The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0953-4814.htm

Empowering leadership and Leadership,

knowledge,
knowledge management: and technology

the mediating role of

followers’ technology use
€rkmendag
Zafer Tu  Received 30 November 2020
Faculty of Tourism, Atatu € niversitesi, Erzurum, Turkey, and
€rk U Revised 15 January 2021
24 January 2021
Muharrem Tuna 25 January 2021
Accepted 25 January 2021
€ niversitesi, Ankara, Turkey
Faculty of Tourism, Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli U

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate the role of empowering leadership in intraorganizational
knowledge management practices and to reveal how followers’ acceptance and use of the hotel management
system affect this role.
Design/methodology/approach – A serial multiple mediation model was evaluated and tested using partial
least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). The database was created from the results of a
structured questionnaire obtained from 401 employees working in hotels in Turkey.
Findings – The findings of the study reveal that empowering leadership has a significant effect on followers’
knowledge creation, sharing and application. It was also found that the acceptance and use of the hotel
management system were partially complementary to the impact of empowering leadership on followers’
knowledge management practices.
Practical implications – This paper gives an insight into the empowering leader’s role in gathering useful
knowledge, which is self-managed within the organization, by encouraging, motivating, providing autonomous
and supportive conditions and making it beneficial and easier for their followers to adapt to the organization’s
technologies.
Originality/value – The efficient management of knowledge in organizations through the use of technology
is possible by distributing power to subordinates through expanding the theory of knowledge management,
leadership and the acceptance and use of technology. Furthermore, this study contributes to the literature by
establishing the theoretical foundation of the relationship between empowering leadership and knowledge
management practices based on Dalkir’s knowledge management model and by discussing the mediating
effect of the core variables of the UTAUT model.
Keywords Empowering leadership, Knowledge management, Hotel management system, Unified theory of
acceptance and use of technology, Partial least squares structural equation modeling, Autonomy
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
The knowledge and connectivity of networks within and between the elements of
destinations is the most important factor affecting the development and competition of
tourism destinations (Valeri, 2016; Valeri and Baggio, 2020c; Baggio and Valeri, 2020).
Studies examining the importance of tourism knowledge and its practices, as well as how to
manage it, its antecedents and its consequences have expanded. Many researchers have
treated knowledge management (KM) practices as creating, storing, sharing and applying
knowledge (Alavi and Leidner, 2001; Young et al., 2010). Recognizing that each practice is
related to one another, scholars have developed substantial models that explain how
knowledge moves within organizations to be efficiently converted into strategic assets.
Journal of Organizational Change
Management
This article is based on the doctoral thesis prepared by the first author under the supervision of the © Emerald Publishing Limited
0953-4814
second author. The first author would like to thank his advisor (M. Tuna) for his support. DOI 10.1108/JOCM-11-2020-0364
JOCM For instance, Dalkir’s (2013) integrated KM model is one of the most studied in the area and
gives a better understanding of all the practices, connecting them in a cycle. Other models
give “clarity” to the concept; for effective KM, organizations should adopt a proper leadership
style that gives them the freedom to think and act on relevant issues (Singh, 2008).
Empowering leadership – meeting these conditions by sharing power – has been argued to be
the most efficient leadership style in distributing autonomy and support to followers
(Amundsen and Martinsen, 2014). As such, many studies have linked KM practices to various
leadership styles (Politis, 2001; Nguyen and Mohamed, 2011; Birasnav, 2014), but very few
studies have investigated empowering leadership. We, therefore, aim to examine the
relationship between empowering leadership and the KM practices of followers, which are
knowledge creation, sharing and application. In the literature, despite empowering leadership
generally being associated with both KM sharing and creation, no previous study has
addressed a broad integration of all of the practices in a comprehensive model.
The fact is that studies on technological systems and their adoption are limited in
organizational studies in the fields of tourism and hospitality, and because they only consider
technological applications superficially, this causes businesses to have insufficient knowledge
about their potential advantages and disadvantages (Valeri and Baggio, 2020a, b). Almost all
hotels operate using a hotel management system (HMS), which is a digital application that
provides information flow for operations and communication, and thus, the hotel’s
management can obtain advanced reports for strategic decisions. However, studies have
argued that many of the HMSs are not innovative – being underdeveloped compared to other
industries – and employees and managers cannot fully utilize these systems due to their
technical inadequacy (Law and Jogaratnam, 2005; Kim et al., 2010). Moreover, from the
perspective of technology adoption theory, information technologies are not fully accepted
when managers ignore factors such as the willingness and skills of their employees and when
an unsupportive atmosphere has been created (Hasan, 2003). However, empowering leaders
provide followers with self-efficacy (Kim and Beehr, 2017), autonomy (Lakhal et al., 2013) and
senior management support (Hon et al., 2014), which have been linked to performance and effort
expectancies from the technology (Venkatesh et al., 2003). Similarly, these leaders can
contribute to their followers’ KM practices (Lopez et al., 2009) by changing their minds to
become more open to learning innovations, and as a result, by making them understand
knowledge tools better (Kuo and Lee, 2011). Thus, we propose a theoretical model that assumes
that when followers perceive more empowered leadership behaviors, they intend to use the
HMS more because, based on the UTAUT, their performance expectation increases and they
find it easier, which consequently enhances their knowledge creation, sharing and application.
Our model’s contribution to the literature is twofold. First, it underlines the importance of the
autonomy and support provided by empowering leaders on KM and the use of technology.
Second, it extends the UTAUT model and discusses its variables with serial mediation effects.

