IJIMvolumenumberis 23 and Issue 1

2ndReading
May 18, 2018 9:55:43am WSPC/150-IJIM 1950006 ISSN: 1363-9196
International Journal of Innovation Management

(2018) 1950006 (28 pages)
© World Scientific Publishing Europe Ltd.
DOI: 10.1142/S1363919619500063
EMPOWERMENT, KNOWLEDGE SHARING AND

INNOVATIVE BEHAVIOURS: EXPLORING
GENDER DIFFERENCES
RAWAN MAZEN ABUKHAIT*, SHAKER BANI-MELHEM†

and RACHID ZEFFANE‡
Department of Management
College of Business Administration
University of Sharjah, United Arab Emirates
*rabukhait@sharjah.ac.ae
†
ssaleh@sharjah.ac.ae
‡
zeffaner@sharjah.ac.ae
Published
We examine the effects of empowerment and knowledge sharing on employee innovative

behaviours and explore gender differences. The study draws on a sample of 305 employees
from the UAE (United Arab Emirates) service sector. Based on an extensive literature
review, we develop a conceptual model and formulate four main hypotheses. Statistical
analysis was conducted using structural equation modelling with Smart-Partial Least
Squares (PLS). The results clearly show and confirm that feelings of empowerment and
knowledge sharing have strong and significant impacts on employee innovative beha-
viours. Surprising and quite interestingly, females report greater feelings of empowerment
but were less inclined to engage in knowledge sharing. The findings also show significant
gender differences in relation to the impacts of empowerment and knowledge sharing on
innovative behaviours. The above gender disparities seem to be specific to the UAE
contexts which are discussed. The implications of the above findings for management
practice and future research are also discussed.
Keywords: Gender; empowerment; knowledge sharing; innovative behaviour; United Arab

Emirates.
†
Corresponding author.
1950006-1
2ndReading
R. Abukhait, S. Bani-Melhem & R. Zeffane
Introduction
In recent years, management research has given a great deal of attention to how
innovative behaviours can be nurtured and promoted not only within organisations
but also in society at large (Dutta and Sobel, 2016). This is because the highly
dynamic nature of the current business environment requires that organisations (as
well national economies) must continuously adapt and innovate if they are to
remain competitive. Hence, the extent to which organisational members are able to
generate creative ideas to improve the utility of product and service solutions is
critical to organisational competitiveness (Baer and Frese, 2003; Brown and
Eisenhardt, 1995; Eskildsen et al., 1999; Kahn, 1990; Martins and Terblanche,
2003; Pink et al., 2009).
The focus on employees is vital, as the capacity of an organisation to innovate
stems from its human capital and more specifically on employees’ capacity to
engage in innovative behaviour (Yuan and Woodman, 2010; Xerri, 2013; Wang,
2013; Liu et al., 2017). Innovative behaviour refers to the initiation, development,
and implementation of novel and useful ideas leading to the creation of better
products, services, processes or methods (Yuan and Woodman, 2010; Scott and
Bruce, 1994; Xerri and Brunetto, 2013). Therefore, uncovering the antecedents of
(or what may nurture) employee innovative behaviours remains a pertinent re-
search topic in several domains of social sciences. Moreover, given the key role of
the service sector in economies around the world, and in the UAE (United Arab
Emirates) in particular, it is surprising that only a handful of studies stressed the
importance and antecedents of innovative behaviours in that sector (Danaei and
Iranbakhsh, 2016). Also, in uncovering the various aspects, several studies focused
on macro-level parameters (Baker et al., 2016; Forés and Camisón, 2016) to the
detriment of individual-level characteristics such as employee empowerment and
knowledge sharing. Only recently have there been calls (for) and attempts to in-
corporate attitudinal characteristics into innovation research (Dhar, 2016; Dedaha-
nov et al., 2017).
Also, gender differences as they relate to innovative behaviours remain rela-
tively under researched. Hence, the strong need to research and understand these
behaviours and their antecedents across gender-groups, (Ranga and Etzkowitz,
2010; Foss et al., 2013; Pettersson and Lindberg, 2013; Le Loarne and Gnan,
2015; Pons et al., 2016; Alsos et al., 2013; Pecis, 2017; Cropley and Cropley,
2017). This is even more pronounced when we consider different countries, such
as the UAE. The country is viewed as a traditional ‘patriarchal society’
(Moghadam, 2004). However, unlike other governments in the region, in the past
decade, the UAE government has introduced several policies aimed at empow-
ering women and reducing the substantial gap between men and women
1950006-2
2ndReading
Empowerment and Innovative Behaviors: Exploring Gender Differences
(Al Serkal, 2015). The main purpose of these policies is to promote the country’s
ranking and reduce the gaps between men and women at work and excel in the
field of women’s empowerment (MFNCA, 2015; Khamis et al., 2017). This is
considered an important part of the country’s strategy to become among the
countries at the forefront of women’s empowerment (Al Serkal, 2015). As a
testimony to this commitment, the government established a UAE “Gender Bal-
ance Council” charged with promoting equality and opportunities for women in
the labour market (Al Serkal, 2015; Dariel et al., 2017; UAE government, 2017).
Resulting from this, major improvements on women’s involvement in adminis-
tration have followed. For instance, currently nine of the 28 ministers in the UAE
government are females (Dariel et al., 2017).
With regard to innovative behaviours, a recent survey revealed that working
women in the UAE showed relatively higher innovative potentials and even sur-
passed their male counterparts by making up the majority of the UAE innovators
(Khaleej Times, 2017). One would assume that the reasons for this are related to
the encouragement of females to participate in the economy as demonstrated by
the above-mentioned strategic initiatives and government policies. However, the
above claims are in need of academic investigations/research.
The aim of this research is to address the above issues/claims and fill the current
research gap. We focus on the service sector which is considered a prime eco-
nomic driver in the UAE. It employs almost sixty percent of the working popu-
lation (Fanack Chronicle, 2016). We draw on a sample of 305 employees from the
UAE service sector and attempt to answer two basic research questions: (1) In
what way do empowerment and knowledge sharing affect innovative behaviours in
the UAE context? Are there any gender differences in this regard?. We begin with
a literature review and draw our main hypotheses. We then present the empirical
research (data, methodology and results). This is followed by conclusions and
discussions on the implications of our findings for future research and manage-
ment practice.
Previous research and hypotheses
Employee empowerment and innovative behaviour

Organisations have learned that employee empowerment as a means of improving
performance can be a significant aspect of competitive advantage (Saray et al.,
2017), and scholars have called for research to better understand its benefits (Boley
et al., 2017). Several definitions of empowerment in the organisational context
have been put forward, which are descriptive rather than definitive; the term
commonly describes giving employees responsibility for and autonomy in speci-
fied tasks, as well as information that enables their participation in decision
1950006-3
2ndReading
making, knowledge transfer, access to resources and organisational affairs (Pitts,

