Journal of Professional Nursing 48 (2023) 163–172

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Professional Nursing

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jpnu

The perceived leaders’ authentic leadership, knowledge sharing within the

team, and faculty members’ creativity: A cross-sectional online survey in
nursing academia
Majd T. Mrayyan, Ph.D., MSc, RN a, *, Marwan H. Al-Shaikh Ali, PharmD b, Manar Mrayan,
Master of Educational Sciences c
a
Department of Community and Mental Health Nursing, Faculty of Nursing, The Hashemite University, PO Box 330127, Zarqa 13133, Jordan
b
Faculty of Pharmacy, The University of Jordan, Jordan
c
Diploma of Educational Technology, The University of Jordan, Jordan

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Background: There hasn’t been much recent research on leaders’ authentic leadership, knowledge sharing within
Nursing the team, and faculty members’ creativity.
Leaders Aim: This study examined the perceived variables and predictors of academic nursing leaders’ authentic lead­
Faculty members
ership by their nursing faculty members, knowledge sharing within the team, and nursing faculty members’ own
Authentic leadership
creativity.
Knowledge sharing
Creativity Design: A cross-sectional design using a survey instrument was employed to answer the research questions.
Methods: A convenience snowball sample of 105 academic nursing faculty members who worked at various
universities in Jordan was recruited.
Results: Academic nursing leaders’ authentic leadership, knowledge sharing within the team, and nursing faculty
members’ creativity were perceived high by nursing faculty members. The highest and lowest means of the three
concepts were reported. As evidenced by correlations, knowledge sharing within the team related to nursing
faculty members’ creativity without affecting academic nursing leaders’ authentic leadership. The perceived
academic nursing leaders’ authentic leadership didn’t predict knowledge sharing within the team or faculty
members’ creativity.
Conclusions: The current research fills critical voids in the reviewed literature. The results augment nursing
leadership knowledge in academic settings. Academic nursing leaders’ authentic leadership didn’t predict
knowledge sharing within the team or faculty members’ creativity. These findings raise the flag; authentic
nursing leadership should be synergized in conducive academic environments with other factors that may
promote nursing faculty members’ creativity, such as psychological safety and team environment.

Introduction Authentic leadership influences the knowledge-sharing behaviors of

With increased globalization, many academic organizations seek
competitive advantages through creativity and innovations (Elrehail
et al., 2018). Academic organizations promote creativity and innovation
in any contemporary society; thus, creativity is relatively more impor­
tant for educational organizations than other service sectors (Hassan &
Din, 2019). Faculty members are the source of creativity, innovation,
and organizational learning (Hassan & Din, 2019); this wouldn’t occur
unless authentic academic leaders exist.
team leaders and staff, affecting the staff’s creativity (Hassan & Din,
2019; Walumbwa et al., 2008; Zeb et al., 2020), including nursing fac­
ulty members. However, this won’t suddenly happen; it depends on how
transparent, authentic leaders are in knowledge-sharing (Goswami &
Agrawal, 2022; Hassan & Din, 2019; Mrayyan et al., 2022; Zeb et al.,
2020) and how they have internalized ethical principles (Mrayyan et al.,
2022).
A highly functional organization’s executives must incorporate their
psychological skills into their leadership style for it to be called authentic