2. Theory and hypotheses

The concept of empowering leadership literature has been studied since the 1980s, and
consequently, traditional vertical perspectives of exerting power over followers have started
to be substituted for power-sharing. Developments in modern management approaches have
led researchers to seek out a formal authority, where the role of empowering leadership in
enhancing team performance has been highlighted (Srivastava et al., 2006). Several theories,
including behavioral self-management theory, social cognitive theory, situational leadership
theory, focused leadership versus distributed leadership theory, leader–member exchange
theory, the Vroom–Yetton–Jago decision model, normative participation models of Likert
systems, participatory management and cognitive behavior modification research underpin
the empowering leadership theory (Vecchio et al., 2010). Empowering leadership can be
described as “the process of influencing subordinates through power-sharing, motivation Leadership,
support, and development support with intent to promote their experience of self-reliance, knowledge,
motivation, and capability to work autonomously within the boundaries of overall
organizational goals and strategies” (Amundsen and Martinsen, 2014, p. 489). There is
and technology
little, if any, authenticity involved in interacting with followers in a bidirectional way that
meets or exceeds the intent of being trustworthy. Most recently, studies have emphasized that
empowering leaders exhibit behaviors that increase followers’ self-efficacy and psychological
ownership (Kim and Beehr, 2017) and provide a high degree of participation and self-
improvement (Humborstad and Kuvaas, 2013) by demonstrating confidence in followers’
skills, including them in decision-making, authorizing them to take responsibility for their
duties and reducing bureaucracy through developing open and trusting relationships.
Correspondingly, empowering leadership has been empirically associated with creativity
(Zhang and Zhou, 2014). Although the self-determination theory (Deci and Ryan, 2000) states
that providing employees with high autonomy leads to an increase in work outcomes,
empirical evidence has not always shown a permanent positive effect (Cheong et al., 2016),
however a mid-level empowering leader may pose some risks like losing power over
followers, inadequate leadership and work overload, which negatively affects the creativity
of their followers (Lee et al., 2017).
Present theories of leadership have further evolved thinking on the key role of leaders in
organizational KM (Nonaka et al., 2000). Donate and de Pablo (2015) note that leadership is an
important variable in determining KM practices. Further, many studies have developed
different models to better understand KM, which represents a structure that includes many
processes in organizations, from the formation of information to its use in strategic business
goals. Among them, according to the unified KM model of Dalkir (2013), new knowledge or
technical knowledge (know-how) that did not exist before is developed in the knowledge
creation phase, and valuables are shared and conceptualized. Although there is no global
approach to KM models, Dalkir focused on the coincidences between previous models.
Finally, the author’s model consisted of three phases: knowledge creation/capturing,
knowledge sharing/dissemination and knowledge application/use. Meanwhile, KM practices
are independent among themselves in that anyone in the organization can enter into multiple
processes whenever they want (Alavi and Leidner, 2001).
Early studies on KM were practiced in the area of information systems, and in the late 90s
organizational studies gave attention to its importance, but in the 21st century, leaders have
started thinking about how to handle massive knowledge, big data and data mining issues.
Storing and utilizing big data about accommodation, purchasing transactions and customer
information is considered an important driver of efficient and quality services (Song and Liu,
2017). Further, KM is a key factor for business success in hospitality organizations, where it
determines the ability to make innovative, strategic decisions and apply solutions to
problems (Okumus, 2013). From a resource-based view, many hotel leaders see knowledge as
an intangible strategic resource for operation management and for creating reports to be
informed about all issues within their hotel. But competition between hotels is moving into a
virtual environment and innovation is becoming the most important factor to success in the
knowledge economy; thus, they should find ways to adapt to this and future revolutions by
effectively managing knowledge practices (Inkinen, 2016; Nieves et al., 2014). As the
techniques and developments in this area are very complex and it is very difficult to build up
considerable knowledge, this adaptation is slowing down. It is extremely challenging for
leaders to handle all of these processes themselves, so they should focus on the leadership
style that gives their employees the ability to participate in KM processes. Thus, leaders
should have facilitator, mentor and innovator leadership roles when establishing KM in
hotels and create a supportive environment. This will cause employees to share and collect
new knowledge within the hotel and transform it into organizational knowledge (Yang, 2010).
JOCM 2.1 Empowering leadership and KM
The comprehensive knowledge creation theory argues that firms may generate knowledge
through four main processes involving the interaction of implicit and explicit knowledge:
socialization, externalization, internalization and combination (Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka
et al., 2000). Since creation requires both different ideas and thinking within an
organization; senior management should create a vision and help employees find implicit
information within the organization. However, empowering leadership is positively
associated with followers’ proactive behavior based on social cognitive theory and with
providing autonomy to followers, which indicates, according to the self-determination theory,
an outstanding predictor of creativity (Vecchio et al., 2010). On the other hand, these leaders
enable their followers to overcome resistance to change by taking risks and thinking
differently (Hon et al., 2014) and provide trust and support, which create a facilitating
environment within the organization, and as a result, followers can confidently create creative
ideas and convey them to their colleagues (Yang, 2010). Likewise, we believe the empowering
leadership style affects the generation of new ideas and solutions by followers by providing
them with autonomy, intrinsic motivation and creativity. In light of this discussion, the
following hypothesis has been created:
H1a. Empowering leadership positively affects the knowledge creation of followers.
Knowledge sharing involves the sharing of “a person’s knowledge and expertise about a job
with other members who can add value to the productivity of the organization” (Yi, 2009,
p. 68). It has many consequences within organizations, like increasing job satisfaction,
organizational performance and collaboration. But some employees are unwilling to share
knowledge because of their lack of confidence, a fear of getting a promotion or a fear of the
power of knowledge (Dunford, 2000). Thus, enabling knowledge sharing requires senior
management’s commitment and support, trust among collaborators and adequate
communication paths (Yang, 2010). Team members hold affirmative psychological
aspects that pave the way for knowledge sharing if a leader shows positive behaviors
(Wu and Lee, 2017). Due to social exchange theory, a sense of obligation arises on the part of
followers to replicate the behavior of their superiors during their exchanges (Blau, 1964).
According to Wu and Chen (2015), employees’ perceptions of the interactive relationship
between their superiors strongly facilitate the exchange of knowledge in hotels. Thus,
empowering leaders, by ensuring such a constructive environment, can affect the
knowledge sharing of followers based on social exchange theory. To test this claim, the
following hypothesis was developed:
H1b. Empowering leadership positively affects the knowledge sharing of followers.
Knowledge application indicates “the stage at which existing knowledge is associated with
the problem at hand” (Alavi and Tiwana, 2002, p. 1,030). This is important as the knowledge
created or shared will not lead to performance improvements unless it is applied (Alavi and
Leidner, 2001). According to Grant (1996), implementing information is a personal activity,
and the main role of businesses is to use existing information in the production of new
products or services. Further, knowledge application is very important for the hotel industry
as it has the greatest influence on firm innovation through all KM practices (Ode and Ayevoo,
2020). For the successful application of knowledge in organizations, leaders empower
employees to act on their initiative and enable them with a certain level of flexibility in
acquiring and interpreting knowledge (Pertusa-Ortega et al., 2010). Empowering leaders,
based on the self-determination theory, realize this by facilitating participation in decision-
making and support followers to deal with their issues autonomously (Arnold et al., 2000). On
the other hand, social cognitive theory proves that individuals in the team observe their
leadership’s characteristics and determine whether these characteristics are helping the
individuals in the team to apply knowledge (Bandura, 2001). Thus, we claim that, by creating Leadership,
an autonomous and supportive environment within the organization, empowering leaders knowledge,
may influence followers’ conceptualization of existing knowledge and their application of it to
the business’ processes and problems. This hypothesis was established as:
and technology
H1c. Empowering leadership positively affects the knowledge application of followers.