2005; Petter et al., 2002; Spreitzer, 1995; Thomas and Velthouse, 1990; Conger
and Kanungo, 1988). Menon (2001) points out, however, that greater conceptual
clarity in empowerment research is needed, which more closely links to psycho-
logical dimensions such as individuals’ perceptions of self-efficacy, self-confi-
dence and motivation, analogous to the individual differences, including those
relating to gender, that may affect innovative behaviour.
Employee empowerment is understood to be crucial if employees are to have
the opportunity to put forward new ideas concerning the performance of their
tasks and put them into practice (Smith, 1996; Bowen and Lawler, 1992).
Findings of how empowerment impacts innovative work behaviour, however,
remain parsimonious, and in many cases, unconvincing (Berraies et al., 2014;
Çakar and Ertürk, 2010). Some studies (Saray et al., 2017; Sulistyo, 2016;
Çekmecelioğlu and Özbağ, 2014; Fernandez and Moldogaziev, 2013; Spreitzer,
1995; Damanpour, 1991) have, for example, indicated the importance of
empowerment on innovative work behaviour. The rationale is that delegation of
authority, cooperation, shared vision, communication, and knowledge sharing
would result in creating an environment in which employees feel motivated,
trust their knowledge and expertise, and are willing to initiate innovative ideas.
Others, such as Jung et al. (2003), found a negative or insignificant relationship
between empowerment and innovation, explained by the cultural characteristics
of their sample, and leading to their concluding that empowerment practices may
adversely affect innovative work behaviour owing to empowered employees’
feelings of confusion when faced with the challenge of figuring out what needs to
be done and how to achieve innovation outcomes. While Jung et al. (2003)
found that empowerment negatively affected organisational innovation, they
argued the need for research to identify variables that may mediate or moderate
the relationship between employee empowerment and innovation. Similarly,
Kmieciak et al. (2012) found no significant relation of empowerment to innova-
tive work behaviour in small-to-medium enterprises (SMEs), while acknowledg-
ing that the body of empirical studies examining employee empowerment and
innovation is slight.
While results from these previous studies are, at best, mixed, it is nonetheless
anticipated that employee empowerment reinforces employees’ innovative be-
haviour. An empowered work environment provides employees with access to
information, support, resources, and opportunities to learn and develop (Stewart
et al., 2010). Sangar and Rangnekar (2014) asserted that when individuals believe
that they are empowered to make decisions, and also when risk is associated with
performing a designated task, they will generate creative ideas and solutions that
will contribute to the effectiveness of the organisation as a whole. In addition,
1950006-4
2ndReading
Amabile (1988) found employees having a sense of control over what to do and
how to do one’s work improved their capacity for innovative behaviour. In a work
environment that is experienced by employees as flexible, there is greater moti-
vation to explore new methods of work and to implement ideas which can lead
to exploratory innovations (Berraies et al., 2014). On this basis, the following
hypothesis is formulated:
Hypothesis 1: Employee empowerment is positively and significantly related to

innovative work behaviour.
Knowledge Sharing and innovative behaviour

Many scholars and practitioners view knowledge sharing practices as a strategic
element yielding mutual benefits for employees and organizations (Peccei et al.,
2005; Sitlington, 2012). Knowledge sharing as a research subject continues
to receive increasing attention from both academia and business because of
its relevance to organisational performance, measured by profitability and inno-
vative practice (Kim et al., 2017; Florea et al., 2013), and, moreover, to long-term
organizational success (Kim et al., 2016; Aninkan and Oyewole, 2014). Existing
research on knowledge management supports the notion that if knowledge assets
are expected to produce gains for an organisation, then its employees need to be
engaged in knowledge sharing (Longo and Mura, 2011). Schwaer et al. (2012)
defined knowledge sharing as individual activities of sending to or receiving
knowledge from others and mutually creating new knowledge. It also refers to the
process of exchanging task information, expertise and feedback concerning a
procedure or a product in order to formulate new ideas, deal with issues, and
achieve desired goals (Wang and Noe, 2010; Cummings, 2004). Spender (1996)
argued that knowledge is critical to the innovation process and for employees to
display innovative behaviour, they must acquire, interact with and disseminate
knowledge (Thornhill, 2006). The building and use of social networks, either
actual or technology-based, is important to knowledge sharing. In this aspect,
Chun (2013) found differences in the approaches of men and women to using
social networks, contacts, and alliances of colleagues to access knowledge, such
that women tended to discuss with others, and men to experiment alone, in their
respective attempts to understand a new technology.
Wang et al. (2017) and Kim and Lee (2013) found little conduct of empirical
investigation of the relationship between knowledge sharing and innovative per-
formance in the service sector. The current study, therefore, addresses this gap as
well as the call from Mura et al. (2013), who found that the explanatory power of
the relationship between individual propensity to share knowledge and innovate
1950006-5
2ndReading
can be improved by including more variables. The findings of previous studies on

the influence of knowledge sharing on innovative capability are equivocal, with
some suggesting that knowledge sharing supports and enhances innovative work
behaviour (Zhu and Mu, 2016; Mura et al., 2013; Kim and Lee, 2013; Mom et al.,
2007; Srivastava et al., 2006; Chi and Holsapple, 2005), and others producing no
empirical support for this position. For instance, Yeşil et al. (2013) found no
significant relationship between knowledge sharing and innovation, but rather that
a mediating variable (i.e., innovation capability) may need to be considered.
Similarly, Kang and Lee (2017) studied the impact of external and internal
knowledge on innovative work behaviour, and found that external knowledge can
provide employees with new insights and, thus, contribute to innovative behaviour
(Fosfuri and Tribó, 2008). Internal knowledge, such as that shared among workers
within the same department, may not, however, directly foster innovative work
behaviours (Kang and Lee, 2017).
Knowledge sharing is, nonetheless, considered a fundamental tool for fostering
innovative behaviour in employees, facilitating innovative activities (Wang et al.,
2017), and stimulating critical thinking, resulting in increased capabilities in
translating ideas into innovations (Mura et al., 2013). Zu and Mu (2016) showed
that when knowledge is shared among employees, they are more likely to elab-
orate, integrate, and translate information rather than simply passing it on to
recipients. This exercise stimulates involvement in innovative work behaviour,
which includes seekingout opportunities for change and its application to existing
work practices. Researchers have drawn attention to the aspect of employee
empowerment asa key factor of innovation (Fernandez and Moldogaziev, 2013;
Ertürk, 2012; Brunetto and Farr-Wharton, 2007), arguing that the practice of
empowerment motivates employees to share their ideas and use their skills to
contribute to the success of an enterprise. Based on these arguments, this study
proposes that knowledge sharing has a measurable impact on innovative work
behaviour, as formulated in the second hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2: Knowledge sharing is positively and significantly related to

innovation work behaviour.
The moderating effect of gender

Gender differences in innovative work behaviour, empowerment and knowledge
sharing
Given that women’s participation in and access to work that is equal to men’s
in quality and reward have, for decades, been viewed as feminist issues, it is
unsurprising that the literature and research on innovation, technology and
1950006-6
2ndReading
entrepreneurship have been mostly particularised’ either by gender blindness or