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mmrayyan@hu.edu.jo (M.T. Mrayyan).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2023.07.008
Received 13 January 2023; Received in revised form 25 July 2023; Accepted 25 July 2023
Available online 31 July 2023
8755-7223/© 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
M.T. Mrayyan et al.
leadership (Hassan & Din, 2019; Mrayyan et al., 2022; Walumbwa et al.,
2008; Zeb et al., 2020). Authentic leadership shows behavior that attracts
and encourages a good ethical climate and psychological capacities
(Mrayyan et al., 2022; Walumbwa et al., 2008; Zeb et al., 2020). Crea­
tivity is the ability to bring something new or unique into existence (Zeb
et al., 2020). Over the past few decades, research interest in identifying
factors that lead to creativity has expanded, indicating the value of
creativity (Hassan & Din, 2019; Wang et al., 2018; Zeb et al., 2020).
Most of these researchers have focused on the positive effects of certain
leadership philosophies, including servant, empowering, authentic,
shared, and humble, which can positively influence team members’
creativity (Hassan & Din, 2019; Lee et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2018; Zeb
et al., 2020), which applies to the faculty member. Knowledge sharing is
exchanging “know-how,” or skills between individuals, groups, or or­
ganizations (Hassan & Din, 2019; Zeb et al., 2020). Knowledge sharing
results in team members’ creativity (Alzghoul et al., 2018; Hassan & Din,
2019; Wang et al., 2018; Zeb et al., 2020), which would also apply to
faculty members. Sharing knowledge among team members improves
cognitive capacities and fosters creativity by allowing team members to
access cognitive resources, including concepts, information, and
knowledge (Goswami & Agrawal, 2022; Hassan & Din, 2019; Wang
et al., 2018; Zeb et al., 2020).
Authentic leaders would promote their staff members’ cooperative
behaviors and information sharing in their teams by taking justice into
account in their decisions and using open communication (Alzghoul
et al., 2018; Goswami & Agrawal, 2022; Hassan & Din, 2019; Mrayyan
et al., 2022; Zeb et al., 2020). Knowledge sharing with team members is
one of the fundamental traits of authentic leaders (Alzghoul et al., 2018;
Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Grošelj et al., 2020; Zeb et al., 2020), especially
in academic settings (Hassan & Din, 2019).
Authentic leadership fosters a positive workplace culture and
employee creativity (Alzghoul et al., 2018; Duarte et al., 2021; Mrayyan
et al., 2022; Sengupta et al., 2021; Zeb et al., 2020). A creative envi­
ronment moderates the association between transactional leadership
and employees’ creativity and the relationship between authentic
leadership and employees’ creativity (Alzghoul et al., 2018; Grošelj
et al., 2020; Hassan & Din, 2019; Zeb et al., 2020). Therefore, a leader
must possess certain traits and behaviors to encourage or stifle em­
ployees’ innovation. These have been identified as mediators of
authentic leadership and employees’ innovative ideas (Alzghoul et al.,
2018; Duarte et al., 2021; Hassan & Din, 2019; Mrayyan et al., 2022;
Rego et al., 2014; Rego et al., 2017; Rego et al., 2021; Sengupta et al.,
2021; Zeb et al., 2020); they include positive emotions, psychological
capital, and hope (Rego et al., 2014). Employees who operate in an
environment conducive to innovation do so without fear of failure
(Edmondson, 1999; Hassan & Din, 2019; Zeb et al., 2020). Organiza­
tional contexts are significant in authentic leadership (Edmondson,
1999; Hassan & Din, 2019; Zeb et al., 2020).
Purpose and significance
Academic organizations are vital for “producing, disseminating, and
transferring” “knowledge, technology, and innovation” in today’s
“knowledge economy” (Elrehail et al., 2018). All faculty members
perform knowledge production, dissemination, and transfer. They
perform the three functions, teaching, management, and research, to
fulfill society’s innovations (Hassan & Din, 2019). Therefore, proper
staffing of faculty members in terms of number and mix is a prerequisite
for creativity (Hassan & Din, 2019). To conduct those functions,
authentic academic leaders must play a prominent role in creating a
culture for creativity and innovation, effective ideas production, and
goal setting (Elrehail et al., 2018).
Research on authentic leadership is new (Alzghoul et al., 2018;
Duarte et al., 2021; Hassan & Din, 2019; Mrayyan et al., 2022; Sengupta
et al., 2021), especially in academic nursing settings. Psychology-based
research has been done on team members’ creativity, knowledge
164
Journal of Professional Nursing 48 (2023) 163–172
sharing, and leaders’ authentic leadership (Zeb et al., 2020), and they
have not been studied in nursing. Only one study was conducted in an
academic setting (Hassan & Din, 2019), unrelated to nursing academia.
Hassan and Din (2019) reported that authentic leadership and a high-
performance work system in Pakistan significantly influenced faculty
members’ creativity. The researchers also reported that knowledge
sharing mediated the relationship between the high-performance work
system and the creativity of faculty members. Yet, no mediation was
found between intrinsic motivation and authentic leadership with fac­
ulty members’ creativity (Hassan & Din, 2019).
There have been no studies in any field about leaders’ authentic
leadership, knowledge sharing within the team, and faculty members’
