Exploring the Role of Shared Leadership on Job Performance in IT Industries: Testing the Moderated Mediation Model

Abstract

Shared leadership, unlike the traditional perspective, is characterized by the fact that organizational members constitute the source of its leadership. In fact, there is a lack of research on how shared leadership improves performance among small- and medium-sized enterprises in China. In particular, in the Chinese organizational context with a strong collectivist culture, sharing and cooperation among organizational members can have a great positive impact on the sustainability of small- and medium-sized enterprises. Therefore, this study focused on shared leadership on job performance, unlike traditional leadership. According to the research background, it showed the need for research on the link between shared leadership and job performance and presented the moderated mediation effect of self-efficacy in the Chinese organizational context. In order to verify our purpose, a survey was conducted with 320 employees from small- and medium-sized IT enterprises in China. The results indicated that shared leadership positively influenced job performance via psychological stability. Additionally, the moderated mediation effect of self-efficacy was significant. Based on these results, this study suggested ways to improve job performance, verified related research models, and presented future research directions for job performance enhancement. Overall, this research contributed to expanding the research field of shared leadership via its role and influence in various industrial fields.

1. Introduction

The competition for human resources is the essence of the fierce competition among enterprises in a market economy [1]. Excellent human resources promote organizational sustainability and contribute to organizational success. Organizational sustainability is directly related to individual or organizational performance, and there are many previous studies focused on traditional leadership in improving performance. Additionally, in an environment of continued traditional leadership styles, a new leadership approach is needed to make a difference. Therefore, the importance of shared leadership, which is different from traditional leadership, is being emphasized today. The positive aspect of shared leadership could promote activities in the planning stage [2] and induce improvement in job performance because employees experience a higher level of commitment from the organization and feel motivated to share more information [3]. In addition, shared leadership, which emphasizes the initiative of employees to share leadership power and responsibilities by sharing the power and employees’ responsibilities, gives them a great deal of autonomy and enhances their “sense of ownership” [1].

Although shared leadership has been demonstrated to improve job performance, few studies have focused on the Chinese organizational context. In particular, there is a lack of research related to the roles and impact of shared leadership in the context of Chinese SMEs. Thus, this study aims to identify the process of shared leadership leading to job performance in Chinese SMEs.

In order to specifically reveal how shared leadership leads to job performance, it is worth exploring the mediating role of psychological safety too. This is because organizations with high levels of shared leadership are more likely to have a positive emotional environment, which makes employees feel confident and psychologically safe, factors that improve their performance [4]. Conversely, if the level of shared leadership is low, individual needs may not be met, and organizational performance may be adversely impacted [5]. Therefore, shared leadership could enhance organizational performance.

Additionally, we examine how employees’ self-efficacy interacts with shared leadership to psychological safety. Self-efficacy enhances employees’ ability to gather relevant information, make rational decisions, and take appropriate actions, especially under time stress [6]. Therefore, we expect that employees with high self-efficacy who work with a shared leader experience a high level of psychological safety in the workplace.

Based on the research background, this study conducts an empirical investigation of employees in Chinese SMEs. In relation to why we focused on shared leadership in small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in Chinese IT industries, small- and medium-sized enterprises in IT industries attach great importance to sustainability. This is because they have a direct relationship with the survival of the organization. In particular, previous studies have emphasized that organizational sustainability relies heavily on organizational innovation in teams where shared leadership and collaboration among employees are presented [7,8,9]. In addition, the process related to IT innovation adoption is able to be explained via shared leadership, which is regarded as more dynamic, where the roles of leadership are shared among organizational members [10,11]. The main reason is that when the work becomes more complex, one’s roles within organizations may lead to change and a shift from supervisor to employee and vice versa as a new situation emerges and requires different expertise of employees [12].

In relation to verifying the hypotheses of this research, this study empirically investigates employees among IT SMEs in China. It clarifies the effectiveness of shared leadership in Chinese IT SMEs and highlights its significance based on its impact on employees’ job performance.

Overall, we present the reasons and purposes for conducting this study as follows. This study reveals how shared leadership improves employees’ job performance. In particular, it has been verified through previous research that traditional leadership styles can increase job performance and organizational performance. In particular, transformational leadership is regarded as traditional leadership that is a process of raising the level of employees’ awareness, making them more aware of the importance and value of the organization’s desired outcomes, inducing employees to go beyond their personal interests, and activating their desires to satisfy higher levels of needs [13].

Compared with traditional leadership, approaches such as transformational leadership, in the face of challenges brought about by uncertain environments. Shared leadership can serve as a reference for each other to provide advice, division of labor and collaboration, and common consultation and discussion of the organization’s affairs of the role of this unique, and with the diversity brought about by the environment and the members of the organization. Shared leadership can cope with the complexity of the external environment [14]. Shared leadership leads employees to have a sense of participation in the things in the organization while shouldering the responsibility and future of the organization [15]. This dissertation carries out the research that shared leadership can be used as a positive variable that affects job performance. Combined with the fact that Chinese small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are facing changes brought about by various kinds of leadership in the complex context of the general environment, the shared leadership in this study can promote cohesion among organizational members, and can also serve as an important key factor to effectively improve job performance and job satisfaction.

In addition, the majority of academic research in this area has focused on the mediating role of self-efficacy and the impact of shared leadership on job performance [16]. However, this study confirms and validates the mediating role of self-efficacy. Specifically, this study aims to identify the moderating effect of self-efficacy on the relationship between shared leadership and psychological well-being, which may improve job performance. Finally, we contribute to expanding the research field of shared leadership via its role and influence in various industrial fields.

2. Theoretical Background and Hypotheses

2.1. Shared Leadership

Shared leadership is a dynamic process of interaction between individuals in a workgroup, the goal of which is to lead each other to achieve the goals of the workgroup, to work together while appreciating the leader and employees, to influence each other, and to lead the leader and employees to achieve the goals of team innovation [17]. Members not only share leadership responsibilities, but also share experience, knowledge, or skills with each other in order to achieve the common goals of the organization, which is called shared leadership [18]. Shared leadership has the role of connecting the leader and the members, implying that the members interact with each other, thus strengthening the relationship between the members and increasing the reciprocity between them [19]. Shared leadership is the sharing of responsibilities and goals and the delegation of work to members who, through voluntary and active sharing of information, become more productive and have a positive impact on the organization [20]. Shared leadership is essential for a management method that can elicit the full potential of employees based on autonomy rather than control, and where the rules are introduced to improve the organization’s competitiveness [21]. In addition, shared leadership refers to value relationships among employees and explaining each employee’s goals to achieve team and organizational goals rather than individual goals [22,23].