strong male dominance’ (Ranga and Etzkowitz, 2010), which suggests that empir-
ical research on the gender dynamics impacting innovation processes is underde-
veloped (Pecis, 2016; Le Loarne and Gnan, 2015; Alsos et al., 2013; Sinclair and
Marriott, 1990).
More recently, however, there has been a growing interest in the input, role,
style, and effect of women in innovation fields (Lindberg and Schiffbänker, 2013;
Alsos et al., 2013). This has implications following from previous research indi-
cating that while the innovation process is important for the acquisition of tech-
nological capabilities, it has greater value in the interconnections formed among
various organizational actors, in a context of prevailing ideas of gender and the
work environment (Kirsch, 2000). Andersson (2012: 13) claims that
‘the dominating image of innovation and innovators builds on
stereotypical notions of gender, promoting men and certain forms
of masculinity as the norm. . . a man with an idea on how a high-
tech product can effect renewal processes in a traditional industry
fits better as innovation than an ethnic minority woman with an
idea on how a process may bring about social justice in society’
(Andersson, 2012: 13).
Nählinder (2010) stated that women and men tend to work in different occu-
pational categories and that; in general, women work in occupations not usually
associated with innovation. Pettersson (2007) suggests that in Sweden, strategic
policy for technical innovation and industrial development implicitly designates
men as the main players in natural sciences, technology and mathematics, and
women as lacking the required technical skills. Accordingly, women are ‘silently
excluded in the technological innovation policy’ (Berglund and Thorslund, 2012:
41), resulting in reinforcement and perpetuation of gender divisions and which
may explain why female innovators are not as common as male in the techno-
logical domain. While innovation policies and programs continue to take their cue
from the previously male-dominated old industries, and tend to value particular
skills according to traditional gender perceptions (Ranga and Etzkowitz, 2010),
this approach may not be appropriate in the new service economy, where many
jobs require relational as well as technical skills.
Furthermore, as previous studies have indicated, gender is often conflated with
occupational role and hierarchical position. Men are accorded ‘masculine’ attri-
butes such as assertiveness, agency, achievement focus and bravery, and women
the ‘feminine’ attributes of communality, supportiveness and empathy (Diekman
and Eagly, 2000; Schein, 1973, 1975). These persistent gender stereotypes
influence the assignment and determination of social roles (Kim et al., 2016; Park
1950006-7
2ndReading
et al., 2017). Thus, men are considered to more naturally fit leadership positions
because these roles are believed to require masculine characteristics (Powell et al.,
2002; Schein, 1973, 1975). Moreover, gender stereotyping tends to evaluate male
leadership as positive or effective, whereas female leadership is generally devalued
(Powell et al., 2002; Powell, 1999). In reality, sincemost organization all leader-
ship positions are occupied by men, women have less access to knowledge
resources in the work environment (Diaz et al., 2007) and, consequently, less
access to the rewards of leadership such as high income and autonomy (Kim et al.,
2016). Thus, as noted by researchers (Ayman and Korabik, 2010; Ayman et al.,
2009), gender has an implicit role in workplace culture.
The existence of gender differences has been acknowledged in social interac-
tions, which play a significant role in workplaces. Social role theory provides a
conceptual basis for explaining gender differences in social relationships.
According to this theory, different social expectations for women and men
establish social norms that emphasise control and competition for men vs. coop-
eration, friendship, and intimacy for women in social interactions. Therefore, we
would expect to see gender differences in processes of knowledge sharing. Lin
(2006) indicated that women are more willing to share knowledge because they
need to overcome traditional barriers to occupational advancement. Thus, based on
the prevailing perceptions of gender differences as they relate to workplace hier-
archies and access to resources, the following hypotheses are proposed:
Hypothesis 3: The impact of empowerment on innovative behaviour is likely to be

higher among males.
Hypothesis 4: The impact of knowledge sharing on innovative behaviour is
expected to be higher among females.
The above hypotheses are depicted in the initial conceptual model shown in
Fig. 1.
Fig. 1. Hypothesised relationships between variables in innovative behaviour.
1950006-8
2ndReading
Methodology
In building our theoretical model, we followed a deductive research approach. In
this approach, relationships between variables are best explained when researchers
first collect data and (through reasoning) reach a conclusion that will either accept
or reject their hypotheses (Saunders et al., 2007).
Data and sample

Data were collected through a questionnaire survey of full-time, non-managerial
level employees. We targeted individuals employed in the service sector (i.e.,
education, government/administrative utilities, banking and finance, transport,
tourism and hospitality, telecommunication services, and hospitals) across the
UAE, who were selected through convenience sampling. The targeted service
industries were located in the four major UAE cities/emirates, namely Dubai (8
service sectors), Abu Dhabi (5) Sharjah (3), and Ajman (1). Respondents were
distributed as follows: Dubai (45%); Sharjah (25%); Abu Dhabi (20%), and Ajman
(10%), indicating the geographical spread of the sample across different service
industries in UAE.
To reach a high rate of response, we used a self-administered survey in a drop-
off and pick-up approach (Bryman, 2008), with the help of a research assistant. For
this purpose, meetings were arranged with the appropriate managers (either the
general manager or the human resource manager) to seek approval for their or-
ganisation to participate in the study and to request that they distribute the ques-
tionnaires among their staff. To preserve anonymity, respondents were not
required to write their names on the questionnaire. To comply with the university’s
strict ethics standards, a cover letter was attached to the questionnaire, explaining
the purpose of the study, stressing that participation in the survey was purely
voluntary, and emphasising that the data would only be analysed on aggregate
(i.e., no attempt would be made by the researchers to identify any respondents). In
agreement with managements, a total of 480 individuals was invited to participate,
which matched the researchers’ target at the out set of the survey design. At the
close of the survey, 305 valid questionnaires had been completed and received,
representing a response rate of 63 percent — an acceptable rate that exceeds the
average for survey research of this type. The data was collected by researchers
between 3 September and 7 October, 2017.
Measures
The questionnaire consisted of two sections. The first section compiled the
respondent’s profile, while the second section contained items relating to the main
1950006-9
2ndReading
variables of the study. In the first section, information about the respondent’s
gender, age, level of education, department, and years of work experience was
gathered. Responses in section two were elicited by close-ended questions and
measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale. Respondents were asked to rate their level
of agreement with the items, within a range from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5
(strongly agree). The scale used to measure empowerment consisted of five items
was adopted from Chiles and Zorn (1995) and Spreitzer’s (1995). In addition, the
seven items measuring knowledge sharing, were taken from the scale proposed by
Kianto et al. (2016), and innovative work behaviour was operationalised via a
6-item scale obtained from Hu et al. (2009).
Analysis and results

Respondents’profile
Table 1 sets out the demographic characteristics of the respondents in this study.
The majority of the respondents were male, aged between 21–30 years old, had a
bachelor’s degree, and worked in the private sector.
Gender comparisons on main variables

T-test was also carried out to examine the differences between gender groups
for the main study variables (i.e., innovative behaviour, empowerment and
knowledge sharing). The results are very interesting. They reveal that females
Table 1. Sample distribution.
Characteristic Group Frequency

Gender Male 52.1%
Female 47.9%
Age 21–30 54.4%
31–40 22.3%
41–50 16.7%
50 þ 6.6 %
Education level Diploma 12.1%
Degree 70.8%
Post-graduate 16.1%
Others 1.0%
Current employment Public 40.0%
Private 60.0%
1950006-10
2ndReading
Table 2. Analysis of variance (t-test).
Innovative behaviour Knowledge sharing Employee empowerment
Variable Group Obs. Mean t-Value Mean t-Value Mean t-Value

Gender Female 146 3.94 3.85 4.04
2.10** 1.49 2.76*
Male 159 3.77 3.72 3.81
Note: *and ** significant at 1% and 5%, respectively.
enjoy greater empowerment and exhibit greater levels of innovative behaviour.

This is very surprising and defeats the usual stereotype attributed to females,
particularly in the Middle East region. However, no significant difference was
found in relation to the extent of knowledge sharing between the two gender
groups. This indicates that in the UAE service sector, females seem to feel more
empowered and more innovative than expected. The results of these comparisons
are shown in Table 2.
Because of the above differences, we resorted to testing for causalities and
comparing these across the two gender groups.
Structural model testing

Relationships between the constructs were analysed through structural equation
modeling (SEM) using the Partial Least Squares (PLS) approach. PLS was
chosen for this study sinceit is better suited to causal modelling when the sample
size is small and models are complex (Fornell and Bookstein, 1982; Hulland,
1999). The application of PLS requires a minimum sample size of 30, and one
that is 10 times greater than (1) the number of items comprising the most for-
mative constructs, or (2) the number of independent constructs directly influ-
encing a dependent construct (Wixom and Watson, 2001). This study’s sample
size of 305 met these requirements. The software used was SmartPLS (Hans-
mann and Ringle, 2004). A PLS model is usually analysed and interpreted in two
stages (Hulland, 1999). In the first stage, the measurement model is tested by
performing validity and reliability analyses on each of the measurements
obtained using the model. In the second stage, the structural model is tested by
estimating the paths between the constructs in the model, determining their
significance as well as the predictive ability of the model. This sequence is
followed to ensure that reliable and valid measurements of the constructs are
used before conclusions about the nature of the relationships between the various
constructs are drawn (Hulland, 1999).
1950006-11
2ndReading
Reliability and validity