creativity in Jordan. However, a study on authentic leadership and the
safety climate in nursing was undertaken in Jordan (Mrayyan et al.,
2022). It studied nurses’ authentic leadership and hospital safety culture
(Mrayyan et al., 2022). In contrast to nurses working in government
hospitals, the researcher found that military nurses had greater levels of
authentic leadership and a positive perception of the safety climate.
Focusing on one of our three studied concepts, Elrehail et al. (2018)
studied universities in northern Jordan to measure the impact of
transformational and authentic leadership on innovation. The re­
searchers reported a positive association between transformational
leadership and innovation, with no effect of authentic leadership on
innovation. While focusing on knowledge sharing, Elrehail (2018)
studied private universities in Jordan and measured the impact of
leadership on innovation and knowledge sharing. The researcher re­
ported a significant relationship between leadership and innovation and
a partial moderation effect of knowledge sharing. Elrehail’s (2018)
study was about universities in Jordan, but the study wasn’t specifically
academic nursing settings. Focusing on two of our three studied con­
cepts in telecommunication companies in Jordan, Alzghoul et al. (2018)
reported that authentic leadership positively influenced workplace
climate, creativity, and job performance. They also reported that
workplace climate mediated the relationship between authentic lead­
ership, creativity, and job performance. Knowledge-sharing behavior
moderated the relationship between authentic leadership and workplace
climate (Alzghoul et al., 2018).
The current researchers addressed the following questions: 1) What
are the perceived variables of academic nursing leaders’ authentic
leadership, knowledge sharing within the team, and nursing faculty
members’ creativity? 2) What are the correlations between academic
nursing leaders’ authentic leadership, knowledge sharing within the
team, and nursing faculty members’ creativity with the sample’s char­
acteristics? 3) Does academic nursing leaders’ authentic leadership
predict knowledge sharing within the team and nursing faculty mem­
bers’ creativity?
The results of the current study will be used to develop leadership
training for academic nursing leaders and faculty members, pending
honest academic nursing leaders’ sharing of knowledge in the team. To
foster the creativity of faculty members, academic environments should
prioritize creating a culture of knowledge sharing within the team.
Literature review
Authentic leadership and knowledge sharing within the team
Self-awareness, relational transparency, internalized principles, and
balanced processing are authentic leadership characteristics (Hassan &
Din, 2019; Mrayyan et al., 2022; Walumbwa et al., 2008; Zeb et al.,
2020). 1) Self-awareness: authentic leaders are aware of their talents
and abilities and the effects of their decisions on their team members
(Gardner et al., 2011; Hassan & Din, 2019; Walumbwa et al., 2008; Zeb
et al., 2020). 2) Relational transparency refers to sincere communication
and honest information sharing to help leaders maintain relationships
with their team members (Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Hassan & Din, 2019;
Zeb et al., 2020). 3) Authentic internalized morals underlie leaders’
M.T. Mrayyan et al.
behaviors and give rise to ethical norms that advance the group’s ob­
jectives. 4) Balanced processing is the ability of real leaders to evaluate
all the pertinent information without bias by soliciting and evaluating
opposing points of view (Zeb et al., 2020).
Leaders’ caring for the team’s well-being, fairness in the decision,
and open communication are positively linked with employees’ coop­
erative behaviors and knowledge sharing within the team (Alzghoul
et al., 2018; Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Goswami & Agrawal, 2022; Hassan
& Din, 2019; Pellegrini et al., 2020; Zeb et al., 2020). Workers’ coop­
erative behaviors and knowledge sharing within the team are positively
correlated with leaders’ concern for the team’s well-being, fairness in
the decision-making process, and open communication (Avolio &
Gardner, 2005; Hassan & Din, 2019; Zeb et al., 2020), applies for
nursing faculty members. Authentic leaders openly communicate with
their teams, provide all relevant information, and serve as great role
models for their employees (Alzghoul et al., 2018; Avolio & Gardner,
2005; Hassan & Din, 2019; Goswami & Agrawal, 2022; Zeb et al., 2020).
Authentic leaders encourage teamwork and individual and group self-
confidence (Alzghoul et al., 2018; Hassan & Din, 2019; Zeb et al.,
2020). Individual and group self-confidence can positively and nega­
tively affect knowledge-sharing practices (Alzghoul et al., 2018; Pelle­
grini et al., 2020; Zeb et al., 2020).
Authentic leadership and team members’ creativity
A fulfilling relationship between team members and the work set­
tings is necessary for authentic leadership to increase team members’
creativity and organizational settings (non-academic research of Alz­
ghoul et al., 2018; Avolio & Mhatre, 2012; Duarte et al., 2021; Grošelj
et al., 2020; Semedo et al., 2018; Sengupta et al., 2021; Walumbwa
et al., 2008). As a result, Semedo et al. (2018) recommended that or­
ganizations hire honest, well-trained leaders who value self-awareness
and transparency in their interactions with subordinates. Authentic
leaders should exhibit internal morals and balance in information pro­