2.2 Acceptance and use of the HMS as a mediator

With modern developments in information technology and software, especially since the 80s,
technology companies have developed management information systems to speed up the
operations of large-scale hotels, reduce operational errors and meet the demands of fast
reporting. But, from a traditional perspective, using the HMS only in the realization of routine
works and operations has caused monotonousness and a lack of motivation in hospitality
organizations. In addition, some barriers like resistance to change from managers and
employees, a lack of training and communication issues (Okumus et al., 2017) affected the
organization’s adoption of technologies (Tarafdar and Vaidya, 2006). Therefore, it has
emerged that leaders in hospitality organizations should provide a safe and comfortable
environment (Parasuraman and Colby, 2015), feedback and incentives to employees to
respond to their problems (Lam et al., 2007), while they use the HMS. Furthermore, leaders’
support is an important factor for employees to use the HMS more conveniently and easily
because, due to them being the point of contact with guests, employees can gain a massive
and wide range of information (Kim et al., 2008). In other words, it increases organizational
capacity, allowing an enormous flow of knowledge to be used in organizations (Song
et al., 2006).
Studies on technology adoption have mainly focused on the examination of processes
(Beaudry and Pinsonneault, 2005) and the affecting variables (Venkatesh et al., 2003). Among
them, the unified technology adoption and use model (UTAUT), which underpins the
theoretical basis of our framework, is a combination of models created in the field of
information technology adoption, and its dimensions are performance expectancy, effort
expectancy, social impact, and facilitating conditions (Venkatesh et al., 2003). Based on the
UTAUT model, performance expectancy and effort expectancy predict the user’s behavioral
intention with regard to a technology’s use, where performance expectancy is the degree of
relative benefit from the HMS in terms of conducting hotel operations, processing guests’
information and needs and gathering advanced reports, and effort expectancy is the degree of
ease when using the technology (Venkatesh et al., 2012). Recently, studies in the field of
tourism have seen information technologies as means of creating knowledge rather than
marketing tools, so it is necessary to focus on the organizational, operational and social
effects of technological systems (Valeri and Baggio, 2020a). Furthermore, the technology
adoption literature suggests that social factors like supervisors’ support are related to the
behavioral intention with regard to the acceptance and use of technology (Venkatesh et al.,
2003), but there is little empirical evidence proving the claims of the effect of leadership
(Neufeld et al., 2007) on performance expectancy (which is developed on perceived usefulness)
and effort expectancy (which is developed on perceived ease of use) from the system.
However, based on the self-determination theory, performance expectancy and effort
expectancy from the technology were found to be affected by autonomy (Roca and Gagne,
2008; Lakhal et al., 2013). As such, when autonomy is supported, the external and intrinsic
motivation of the users to use technology increases because the benefit they expect from it
while doing their work increases, and they find it more enjoyable. In addition, most of the
HMS is designed in accordance with the needs of vertical hierarchical structures. Access to
many functions can also be regulated by leaders who limit the information given to positions
lower in the organizational hierarchy. This is an important fact that also influences
JOCM employees’ KM practices because the HMS constitutes a digital place for users to be able to
handle knowledge, interact with others (Lee and Choi, 2003) and intrinsically innovate,
exchange ideas and resolve problems (Kim and Lee, 2006).
In the light of these research outcomes, we consider that empowering leaders, by
providing support, autonomy and self-efficacy, enhance followers’ knowledge creation,
sharing and application behaviors by improving perceived benefits from the HMS and
facilitating its use. This claim has been tested with the following hypotheses:
H2. The performance expectancy (a), effort expectancy (b) and behavioral intention to
accept and use the HMS serially mediate the relationship between empowering
leadership and the knowledge creation of followers.
H3. The performance expectancy (a), effort expectancy (b) and behavioral intention to
accept and use the HMS serially mediate the relationship between empowering
leadership and the knowledge sharing of followers.
H4. The performance expectancy (a), effort expectancy (b) and behavioral intention to
accept and use the HMS serially mediate the relationship between empowering
leadership and the knowledge application of followers.
The theoretical serial mediation model showing the hypothesized relationships is shown in
Figure 1.

3. Research methods
3.1 The sample and data collection
The sample of this study was formed by 401 employees working in the front offices, sales/
marketing departments, and mid-level management teams of 4- and 5-star hotels situated in
different cities in Turkey. The proportionate stratified random sampling method, as
determined by the number of employees in the hotels, was used to ensure that the sample
population represented the entire population and each subgroup of interest. Creswell (2013)
suggested that the population be stratified, the characteristics of the members be known and
the sample fully reflect the proportion of the members in the population. Thus, we classified
the hotels into groups by size to ensure that the random sample best approximated the hotels’
population because the size of the enterprise matters in the determination of organizational
structure and technological advancement.
The proportions of insured employees in the accommodation sector by the total number of
employees working in each hotel were obtained from the Social Security Institution of
Turkey. Then calculations were made for grouping the population according to the
proportions obtained, and questionnaires were sent out accordingly. The data were collected

Performance a
expectancy
Behavioral
intention to H4ab
a use the HMS
Effort Knowledge creation
b
expectancy
Figure 1. b H1 H5ab
Serial mediation model
of empowering H2 Knowledge sharing
leadership, the Empowering
H6ab
acceptance and use of leadership H3
the HMS and KM Knowledge application
practices Direct effect Indirect effect
cross-sectionally from the groups, both face-to-face and electronically, through key people Leadership,
working in the selected regions. Finally, the sample was formed by 108 participants from knowledge,
hotels that have 50–99 employees, 188 from hotels that have 100–249 employees,and 105
from hotels that have 250 or more employees. A total of 650 questionnaires were sent out; 532
and technology
were returned, of which 131 were eliminated due to incomplete or random filling-in.

3.2 Measure development

The instruments for measuring empowering leadership were adapted from the study of
Amundsen and Martinsen (2014), knowledge creation from the study of Lee and Choi (2003),
knowledge sharing from Yi (2009), knowledge application from Gold et al. (2001), and the
acceptance and use of the HMS from Venkatesh et al. (2003). All of the scales were assessed on
five-point Likert scales. Although the scales were previously analyzed for reliability, we
translated and back-translated them with experts and conducted a pilot study with 30
employees. As a result of the Cronbach’s alpha analysis performed with the SPSS 20 program
in the pilot study, the scales for empowering leadership (α 5 0.963), knowledge creation
(α 5 0.873), knowledge sharing (α 5 0.873), knowledge application (α 5 0.903) and the
acceptance and use of the HMS (α 5 0.953) were all found to be highly reliable.

3.3 Data analysis

The quantitative research of the study includes factual examinations of numerical
information collected on a large scale (Ahmad et al., 2020; Valeri and Baggio, 2020c). The
quantitative data were coded with SPSS 20 and analyzed using SmartPLS 3 software. Partial
least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) was used with the bootstrapping
procedure to test the hypotheses formed within the scope of the research model. In recent
years, many methodological developments in PLS-SEM have expanded their analysis
capabilities beyond covariance-based SEM (Gefen et al., 2011). PLS-SEM provides causal
predictions for structures to be able to explain the model (Sarstedt et al., 2017). Moreover, it
applies all of the resampling methods (i.e. bootstrapping and surveillance) 5,000 times (Hair
et al., 2012).