To test the proposed model, this study applied a two-stage testing model. The
construct validity was evaluated using factor loadings, and average variance
extracted. As shown in Table 3, the result of convergent validity assessment
indicates that all of the standardized loading values are above the cut-off level of
0.5 (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988), and significant at p < 0:01. Table 3 also
depicts the average variance extracted (AVE) of all the scales being higher than the
0.5 cut-off level (Hair et al., 2014). All of the constructs are shown to be reliable,
with Cronbach’ Alpha values above the cut-off level of 0.7 (Hair et al., 2014) and
the composite reliability value of all constructs also above the suggested cut-off
value of 0.7 (Hair et al., 2014). Table 4 shows the discriminant validity of the
research variables used to be acceptable, there being no Heterotrait–Monotrait
(HTMT) values over 0.9 (Henseler et al., 2015).
Goodness of fit
Following Hair et al. (2014), a bootstrapping method with 500 repetitions was
applied to assess the significance of the indicator weights and the path coeffi-
cients. In addition, the corrected R 2 of all constructs were estimated to employ a
diagnostic tool to evaluate the model’s goodness of fit (GOF). The goodness of fit
(GOF) measure applies the geometric mean of the communality and the average
R 2 for endogenous constructs. The standard for evaluating the outcomes of the
GOF analysis is small (0.02), medium (0.25) and large (0.36) (Hair et al., 2014).
In this research, the GOF value of 0.55 (see Table 5) validates the proposed
model of the relationship between employee empowerment and innovative be-
haviour, and signifies that the model performs relatively well. Chin et al. (2008)
argue that an investigator should be able to employ the magnitude of R 2 and
Stone–Geisser’s Q 2 value as a criterion for the predictive significant of assessing
model using PLS. The results of Q 2 calculation are 0.235, 0.224 for Innovative
Behaviour and Knowledge Sharing respectively, indicating that they have sat-
isfactory predictive relevance (Hair et al., 2014). Further, as Table 5 depicts, the
results of testing the structural model indicating that Employee Empowerment
explain 52% (R 2 ¼ 0:52) of the variance of knowledge sharing. Employee
empowerment and knowledge sharing explain 57.6% (R 2 ¼ 0:576) of the vari-
ance of innovative behaviour.
Hypothesis testing (direct effects as overall)

After testing for validity and reliability, SEM was employed to test the hypothe-
sized model using SMART-PLS.3. Coefficient values and the significant level
1950006-12
2ndReading
Table 3. Loading of item measurement and composite reliability (CR) and AVE.
Cronbach’s Composite Variance

Variable i alpha reliability extracted
Innovative Behaviour 0.889 0.889 0.576
At work, I come up with innovative and creative 0.835
notions.
At work, I try to propose my own creative ideas and 0.791
convince others.
At work, I seek new service techniques, or methods. 0.753
At work, I provide plans for developing new ideas. 0.742
I try to secure resources needed to implement 0.563
innovations.
Overall, I consider myself a creative member of my 0.838
team.
Empowerment 0.84 0.839 0.512
I feel competent to perform the tasks required for my 0.651
position.
I feel competent to perform the tasks required for my
position;
I am confident about my capabilities and skills to do 0.742
my job.
I have the authority to make the necessary decisions to 0.627
perform my job well.
My manager trusts me to make the appropriate 0.797
decisions in my job.
I have considerable opportunity for interdependence 0.747
and freedom in how I do my job.
Knowledge sharing 0.896 0.895 0.55
Communication with other members of my work 0.791
group is efficient and beneficial.
My colleagues are open and honest with each other. 0.838
Our staff is interactive and exchanges ideas widely 0.638
across the organization.
I find it easy to communicate and co-operate with 0.715
employees from other organisational units and
functions.
There is mutual understanding between the various 0.71
organisational units and functions.
The employees in this organization share information 0.743
and learn from each other.
Different opinions are respected and listened to in this 0.739
organisation.
1950006-13
2ndReading
Table 4. Heterotrait–Monotrait ratio (HTMT).
Variable Innovative behaviour Empowerment Knowledge sharing

Innovative behaviour 0 0 0
Empowerment 0.716 0 0
Knowledge sharing 0.526 0.714 0
Table 5. Goodness of fit index.
AVE R2 Q2
Innovative behaviour 0.576 0.576 0.235
Knowledge sharing 0.55 0.52 0.224
Empowerment 0.512
Average score 0.546 0.548
AVE R 2 0.30
p
GoF ¼ (AVE R 2 ) 0.55
were used to confirm/disconfirm the proposed relationships. The analysis of the

full sample size of 305 respondents showed that the relationship between em-
ployee empowerment and innovative behaviour was significant and positive
( ¼ 0:545, t ¼ 10:392, p < 0:01). Thus Hypothesis 1 is supported. Similarly, the
results also showed that knowledge sharing significantly and positively predicts
innovative behaviour ( ¼ 0:132, t ¼ 2:246, p < 0:01), supporting Hypothesis 2.
The details of these results are presented in Table 6 and Fig. 2.
In order to evaluate whether the hypotheses were supportable for gender groups
(male vs. female), multi-group analysis was run (Table 7). For the male group,
results showed that employee empowerment has a positive and significant impact
on knowledge sharing and innovative behavior ( ¼ 0:68, p < 0:05), ( ¼ 0:511,
p < 0:05), respectively. Similarly, knowledge sharing was found to have a posi-
tive and significant impact on innovative behaviour ( ¼ 0:248, p < 0:05). On the
Table 6. Path coefficient (overall).
Relationships Variable Coefficient p-Value Result

Direct relationships EMP!IB 0.545 0.00 H1: Supported
KS!IB 0.132 0.03 H2: Supported
EMP!KS 0.628 0.00 —
Note: *** Significant at 1% level.
1950006-14
2ndReading
Fig. 2. Coefficient values of direct paths (overall).
other hand, results for the female group showed employee empowerment to have a
positive and significant impact on knowledge sharing and innovative behaviour
( ¼ 0:528, p < 0:05), ( ¼ 0:589, p < 0:05). Knowledge sharing did not,
however, have a significant effect on innovative behaviour ( ¼ 0:85, p > 0:05).
These findings were also supported by conducting a statistical comparison of
the direct effect coefficients in the structural model for males with the corre-
sponding coefficients of the direct effects for females. The statistical comparison
was made using Henseler et al.’s (2015) non-parametric approach. Table 7
shows that significant differences exist only in the effects of knowledge sharing
( ¼ 0:232, p < 0:05) on innovative behaviour, which, therefore, supports
Hypothesis 4. No significant difference was found, however, between women
and men with regard to the effect of empowerment on knowledge sharing and
innovative behaviour, with the result that Hypothesis 3 could not be supported.
Analysis of potential moderating effect

No significant relationship between knowledge sharing and innovative behavior
was determined for the female group ( ¼ 0:232, p > 0:05). It seems that for
women, the impact of knowledge sharing on innovative behavior might be con-
ditional. Previous research has illuminated the utility of exploring the combined
effects of variables (i.e., moderating effect) to test their predictive strength com-
pared to the same variables standing alone (Hong et al., 2013; Chen et al.,
2016; Hui et al., 2004). Hence, this study explored the combined effects of
1950006-15
May 18, 2018
9:55:49am
Table 7. Results of moderation effects of gender.

WSPC/150-IJIM
Path coefficient of Path coefficient of Moderating effect

Path (IV!DV) male (m) n ¼ 159 p-value (m) female (f ) n ¼ 146 p-value (f ) Difference (m–f ) t-value p-value testing (H3 and H4)
1950006
EMP!IB 0.511 0.00 0.528 0.00 0.017 0.159 0.874 Not supported
KS!IB 0.248 0.00 0.016 0.85 0.232 2.035 0.043 Not supported
1950006-16
EMP!KS 0.68 0.00 0.589 0.00 0.091 1.275 0.203 —
Note: *p < 0:1, **p < 0:05, ***p < 0:01.