cessing to achieve the desired results at all levels (Maziero et al., 2020;
Semedo et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2022). Some of these results are em­
ployees’ affective devotion and creativity by accepting difficulties at
work (Grošelj et al., 2020; Maziero et al., 2020; Semedo et al., 2018;
Zhang et al., 2022). Additionally, authentic leadership promotes a
favorable relationship between the team’s leaders and members,
encouraging positive actions that boost team members’ performance
and creativity (Alzghoul et al., 2018; Duarte et al., 2021; Grošelj et al.,
2020; Hassan & Din, 2019; Sengupta et al., 2021; Walumbwa et al.,
2011; Zeb et al., 2020), applies to nursing faculty members. However, it
is mindful that authentic leadership didn’t affect knowledge sharing
within the team (Elrehail et al., 2018).
Knowledge sharing within the team and team members’ creativity
Knowledge sharing fosters creative behaviors and influences team
members’ creativity (Hu et al., 2018; Liao et al., 2018; Pellegrini et al.,
2020; Rehman & Iqbal, 2020), which also applies to nursing faculty
members. In Turkey, Akturan and Çekmecelioğlu (2016) reported that
team members’ appreciation of their leaders’ information sharing boosts
their efficiency (similar to Martinez, 2015). Self-efficient team members
are bold when developing and implementing new procedures (Hassan &
Din, 2019; Zeb et al., 2020). The team benefits from innovation and new
information by sharing expertise (Hassan & Din, 2019; Hu et al., 2018;
Liao et al., 2018; Martinez, 2015; Pellegrini et al., 2020; Rehman &
Iqbal, 2020).
Individual creativity, organizational culture, organizational innova­
tiveness, motivation (Hassan & Din, 2019; Jyoti & Dev, 2015; Liao et al.,
2018; Pellegrini et al., 2020; Rehman & Iqbal, 2020), quality manage­
ment (Hassan & Din, 2019; Labrague et al., 2021; Zeb et al., 2020), job
satisfaction (Hassan & Din, 2019; Tepret & Tuna, 2015; Wong et al.,
2020), intent to stay (Lee et al., 2019), goal setting (Goswami &
165
Journal of Professional Nursing 48 (2023) 163–172
Agrawal, 2022; Zeb et al., 2020), and leadership style are additional
factors that positively affect team members’ creativity (Hassan & Din,
2019; Hu et al., 2018; Liao et al., 2018; Pellegrini et al., 2020; Rehman &
Iqbal, 2020; Zeb et al., 2020).
In conclusion, the current study fills critical gaps in the reviewed
literature. The results of the reviewed studies varied in developing
countries compared to developed countries due to the difference in
culture and work contexts.
Methods
Research design
An online survey with a cross-sectional design was used (Polit &
Beck, 2019).
Participants
The Principal Investigator started collecting data by recruiting con­
venience samples through which the study was hosted, and participants
were invited to participate. Snowball recruiting was done through which
other participants were referred to the researcher. The response rate for
a convenience snowball sample of 105 (out of 124) academic nursing
faculty members employed by various universities was 85 %.
Nursing faculty members were asked to answer an online survey
using Facebook and WhatsApp. The formula N 10(k) + 50 was used to
calculate the sample size for this study; N was the sample size, and k is
the number of independent variables (three major variables). According
to Polit and Beck (2019), the sample size for this study should have
included at least 80 participants. However, 105 nursing faculty members
were obtained to count for the attrition rate. The sampling inclusion
criteria were Jordanian faculty members working in academic settings
at nursing schools.
Ethical considerations
The university’s Institutional Review Board (IRB), where the first
author works, approved this study. Reference numbers are 2/1/2020/
2021 (18-10-2020) and 8/11/2021/2022 (25-7-2022). In the invitation
letter, participants were told they could forego completing the online
survey if desired, and their participation was their consent. The re­
searchers stored passwords for encrypted responses of nursing faculty
members in Google Drive. All participants’ data was anonymous and
voluntary. Aggregated results were kept confidential by being shared
with designated universities and nursing leaders.
Instruments
The English-version tools were utilized to collect data and piloted
before the actual data collection; no revisions were required. These tools
are commonly used in psychology research as they have high psycho­
metric measures. The current researchers treated authentic leadership,
knowledge sharing, and creativity as continuous variables.
Gender, marital status, age, time commitment, level of education,
whether the organization of work is accredited or if they have official
quality initiatives (yes vs. no), tenured faculty members (worked for an
organization for several years), team size, and sector type (private vs.
governmental) were all measured in the sample. Worldwide, quality
initiatives are efforts to improve the quality of provided services.
Leaders’ authentic leadership
Walumbwa et al. (2008) created the Authentic Leadership Ques­
tionnaire (ALQ) to assess nursing faculty members’ perceptions of their
nursing leaders’ authentic leadership. Mind Garden Institute permitted
the first researcher to use the ALQ in October 2020 (Copyright 2007 ALQ
by Avolio et al., 2007). The 16-item ALQ scored 1 = strongly disagree, 2
M.T. Mrayyan et al. Journal of Professional Nursing 48 (2023) 163–172

= disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, and 5 = agree strongly on a 5-point
Likert-type scale. The ALQ was divided into four subscales: self-
awareness (items 1, 5, 9, and 13), an internalized moral (items 2, 6,
10, and 14), balanced processing (items 3, 7, 11, and 15), and relational
transparency (items 4, 8, 12, and 16). Averaging the scores of the rele­
vant items yielded the total scores on the scale and subscale. A score of
four or higher out of five indicates strong authentic leadership, while
three or fewer indicates weak authentic leadership (Walumbwa et al.,
2008, 2011). The ALQ psychometric framework has been studied in
many countries, such as Turkey and Spain (Cervo et al., 2016). The
original instrument was reported to have predictive validity (Walumbwa
et al., 2008). The ALQ scale’s reliability coefficient was 0.95 in Dirik and
Seren Intepeler (2017) and 0.95 in the current study.
Knowledge sharing
Lee (2001) developed a seven-item scale to assess faculty members’
perceptions of knowledge sharing within the team, and it was obtained
from the public domain. A score of four or higher out of five indicates
high knowledge sharing within the team, while three or fewer indicates
low knowledge sharing (as in Walumbwa et al., 2008, 2011). The
original instrument was reported to have predictive validity (as reported
by Ramayah et al., 2014). The scale has internal consistency, as indi­
cated by Cronbach’s alpha of 0.78 in Wang et al. (2018) and 0.94 in the
current study.
Creativity
Tan and Ong (2019) created the 12-item self-rated creativity scale
(SRCS) to evaluate employees’ creativity, which was available in the
public domain. It was used in the current study to measure nursing
faculty members’ perceptions of their creativity. The original scale
defined creativity as the “newness” such as come up with new and
practical ideas to improve performance. A score of four or higher out of
five indicates high nursing faculty members’ creativity, while three or
fewer indicates low nursing faculty members’ creativity (as in
Walumbwa et al., 2008, 2011). The original instrument was reported to
have convergent, discriminant, and concurrent validities (Tan & Ong,
2019). The SRCS had internal consistency, as indicated by the 0.84
Cronbach’s alpha in Lim et al. (2020) and 0.95 in the current study.
Data collection
creativity among faculty members with the characteristics of the sample
(Polit & Beck, 2019). To answer the third research question related to
the predictors of the measured concepts, a general linear model (GLM)
was used to assess if the perceived authentic leadership of academic
nursing leaders predicts the perceived knowledge sharing within teams
and the creativity of nursing faculty members (Polit & Beck, 2019).
Results
Most of the sample were academically middle-aged married females
with master’s degrees or higher who work full-time in universities; these
governmental academic settings were mostly accredited and had quality
initiatives. Nursing faculty members reported being tenured for four
years or more (above average tenured; the average is four years) and
were working in the middle to large team with more than fifteen
members (the ideal collaborative team size is between four and eight)
(Table 1).
The perceived variables of academic nursing leaders’ authentic leadership
Nursing faculty members rated their academic nursing leaders’
perceived authentic leadership as high (agreed) on a five-point Likert
scale for the entire sample (Mean = 3.67, SD = 0.99). The highest mean
of academic nursing leaders’ perceived authentic leadership was that the
leader carefully considers the ideas of others before making decisions
(Mean = 3.90, SD = 1.09). The lowest mean of academic nursing
leaders’ perceived authentic leadership was that they didn’t allow group
pressure to control their faculty members (Mean = 3.45, SD = 1.18)
(Table 2).
The perceived variables of knowledge sharing within the team
Nursing faculty members perceived knowledge sharing within the
team as high (agreed) on a five-point Likert scale for the entire sample
(Mean = 3.52, SD = 0.85). Service providers sharing expertise gained
through education and training was the highest perceived mean (Mean
Table 1
Academic sample’s characteristics (N = 105).
Characteristics N (%)