Park and Cha (2018) studied 257 employees from SMEs and found that shared leadership has a significant positive effect on customer orientation via positive psychological capital and knowledge sharing [24]. Chen et al. (2022) conducted a survey of SMEs, large enterprises, and public enterprises, which were organized into teams, using in-person and email methods [25]. A total of 511 independent effects from 398 empirical studies were classified and analyzed. It was found that shared leadership has a positive effect on both perceived team performance and team innovation behavior. Hu et al. (2021) collected 204 questionnaires from the sales team members of a luxury hotel with properties in Shenzhen, Beijing, and Nanjing to find that shared leadership influences chefs’ emotional commitment and job performance [26]. Therefore, based on the previous studies, this study suggests that transformational leadership is a positive variable.

2.2. Self-Efficacy

Self-efficacy refers to a person’s judgment of their ability to organize and perform an action necessary to achieve a specified type of performance [27]. According to Lent et al. (1996), it refers to the process of determining a person’s behavior or effort through certain expectations [28]. Bandura (1997) suggested that it is the belief that one is capable of executing or organizing the activities required for the accomplishment of a particular performance, and is not merely a conviction of competence, but a belief that one can effectively demonstrate that competence in various settings [29]. According to Heslin et al. (2006), self-efficacy refers to a person’s belief in their ability to successfully complete a specific task, and it is a significant determinant of their effort, retention, strategy, and future performance in an organization [30]. Farmer and Dupre (2022) suggested that self-efficacy is an assessment of the level or type of expression a person is capable of achieving in a given situation and can be shaped by the knowledge that is latent when assessing self-efficacy [31]. In Maddux and Gosselin’s (2012) words, self-efficacy enhances an organization’s member’s ability to gather relevant information, make rational decisions, and take appropriate actions, especially under time stress [32].

Hu et al. (2019) studied the relationship between self-efficacy, career planning, and employability in the career decision-making process of 423 college students from a university in Shijiazhuang, Hebei Province [33]. It was found that college students’ career decision self-efficacy had a positive effect on their employability. Kim and Cho’s (2011) survey of 1706 college freshmen confirmed the partial mediating and moderating effects of self-efficacy on the career stress–college adjustment relationship [34]. Kim and Kim (2007) analyzed the data of 398 female undergraduate students taking liberal arts and major foundation courses at three four-year women’s universities in Seoul, and revealed that anxiety and career decision self-efficacy influenced the level of career decision making [35]. Jiang et al. (2021) analyzed the data of 320 questionnaires from a survey of 15 companies and organizations in four southern Chinese cities [36]. The results showed that individuals with high self-efficacy have a higher sense of control, which enables them to better manage problems both at work and at home and successfully achieve work performance and family goals. Gong (2023) used a survey sample of 3976 middle school teachers from 198 schools in Shanghai to examine the mediating role of teacher collaboration and teacher self-efficacy in the local context [37]. Teachers with high self-efficacy not only had high aspirations, but also skillfully used resources to cope with professional challenges, showing positive attitudes and high levels of job satisfaction. Thus, self-efficacy is generally considered a variable that is directly related to the performance of individuals and organizations.

2.3. Psychological Safety

Psychological safety refers to a feeling of comfort in presenting new ideas and reducing the perceived risk level [38]. In organizations where psychological safety is maintained, mutual support and trust are built among employees, and they are more likely to share their knowledge and feelings with their supervisors [39]. Employees’ psychological safety induces them to proactively perform what they believe is right, and helps them remain calm when taking risky actions [40]. Psychological safety is not a personal characteristic; it is a mental state attained after the conviction that one’s organization’s environment is not inimical to their growth [41]. Additionally, Blau’s (1964) social exchange theory could explain psychological safety [42]. According to this theory, the main factor that influences an organization’s member’s decision to stay or leave is the network of relationships between them. Thus, according to Edmonson (1999), psychological safety is a significant variable for enhancing organizational performance [43].

College students face subjective and objective pressures depending on their employment prospects. A survey of 220 unemployed graduates from the Yunnan Normal University in China revealed that increasing college students’ positive emotions and life satisfaction significantly impacted their psychological safety [44]. A survey of 323 veterans who enrolled in and completed a transitional employment training course revealed that organizational support had a direct positive and significant effect on educational satisfaction and psychological safety [45]. A study of 295 trainees at the 2014 Middle-Aged Employment Academy found psychological safety significantly mediated the relationship between academic relationship and employability [46]. A total of 213 dyads (426 participants) collected from 32 companies that adopted the team system showed that the quality of leader–member exchange positively influenced employees’ psychological safety. This shows that active application of change-oriented initiative and assertive behavior in an organization necessitates the maintenance of employees’ psychological safety [40]. Among the various psychological ties in the role of psychological safety, the psychological safety of employees’ supervisors is intimately related to job performance.

2.4. Job Performance

Job performance is defined as a total value to the organization from a set of behaviors that contribute directly or indirectly to organizational goals [47]. Jung and Avolio (2000) defined job performance as the degree of attainment of goals and objectives by employees, as well as the organization’s ability to survive amid constraints [48]. According to Collins (1994), job performance means a degree of attainment of professional goals, quality of service to clients, and relationships with other members, and is related to the development of good relationships within the organization through the faithful performance of specific job duties [49]. Kim and Kim (2010) defined job performance as a concept that refers to the extent to which an organizational member’s job is successfully accomplished [50]. Alternatively, it refers to a desirable state of affairs that an organizational member wants to realize or the extent to which he or she can achieve their goals. According to Brown and Peterson (1993), job performance indicates organizational effectiveness in organizational management [51]. It is a significant factor with a decisive impact on organizational success.

Feng et al. (2023) conducted a study of 744 teachers from primary and secondary schools in Jiangsu, Zhejiang, and Shanghai, China, who had completed questionnaires designed to investigate the impact of technological pressure on teachers’ job performance [52]. The results showed that technologically enabled educational innovation behaviors significantly improved teachers’ job performance. Jung et al.’s (2013) survey of 324 employees and 108 supervisors from 27 companies in the Gwangju–Jeonnam region revealed a positive effect of supervisors’ ethical leadership on employees’ organization-based self-esteem, job performance, organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior [53]. Lee (2015) conducted a survey of 398 civil servants in the fifth grade and below working for the Busan Metropolitan Government at four district offices in Busan, South Korea [54]. The results revealed that civil servants’ perceptions of the fairness of performance-oriented personnel management and distributive fairness had significant positive effects on their job performance. Zhou (2023) administered a questionnaire to 427 village-level cadres in Chongqing, China. Work and family are the main activity areas for cadres; however, they tend to be away from both for extended periods, which may lead to work–family conflict and affect their job performance [55]. The results displayed work–family conflict negatively influenced organizational members’ job performance. Overall, in a dynamic environment, employees’ job performance is a key factor that can improve organizational performance.