ISSN: 1363-9196
2ndReading
2ndReading
Fig. 3. Coefficient values of direct paths (female group).
knowledge sharing and empowerment (see Fig. 3). The underlying logic is that
when women practice effective knowledge sharing together with the experience of
empowerment in the work environment, the effects on innovative behavior may
change compared to the influence knowledge sharing alone.
SEM was used to test the potential moderating effect of female empowerment
on the relationships between knowledge sharing and innovative behaviour using
SMARTPLS.3. Interestingly, the results showed that in explaining innovative
behaviour, the combined effect (moderator) of empowerment and knowledge
sharing in the female group was significant and positive ( ¼ 0:19, p ¼ 0:01). The
results of this moderating effect are presented in Table 8 and Fig. 3.
Table 8. Summary of regression results for the female group.
Relationships Variable Coefficient p-value

Direct relationships EMP!IB 0.549** 0.00
KS!IB 0.055 0.52
EMP!KS 0.59** 0.00
Moderating effect 1 EMP * KS!IB 0.193** 0.01
Note: *p < 0:05, **p < 0:0.
1950006-17
2ndReading
Discussion and Conclusions

In this study, we examined the influence of employee empowerment and knowl-
edge sharing on employees’ innovative behaviour. The moderating role of gender
in this relationship was also explored. To test the proposed model, we applied
variance-based structural equation modeling smart PLS to a sample of 305
employees working in service sector occupations in the UAE.
In support of our first hypothesis, the results confirmed that employee
empowerment has a strong positive effect on employee innovative behaviour. This
finding indicates that when employees believe (or feel) that they are empowered
they are better equipped and more likely to volunteer to generating creative ideas
towards improving their work environment and the well-being of their organisa-
tion. This is because feelings of empowerment gives them a greater sense of
control over their work-environment and thereby enhance their capacity to inno-
vate (or engage in innovative behaviours). In other words, empowerment often
means greater flexibility awarded to employees which in turn encourages them to
explore new ways of working through innovative ideas. Our findings in this regard
are in strong support of previous research (Sangar and Rangnekar, 2014; Berraies
et al., 2014).
In strong support of Hypothesis 2, knowledge sharing was found to have a
significant positive influence on innovative behaviour. This is consistent with
findings from previous studies indicating that sharing knowledge is a potential
source of new ideas, and that it encourages/facilitates employees’ innovative be-
havior (Wang et al., 2017; Zu and Mu, 2016; Mura et al., 2013).
Quite interestingly, our findings point to some important differences between
males and females with regard to the above relationships. In particular, they reveal
significant differential effects of knowledge sharing between women and men. By
comparison to males, females are found to be somewhat more cautious and less
likely to unleash their knowledge to others. This is rather surprising and unex-
pected. It may be contextual and specific to females in the UAE as it may reflect
the absence of a connection among the female groups. Therefore, Hypothesis 4
was not supported.
However, and in contrast, our findings show that when women feel empowered,
they may be more willing to engage in knowledge sharing (may be a sign of
greater confidence/trust) which leads to their greater likelihood to innovate.
Therefore, Hypothesis 3 was not supported. This makes sense and may be due to
the fact that in a non-encouraging work-environment (i.e., low empowerment)
women’s ideas are less likely to be heard, accepted and supported. By contrast,
feelings of empowerment (particularly in male-dominated societies) would insight
females to be more confident, engage in knowledge sharing and thereby improve
1950006-18
2ndReading
their capacity to innovate. This is consistent with the arguments put forth by Alsos
et al. (2013), and Foss et al. (2013) who asserted that women do not lack the
capability for innovation but are rather, styled by gender stereotyping. As Alsos
et al. (2013) suggest, the question is not who is creative, but rather who holds the
power and is listened to in organizations. Similarly, Belghiti-Mahut et al. (2016)
note that power relationships have seldom been addressed in the innovation lit-
erature, despite that power in organizations resides in hierarchical structures and in
control over resources (Menon, 2001). The invisibility of women in innovation
studies is a reflection of their relative absence from leadership roles, and that
consequently they are often considered non-players, or non-effective players, in
innovation. This may be both cause and effect of women’s marginalization as
agents of innovation (Belghiti-Mahut et al., 2016). Based on the above findings,
we tempted to put worth that women need to be empowered to overcome the
barriers held in place by gender bias that inhibit their enacting innovative be-
haviour in organizations and in society at large. Our results clearly show that
feelings of true empowerment can strengthen women’s ability to implement in-
novative ideas and make positive contributions to their work-environment and
thereby to society at large. This finding seems to be a reflection of the continuous
efforts of the UAE government aimed at enhancing women empowerment, as
testified by several sources. Empowered women are more likely to utilise their
knowledge sharing in initiatives as they attain higher levels of authority that will
allow their ideas to be heard, accepted and implemented.
Implications for management and management practice

Our findings point to some significant benefits for human resource managers and
practitioners in service industries that may be gained by facilitating more inno-
vative behaviour among their employees. Our findings indicate that empowering
employees and promoting knowledge sharing are essential to their enacting in-
novative behaviour. This would suggest that managers and decision makers should
cultivate employee empowerment through a variety of means such as (1) fostering
trust and freedom, (2) encouraging employees to undertake job-related tasks and
take proactive decisions, (3) providing employees with the appropriate resources
and tools, (4) inviting their participation in decision-making processes, and
(5) rewarding high-performing employees. In addition, managers can promote
knowledge sharing in their organizations through methods such as (1) making
information available at all levels, (2) offering effective education and training
programs to develop a knowledge-sharing culture in the organization, (3) creating
incentives to share knowledge (4) developing a culture which supports knowledge
sharing and network-building, and (5) raising awareness of the importance of
1950006-19
2ndReading
knowledge sharing to the success of the organisation. These measures would, in

turn, lead to greater employee engagement in innovative behaviour.
The moderating effect of gender was also found to be a significant determinant
of innovative behaviour in the UAE’s service sector. Innovation is not solely
men’s business; it is women’s work. The empirical evidence supports the vital
contributions that both genders bring to an organisation’s capacity for innovation.
In particular, the evidence presented in this study suggests two key points: that
empowerment contributes to knowledge sharing for both men and women, but
differences incur when knowledge sharing is treated as a single antecedent of
innovative behaviour. The contribution to innovation of women practicing
knowledge sharing is enabled only when women believe themselves to be
empowered. This may be because knowledge sharing involves discussion, net-
working, and building alliances – relational traits that women value more highly,
and which may come to the fore as women become more empowered. For men,
knowledge sharing in itself contributed positively to innovative behaviour. Taken
together, these findings demonstrate that managers seeking to improve innovation
in their organizations must understand that this important difference exists; neither
should they ignore the vital, and complementary, contribution of women to the
innovation process. To overcome the inherent gender bias that is an obstacle to
women adopting innovative behaviour at work, the following recommendations
are made: (1) building an organizational culture which eliminates gender-based
practices and facilitates equality among employees at all levels, (2) investing in
training and development of women and qualifying them to hold positions of
authority and higher levels of accountability, (3) encouraging women’s involve-
ment in the exchange of ideas, work experience and knowledge sharing activities
through brain-storming and suggestion schemes, and (4) highlighting and
rewarding innovative ideas and contributions to organizational successes. These
practices can promote the innovative behavior of women by inculcating the sense
that they are being supported. Moreover, empowerment will boost women’s self-
confidence in utilizing knowledge sharing for the development of innovative ideas.
Limitations and suggestions for future research