4. Results
4.1 Descriptive statistics
It was seen that 41.6% of the sample were women, and the highest participation was from
young workers between the ages of 26–32 (39.7%). We observed that 71.6% were
undergraduates, and 39.4% were nonmanagers and 31.2% were mid-level managers. In
terms of work experience, it was observed that most of the employees (75.3%) had more than
a year of experience and worked in enterprises with 100 or more employees (73.1%). While
there was a wide variety of HMSs in the industry, Opera (55.6%), a program owned by Oracle,
had the highest level of use, which is remarkable for large hotels. The participants stated that
they generally used technology in all their jobs (86%). This result revealed the importance of
the study and showed the intensity of technology’s use in the hotel industry. While
knowledge sharing within the organization was mostly done via e-mail (84.5%) and telephone
(66.8%), knowledge sharing via the HMS was less than expected (50.3%), and communication
via mobile applications (38.6%) was a new method. Another remarkable result was that the
participants’ skills of using the HMS were generally gained through in-service
training (60.6%).

4.2 Measurement models

Measurement models, namely external models, specify the relationships between certain
constructs and the corresponding indicators within the scope of basic measurement theory. In
PLS-SEM, the reliability and validity of the measurement model were analyzed to obtain
JOCM adequate results from the hypothesis tests (Hair et al., 2017). To ensure internal consistency,
composite reliability (ρc) values must be higher than the 0.70 thresholds (Henseler et al., 2014).
Further, for convergent validity, which shows mutual variances between the indicators and
constructs, we used average variance extracted (AVE) values (Henseler et al., 2009).
Accordingly, it was observed that external loadings corresponding to the relevant indicators
were above 0.70 and the AVE values for all constructs were higher than 0.50, which ensured
the convergent validity of the model (Hair et al., 2014). In addition, AVE values and composite
reliability for empowering leadership (AVE 5 0.66; ρc 5 0.97), knowledge creation
(AVE 5 0.54; ρc 5 0.95), knowledge sharing (AVE 5 0.55; ρc 5 0.95), knowledge application
(AVE 5 0.58; ρc 5 0.94), performance expectancy (AVE 5 0.71; ρc 5 0.91), effort expectancy
(AVE 5 0.73; ρc 5 0.91) and behavioral intention to use the HMS (AVE 5 0.87; ρc 5 0.95) were
found to be at acceptable values (see Table 1).
In PLS-SEM, for the evaluation of discriminant validity, researchers generally use the
heterotrait–monotrait (HTMT) ratio instead of traditional cross-loadings and Fornell–
Larcker criteria (Henseler et al., 2014; Ali et al., 2018). HTMT is the ratio of inter-feature
correlations to intraspecific correlations and should be below 0.90 (Hair et al., 2019).
Accordingly, regarding the result obtained from SmartPLS, it was concluded that the
measurement model provided discriminant validity since all results were below this limit (see
Table 2).

4.3 Structural model

The coefficient of determination (R2), the blindfolding-based cross-validated redundancy
measure (Q2), path coefficients and effect size (f2) criteria were used in the assessment of the
structural model. Before evaluating these criteria, we tested the internal model against
potential multicollinearity problems (Hair et al., 2014). As can be seen in Table 3, there were no
collinearities for the constructs since the variance inflation factor (VIF) values were below 5
(Hair et al., 2017).
R2 is a measure of the model’s prediction accuracy and ranges from 0 to 1, and it should be
0.10 or above (Falk and Miller, 1992). The average prediction accuracy degree was 0.21, and
all values for internal variables were equal to or below 0.10; for this reason, the prediction
capacity of the created model was sufficient. Q2 (Stone–Geisser index) is a tool to evaluate the
predictive compatibility level of the internal model (Sarstedt et al., 2014). The Q2 value is
obtained by the blindfolding method for a given distance (d) value between 5 and 10 (Hair
et al., 2017) and should be larger than zero (Hair et al., 2019). It was determined that Q2 values
calculated with a d-value equal to 5 in SmartPLS were above zero (see Table 4), which shows
the predictive compatibility of the current model.
Cohen’s f2 values were obtained to calculate the effect size of each relationship. Based on
this value, 0.02, 0.15 and 0.35 effect sizes of the extracted structure for a certain internal
construct represent small, medium and large effects, respectively (Chin, 2010). Accordingly,
the effect of empowering leadership on knowledge creation (f2 5 0.12), performance
expectancy (f2 5 0.13) and effort expectancy (f2 5 0.17) and the effect of performance
expectancy on behavioral intention to use the HMS (f2 5 0.14) were at moderate levels. As can
be seen in Table 5, other constructs had moderate effects on their relatives.
Finally, as a result of the analyses, the reliability and validity of the measurement model
and the estimation accuracy, prediction consistency and effect sizes of the structural model
were sufficiently adequate to meet the requirements to perform the hypothesis tests.

4.4 Hypothesis testing

In this study, standard errors were obtained by using the bootstrapping procedure to test the
hypotheses (Ali et al., 2018). The path coefficients between constructs were calculated by
 λ AVE ρc
Leadership,
knowledge,
Empowering leadership (EL) EL01 0.79 0.66 0.97 and technology
EL02 0.85
EL03 0.8
EL04 0.84
EL05 0.83
EL06 0.87
EL07 0.85
EL08 0.84
EL09 0.75
EL10 0.81
EL11 0.81
EL12 0.83
EL13 0.84
EL14 0.79
EL15 0.79
EL16 0.8
EL17 0.84
EL18 0.75
Knowledge creation (KC) KC01 0.72 0.54 0.95
KC02 0.72
KC03 0.73
KC04 0.74
KC05 0.76
KC06 0.73
KC07 0.74
KC08 0.71
KC10 0.76
KC11 0.73
KC12 0.73
KC13 0.73
KC14 0.72
KC15 0.73
KC16 0.73
KC17 0.75
KC18 0.72
Knowledge sharing (KS) KS01 0.74 0.55 0.95
KS02 0.73
KS03 0.79
KS04 0.73
KS05 0.75
KS06 0.73
KS07 0.74
KS09 0.72
KS10 0.77
KS11 0.73
KS12 0.76
KS13 0.74
KS14 0.76
KS15 0.74 Table 1.
KS16 0.74 Factor loadings, AVE
and composite
(continued ) reliability (ρc)
JOCM λ AVE ρc
Knowledge application (KA) KA01 0.77 0.58 0.94
KA02 0.77
KA03 0.77
KA04 0.79
KA05 0.77
KA06 0.8
KA07 0.75
KA08 0.72
KA09 0.74
KA11 0.72
KA12 0.78
Performance expectancy (PA) PE01 0.84 0.71 0.91
PE02 0.88
PE03 0.87
PE04 0.82
Effort expectancy (EE) EE01 0.87 0.73 0.91
EE02 0.88
EE03 0.77
EE04 0.84
Behavioral intention (BI) BI01 0.92 0.87 0.95
BI02 0.94
Table 1. BI03 0.94