2.5. Shared Leadership and Psychological Safety

An environment of psychological safety facilitates the exchange of information among employees. Psychological safety is described as employees’ shared beliefs about the consequences of taking risks in an organization [43]. Shared leadership that leverages high-quality relationships could induce a sense of psychological safety among employees and improve their work quality [56]. The most significant role of a supervisor in building a culture that values individual voices is to create a forum for engaging discussions. This is because when a system exists to encourage employees’ active participation in communication, it becomes easier to raise issues and share opinions [57]. When supervisors are perceived as psychologically competent and approachable, recognizing employees’ efforts and showing a high level of openness to their thoughts and ideas, they demonstrate shared leadership to employees [58]. In other words, employees feel psychologically safe and are encouraged to report failures, problems, and other work-related experiences so that learning opportunities can be provided. Collectively, shared leadership can lead to higher levels of both psychological well-being and psychological security. Therefore, we hypothesize that the more a supervisor demonstrates shared leadership and the greater the psychological perception of shared leadership by employees, the greater the sense of psychological safety of the employees.

Hypothesis 1. 

Shared leadership will positively influence psychological safety.

2.6. Shared Leadership and Job Performance

When shared leadership is developed in an organization across different leadership styles, employees experience a higher level of commitment from the organization and are motivated to share more information, resulting in effective job performance [3]. When employees feel respected by their supervisors and are personally involved in the organization, they can take full advantage of internal and external information, which increases their ability to develop new ideas and contribute to organizational performance [59]. Shared leadership relationships and attitudes with employees can foster positive attitudes toward work and collaboration, leading to more effective outcomes, which could improve employees’ job performance [4]. Employees enjoy autonomy through shared leadership, and increased internal motivation can further develop internal motivation. Therefore, they share crucial information with each other through shared leadership, which influences employees’ job performance [5]. Employees can perceive organizational support through the equitable, collaborative, and supportive environment created by shared leadership. When employees feel supported by their organization, their job performance exceeds expectations, producing unexpected results for the organization [60]. Thus, shared leadership will improve employees’ job performance.

Hypothesis 2. 

Shared leadership will positively influence job performance.

2.7. Psychological Safety and Job Performance

Edmonson (1999) argued that supervisors should maintain a certain level of interaction with employees to help them feel secure in their interpersonal relationships, and this sense of psychological safety can promote organizational performance [35]. Employees’ job performance is indirectly influenced when they feel a direct impact of psychological safety on their work attitudes [61]. In other words, improving employees’ psychological safety can improve their job performance. In a psychologically safe environment, employees perceive that they will not be ridiculed upon seeking assistance. This motivates them to engage in interpersonal risk-taking behaviors, which improves their job performance [62]. A psychologically safe environment facilitates employees’ risk-taking behaviors by allaying the fear of adverse consequences or embarrassment [63]. Thus, psychological safety is expected to have a positive impact on job performance.

Hypothesis 3. 

Psychological safety will positively influence job performance.

2.8. The Mediating Effect of Psychological Safety

Psychological safety is an organizational member’s perception and judgment of the work environment. Organizational factors, for example, a supervisor’s behavior, can impact this perception, which, in turn, could impact organizational performance and employees’ attitudes and behaviors toward the organization [64]. When employees feel psychologically secure collaborating and supporting each other, they are more likely to take initiative in their work and actively communicate with their supervisors, which improves the overall performance of the organization [65]. When employees follow their superiors’ guidance, acknowledge each other’s strengths, and accept risks, it improves cooperation among their superiors as well as their own psychological safety. This promotes the organization’s development and motivates the employees to perform better [66]. Organizations with high levels of shared leadership are more likely to have a positive emotional environment. This positively impacts employees’ confidence and sense of psychological safety, thereby improving their performance [4]. When perceived psychological safety is low, people may feel helpless or at risk when communicating, which hinders creativity in the organization and reduces the overall quality of organizational outcomes [67]. Therefore, psychological safety plays a mediating role in the relationship between shared leadership and job performance.

Hypothesis 4. 

Psychological safety will positively mediate the relationship between shared leadership and job performance.

2.9. The Moderated Mediation Effects of Self-Efficacy

A shared leadership environment, in which employees spontaneously and autonomously influence each other, gives employees a stronger sense of psychological safety. Consequently, employees become bolder in taking actions that challenge the leader’s authority. Additionally, shared leadership creates a comfortable work environment, which promotes employees’ creativity [68]. Through efficient resource allocation, shared leadership induces among employees greater psychological safety and creates an environment of mutual trust, allaying fears of adverse repercussions and encouraging contributions toward organizational development [69]. The voluntary and autonomous interaction of members for a common goal implies shared leadership. An organization with shared leadership provides psychological safety and opportunities for employees to perform so that the organization can achieve its goals [70]. Employees can significantly contribute to the promotion of leaders who create a positive work environment by influencing each other voluntarily and autonomously to achieve common goals, and by increasing their own self-efficacy [71]. In an environment of shared leadership, employees feel the decentralization of power, have more resources, and experience a sense of psychological security, whereas the absence or inadequacy of shared leadership could produce the opposite effect [72]. This study found positive relationships between self-efficacy and shared leadership, self-efficacy and psychological safety, and self-efficacy and job performance. Therefore, we believe that the higher the employees’ self-efficacy, the more they strive to achieve their professional goals, and the higher the employees’ psychological security, the more they trust their supervisors. Additionally, the employees’ self-efficacy may play a moderating role in the shared leadership–psychological safety relationship. This study model is as follows Figure 1.

Hypothesis 5. 

Self-efficacy will moderate the relationship between shared leadership and psychological safety.

Hypothesis 6. 

The mediating influence of psychological safety on the relationship between shared leadership and job performance will be moderated by self-efficacy.