Notwithstanding the pertinent and useful findings of this research, this study has
some theoretical and practical limitations that may, however, serve as catalysts for
future research. However, we acknowledge some research limitations. For in-
stance, the moderating role of gender that was found in the current research may
not be generalisable to other cultures/contexts. This is because gender roles
may vary significantly between countries, and since our study only draws on
respondents from the UAE, it is difficult to generalise our findings as they may not
1950006-20
2ndReading
be applicable in other national contexts. Future research could take a wider per-
spective and question antecedents of innovative behaviours on aspects other than
gender. For instance, such research may include/investigate feelings, attitudes and
innovative behaviours of expatriates who work in the Middle East organisations.
Such research would add to our findings and contribute significantly to the body of
knowledge within the thematic of genders and innovative behaviour.
Also, this study focuses primarily on empowerment and knowledge sharing as
antecedents of innovative behaviours. Other variables, such as employee satis-
faction, co-worker support and workplace culture, may also play a role. Future
research could consider and explore these. Moreover, our model remains ex-
ploratory and does not cater for aspects of performance at the individual and
organizational levels. Future research could consider including outcome variables
that may help assess the relevance of the above relationships to aspects of indi-
vidual and organizational performance. Also, this study is based on cross-sectional
data which bears some limitations. Longitudinal data (perhaps way of a replica-
tion) may reinforce (and add value to) the model and the above empirical findings.
References
Al Serkal, MM (2015). UAE leads the way in women empowerment. Accessed March 22,
2018, from http://gulfnews.com/news/uae/government/national-day/uae-leads-the-
way-in-women-empowerment-1.1628975.
Alsos, GA, E Ljunggren and U Hytti (2013). Gender and innovation: State of the art and
a research agenda. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 5(3),
236–256.
Amabile, TM (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 10(1), 123–167.
Andersson, K (2012). “It’s funny that we don’t see the similarities when that’s what we’re
aiming for” — Visualizing and challenging teachers’ stereotypes of gender and
science. Research in Science Education, 42(2), 281–302.
Anderson, JC and DW Gerbing (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review
and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411.
Aninkan, DO and AA Oyewole (2014). The influence of individual and organizational
factors on employee engagement. International Journal Devolpment Sustainble, 3,
1381–1392.
Ayman, R and K Korabik (2010). Leadership: Why gender and culture matter. American
Psychologist, 65(3), 157.
Ayman, R, K Korabik and S Morris (2009). Is transformational leadership always per-
ceived as effective? Male subordinates’ devaluation of female transformational
leaders. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39(4), 852–879.
1950006-21
2ndReading
Baker, WE, A Grinstein and N Harmancioglu (2016). Whose innovation performance

benefits more from external networks: Entrepreneurial or conservative firms? Journal
of Product Innovation Management, 33(1), 104–120.
Baer, M and M Frese (2003). Innovation is not enough: Climates for initiative and psy-
chological safety, process innovations, and firm performance. Journal of Organiza-
tional Behavior, 24(1), 45–68.
Belghiti-Mahut, S, AL Lafont and O Yousfi (2016). Gender gap in innovation: A confused
link?. Journal of Innovation Economics & Management, (1), 159–177.
Berglund, K and J Thorslund (2012). Innovative policies? Entrepreneurship and innova-
tion policy from a gender perspective. In Promoting Innovation. Policies, Practices
and Procedures, S Andersson, K Berglund, E Gunnarsson and E Sundin (Eds.),
Vinnova Report VR 2012:08, Stockholm, Vinnova, pp. 25–46.
Berraies, S, M Chaher and KB Yahia (2014). Employee empowerment and its importance
for trust, innovation and organizational performance. Business Management and
Strategy, 5(2), 82–103.
Bowen, DE and EE Lawler (1992). The empowerment of service workers: What, why,
how, and when. Sloan Management Review, 33(3), 31.
Boley, BB, E Ayscue, N Maruyama and KM Woosnam (2017). Gender and empower-
ment: Assessing discrepancies using the resident empowerment through tourism
scale. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 25(1), 113–129.
Brown, SL and KM Eisenhardt (1995). Product development: Past research, present
findings, and future directions. Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 343–378.
Brunetto, Y and R Farr-Wharton (2007). The moderating role of trust in SME owner/
managers’ decision-making about collaboration. Journal of Small Business Man-
agement, 45(3), 362–387.
Bryman, A (2008), Social Research Methods, 3rd ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Çakar, ND and A Ertürk (2010). Comparing innovation capability of small and medium-
sized enterprises: Examining the effects of organizational culture and empowerment.
Journal of Small Business Management, 48(3), 325–359.
Çekmecelioğlu, HG and GK Özbağ (2014). Linking psychological empowerment, indi-
vidual creativity and firm innovativeness: A research on turkish manufacturing in-
dustry. Business Management Dynamics, 3(10), 1–13.
Chen, CC, WJ Huang and JF Petrick (2016). Holiday recovery experiences, tourism satis-
faction and life satisfaction–Is there a relationship? Tourism Management, 53, 140–147.
Chi, L and CW Holsapple (2005). Understanding computer-mediated interorganizational
collaboration: A model and framework. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(1),
53–75.
Chiles, AM and TE Zorn (1995). Empowerment in organizations: Employees’ perceptions of
the influences on empowerment. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 23(1),
1–25.
Chin, WW, RA Peterson and SP Brown (2008). Structural equation modeling in mar-
keting: Some practical reminders. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 16(4),
287–298.
1950006-22
2ndReading
Chun, MW (2013). An exploration of gender differences in the use of social networking