The English versions of the tools were used to collect the data. The Gender
Male 33(31.40)
study was conducted in 2022 using a self-reported online survey uti­
Female 72(68.60)
lizing Google Forms, designed to allow submission once. A link to the Marital status
study was shared on the first investigator’s Facebook page, and that of Single 24(22.90)
the nursing school, and then nursing faculty members were encouraged Married 81(77.10)
to invite their contacts. Filtering questions were used at the beginning of Age
≤34 years 18(17.10)
the survey to ensure that the target population of nursing faculty
>34 years 87(82.90)
members was targeted. Data were collected over her ten days, and the Time commitment
nursing faculty were reminded to complete the survey only once five Full-time work 98(93.30)
days later. Part-time work 7(6.70)
Level of education
Baccalaureate degree (clinical instructors) 38(36.20)
Data analyses Master’s degree or above (faculty members) 67(63.80)
Accreditation initiatives in the organizations
Data were analyzed at an alpha 0.05 and the Statistical Package for Yes 99(94.30)
the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 25 (IBM Corp., 2015). Data were No 6(5.70)
Quality initiatives in the organizations
checked for normality by drawing a histogram. Data were also checked Yes 97(92.40)
for outliers by checking for extreme standard deviations. There were No 8(7.60)
minimal missing data; thus, no interventions were done. Tenured faculty members
To answer the first research question related to the perceived vari­ ≤4 years 32(30.50)
>4 years 73(69.50)
ables of the measured concepts, descriptive statistics were reported
Team size
depending on the level of measurement, such as means, standard de­ ≤15 members 55(52.40)
viations or frequencies, and percentages. To answer the second research >15 members 50(47.60)
question related to the correlations of the measured concepts, Pearson’s The sector of work
correlations were run between the overall scores of the perceived Governmental 80(76.20)
Private 25(23.80)
leaders’ authentic leadership, knowledge sharing within teams, and