3. Methods

3.1. Respondents and Procedures

We conducted a questionnaire survey to demonstrate the research model. Specifically, the research model examines the effect of shared leadership on job performance and the mediating effect of psychological safety on the relationship between shared leadership and job performance. Furthermore, the research model also examines the moderating effect of self-efficacy on the relationship between shared leadership and psychological safety. Finally, it tests the moderated mediation effect of self-efficacy.

In general, most previous studies have focused on traditional leadership in Chinese IT industries. However, today, the importance of shared leadership is being emphasized. In particular, there is a lack of research measuring job performance that can be achieved through shared leadership in Chinese IT industries. Based on this, we reveal how shared leadership increases job performance. Furthermore, we present a moderated mediation research model. This research enables the usefulness of shared leadership in Chinese IT industries and contributes to expanding the scope of the research field of shared leadership. In China especially, shared leadership is viewed as a system of interdependent roles in which multiple employees take on particularly influential leadership roles, emphasizing that traditional formal leadership functions or roles are shared among employees in a group, and that shared leadership, which maximizes the motivation of each employee in a group, is believed to be a good way to make up for the shortcomings of formal leadership [73]. In addition, the importance of shared leadership has also been continuously emphasized in Chinese organizations [74]. Hence, we conducted empirical research that focused on employees from Chinese IT industries. The data were collected from 15 April 2023 to 29 April 2023.

In terms of modeling the structural equations of AMOS, we confirmed the validity of the samples used and gave overall and acceptable sample sizes. The minimum requirement was 30 samples for the simple confirmatory factor analysis models [75,76]. Therefore, in relation to collecting data, the respondents were voluntary without coercion or oppression, and they were informed that their responses to this survey would be confidential. Participants in this survey answered a total of 50 questions. Furthermore, an average of 33 people were randomly selected from each enterprise, and we targeted IT industries from China. The reason for this was that most previous studies have verified the effectiveness and influence of traditional leadership styles in Chinese IT industries. However, there is considerably less research on shared leadership in Chinese IT industries. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to verify the role of shared leadership, which is considered important today, can play a positive role in the Chinese IT industry. The size of each enterprise is 170 employees to 190 employees. A total of 332 questionnaires were distributed, and 320 questionnaires were returned. Finally, a total of 320 was used in empirical analysis. The major characteristics of the data are as follows: the data showed 249 males (77.8%) and 71 females (22.2%); in terms of age, respondents 20–29 years old showed the largest proportion, with 234 (73.1%) people. Other specific demographic characteristics are displayed in

Table 1. Data characteristics.

		Number of Respondents	Percentage of Respondents
	Total respondents	320	100
Gender	Male	249	77.80%
	Female	71	22.20%
Age	20–29	234	73.10%
	30–39	33	10.30%
	40–49	26	8.10%
	50 or more	27	8.50%
Education	Graduates from junior college	226	70.70%
	Bachelor’s degree	67	20.90%
	Master’s degree	19	5.90%
	Doctoral degree or higher	8	2.50%
Service Year	1 year or less	166	51.90%
	1–3 years	58	18.10%
	4–6 years	19	5.90%
	7–9 years	13	4.10%
	10 years or more	64	20%
Position	General staff	96	30%
	Team leaders	16	5%
	Section chief	11	3.40%
	Division chief	6	1.90%
	other kinds	191	59.70%

.

3.2. Measurement

In this study, shared leadership as an independent variable refers to the degree to which an employee achieves their professional goals and relates to other members. It is related to the formation of good relationships within the organization by faithfully performing specific job duties [14]. In order to measure shared leadership, we used the instrument of [12]. Sample items include, “I will work with my coworkers to develop a plan to get the job done” and “I will work with my coworkers to allocate the necessary resources according to the plan”.

Psychological safety as a mediating variable refers to the ability of employees to openly express their thoughts and ideas in the course of their work and exchange information and opinions without fear of criticism or punishment [43]. Psychological safety was measured via five measurement items used in the study by Liang, Farh, and Farh (2012) [77]. These items include procedures on consistency, non-bias, accuracy, participation, correctability, and morality. Sample items include, “I am honest when doing public work, not for personal gain” and “You can sacrifice individual interests for the sake of the organization”.

As a moderating variable, self-efficacy is defined as people’s belief in their ability to successfully perform the actions required for a particular task [78]. To measure self-efficacy, eight measurement items drawn from the study by Jones (1986) were used; the items pertain to employees’ trust and loyalty toward their superiors [78]. Sample items include, “My new job is entirely within my scope” and “I think I am asking too much about what I have to do”.

Job performance as a dependent variable refers to the degree to which an employee achieves their professional goals and relates to other members. It is related to the formation of good relationships within the organization by faithfully performing specific job duties [49]. To measure job performance, seven measurement items from Babin and Boles’s (1996) study were used. Sample items include, “I plan before I work” and “I know what my boss expects of me when I do my job [79]”.

All items of job satisfaction were measured by a 7-point Likert scale, which ranged from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree.

3.3. Statistical Analysis

All statistical analysis in this study shows as follows: first, we conducted demographic analysis; second, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted; third, reliability analysis was conducted to verify the reliability of the measurement of tools; fourth, correlation analysis was conducted to confirm the relationship between each variable; fifth, regression analysis was conducted to verify the results. We used SPSS 26.0 statistical software to carry out demographic, reliability, descriptive statistics, correlation, and regression analysis. In addition, we also used AMOS version 23.0 to test the CFA and path analysis. Finally, we verified the moderated mediation effect with SPSS PROCESS Macro 3.4.1 with Model 7.

4. Results

4.1. Confirmatory Factor and Reliability Analyses

CFA confirmed the applicability of the data and the different models [80], and structural equation modeling was performed by using AMOS 22.0. The four-factor model displayed good fit, reliability, and validity. Next, convergent validity was tested, and the results showed as follows: standardized regression weights of shared leadership ranged from 0.838 to 0.953, psychological safety ranged from 0.700 to 0.945, self-efficacy ranged from 0.751 to 0.929, and job performance ranged from 0.880 to 0.942. Furthermore, we analyzed average variance extracted (AVE) and composite reliability (CR). The AVE value of shared leadership was 0.848, psychological safety was 0.774, self-efficacy was 0.754, and job performance was 0.815. These results showed all values were greater than 0.5. The CR value of shared leadership was 0.990, psychological safety was 0.918, self-efficacy was 0.943, and job performance was 0.959. Thus, these results showed all values of CR were higher than 0.7.