KC KS KA BI EL PE

KS 0.74
KA 0.59 0.68
BI 0.32 0.37 0.35
Table 2. EL 0.4 0.38 0.37 0.31
Discriminant PE 0.3 0.38 0.4 0.69 0.34
validity (HTMT) EE 0.36 0.36 0.47 0.67 0.39 0.82

KC KS KA PE EE BI

EE 2.04
Table 3. BI 1.10 1.10 1.10
Variance inflation EL 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.00 1.00
factors (VIF) PE 2.04

R2 Q2

Knowledge creation 0.19 0.09

Knowledge sharing 0.19 0.1
Knowledge application 0.17 0.1
Table 4. Performance expectancy 0.1 0.06
Structural model Effort expectancy 0.13 0.09
assessment Behavioral intention 0.43 0.36
performing 5,000 resamplings with a 95% confidence level and using the bias-corrected and Leadership,
accelerated (BCa) confidence intervals method (Hair et al., 2017). According to the results of knowledge,
the bootstrapping procedure, the effect of empowering leadership on knowledge creation
(β 5 0.33), knowledge sharing (β 5 0.28) and knowledge application (β 5 0.28) were
and technology
significant. Thus, hypotheses H1a, H1b, and H1c were fully supported. Further, the
relationships between empowering leadership and performance expectancy (β 5 0.31),
empowering leadership and effort expectancy (β 5 0.37), performance expectancy and
behavioral intention to use the HMS (β 5 0.37) and effort expectancy and behavioral intention
to use the HMS (β 5 0.35) were statistically significant. Finally, behavioral intention to use the
HMS was directly associated with knowledge creation (β 5 0.25), knowledge sharing
(β 5 0.20) and knowledge application (β 5 0.27) (see Table 6).
As a result of the serial mediation analyses, the effect of empowering leadership on
knowledge creation (c), sharing (s) and application (a) was serially mediated by performance
expectancy and behavioral intention to use the HMS (βc 5 0.02, βs 5 0.03, βa 5 0.03) and by
effort expectancy and behavioral intention to use the HMS (βc 5 0.03, βs 5 0.03, βa 5 0.03) (see
Table 7). Hence, hypotheses H2a, H2b, H3a, H3b, H4a, and H4b were supported.

KC KS KA BI PE EE

BI 0.05 0.08 0.07

EL 0.12 0.09 0.09 0.11 0.16
PE 0.12 Table 5.
EE 0.10 Effect sizes (f2)

Path coefficients Standard deviation t-value p-value

EL→KC 0.33** 0.05 6.59 0.00

EL→KS 0.28** 0.05 5.69 0.00
EL→KA 0.28** 0.05 5.42 0.00
EL→PE 0.31** 0.05 5.94 0.00
EL→EE 0.37** 0.06 6.52 0.00
PE→BI 0.37** 0.07 5.25 0.00
EE→BI 0.35** 0.08 4.51 0.00
BI→KC 0.2** 0.05 3.87 0.00
BI→KS 0.27** 0.05 4.91 0.00 Table 6.
BI→KA 0.25** 0.07 3.64 0.00 Path coefficients and
Note(s): **p < 0.01 p-values

Path coefficients Standard Deviation t-value p-value

EL→PE→BI→KC 0.02** 0.01 3.10 0.00

EL→EE→BI→KC 0.03* 0.01 2.56 0.01
EL→PE→BI→KS 0.03** 0.01 3.16 0.00
EL→EE→BI→KS 0.03** 0.01 3.12 0.00
EL→PE→BI→KA 0.03** 0.01 2.93 0.00 Table 7.
EL→EE→BI→KA 0.03* 0.01 2.34 0.02 Serial mediation
Note(s): *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01 analyses
JOCM 5. Discussion
This study empirically determined the effect of empowering leadership on organizational KM
practices and the mediation effect of the acceptance and use of the HMS, advancing the
literature on leadership, KM, and information systems. First, based on social cognitive and
self-determination theories, empowering leadership has a positive effect on followers’
knowledge creation, sharing and application, confirming previous studies on knowledge
sharing (Srivastava et al., 2006; Wu and Chen, 2015; Matic et al., 2017; Wu and Lee, 2017) and
knowledge creation (Menguc et al., 2013). The effect of empowering leadership on knowledge
application is a new contribution to the literature, even though there are studies on different
leadership styles (Donate and de Pablo, 2015). Akram et al. (2019) discussed the regulatory
effect of empowering leadership on knowledge acquisition, sharing and response to
knowledge, while some other studies addressed KM practices in terms of different leadership
styles like transformational, interactive and transactional styles (Politis, 2001; Nguyen and
Mohamed, 2011; Birasnav, 2014). The present study contributes to the literature by
examining all practices of Dalkir’s integrated KM model with the direct effects of empowering
leadership.
Second, we found ambiguous results relating to the serial mediation effect of performance
expectancy, effort expectancy and behavioral intention to use the HMS on the relationship
between empowering leadership and followers’ knowledge creation, sharing and application.
Empowering leaders’ effects on performance expectancy and effort expectancy and indirect
effects on the behavioral intention to use technology are similar to a previous study on
charismatic leadership (Neufeld et al., 2007) but different from the study of Kuo and Lee
(2011), who concluded that empowering leadership is a predictor of perceived ease of use but
not perceived usefulness. Further, the effects of behavioral intention to use the technology on
organizational knowledge creation, sharing and application are consistent with previous
studies (Song et al., 2006; Lopez et al., 2009). In other words, empowering leaders, by providing
autonomy and support, enhance KM in their teams not only directly but also by fostering
their use of the HMS by improving the benefits of doing so and facilitating its use. The results
reveal the importance of empowering leadership in the field of KM and information
technology by showing that this leadership style accelerates the integrated KM cycle in
organizations both directly and indirectly through the mediating role of the use of the
technology.
Finally, given that no study has included UTAUT variables as a mediator before, this
study is one of the first to investigate the role of the acceptance and use of technology in a
serial mediation model using PLS-SEM. UTAUT predicts users’ actual use of information
systems based on the theory of planned behavior and is widely used in the literature. We have
extended the theory by incorporating empowering leadership and KM practices in the same
model that has good explanatory power.