166
M.T. Mrayyan et al. Journal of Professional Nursing 48 (2023) 163–172

Table 2
Nursing faculty members’ perceptions of their academic leaders’ authentic leadership variables (N = 105).
Items Mean (SD*) Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree

1 2 3 4 5

I can list my three greatest weaknesses. 3.65(1.21) 10(9.50) 6(5.70) 23(21.90) 37(35.20) 29(27.90)
My actions reflect my core values. 3.71(1.20) 9(8.60) 8(7.60) 17(16.20) 41(39.00) 30(28.60)
I seek others’ opinions before making up my own mind. 3.70(1.16) 7(7.10) 8(8.10) 19(19.20) 38(38.40) 27(27.30)
I openly share my feelings with others. 3.46(1.34) 12(11.70) 12(11.70) 27(26.20) 20(19.40) 32(31.10)
I can list my three greatest strengths. 3.79(1.19) 8(7.80) 6(5.80) 19(18.40) 36(35.00) 34(33.00)
I do not allow group pressure to control me. 3.45(1.18) 8(7.70) 15(14.40) 24(23.10) 36(34.60) 21(20.20)
I listen closely to the ideas of those who disagree with me. 3.66(1.05) 4(3.80) 12(11.40) 21(20.00) 46(43.80) 22(21.00)
I let others know who I truly am as a person. 3.76(1.08) 3(2.90) 14(13.30) 17(16.20) 42(40.00) 29(27.60)
I seek feedback as a way of understanding who I really am as a person. 3.79(1.03) 5(4.90) 4(3.90) 25(23.80) 42(40.00) 27(26.20)
Other people know where I stand on controversial issues. 3.60(1.17) 7(6.70) 9(8.60) 31(29.50) 29(27.90) 29(27.60)
I do not emphasize my own point of view at the expense of others. 3.60(1.06) 4(3.80) 12(11.40) 28(26.70) 38(36.20) 23(21.90)
I rarely present a “false” front to others. 3.49(1.10) 6(5.70) 12(11.40) 31(29.50) 36(34.30) 20(19.00)
I accept the feelings I have about myself. 3.63(1.15) 7(6.90) 12(11.80) 15(14.70) 45(44.10) 23(22.50)
My morals guide what I do as a leader. 3.77(1.18) 5(4.80) 12(11.50) 20(19.20) 31(29.80) 36(34.60)
I listen very carefully to the ideas of others before making decisions. 3.90(1.09) 6(5.70) 5(10.50) 17(16.20) 42(40.00) 35(33.30)
I admit my mistakes to others. 3.49(1.27) 12(11.40) 9(8.60) 25(23.80) 33(31.40) 26(24.30)
Total mean score 3.67(0.99)

This 9-item scale rated from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree); some Ns didn’t equal 105 because of missing data.
*
SD = standard deviations.

= 3.70, SD = 0.98). The explicit knowledge sharing related to service
providers sharing business manuals, models, and methodologies was the
lowest perceived mean (Mean = 3.39, SD = 1.03) (Table 3).
The perceived variables of nursing faculty members’ creativity
Nursing faculty members perceived their creativity as high (agreed)
(Mean = 3.84, SD = 0.68). Suggesting new ways to improve work
quality was the highest perceived mean (Mean = 4.04, SD = 0.88), while
creative faculty members were not afraid to take risks was the lowest
perceived mean (Mean = 3.67, SD = 0.95) (Table 4).
Correlations of the perceived variables of academic nursing leaders’
authentic leadership, knowledge sharing within the team, nursing faculty
members’ creativity, and sample characteristics
The total score of academic nursing leaders perceived authentic
leadership didn’t correlate with any of the characteristics of the aca­
demic sample nor the total score of the perceived knowledge sharing
within the team or faculty members’ creativity.
The total score of the perceived knowledge sharing within the team
correlated significantly, positively, and moderately with the total score
of the perceived nursing faculty members’ creativity (r = 0.517, alpha =
0.01); significantly, positively, but weakly with the tenured faculty
members (r = 0.237, alpha = 0.05); and significantly, negatively, but
weakly with quality initiatives in the organizations (r = − 0.201, alpha
= 0.05).
The total perceived creativity score correlated significantly, nega­
tively, but weakly with gender (r = − 0.211, alpha = 0.05) and organi­
zational quality initiatives (r = − 0.354, alpha = 0.01). The overall score
of the perceived creativity correlated significantly, positively, and
moderately with age (r = 0.254, alpha = 0.01), level of education (r =
0.405, alpha = 0.01), and tenured faculty members (r = 0.306, alpha =
0.01) (Table 5).
Predictors of the perceived knowledge sharing within the team and the
perceived nursing faculty members’ creativity
Academic nursing leaders’ perceived authentic leadership didn’t
predict the perceived knowledge sharing within the team or the
perceived faculty members’ creativity. The model was insignificant (F
(df = 12) = 1.83, p-value = 0.054, adjusted R2 = 0.078, Table 6) and

Table 3
Nursing faculty members’ perceptions of knowledge sharing within the team variables (N = 105).
Items Mean Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
(SD*) disagree agree

1 2 3 4 5

Explicit knowledge sharing 3.55 5(4.80) 10(9.50) 25 52 13(12.40)