and knowledge management tools. Journal of Information Technology Management,
24(2), 20–31.
Conger, JA and RN Kanungo (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and
practice. Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 471–482.
Cummings, JN (2004). Work groups, structural diversity, and knowledge sharing in a
global organization. Management Science, 50(3), 352–364.
Cropley, D and A Cropley (2017). Innovation capacity, organisational culture and gender.
European Journal of Innovation Management, 20(3), 493–510.
Damanpour, F (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determi-
nants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 555–590.
Danaei, A and F Iranbakhsh (2016). Key drivers of innovative behavior in hotel industry:
Evidence from a developing country. Iranian Journal of Management Studies,
9(3), 599.
Dariel, A, C Kephart, N Nikiforakis and C Zenker (2017). Emirati women do not shy away
from competition: Evidence from a patriarchal society in transition. Journal of the
Economic Science Association, 3(2), 121–136.
Dedahanov, AT, C Rhee and J Yoon (2017). Organizational structure and innovation
performance: Is employee innovative behavior a missing link?. Career Development
International, 22(4) 334–350.
Diekman, AB and AH Eagly (2000). Stereotypes as dynamic constructs: Women and men
of the past, present, and future. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(10),
1171–1188.
Dhar, RL (2016). Ethical leadership and its impact on service innovative behavior: The
role of LMX and job autonomy. Tourism Management, 57, 139–148.
Dutta, N and R Sobel (2016). Does corruption ever help entrepreneurship?. Small Business
Economics, 47(1), 179–199.
Ertürk, A (2012). Linking psychological empowerment to innovation capability: Investi-
gating the moderating effect of supervisory trust. International Journal of Business
and Social Science, 3(14).
Eskildsen, JK, JJ Dahlgaard and A Norgaard (1999). The impact of creativity and learning
on business excellence. Total Quality Management, 10(4–5), 523–530.
Fanack Chronicle (2016), Economy of United Arab Emirates. Fanack.com. Accessed
March 22, 2018. https://fanack.com/united-arab-emirates/economy/.
Fernandez, S and T Moldogaziev (2013). Using employee empowerment to encourage
innovative behavior in the public sector. Journal of Public Administration Research
and Theory, 23(1), 155–187.
Florea, L, YH Cheung and NC Herndon (2013). For all good reasons: Role of values in
organizational sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics, 114(3), 393–408.
Fosfuri, A and JA Tribó (2008). Exploring the antecedents of potential absorptive capacity
and its impact on innovation performance. Omega, 36(2), 173–187.
1950006-23
2ndReading
Foss, L, K Woll and M Moilanen (2013). Creativity and implementations of new ideas: Do
organisational structure, work environment and gender matter?. International Journal
of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 5(3), 298–322.
Forés, B and C Camisón (2016). Does incremental and radical innovation performance
depend on different types of knowledge accumulation capabilities and organizational
size?. Journal of Business Research, 69(2), 831–848.
Fornell, C and FL Bookstein (1982). Two structural equation models: LISREL and PLS
applied to consumer exit-voice theory. Journal of Marketing Research, 440–452.
Hair Jr, JF, GTM Hult, C Ringle and M Sarstedt (2014). A Primer on Partial Least
Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage Publications.
Hansmann, KW and CM Ringle (2004). SmartPLS manual. University of Hamburg,
Hamburg, 4–21.
Henseler, J, CM Ringle and M Sarstedt (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant
validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135.
Hong, Y, H Liao, J Hu and K Jiang (2013). Missing link in the service profit chain:
A meta-analytic review of the antecedents, consequences, and moderators of service
climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(2), 237.
Hui, C, C Lee and DM Rousseau (2004). Psychological contract and organizational citi-
zenship behavior in China: Investigating generalizability and instrumentality. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 89(2), 311.
Hu, MLM, JS Horng and YHC Sun (2009). Hospitality teams: Knowledge sharing and
service innovation performance. Tourism Management, 30(1), 41–50.
Hulland, J (1999). Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research:
A review of four recent studies. Strategic Management Journal, 195–204.
Jung, DI, C Chow and A Wu (2003). The role of transformational leadership in enhancing
organizational innovation: Hypotheses and some preliminary findings. The Leader-
ship Quarterly, 14(4–5), 525–544.
Kang, M and MJ Lee (2017). Absorptive capacity, knowledge sharing, and innovative
behaviour of R&D employees. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 29(2),
219–232.
Kahn, WA (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement
at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724.
Khaleej Times (July 29, 2017). UAE among Top 10 Countries for Community Innovation.
Accessed March 22, 2018. Accessed March 22, 2018, from https://www.kha-
leejtimes.com/nation/dubai/uae-among-top-10-countries-for-community-innovation.
Khamis, J, N Chrysanthos and Gulf News. (2017). UAE to be in the forefront of women’s
empowerment. Accessed March 22, 2018, from http://gulfnews.com/news/uae/soci-
ety/uae-to-be-in-the-forefront-of-women-s-empowerment-1.1974098.
Kianto, A, M Vanhala and P Heilmann (2016). The impact of knowledge management on
job satisfaction. Journal of Knowledge Management, 20(4), 621–636.
1950006-24
2ndReading
Kim, W, GF Khan, J Wood and MT Mahmood (2016). Employee engagement for sus-
tainable organizations: Keyword analysis using social network analysis and burst
detection approach. Sustainability, 8(7), 631.
Kim, TT and G Lee (2013). Hospitality employee knowledge-sharing behaviors in the
relationship between goal orientations and service innovative behavior. International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 34, 324–337.
Kim, MY, SM Park and Q Miao (2017). Entrepreneurial leadership and organizational
innovation: Improving attitudes and behaviors of Chinese public employees. In
Public Service Innovations in China, pp. 151–184. Singapore: Palgrave.
Kirsch, DA (2000). The Electric Vehicle and the Burden of History, New Brunswick, NJ:
Rutgers University Press.
Kmieciak, R, A Michna and A Meczynska (2012). Innovativeness, empowerment and IT
capability: Evidence from SMEs. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 112(5),
707–728.
Le Loarne, S and L Gnan (2015). Introduction to the special issue: Is innovation gendered.
International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 24(1), 1–3.
Lin, CP (2006). Gender differs: Modelling knowledge sharing from a perspective of social
network ties. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 9(3) 236–241.
Lindberg, M, I Danilda and BM Torstensson (2012). Women Resource Centres — a
creative knowledge environment of quadruple helix. Journal of the Knowledge
Economy, 3(1), 36–52.
Liu, D, Y Gong, J Zhou and JC Huang (2017). Human resource systems, employee
creativity, and firm innovation: The moderating role of firm ownership. Academy of
Management Journal, 60(3), 1164–1188.
Longo, M and M Mura (2011). The effect of intellectual capital on employees’ satisfaction
and retention. Information & Management, 48(7), 278–287.
Martins, EC and F Terblanche (2003). Building organisational culture that stimulates
creativity and innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 6(1), 64–74.
Menon, S (2001). Employee empowerment: An integrative psychological approach.
Applied Psychology, 50(1), 153–180.
MFNCA (Ministry of State for Federal National Council Affairs) (2015). Women in the
United Arab Emirates A Portrait of Progress. Accessed March 22, 2018, from http://
wil.insightsme.net/2015/08/02/women-in-the-united-arab-emirates-a-portrait-of-
progress/.
Moghadam, VM (2004). Patriarchy in transition: Women and the changing family in the
Middle East. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 137–162.
Mom, TJ, FA Van Den Bosch and HW Volberda (2007). Investigating managers’
exploration and exploitation activities: The influence of top-down, bottom-up, and
horizontal knowledge inflows. Journal of Management Studies, 44(6), 910–931.
Mura, M, E Lettieri, G Radaelli and N Spiller (2013). Promoting professionals’ innovative
behaviour through knowledge sharing: The moderating role of social capital. Journal
of Knowledge Management, 17(4), 527–544.
1950006-25
2ndReading
Nählinder, J (2010). Where are all the female innovators?: Nurses as innovators in a public
sector innovation project. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 5(1),
13–29.
Park, SG, HJA Kang, HR Lee and SJ Kim (2017). The effects of LMX on gender
discrimination and subjective career success. Asia Pacific Journal of Human
Resources, 55(1), 127–148.
Peccei, R, H Bewley, H Gospel and P Willman (2005). Is it good to talk? Information
disclosure and organizational performance in the UK. British Journal of Industrial
Relations, 43(1), 11–39.
Pecis, L (2016). Doing and undoing gender in innovation: Femininities and masculinities
in innovation processes. Human Relations, 69(11), 2117–2140.
Petter, J, P Byrnes, DL Choi, F Fegan and R Miller (2002). Dimensions and patterns in
employee empowerment: Assessing what matters to street-level bureaucrats. Journal
of Public Administration Research and Theory, 12(3), 377–400.
Pettersson, K and M Lindberg (2013). Paradoxical spaces of feminist resistance: Mapping
the margin to the masculinist innovation discourse. International Journal of Gender
and Entrepreneurship, 5(3), 323–341.
Pettersson, K (2007). Men and Male as the Norm? A Gender Perspective on Innovation
Policies in Denmark, Finland and Sweden, Stockholm, Nordregio.
Pink, B, J Borowik and G Lee (2009). The case for an international statistical innovation
program–Transforming national and international statistics systems. Statistical
Journal of the IAOS, 26(3, 4), 125–133.
Pitts, DW (2005). Leadership, empowerment, and public organizations. Review of Public
Personnel Administration, 25(1), 5–28.
Pons, FJ, J Ramos and A Ramos (2016). Antecedent variables of innovation behaviors in
organizations: Differences between men and women. Revue Europeenne de Psy-
chologie Appliquee/European Review of Applied Psychology, 66(3), 117–126.
Powell, GN (1999). Handbook of Gender and Work. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage
Publications.
Powell, GN, DA Butterfield and JD Parent (2002). Gender and managerial stereotypes:
Have the times changed?. Journal of Management, 28(2), 177–193.
Ranga, M and H Etzkowitz (2010). Athena in the world of techne: The gender dimension
of technology, innovation and entrepreneurship. Journal of Technology Management
& Innovation, 5(1), 1–12.
Sangar, R and S Rangnekar (2014). Psychological empowerment and role satisfaction as
determinants of creativity. Asia-Pacific Journal of Management Research and
Innovation, 10(2), 119–127.
Saray, H, L Patache and MB Ceran (2017). Effects of employee empowerment as a
part of innovation management. Economics, Management and Financial Markets,
12(2), 88.
Saunders, M, P Lewis and A Thornhill (2007). Formulating the research design. In
Research Methods for Business Students, 5th edn, pp. 130–161.
1950006-26
2ndReading
Schein, VE, R Mueller, T Lituchy and J Liu (1996). Think manager–think male: A global
phenomenon?. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33–41.
Schein, VE (1975). Relationships between sex role stereotypes and requisite management
characteristics among female managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(3), 340.
Schein, VE (1973). The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite manage-
ment characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(2), 95.
Schwaer, C, T Biemann and S Voelpel (2012). Antecedents of employee’s preference for
knowledge-sharing tools. The International Journal of Human Resource Manage-
ment, 23(17), 3613–3635.
Scott, SG and RA Bruce (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of
individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3),
580–607.
Sitlington, H (2012). Knowledge sharing: Implications for downsizing and restructuring
outcomes in Australian organisations. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources,
50(1), 110–127.
Sinclair, A and F Marriott (1990). Women in management — advantage through adversity.
Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 28(2), 14–25.
Smith, J (1996). Empowering People. London, Kogan Page.
Spender, JC (1996). Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm.
Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 45–62.
Spreitzer, GM (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, mea-
surement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1442–1465.
Srivastava, A, KM Bartol and EA Locke (2006). Empowering leadership in management
teams: Effects on knowledge sharing, efficacy, and performance. Academy of
Management Journal, 49(6), 1239–1251.
Stewart, JG, R McNulty, MTQ Griffin and JJ Fitzpatrick (2010). Psychological empow-
erment and structural empowerment among nurse practitioners. Journal of the
American Association of Nurse Practitioners, 22(1), 27–34.
Sulistyo, H (2016). Innovation capability of SMEs through entrepreneurship, marketing
capability, relational capital and empowerment. Asia Pacific Management Review,
21(4), 196–203.
Thomas, KW and BA Velthouse (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment: An “in-
terpretive” model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy of Management Review,
15(4), 666–681.
Thornhill, S (2006). Knowledge, innovation and firm performance in high-and low-
technology regimes. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(5), 687–703.
UAE government (2017). Mohammed Bin Rashid assigns the UAE gender balance
council to oversee the implementation of the ‘GENDER INEQUALITY INDEX.
Accessed March 22, 2018, from https://www.uaecabinet.ae/en/details/news/moham-
med-bin-rashid-assigns-the-uae-gender-balance-council-to-oversee-the-implementa-
tion-of-the-gender-inequality-index.
Wang, S and RA Noe (2010). Knowledge sharing: A review and directions for future
research. Human Resource Management Review, 20(2), 115–131.
1950006-27
2ndReading
Wang, YL (2013). R&D employees’ innovative behaviors in Taiwan: HRM and mana-
gerial coaching as moderators. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 51(4),
491–515.
Wang, J, J Yang and Y Xue (2017). Subjective well-being, knowledge sharing and
individual innovation behavior: The moderating role of absorptive capacity. Lead-
ership & Organization Development Journal, 38(8), 1110–1127.
Wixom, BH and HJ Watson (2001). An empirical investigation of the factors affecting data
warehousing success. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 17–41.
Xerri, M (2013). Workplace relationships and the innovative behaviour of nursing
employees: A social exchange perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of Human
Resources, 51(1), 103–123.
Xerri, MJ and Y Brunetto (2013). Fostering innovative behaviour: The importance of
employee commitment and organisational citizenship behaviour. The International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(16), 3163–3177.
Yeşil, S, A Koska and T Büyükbeşe (2013). Knowledge sharing process, innovation
capability and innovation performance: An empirical study. Procedia-Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 75, 217–225.
Yuan, F and RW Woodman (2010). Innovative behavior in the workplace: The role of
performance and image outcome expectations. Academy of Management Journal,
53(2), 323–342.
Zhu, C and R Mu (2016). Followers’ innovative behavior in organizations: The role of
transformational leadership, psychological capital and knowledge sharing. Frontiers
of Business Research in China, 10(4), 636.
1950006-28