Furthermore, we tested the model fit index, which included the absolute fit index, the incremental fit index, and the parsimonious adjusted index. The results of the model fit index showed $X^2\left(p\right)=$ 3153.684 (0.000), $X^2/df=$ 3.777, and GFI = 0.706, RMR = 0.518, RMSEA = 0.093. This index is considered a good fit if it is less than or equal to 3, and a fair fit if it is less than or equal to 5 [81]. The RMSEA is considered a good fit if it is 0.05 or less, a fair fit if it is 0.08, a moderate fit if it is less than 0.10, and a poor fit if it is greater than 0.10 [82]. The incremental fit index was IFI = 0.923, NFI = 0.898, TLI = 0.908, and CFI = 0.923. If this index is more than 3 and is 0.9, it is considered as a good fit [83]. The parsimonious adjusted index was PNFI = 0.758, AGFI = 0.636, AIC = 3553.684, and PGFI = 0.570. This index is considered to be between 0 and 1 (with 0 or 1 if outside this range) [84]. The results are shown in

Table 2. The results of confirmatory factor analysis.

Variables		Estimate	S.E.	C.R.	p	Standardized Regression Weights	AVE	C.R
Shared Leadership (SL)	SL25	1				0.91	0.848	0.99
	SL24	1.04	0.031	33.57	***	0.924
	SL23	1.03	0.03	34.428	***	0.929
	SL22	1.06	0.03	35.628	***	0.937
	SL21	1.062	0.03	34.969	***	0.933
	SL20	1.038	0.032	32.342	***	0.916
	SL19	1.027	0.031	32.882	***	0.919
	SL18	1.04	0.029	36.189	***	0.94
	SL17	1.031	0.042	24.375	***	0.838
	SL16	1.043	0.036	28.583	***	0.885
	SL15	1.032	0.031	33.64	***	0.924
	SL14	1.019	0.033	31.105	***	0.906
	SL13	1.059	0.032	33.512	***	0.924
	SL12	1.062	0.031	34.367	***	0.929
	SL11	1.068	0.03	35.145	***	0.934
	SL10	1.036	0.027	38.743	***	0.953
	SL9	1.027	0.029	35.845	***	0.938
	SL8	1.029	0.03	33.754	***	0.925
	SL7	1.039	0.028	37.172	***	0.945
	SL6	1.055	0.029	36.442	***	0.941
	SL5	1.068	0.029	36.509	***	0.942
	SL4	1.036	0.03	35.031	***	0.933
	SL3	1.07	0.037	28.997	***	0.888
	SL2	1.016	0.034	29.811	***	0.896
	SL1	1.047	0.034	31.231	***	0.907
Self-efficacy (SE)	SE1	1				0.875	0.754	0.943
	SE2	1.03	0.034	29.953	***	0.899
	SE3	0.997	0.053	18.78	***	0.751
	SE4	1.032	0.04	26.116	***	0.862
	SE5	1.045	0.043	24.279	***	0.84
	SE6	1.019	0.033	30.489	***	0.904
	SE7	1.051	0.031	34.117	***	0.929
	SE8	1.06	0.038	27.795	***	0.879
Psychological safety (PS)	PS1	1				0.917	0.774	0.918
	PS2	1.066	0.03	35.403	***	0.935
	PS3	1.106	0.03	37.16	***	0.945
	PS4	1.03	0.037	27.897	***	0.879
	PS5	0.917	0.056	16.437	***	0.7
Job Performance (JP)	JP1	1				0.88	0.815	0.959
	JP2	1.06	0.038	27.993	***	0.881
	JP3	1.038	0.033	31.449	***	0.911
	JP4	1.023	0.032	31.521	***	0.911
	JP5	1.038	0.033	31.466	***	0.911
	JP6	1.031	0.028	36.378	***	0.942
	JP7	1.024	0.036	28.223	***	0.883
Model Fit Index		$X^2\left(p\right)=$ 3153.684 (0.000), $X^2/df=$ 3.777, GFI = 0.706, RMR = 0.518,
		RMSEA = 0.093, IFI = 0.923, CFI = 0.923, TLI = 0.908, NFI = 0.898,
		AGFI = 0.636, AIC = 3553.684, PGFI = 0.570, PNFI = 0.758

***: p < 0.001, **: p < 0.01, *: p < 0.05.

.

4.2. Reliability Analysis

Reliability analysis refers to the consistency or stability of the results obtained from the questionnaire, which reflects the true degree of the tested characteristics, whereas validity implies that the measuring tools can measure the accuracy of the aspects to be measured [85]. Therefore, this study analyzed Cronbach’s $\alpha$ values, which are as follows: First, shared leadership was measured using 25 items rated on a 7-point Likert scale to assess participants’ degree of recognition related to shared leadership. The results showed that Cronbach’s alpha for shared leadership was 0.995. Second, psychological safety was measured using five items rated on a seven-point Likert scale to assess the extent to which participants in the workplace degree of psychological state. The results showed that Cronbach’s alpha for psychological safety was 0.959. Third, job performance was measured using seven items rated on a seven-point Likert scale assessing participants’ degree of job performance in their workplace. The results showed that Cronbach’s alpha for employees’ job performance was 0.978. Finally, self-efficacy was measured using eight items rated on a seven-point Likert scale to assess participants’ feelings of self-efficacy in their workplace. The results showed that Cronbach’s alpha for self-efficacy was 0.971. All coefficient values of Cronbach’s alpha were confirmed to be higher than 0.7. Nunnally (1978) suggested that reliability is significant when its value is higher than 0.7. Thus, the reliability of the variables was significant and valid [86].

Table 3. Reliability analysis results.

