PurposeThis study aims to examine the impact of managers’ inclusive leadership (IL) on knowledge-sharing (KS) behavior. Additionally, the authors consider the cross-level moderation effect of diversity in the biological sex of employees on the relationship between IL and employee KS behaviors.Design/methodology/approachA two-wave questionnaire survey was conducted in a large Japanese company. The sample included 827 employees (254 men and 573 women) in 129 groups. The authors, then, conducted a cross-level analysis using hierarchical linear modeling (HLM).FindingsIL promotes two types of KS among employees: knowledge donating (KD) and knowledge collecting (KC). Additionally, the moderating effects of employee biological-sex diversity on the relationship between IL and KS varied according to the KS type. IL had a positive effect on KD only in groups with higher biological-sex diversity, and did not affect groups with lower biological-sex diversity. Biological-sex diversity did not moderate the relationship between IL and KC.Practical implicationsThis study has practical implications, especially for personnel departments with high diversity in employees’ biological sex. Further, to improve employees’ KS behaviors, it may be important to develop managers’ IL skills.Originality/valueThis is the first study that explores the relationship between IL and KS and the first to provide evidence of the moderating effect of diversity of employee’s biological sex.

Organizational identification is the root construct of organizational phenomena. Many researchers have examined this concept in terms of identification (positive) and disidentification (negative). However, recently some researchers began focusing on ambivalent identification, which refers to the simultaneous appearance of both identification and disidentification. This new concept is likely to shed light on organizational phenomena that cannot be demonstrated by identification or disidentification alone. This study focuses on ambivalent identification. We started by creating a concrete definition for this concept. Further, we tried to develop a valid measurement for it through pilot and main studies. Consequently, we defined this concept in terms of cognitive and affective aspects and observed the complexity associated with ambivalent identification.

The aim of this article is to examine theoretically and experimentally the discriminant validity between organizational socialization and organizational identification. As a part of the theoretical examination, the definitions, processes, and determining factors were compared. As a result, it was found that the subjects, constitutions, determining factors, and so on, between them were different. Thus it was hypothesized that these two concepts were significantly different. In addition to the theoretical examination, building on three subhypotheses, namely the hypotheses taking into account environmental factors, age, and tenure, experimental examinations were conducted using confirmatory factor analysis. However, the data from this did not provide conclusive evidence that these two concepts were different. Therefore, as a consequence of the analyses, it was difficult to argue that organizational socialization and organizational identification were discriminated.

Organizational identification can explain various employees’ attitudes, so that it is thought to be a root construct in organizational phenomena. Although organizational identification means process, no previous studies have focused on the process by which organizational identification is developed. This study reveals the mechanisms involved in developing organizational identification. For this paper, a model was constructed from the perspective of Bandura’s modeling theory. Three hypotheses emerged: (1) Organizational socialization influences organizational identification positively, (2) collective self-esteem influences organizational identification positively, and (3) organizational socialization influences collective self-esteem positively. These were tested by means of SEM. Through this model, this paper demonstrates a new process of organizational identification via a new perspective.

No abstract