009). A model of knowledge-sharing motivation. Human Resource Management, 48(4), 571–589.
Galperin, B. L. (2012). Exploring the nomological network of workplace deviance: Developing and validating a measure of constructive deviance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(12), 2988–3025.
Garg, N., & Saxena, A. (2020). Analyzing the inter-relation between workplace spirituality and constructive deviance. Asian Journal of Business Ethics, 9, 121–141.
Hair Jr, J., Hair Jr, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage Publications.
Jiang, W., Zhao, X., & Ni, J. (2017). The impact of transformational leadership on employee sustainable performance: The mediating role of organizational citizenship behavior. Sustainability, 9(9), 1567.
Khan, N., & Rehman, S. (2019). Exploring the relationship between work-family enrichment and constructive deviance: Applying social exchange theory (Set). International Review of Management & Business Research (IRMBR), 8(2), 219–228. https://doi.org/10.30543/8-2(2019)-9
Kim, M., & Beehr, T. (2017). Self-efficacy and psychological ownership mediate the effects of empowering leadership on both good and bad employee behaviors. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 4(24), 466–478. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051817702078
Kleine, A. K., Rudolph, C. W., & Zacher, H. (2019). Thriving at work: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(9–10), 973–999.
Knippenberg, D., & Sitkin, S. (2013). A critical assessment of charismatic—transformational leadership research: Back to the drawing board? The Academy of Management Annals, 1(7), 1–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2013.759433
Kura, K. M., Shamsudin, F. M., & Chauhan, A. (2017). Organisational trust as a mediator between perceived organisational support and constructive deviance. International Journal of Business and Society, 17(1). https://doi.org/10.33736/ijbs.506.2016
Lamsam, N., & Charoensukmongkol, P. (2022). Effect of CEO transformational leadership on organizational ethical culture and firm performance: The moderating effect of competitive intensity. Journal of Asia Business Studies, 3(17), 539–558. https://doi.org/10.1108/jabs-12-2021-0513
Lan, T. S., Chang, I. H., Ma, T. C., Zhang, L. P., & Chuang, K. C. (2019). Influences of transformational leadership, transactional leadership, and patriarchal leadership on job satisfaction of cram school faculty members. Sustainability, 11(12), 3465.
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, 25(7), 1832–1852. https://doi.org/10.1108/jkm-04-2020-0247
Li, H., Sajjad, N., Wang, Q., Muhammad Ali, A., Khaqan, Z., & Amina, S. (2019). Influence of transformational leadership on employees’ innovative work behavior in sustainable organizations: Test of mediation and moderation processes. Sustainability, 11(6), 1594. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11061594
Li, L., & Wang, S. (2021). Influence of paternalistic leadership style on innovation performance based on the research perspective of the mediating effect of the constructive deviance of employees. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 719281.
Lin, H. F. (2007). Effects of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation on employee knowledge sharing intentions. Journal of Information Science, 33(2), 135–149.
Liu, X., Baranchenko, Y., An, F., Lin, Z., & Ma, J. (2021a). The impact of ethical leadership on employee creative deviance: the mediating role of job autonomy. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 42(2), 219–232.
Liu, Z., Pan, X., & Zhu, T. (2021b). Status-striving orientation, creative deviance engagement and employee creativity: Perspective of structural strain. Chinese Management Studies, 15(4), 821–842.
Malik, P., & Malik, P. (2021). Investigating the impact of knowledge sharing system on workplace deviance: A moderated mediated process model in Indian IT sector. Journal of Knowledge Management, 25(8), 2088–2114.
Masa’deh, R. E., 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.
Neubert, M. J., Kacmar, K. M., Carlson, D. S., Chonko, L. B., & Roberts, J. A. (2008). Regulatory focus as a mediator of the influence of initiating structure and servant leadership on employee behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1220.
Park, S., & Kim, E. J. (2018). Fostering organizational learning through leadership and knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowledge Management, 22(6), 1408–1423.
Qi, L., Chaudhary, N. I., Yao, K., Mirza, F., & Khalid, R. (2022). The moderating role of transformational leadership on the relationship between deviant workplace behaviors and employee turnover intentions in China. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1005055.
Shabbir, L., & Hassan, M. (2022). Impact of transformational leadership on constructive deviant behaviors: The mediating role of felt obligation. iRASD Journal of Management, 4(2), 243–262.
Shang, L., & Yang, L. (2022). A cross-level study of the relationship between ethical leadership and employee constructive deviance: Effects of moral self-efficacy and psychological safety climate. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 964787. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.964787
Sharma, N. (2021). Using positive deviance to enhance employee engagement: An interpretive structural modelling approach. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 30(1), 84–98. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijoa-07-2020-2341
Sharma, N., & Chillakuri, B. K. (2023). Positive deviance at work: A systematic review and directions for future research. Personnel Review, 52(4), 933–954. https://doi.org/10.1108/pr-05-2020-0360
Sharma, N., & Singh, V. K. (2018). Psychological empowerment and employee engagement: Testing the mediating effects of constructive deviance in Indian IT Sector. International Journal of Human Capital and Information Technology Professionals (IJHCITP), 9(4), 44–55.
Shore, L. M., Randel, A. E., Chung, B. G., Dean, M. A., Holcombe Ehrhart, K., & Singh, G. (2010). Inclusion and diversity in work groups: A review and model for future research. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1262–1289. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310385943
Son, T. T., Phong, L. B., & Loan, B. T. T. (2020). Transformational leadership and knowledge sharing: determinants of firm’s operational and financial performance. Sage Open, 10(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020927426
Suifan, T. S., Abdallah, A. B., & Al Janini, M. (2018). The impact of transformational leadership on employees’ creativity: The mediating role of perceived organizational support. Management Research Review, 41(1), 113–132.
Vadera, A. K., Pratt, M. G., & Mishra, P. (2013). Constructive deviance in organizations: Integrating and moving forward. Journal of Management, 39(5), 1221–1276.
Wang, M. F., He, Q., Liu, Z., Du, Y. L., Wu, C., Lang, H. J., & Du, J. (2022). The relationship between perceived organizational support and insomnia in Chinese nurses: The serial multiple mediation analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1026317.
Wang, P., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2007). Family-friendly programs, organizational commitment, and work withdrawal: The moderating role of transformational leadership. Personnel Psychology, 60(2), 397–427.
Wang, Y. (2022). Cross-level influence of empowering leadership on constructive deviance: The different roles of organization-based self-esteem and traditionality. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 810107.
Wu, W. L., & Lee, Y. C. (2020). Do work engagement and transformational leadership facilitate knowledge sharing? A perspective of conservation of resources theory. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(7), 2615.
Yahaya, R., & Ebrahim, F. (2016). Leadership styles and organizational commitment: literature review. Journal of Management Development, 35(2), 190–216.
Zhang, L., Li, X., & Liu, Z. (2022). Fostering constructive deviance by leader moral humility: The mediating role of employee moral identity and moderating role of normative conflict. Journal of Business Ethics, 180(2), 731–746.