Variables	Item	Cronbach’s Alpha
Shared Leadership (SL)	1. Members work together to develop a plan for accomplishing the work.	0.995
	2. Members work together to allocate the required resources based on work priorities.
	3. Members work together to set goals.
	4. Members work together to coordinate efforts to ensure a smooth flow of business.
	5. Members work together to decide how to get the job done.
	6. Members provided useful comments on the overall workplan.
	7. Members work together to determine the best response to problems as they arise.
	8. The members quickly came together to analyze the problems faced.
	9. Members utilize the expertise of the entire team to solve problems.
	10. Members work together to explore alternatives to issues affecting job performance.
	11. Members work together to preempt problems before they occur.
	12. Members work together to develop solutions to problems.
	13. Members work together to solve problems as soon as they arise.
	14. Providing support to team members who need help.
	15. Showing patience toward other team members.
	16. Encouraging other team members when they’re upset.
	17. Listening to complaints and problems of team members.
	18. Members work together to create an atmosphere of mutual solidarity.
	19. Members treat each other with courtesy.
	20. Members share work-related advice.
	21. Members work together to help develop each other’s skills.
	22. Learning skills from all other team members.
	23. Being positive role models to new members of the team.
	24. Guidance among members on how underperforming members should improve.
	25. Helping out when a team member is learning a new skill.
Self-efficacy (SE)	1. My new job is well within the scope of my abilities.	0.971
	2. I do not anticipate any problems in adjusting to work in this organization.
	3. I feel I am overqualified for the job I will be doing.
	4. I have all the technical knowledge I need to deal with my new job, all I need now is practical experience.
	5. I feel confident that my skills and abilities equal or exceed those of my future colleagues.
	6. My past experiences and accomplishments increase my confidence that I will be able to perform successfully in this organization.
	7. I could have handled a more challenging job than the one I will be doing.
	8. Professionally speaking, my new job exactly satisfies my expectations of myself.
Psychological Safety (PS)	1. In my work unit, I can express my true feelings regarding my job.	0.959
	2. In my work unit, I can freely express my thoughts.
	3. In my work unit, expressing I true feelings is welcomed.
	4. Nobody in my unit will pick on me even if I have different opinions.
	5. I’m worried that expressing true thoughts in my workplace would do harm to myself.
Job Performance (JB)	1. I average higher sales per check than most.	0.978
	2. I am in the top 10% of the servers here.
	3. I manage my work time better than most.
	4. I know more about the menu items.
	5. I know what my customers expect.
	6. I am good at my job.
	7. I get better tips than most of the others.

shows the reliability analysis results.

4.3. Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Analysis

The descriptive statistics and correlation analysis results are shown in

Table 4. The results of descriptive statistics and correlation analysis.

	Mean	Standard Deviation	Shared Leadership	Self-Efficacy	Psychological Safety	Job Performance
Shared Leadership	5.7214	1.28077	-
Self-efficacy	5.6227	1.2525	0.899 ***	-
Psychological safety	5.5669	1.30561	0.892 ***	0.904 ***	-
Job Performance	5.6192	1.25668	0.879 ***	0.936 ***	0.917 ***	-

***: p < 0.001, **: p < 0.01, *: p < 0.05.

. Descriptive statistics included both mean and standard deviation (SD) values. The means for the independent variable, shared leadership; mediating variable, psychological safety; moderating variable, self-efficacy; and dependent variable, job performance were 5.721, 5.566, 5.622, and 5.619, respectively. Additionally, the SDs of the independent variable, shared leadership; mediating variable, psychological safety; moderating variable, self-efficacy; and dependent variable, job performance were 1.280, 1.305, 1.252, and 1.256, respectively. In order to test the correlation between each variable, we conducted a correlation analysis. The results showed shared leadership was positively related to self-efficacy $(r=0.899,p<0.001)$ and psychological safety $(r=0.892,p<0.001)$ and negatively associated with job performance $(r=0.879,p<0.001)$. In addition, self-efficacy was positively related to psychological safety $(r=0.904,p<0.001)$ and job performance $(r=0.936,p<0.001)$. Finally, psychological safety was negatively associated with job performance $(r=0.917,p<0.001)$.

4.4. Hypothesis Testing

Table 5. The results of mediation.

Path			Estimate	S.E.	t	p	LLCI	ULCI
Shared Leadership	→	Psychological Safety	0.909	0.025	35.225	0	0.8587	0.9603
Shared Leadership	→	Job Performance	0.862	0.026	32.887	0	0.8109	0.9142
Psychological Safety	→	Job Performance	0.625	0.044	13.929	0	0.5375	0.7143
Total effect of X on Y
Shared Leadership → Psychological Safety → Job Performance			0.862	0.026	32.887	0	0.8109	0.9142
Direct effect of X on Y
Shared Leadership → Job Performance			0.293	0.045	6.4024	0	0.2032	0.3834
Indirect effect(s) of X on Y
			Effect	Boot SE	Boot LLCI		Boot ULCI
Shared Leadership → Psychological Safety → Job Performance			0.569	0.059	0.447		0.682

shows the results of path analysis. Hypothesis 1 proposed that shared leadership positively influences psychological safety. The result showed that shared leadership positively influenced psychological safety (estimate = 0.909, $p<0.001$). Therefore, Hypothesis 1 is supported, and it suggests that shared leadership increases the level of employees’ psychological safety.

Hypothesis 2 proposed that shared leadership positively influenced job performance. The result showed that shared leadership positively influenced employees’ job performance (estimate = 0.862, $p<0.001$). Therefore, Hypothesis 2 is supported. This result explains that shared leadership enhances the level of employees’ job performance.

According to Hypothesis 3, we emphasized that psychological safety positively influenced employees’ job performance. The results displayed that psychological safety positively influenced employees’ job performance (estimate = 0.625, $p<0.001$). Therefore, Hypothesis 3 is supported, and it suggests that psychological safety increases the level of employees’ job performance.

Hypothesis 4 proposed that psychological safety mediated the effect of shared leadership on employees’ job performance. The mediating role of psychological safety was tested by bootstrapping resamples. The indirect effect showed 0.569, and Boot LLCI and Boot ULCI showed 0.447 and 0.682, respectively. The results showed that 0 was not included between Boot LLCI and Boot ULCI. Therefore, the result indicates that the partial mediation effect of psychological safety was significant. According to these results, Hypothesis 4 is supported. The finding suggests a high level of shared leadership can increase the level of s employees’ job performance.

4.5. Moderating Role of Tacit Self-Efficacy

This study tested the moderating role of self-efficacy on the shared leadership– psychological safety relationship. We used SPSS version 26.0 to conduct the regression analysis.

Table 6. Multiple regression analysis.