5.1 Managerial implications

The findings of the study suggest some managerial implications. First, the results highlight
the importance of empowering leadership on followers’ participation in KM practices. Thus,
to empower leaders in the hospitality industry, we recommend adopting empowering
behaviors such as providing coaching, being result-oriented, providing an inclusive
environment, focusing on followers’ well-being and success, open communication,
discussing career goals and development, always giving feedback, sharing organizational
information, including followers in decision-making, giving them the freedom to think and
helping them resolve job problems. As a consequence, leaders should focus not only on the
amount of knowledge transferred but particularly on an environment where employees are
empowered to participate in KM practices (Kuo et al., 2011). Second, organizations should be
selective in hiring leaders, taking care of empowered behaviors or incorporating leaders in
development training to improve their knowledge about empowering behaviors. Leaders Leadership,
should also focus not only on the service and production process at the hotel but sometimes knowledge,
move away from this routine to think differently (Arcese et al., 2020) and listen to the novel
ideas of their followers. Similarly, informal networks within the organization are important
and technology
for KM as they can be formed by personnel movements across the organizational units
(Almeida and Kogut, 1999). Third, the empirical evidence shows that empowering leadership
is the key indicator for the acceptance and use of the HMS, which, in turn, inspires followers to
employ more KM practices. This leadership style gives employees the chance to develop
themselves with autonomy and support and adapt more to the HMS. High-quality interaction
between the members can therefore be developed, and this emerges through knowledge
sharing, joint decision-making and cooperation (Carmeli et al., 2011; Chemli et al., 2020; Valeri
and Baggio, 2020b). Likewise, leaders in the hospitality industry should focus on facilitating
the acceptance and use of the HMS by supporting their employees to improve their
knowledge by giving them technical advice and training. They should also provide autonomy
by removing obstacles and/or giving their followers the authority to access relatively
important functions in the HMS. Furthermore, information technologies in hospitality are
considered most in terms of the realization of operational activities (Law and Jogaratnam,
2005); thus, leaders should consider the HMS not only as an operator but also as a tool to
manage useful organizational knowledge that is accessible to everyone within the
organization.

5.2 Limitations and recommendations for future studies

The limitations of the research are as follows. First, this research was conducted only in large-
size hotels in one country. Thus, future studies may contribute to the theory by using the
research model in different business types, sectors or cultures. Second, the HMS is discussed
in terms of employees’ acceptance and use of this technology. The current model can be
expanded by examining the information technology infrastructure or other systems like
task–technology compatibility and functional features. Third, negative feedback was
encountered during the fieldwork because the participants found the questionnaires boring
due to the total number of questions. Future research can include different methods or shorter
questionnaires. Finally, this study focused on intraorganizational implicit knowledge rather
than explicit knowledge between hotels. Factors affecting the internalization process of this
type of knowledge in the hotel business or motivating knowledge sharing between business
partners through the use of technology can be explored by expanding the model used in
this study.