IJIMvolumenumberis 23 and Issue 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

IJIMvolumenumberis 23 and Issue 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2ndReading

May 18, 2018 9:55:43am WSPC/150-IJIM 1950006 ISSN: 1363-9196

International Journal of Innovation Management

EMPOWERMENT, KNOWLEDGE SHARING AND

RAWAN MAZEN ABUKHAIT*, SHAKER BANI-MELHEM†

We examine the effects of empowerment and knowledge sharing on employee innovative

Keywords: Gender; empowerment; knowledge sharing; innovative behaviour; United Arab

R. Abukhait, S. Bani-Melhem & R. Zeffane

Empowerment and Innovative Behaviors: Exploring Gender Differences

Previous research and hypotheses

Employee empowerment and innovative behaviour

R. Abukhait, S. Bani-Melhem & R. Zeffane

making, knowledge transfer, access to resources and organisational affairs (Pitts,

Empowerment and Innovative Behaviors: Exploring Gender Differences

Hypothesis 1: Employee empowerment is positively and signiﬁcantly related to

Knowledge Sharing and innovative behaviour

R. Abukhait, S. Bani-Melhem & R. Zeffane

can be improved by including more variables. The ﬁndings of previous studies on

Hypothesis 2: Knowledge sharing is positively and signiﬁcantly related to

The moderating effect of gender

Empowerment and Innovative Behaviors: Exploring Gender Differences

entrepreneurship have been mostly particularised’ either by gender blindness or

R. Abukhait, S. Bani-Melhem & R. Zeffane

Hypothesis 3: The impact of empowerment on innovative behaviour is likely to be

Fig. 1. Hypothesised relationships between variables in innovative behaviour.

Empowerment and Innovative Behaviors: Exploring Gender Differences

Data and sample

R. Abukhait, S. Bani-Melhem & R. Zeffane

Analysis and results

Gender comparisons on main variables

Table 1. Sample distribution.

Characteristic Group Frequency

Empowerment and Innovative Behaviors: Exploring Gender Differences

Table 2. Analysis of variance (t-test).

Innovative behaviour Knowledge sharing Employee empowerment

Variable Group Obs. Mean t-Value Mean t-Value Mean t-Value

Note: *and ** signiﬁcant at 1% and 5%, respectively.

enjoy greater empowerment and exhibit greater levels of innovative behaviour.

Structural model testing

R. Abukhait, S. Bani-Melhem & R. Zeffane

Reliability and validity

Hypothesis testing (direct effects as overall)

Empowerment and Innovative Behaviors: Exploring Gender Differences

Cronbach’s Composite Variance

R. Abukhait, S. Bani-Melhem & R. Zeffane

Table 4. Heterotrait–Monotrait ratio (HTMT).

Variable Innovative behaviour Empowerment Knowledge sharing

Table 5. Goodness of ﬁt index.

were used to conﬁrm/disconﬁrm the proposed relationships. The analysis of the

Table 6. Path coefﬁcient (overall).

Relationships Variable Coefﬁcient p-Value Result

Note: *** Signiﬁcant at 1% level.

Empowerment and Innovative Behaviors: Exploring Gender Differences

Fig. 2. Coefﬁcient values of direct paths (overall).

Analysis of potential moderating effect

Table 7. Results of moderation effects of gender.

Path coefﬁcient of Path coefﬁcient of Moderating effect

Note: *p < 0:1, **p < 0:05, ***p < 0:01.

Empowerment and Innovative Behaviors: Exploring Gender Differences

Fig. 3. Coefﬁcient values of direct paths (female group).

Table 8. Summary of regression results for the female group.

Relationships Variable Coefﬁcient p-value

Note: *p < 0:05, **p < 0:0.

Note: p < 0:1, p < 0:05, p < 0:01.