Psychological Safety
	Model 1		Model 2		Model 3
	$\mathit{\beta }$	$\mathit{t}$	$\mathit{\beta }$	$\mathit{t}$	$\mathbf{\beta }$	$\mathbf{t}$	VIF
Shared leadership (A)	0.892 ***	35.226	0.414 ***	8.351	0.332 ***	4.851	1
Self-efficacy (B)			0.532 ***	10.735	0.432 ***	5.645	5.206
Interaction (A × B)					0.181 ${}^{†}$	1.716	23.716
$R^2$ (Adjusted $R^2$)	0.796		0.85		0.852
$\Delta R^2$ (ΔAdjusted $R^2$)	0.796		0.054		0.001
F	1240.865 ***		900.944 ***		605.292 ***

***: p < 0.001, **: p< 0.01, *: p< 0.05, ${}^{†}$ = p< 0.1.

shows the analysis result for Hypothesis 5. Hypothesis 5 proposed that self-efficacy moderated the influence of shared leadership on psychological safety. The results showed that employees’ self-efficacy significantly moderated the influence of shared leadership on psychological safety ($\beta$ = 0.181, $p<$ 0.1). Among the moderating effects, a p-value of 0.1, which is greater than 0.05, is considered significant [87]. Thus, Hypothesis 5 is supported. It suggests that a higher level of self-efficacy leads to a stronger influence of shared leadership on employees’ psychological safety. The interaction between shared leadership and self-efficacy enhance psychological safety. Figure 2 shows the graph of the moderating effect of self-efficacy.

4.6. Moderated Mediation Effect of Tacit Self-Efficacy

Hypothesis 6 proposed that self-efficacy moderates the mediating influence of psychological safety on employees’ job satisfaction. In relation to this, we used the SPSS PROCESS Macro 3.4 with Model 7. In addition, we tested 95% confidence intervals and 5000 bootstrapping. The results showed a conditional indirect effect in the −1 SD level was 0.1512, Boot LLCI was 0.0698, and Boot ULCI was 0.2437. In addition, the conditional indirect effect in mean level was 0.1597, Boot LLCI was 0.0762, and Boot ULCI was 0.2552. Furthermore, the conditional indirect effect in the +1 SD level was 0.0481, Boot LLCI was 0.0811, and Boot ULCI was 0.2678. Finally, the index of moderated mediation showed 0.0068, Boot LLCI was 0.0004, and Boot ULCI was 0.0158. These results found that 0 was not included between both Boot LLCI and Boot ULCI. Therefore, Hypothesis 6 is supported. The following

Table 7. The moderated mediation effect of self-efficacy.

Dependent Variable: Job Satisfaction
Moderator	Level	Conditional Indirect Effect	Boot SE	Boot LLCI	Boot ULCI
	−1 SD (−1.3097)	0.1512	0.0447	0.0698	0.2437
Self-efficacy	M	0.1597	0.0461	0.0762	0.2552
	+1 SD (1.3097)	0.1682	0.0481	0.0811	0.2678
Index of moderated mediation
	Index		Boot SE	Boot LLCI	Boot ULCI
	0.0068		0.004	0.0004	0.0158

displays the moderated mediation influence of employees’ self-efficacy.

5. Conclusions

This study examined the impact of a supervisor’s shared leadership on the job performance of employees of Chinese SMEs. By focusing on the impact of the employee–supervisor relationship in SMEs, employees can improve their work performance by actively investing their time and effort to improve their efficiency and work quality [88]. We also focused on the psychological state of organizational members in SMEs because organizations should be highly aware of the importance of the psychological state of organizational members and increase attention to how to improve organizational performance. In addition, this study proves that shared leadership promotes positive emotions of organizational members towards the organization, and the self-efficacy of organizational members indirectly affects the psychological state of organizational members, and finally promotes a series of behaviors in which the members improve job performance, contributing directly or indirectly to the goals of the organization. Based on these findings, we provide theoretical and practical implications and suggest directions for backward development.

5.1. Conclusions

This study focused on identifying the processes through which shared leadership influences job performance. In particular, psychological safety was validated as a key factor in shared leadership for job performance through mediation effects. IT revealed that the more shared leadership is experienced, the more employees’ psychological safety can increase, which can ultimately lead to job performance. Furthermore, the interaction between shared leadership and self-efficacy was tested to reveal differences in how the level of psychological safety can change. In the end, self-efficacy showed a moderated mediating effect by positively controlling the relationship between shared leadership and psychological safety.

Based on the results of this study, we summarize the following implications.

5.2. Theoretical Implications

First, shared leadership positively influences employees’ psychological safety and job performance. This shows that higher levels of shared leadership could increase employees’ sense of psychological safety with their bosses. Shared leadership can enhance cooperation between supervisors and employees, and according to the social exchange theory, supervisors can psychologically induce employees to exchange information [89]. Employees’ perception of psychological insecurity adversely impacts the supervisor–employee commitment to job completion [90]. Additionally, employees who perceive a high degree of psychological safety deliver exceptional performance for their supervisors, thereby achieving a level where they can supervise each other by sharing information [91]. This suggests shared leadership’s impact on psychological safety and job performance. It supports our Hypotheses 1 and 2.

Second, psychological safety has a positive impact on employees’ job performance. This suggests that employees’ higher levels of psychological safety in relation to supervisors encourage them to perform better. In the context of organizational collaboration, employees’ performance depends on psychological factors [92]. Depending on the relationship between supervisors and employees, personal and interpersonal risk-taking may occur within an organization. When employees feel comfortable and secure in their work environment, they are motivated to collaborate with their supervisors to achieve organizational goals [43]. Sherf et al. (2021) have highlighted psychological safety as a significant variable that can improve organizational effectiveness, and indicated the significance of psychological safety and outcome variables such as performance, innovation, and interaction [92]. Therefore, employees’ psychological safety positively influences their job performance—a high degree of psychological safety results in better job performance. It supports our Hypothesis 3.

Third, employees’ psychological safety strengthens the relationship between shared leadership and job performance in SMEs. The results showed that employees’ psychological safety positively mediated the influence of shared leadership on employees’ job performance. In addition, we focused on the role of supervisors in creating an autonomous and psychologically safe environment where employees could effectively contribute to generating organizational benefits through shared leadership, and where even risk-takers are encouraged and supported by their supervisors [93]. Shared leadership focuses on the autonomous collaboration of the leadership authority and employees’ responsibility, which significantly improves employees’ sense of professional initiative and commitment and, in turn, contributes to improved organizational performance [94]. Therefore, it supports Hypothesis 4. It implies that shared leadership increases the level of job performance via psychological safety.