References
Ahmad, A., Jamaludin, A., Zuraimi, N.S.M. and Valeri, M. (2020), “Visit intention and destination
image in post-Covid-19 crisis recovery”, Current Issues in Tourism, pp. 1-6, doi: 10.1080/
13683500.2020.1842342.
Akram, M.U., Chauhan, C., Ghosh, K. and Singh, A. (2019), “Knowledge management, sustainable
business performance and empowering leadership: a firm-level approach”, International Journal
of Knowledge Management, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 20-35, doi: 10.4018/IJKM.2019040102.
Alavi, M. and Leidner, D.E. (2001), “Review: knowledge management and knowledge management
systems: conceptual foundations and research issues”, MIS Quarterly: Management
Information Systems, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 107-136, doi: 10.2307/3250961.
Alavi, M. and Tiwana, A. (2002), “Knowledge integration in virtual teams: the potential role of KMS”,
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 53 No. 12,
pp. 1029-1037, doi: 10.1002/asi.10107.
JOCM Ali, F., Rasoolimanesh, S.M., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M. and Ryu, K. (2018), “An assessment of the
use of partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) in hospitality
research”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 30 No. 1,
pp. 514-538, doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-10-2016-0568.
Almeida, P. and Kogut, B. (1999), “Localization of knowledge and the mobility of engineers in regional
networks”, Management Science, Vol. 45 No. 7, pp. 905-917, doi: 10.1287/mnsc.45.7.905.
Amundsen, S. and Martinsen, Ø.L. (2014), “Empowering leadership: construct clarification,
conceptualization, and validation of a new scale”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 3,
pp. 487-511, doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.009.
Arcese, G., Valeri, M., Poponi, S. and Elmo, G.C. (2020), “Innovative drivers for family business models
in tourism”, Journal of Family Business Management. doi: 10.1108/JFBM-05-2020-0043.
Arnold, J.A., Arad, S., Rhoades, J.A. and Drasgow, F. (2000), “The empowering leadership
questionnaire: the construction and validation of a new scale for measuring leader
behaviors”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 249-269.
Baggio, R. and Valeri, M. (2020), “Network science and sustainable performance of family businesses
in tourism”, Journal of Family Business Management. doi: 10.1108/JFBM-06-2020-0048.
Bandura, A. (2001), “Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective”, Annual Review of Psychology,
Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 1-26, doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1.
Beaudry, A. and Pinsonneault, A. (2005), “Understanding user responses to information technology: a
coping model of user adaptation”, MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, Vol. 29
No. 3, pp. 493-524, doi: 10.2307/25148693.
Birasnav, M. (2014), “Knowledge management and organizational performance in the service industry:
the role of transformational leadership beyond the effects of transactional leadership”, Journal
of Business Research, Vol. 67 No. 8, pp. 1622-1629, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.09.006.
Blau, P. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, Wiley, New York, NY.
Carmeli, A., Schaubroeck, J. and Tishler, A. (2011), “How CEO empowering leadership shapes top
management team processes: implications for firm performance”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 22
No. 2, pp. 399-411, doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.02.013.
Chemli, S., Toanoglou, M. and Valeri, M. (2020), “The impact of Covid-19 media coverage on tourist’s
awareness for future travelling”, Current Issues in Tourism, pp. 1-8, doi: 10.1080/13683500.2020.
1846502.
Cheong, M., Spain, S.M., Yammarino, F.J. and Yun, S. (2016), “Two faces of empowering leadership:
enabling and burdening”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 602-616, doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.
2016.01.006.
Chin, W.W. (2010), “How to write up and report PLS analyses”, in Vinzi, V.E., Chin, W.W., Henseler, J.
and Wang, H. (Eds), Handbook of Partial Least Squares, Springer, Heidelberg, pp. 655-690.
Creswell, J. (2013), ‘Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches’, Research Design, Sage
Publications, California.
Dalkir, K. (2013), Knowledge Management in Theory and Practice, Knowledge Management in Theory
and Practice, Elsevier, Burlington.
Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (2000), “The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of goal pursuits: human needs and the self-
determination of behavior”, Psychological Inquiry, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 227-268, doi: 10.1207/
S15327965PLI1104_01.
Donate, M.J. and de Pablo, J.D.S. (2015), “The role of knowledge-oriented leadership in knowledge
management practices and innovation”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 68 No. 2, pp. 360-370,
doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.06.022.
Dunford, R. (2000), “Key challenges in the search for the effective management of knowledge in
management consulting firms”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 295-302,
doi: 10.1108/13673270010379849.
Falk, R.F. and Miller, N.B. (1992), A Primer for Soft Modeling, University of Akron Press, Akron, OH. Leadership,
Gefen, D., Rigdon, E.E. and Straub, D. (2011), “Editor’s comments: an update and extension to SEM knowledge,
guidelines for administrative”, Management Information System Quarterly, Vol. 35 No. 2,
pp. iii-xiv, doi: 10.2307/23044042.
and technology
Gold, A.H., Malhotra, A. and Segars, A.H. (2001), “Knowledge management: an organizational
capabilities perspective”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 18 No. 1,
pp. 185-214, doi: 10.1080/07421222.2001.11045669.
Grant, R.M. (1996), “Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm”, Strategic Management Journal,
Vol. 17 No. S2, pp. 109-122, doi: 10.1002/smj.4250171110.
Hair, J.F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M. and Mena, J.A. (2012), “An assessment of the use of partial least
squares structural equation modeling in marketing research”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 414-433, doi: 10.1007/s11747-011-0261-6.
Hair, J.F., Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L. and Kuppelwieser, V.G. (2014), “Partial least squares structural
equation modeling (PLS-SEM): an emerging tool in business research”, European Business
Review, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 106-121, doi: 10.1108/EBR-10-2013-0128.
Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C. and Sarstedt, M. (2017), A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural
Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), 2nd ed., Sage Publications, New York, NY.
Hair, J.F., Risher, J.J., Sarstedt, M. and Ringle, C.M. (2019), “When to use and how to report the results
of PLS-SEM”, European Business Review, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 2-24, doi: 10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203.
Hasan, B. (2003), “The influence of specific computer experiences on computer self-efficacy beliefs”,
Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 443-450, doi: 10.1016/S0747-5632(02)00079-1.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. and Sinkovics, R.R. (2009), “The use of partial least squares path modeling in
international marketing”, in Sinkovics, R.R. and Ghauri, P.N. (Eds), International Marketing
(Advances in International Marketing, Emerald, New York, Vol. 20, pp. 277-319.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2014), “A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity
in variance-based structural equation modeling”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 115-135, doi: 10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8.
Hon, A.H.Y., Bloom, M. and Crant, J.M. (2014), “Overcoming resistance to change and enhancing
creative performance”, Journal of Management, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 919-941, doi: 10.1177/
0149206311415418.
Humborstad, S.I.W. and Kuvaas, B. (2013), “Mutuality in leader-subordinate empowerment
expectation: its impact on role ambiguity and intrinsic motivation”, Leadership Quarterly,
Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 363-377, doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.01.003.
Inkinen, H. (2016), “Review of empirical research on knowledge management practices and firm
performance”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 230-257, doi: 10.1108/JKM-
09-2015-0336.
Kim, M. and Beehr, T.A. (2017), “Self-efficacy and psychological ownership mediate the effects of
empowering leadership on both good and bad employee behaviors”, Journal of Leadership and
Organizational Studies, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 466-478, doi: 10.1177/1548051817702078.
Kim, S. and Lee, H. (2006), “The impact of organizational context and information technology on
employee knowledge-sharing capabilities”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 66 No. 3,
pp. 257-276, doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00595.x.
Kim, T.G., Lee, J.H. and Law, R. (2008), “An empirical examination of the acceptance behaviour of
hotel front office systems: an extended technology acceptance model”, Tourism Management,
Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 500-513, doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2007.05.016.
Kim, T.T., Suh, Y.K., Lee, G. and Choi, B.G. (2010), “Modelling roles of task-technology fit and self-
efficacy in hotel employees’ usage behaviours of hotel information systems”, International
Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 709-725, doi: 10.1002/jtr.787.
JOCM Kuo, R.Z. and Lee, G.G. (2011), “Knowledge management system adoption: exploring the effects of
empowering leadership, task-technology fit and compatibility”, Behaviour and Information
Technology, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 113-129, doi: 10.1080/0144929X.2010.516018.
Kuo, R.Z., Lai, M.F. and Lee, G.G. (2011), “The impact of empowering leadership for KMS adoption”,
Management Decision, Vol. 49 Nos 7-8, pp. 1120-1140, doi: 10.1108/00251741111151172.
Lakhal, S., Khechine, H. and Pascot, D. (2013), “Student behavioural intentions to use desktop video
conferencing in a distance course: integration of autonomy to the UTAUT model”, Journal of
Computing in Higher Education, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 93-121, doi: 10.1007/s12528-013-9069-3.
Lam, T., Cho, V. and Qu, H. (2007), “A study of hotel employee behavioral intentions towards adoption
of information technology”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 26 No. 1,
pp. 49-65, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2005.09.002.
Law, R. and Jogaratnam, G. (2005), “A study of hotel information technology applications”,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 170-180,
doi: 10.1108/09596110510582369.
Lee, H. and Choi, B. (2003), “Knowledge management enablers, processes, and organizational
performance: an integrative view and empirical examination”, Journal of Management
Information Systems, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 179-228, doi: 10.1080/07421222.2003.11045756.
Lee, S., Cheong, M., Kim, M. and Yun, S. (2017), “Never too much? The curvilinear relationship
between empowering leadership and task performance”, Group and Organization Management,
Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 11-38, doi: 10.1177/1059601116646474.
Lopez, S.P., Peon, J.M.M. and Ordas, C.J.V. (2009), “Information technology as an enabler of knowledge
management: an empirical analysis”, in King, W. (Ed.), Knowledge Management and
Organizational Learning, Springer, Boston, pp. 111-129.
Matic, D., Cabrilo, S., Grubic-Nesic, L. and Milic, B. (2017), “Investigating the impact of organizational
climate, motivational drivers, and empowering leadership on knowledge sharing”, Knowledge
Management Research and Practice, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 431-446, doi: 10.1057/s41275-017-0063-9.
Menguc, B., Auh, S. and Uslu, A. (2013), “Customer knowledge creation capability and performance in
sales teams”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 19-39, doi: 10.1007/
s11747-012-0303-8.
Neufeld, D.J., Dong, L. and Higgins, C. (2007), “Charismatic leadership and user acceptance of
information technology”, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 494-510,
doi: 10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000682.
Nguyen, H.N. and Mohamed, S. (2011), “Leadership behaviors, organizational culture and knowledge
management practices: an empirical investigation”, Journal of Management Development,
Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 206-221, doi: 10.1108/02621711111105786.
Nieves, J., Quintana, A. and Osorio, J. (2014), “Knowledge-based resources and innovation in the hotel
industry”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 38, pp. 65-73, doi: 10.1016/j.
ijhm.2014.01.001.
Nonaka, I. (1994), “A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation”, Organization Science,
Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 14-37, doi: 10.1287/orsc.5.1.14.
Nonaka, I., Toyama, R. and Konno, N. (2000), “SECI, Ba and leadership: a unified model of dynamic
knowledge creation”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 5-34, doi: 10.1016/S0024-6301(99)
00115-6.
Ode, E. and Ayavoo, R. (2020), “The mediating role of knowledge application in the relationship
between knowledge management practices and firm innovation”, Journal of Innovation and
Knowledge, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 210-218, doi: 10.1016/j.jik.2019.08.002.
Okumus, F. (2013), “Facilitating knowledge management through information technology in
hospitality organizations”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology, Vol. 4 No. 1,
pp. 64-80, doi: 10.1108/17579881311302356.
Okumus, F., Bilgihan, A., Ozturk, A.B. and Zhao, X.R. (2017), “Identifying and overcoming barriers to Leadership,
deployment of information technology projects in hotels”, Journal of Organizational Change
Management, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 744-766, doi: 10.1108/JOCM-12-2015-0239. knowledge,
Parasuraman, A. and Colby, C.L. (2015), “An updated and streamlined technology readiness index: and technology
TRI 2.0”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 59-74, doi: 10.1177/1094670514539730.
Pertusa-Ortega, E.M., Zaragoza-Saez, P. and Claver-Cortes, E. (2010), “Can formalization, complexity,
and centralization influence knowledge performance?”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 63
No. 3, pp. 310-320, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.03.015.
Politis, J.D. (2001), “The relationship of various leadership styles to knowledge management”,
Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 22 No. 8, pp. 354-364, doi: 10.1108/
01437730110410071.
Roca, J.C. and Gagne, M. (2008), “Understanding e-learning continuance intention in the workplace: a
self-determination theory perspective”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 24 No. 4,
pp. 1585-1604.
Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M., Smith, D., Reams, R. and Hair, J.F. (2014), “Partial least squares structural
equation modeling (PLS-SEM): a useful tool for family business researchers”, Journal of Family
Business Strategy, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 105-115, doi: 10.1016/j.jfbs.2014.01.002.
Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M. and Hair, J.F. (2017), “Partial least squares structural equation modeling”, in
Homburg, C., Klarmann, M. and Vomberg, A. (Eds), Handbook of Market Research, Springer,
Heidelberg, pp. 1-40.
Singh, S.K. (2008), “Role of leadership in knowledge management: a study”, Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 3-15, doi: 10.1108/13673270810884219.
Song, H. and Liu, H. (2017), “Predicting tourist demand using big data”, in Xiang, Z. and Fesenmaier,
D.R. (Eds), Analytics in Smart Tourism Design, Springer, Cham, pp. 13-29.
Song, M., Van Der Bij, H. and Weggeman, M. (2006), “Factors for improving the level of knowledge
generation in new product development”, R&D Management, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 173-187, doi: 10.
1111/j.1467-9310.2006.00424.x.
Srivastava, A., Bartol, K.M. and Locke, E.A. (2006), “Empowering leadership in management teams:
effects on knowledge sharing, efficacy, and performance”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 49 No. 6, pp. 1239-1251, doi: 10.5465/amj.2006.23478718.
Tarafdar, M. and Vaidya, S.D. (2006), “Challenges in the adoption of E-Commerce technologies in
India: the role of organizational factors”, International Journal of Information Management,
Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 428-441, doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2006.08.001.
Valeri, M. (2016), “Networking and cooperation practices in the Italian tourism business”, Journal of
Tourism, Heritage and Services Marketing, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 30-35, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.376333.
Valeri, M. and Baggio, R. (2020a), “A critical reflection on the adoption of blockchain in tourism”,
Information Technology and Tourism. doi: 10.1007/s40558-020-00183-1.
Valeri, M. and Baggio, R. (2020b), “Italian tourism intermediaries: a social network analysis
exploration”, Current Issues in Tourism. doi: 10.1080/13683500.2020.1777950.
Valeri, M. and Baggio, R. (2020c), “Social network analysis: organizational implications in tourism
management”, International Journal of Organizational Analysis. doi: 10.1108/IJOA-12-2019-1971.
Vecchio, R.P., Justin, J.E. and Pearce, C.L. (2010), “Empowering leadership: an examination of
mediating mechanisms within a hierarchical structure”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 21 No. 3,
pp. 530-542, doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.03.014.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B. and Davis, F.D. (2003), “User acceptance of information
technology: toward a unified view”, MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, Vol. 27
No. 3, pp. 425-478, doi: 10.2307/30036540.
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J.Y.L. and Xu, X. (2012), “Consumer acceptance and use of information
technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology”, MIS Quarterly:
Management Information Systems, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 157-178, doi: 10.2307/41410412.
JOCM Wu, C.M. and Chen, T.J. (2015), “Psychological contract fulfillment in the hotel workplace: empowering
leadership, knowledge exchange, and service performance”, International Journal of Hospitality
Management, Vol. 48, pp. 27-38, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2015.04.008.
Wu, W.L. and Lee, Y.C. (2017), “Empowering group leaders encourages knowledge sharing:
integrating the social exchange theory and positive organizational behavior perspective”,
Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 474-491, doi: 10.1108/JKM-08-2016-0318.
Yang, J. Te (2010), “Antecedents and consequences of knowledge sharing in international tourist
hotels”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 42-52, doi: 10.1016/j.
ijhm.2009.05.004.
Yi, J. (2009), “A measure of knowledge sharing behavior: scale development and validation”,
Knowledge Management Research and Practice, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 65-81, doi: 10.1057/kmrp.
2008.36.
Young Choi, S., Lee, H. and Yoo, Y. (2010), “The impact of information technology and transactive
memory systems on knowledge sharing, application, and team performance: a field study”, MIS
Quarterly: Management Information Systems, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 855-870, doi: 10.2307/25750708.
Zhang, X. and Zhou, J. (2014), “Empowering leadership, uncertainty avoidance, trust, and employee
creativity: interaction effects and a mediating mechanism”, Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, Vol. 124 No. 2, pp. 150-164, doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2014.02.002.

About the authors

Zafer T€
urkmenda g is a PhD research assistant at the Faculty of Tourism, Atat€
urk University, Turkey.
He holds a BA and MA in tourism management. He holds his PhD in tourism management in 2019 from
the Gazi University, Turkey. His research interests include tourism technology, tourism marketing and
management, accessible tourism and tourism guidance. He has certificates on software development
(Middle East Technical University) and hotel management system (Oracle Opera 5.0). Zafer
T€urkmenda g is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: zafer.turkmendag@gmail.com
Muharrem Tuna is a professor at the Department of Tourism Management, Ankara Hacı Bayram
Veli University, Turkey. His areas of research interest are organizational psychology, human resource
management and green innovation. His researches have been published in International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management and The Service Industries Journal.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com