Fourth, employees’ self-efficacy is a key factor that could induce a sense of psychological safety among them. Positive perceived self-efficacy moderates the shared leadership–psychological safety relationship. Through voluntary and autonomous mutual influences, employees can share their leaders’ skills to achieve common goals and improve their self-efficacy, which can be instrumental in developing future leaders and creating a positive organizational environment [71]. This study expects that shared leadership would increase psychological safety when self-efficacy is high. A favorable work environment could increase employees’ self-confidence. Additionally, recognition from supervisors could induce professional engagement in even diffident employees, raising their level of self-efficacy and encouraging them to perform beyond expectations to produce favorable organizational outcomes [95]. Therefore, when supervisors have a high-trust relationship with employees, the latter can effectively regulate their thoughts, feelings, and behaviors at work. Similarly, when employees’ self-efficacy toward supervisors is high, they tend to be willing to commit themselves to challenging tasks, set high objectives, and pursue them assiduously. Overall, the higher the levels of shared leadership and self-efficacy in the organization, the higher the psychological safety should be. Thus, Hypothesis 5 is supported. As proposed in Hypothesis 5, employees’ self-efficacy will moderate the shared leadership–psychological safety relationship.

Fifth, to test whether self-efficacy moderates the mediating influence of psychological safety, we tested the moderated mediation roles of employees’ self-efficacy. The results show that self-efficacy plays a significant moderated mediation role. Thus, Hypothesis 6 is supported. This suggests that the shared leadership–self-efficacy interaction moderates psychological safety, and the mediation effect is positive. This study takes a more integrated approach to job performance induction to test the mediating role of self-efficacy, and provides a basis for future research to explore more effective methods to induce innovative behavior among employees.

Finally, as we mentioned above, few studies have been conducted on the impact of shared leadership on job performance in Chinese small- and medium-sized enterprises. The research purpose and research questions raised in this study can be understood through the theoretical implications presented above. The hypotheses established in this study were all supported based on theories. This broadened the scope of research on shared leadership and job performance and may be regarded as contributions to fill the gap in research fields.

5.3. Practical Implication

In addition to the above theoretical implications, this study provides practical implications. First, shared leadership as a characteristic is a key variable for Chinese organizational members [96]. This implies that in the current highly competitive business environment, the win–win cooperation theory emphasized by the traditional Chinese culture is particularly significant [97]. Therefore, Chinese organizations have emphasized the significance of shared leadership. It is a leadership style in which supervisors and employees integrate their respective skills to handle tasks, share information resources, and assume joint responsibility to achieve organizational goals [98].

Second, shared leadership has two aspects. The first is the role of the leader, which is characterized by the quality of communication or reinforcement and role modeling. The second is the work environment created by the shared leadership style, which is characterized by honesty, trust in the leader and organization, and objective evaluation. It is crucial for employees to be aware of both these aspects because that enhances their trust in their bosses and organization. In particular, previous research has confirmed the significance of trust in supervisors [99]. For example, trust in supervisors is positively related to organizational trust, knowledge sharing, and team innovation behavior [100]. However, it is negatively related to organizational silence, knowledge concealment, and supervisor knowledge sharing with employees [101]. This suggests that shared leadership is a test of what it takes to increase trust in the leadership and positively facilitate all aspects of performance.

Third, supervisors’ behavior impacts employees’ sense of psychological safety. The psychological safety of organizational members comes from both the perception of the organization’s leadership style and the influence of the interpersonal atmosphere within the organization. Facing the complex and changing environment, enterprises should constantly push forward to adapt to the new environment, focus on the ideas of organizational members, explore their potential, and let them provide more and better suggestions and strategies for the development of the enterprise [102]. Therefore, enterprises need to adopt a shared leadership model, dilute the hierarchy, and create a relaxed and democratic organizational atmosphere so that the formation of relatively harmonious social interaction between the organization members and the organization, effectively improves the psychological safety of the employees, stimulates the organization members to collaborate with each other to improve their participation in large and small matters of the organization’s enthusiasm, so that they are good at expressing themselves in a relaxed and free environment [103]. At the same time, relevant theoretical training can be carried out to guide the members of the enterprise organization to understand and accept the shared leadership management ideas. These suggestions about psychological safety enhancement would positively facilitate organizational growth, sustainability, survival, and higher levels of individual and organizational performance.

Fourth, employees’ self-efficacy is one of the most important determinants of their attitudes and behaviors. When employees demonstrate self-efficacy, their sense of belonging to the organization increases and contributes to sustainable organizational job performance. In addition, a greater sense of belonging increases the likelihood that they will identify the organization’s goals with their own. Employees with higher self-efficacy are also expected to have higher organizational commitment. Previous research has demonstrated that perceived shared leadership is positively associated with self-efficacy, teamwork, academic resilience, and team performance [104]. Therefore, organizations and supervisors should ensure that employees are aware of their self-efficacy.

5.4. Limitations and Directions for Future Research

This study validated the shared leadership–job performance relationship; however, it has a few limitations that we discuss below. Additionally, we discuss directions for future research.

First, this study focused only on the mediating effect of subordinates’ psychological safety. However, other variables too could mediate this relationship. For example, job satisfaction (based on leader–member exchange) could mediate this relationship. Therefore, future research should empirically test such mediators.

Second, we studied only self-efficacy as a mediator of the relationship between shared leadership, psychological safety, and job performance. However, in addition to self-efficacy, there is a need to further explore other parameters related to the personal and organizational aspects of employees in SMEs. Examples of such variables include employee knowledge sharing, employee psychological empowerment, and supervisor–employee LMX exchange relationships [105]. Future research should investigate the role of these variables and verify their mediating effects.

Third, the sample consists only of organizational members working in Chinese SMEs. Considering the different cultural contexts of Chinese enterprises, future studies should empirically study employees in organizations with specific characteristics, such as state- or foreign-owned enterprises, to compare their differences and ascertain how they differ from the results of this study [106]. Shared leadership is characterized by organizational members approaching work tasks with good expression of their ideas and working together with each other when they encounter problems, thus influencing organizational behavior and job performance [107]. Although this study concludes that the application of shared leadership in small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the Chinese context can be effective in improving job performance, albeit in the context of socialism in China, according to Sweeney et al. (2019), shared leadership can work not only in business environments, but also in non-business environments, which are easy to be overlooked [108].

Fourth, this is a cross-sectional study and measurements were taken only once. A longitudinal study with multiple measurements at different time intervals should be conducted to draw conclusions with higher reliability.

Finally, sharing information or knowledge due to coercion or mandatory requirements in many organizations is likely to cause work stress or spark conflict among employees. This suggests that employees may perceive that their resources are being violated when they request sharing due to unwilling behavior [109]. This can be seen as aggressive or exploitative behavior within the workplace. Behaviors such as these can ultimately lead to negative employee attitudes or behaviors [110]. In this regard, the shared behaviors discussed in this study also need to be mutually authentic. This is crucial for companies to protect the individual rights of their employees in the future.