We and our service provider share business proposals and reports with each other. (0.99) (23.80) (49.50)
We and our service provider share business manuals, models, and methodologies. 3.39 4(3.80) 17 32 38 14(13.30)
(1.03) (16.20) (30.50) (36.20)
We and our service provider share each other’s success and failure stories. 3.52 3(2.90) 16 23 49 14(13.30)
(1.00) (15.20) (21.90) (46.70)
We and our service provider share business knowledge from newspapers, magazines, 3.43 4(3.80) 13 37 36 15(14.30)
journals, and television. (1.00) (12.40) (35.20) (34.30)
Implicit knowledge sharing 3.62 4(3.80) 6(5.70) 29 53 13(12.40)
We and our service provider share know-how from work experience with each other. (0.91) (27.60) (50.50)
We and our service provider share each other’s know-where and know-whom. 3.46 4(3.80) 12 30 50 9(8.60)
(0.94) (11.40) (28.60) (47.60)
We and our service provider share expertise obtained from education and training. 3.70 4(3.80) 10(9.50) 17 57 17(16.20)
(0.98) (16.20) (54.30)
Total mean score 3.52
(0.85)

This 7-item scale rated from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

*
SD = standard deviations.

167
M.T. Mrayyan et al. Journal of Professional Nursing 48 (2023) 163–172

Table 4
Nursing faculty members’ perceptions of nursing faculty members’ creativity variables (N = 105).
Items Mean (SD*) Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree

1 2 3 4 5

Suggest new ways to achieve goals. 3.95(0.77) 2(1.90) 1(1.00) 19(18.10) 61(58.10) 22(21.00)
Come up with new and practical ideas to improve performance. 3.92(0.79) 2(1.90) 2(1.90) 19(18.10) 61(58.10) 21(20.00)
Search for new technologies, processes, techniques, and/or product ideas. 3.85(0.87) 2(1.90) 3(2.90) 28(26.70) 48(45.70) 24(22.90)
Suggest new ways to increase the quality of work. 4.04(0.88) 3(2.90) – 21(20.00) 47(44.80) 34(32.40)
Being a good source of creative ideas. 3.89(0.82) 2(1.90) 1(1.00) 27(25.70) 52(49.50) 23(21.90)
Being not afraid to take risks. 3.67(0.95) 4(3.80) 7(6.70) 26(24.80) 51(48.20) 17(16.20)
Promote and champion ideas to others. 3.88(0.85) 3(2.90) 2(1.90) 21(20.00) 58(55.20) 21(20.00)
Exhibit creativity in my work when allowed. 3.85(0.89) 4(3.80) – 27(25.70) 51(48.60) 23(21.90)
Often have new and innovative ideas. 3.78(0.83) 4(3.80) – 26(27.80) 60(57.10) 15(14.30)
Come up with creative solutions to problems. 3.83(0.79) 3(2.90) – 25(23.80) 61(58.10) 16(15.20)
Often have a fresh approach to problems. 3.70(0.74) 2(1.90) – 37(35.20) 54(51.40) 12(11.40)
Suggest new ways of performing work tasks. 3.81(0.81) 3(2.90) 2(1.90) 22(21.00) 63(60.00) 15(14.30)
Total mean score 3.84(0.68)

This 12-item scale rated from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

*
SD = standard deviations.

within the team and the perceived nursing faculty members’ creativity.
Table 5
It was comforting to have nursing faculty members perceived high
Significant correlations between the perceived academic nursing leaders’
(agree) with their academic leaders’ authentic leadership (as in Hassan
authentic leadership, knowledge sharing within the team, and nursing faculty
members’ creativity (N = 105).
& Din, 2019; Lee et al., 2019 the perceived knowledge sharing within
the team (like Elrehail et al., 2018; Hassan & Din, 2019) and their
Characteristics The total score of The total score of The total score
perceived creativity (similar to Hassan & Din, 2019; Hu et al., 2018)).
the perceived the perceived of the perceived
authentic knowledge creativity Such high rating point out the presence of conducive academic work
leadership sharing environments in which knowledge sharing is a must rather than a
Gender – – − 0.211*
choice, as it would result in affective commitment (Duarte et al., 2021)
Age – – 0.254** and job satisfaction of faculty members (Hassan & Din, 2019; Tepret &
Level of education – – 0.405** Tuna, 2015; Wong et al., 2020) and, in turn, their intent to stay at their
Quality initiatives in – − 0.201* − 0.354** academic jobs (Lee et al., 2019) and creativity (Duarte et al., 2021),
the organizations
supported by Hassan and Din (2019).
Tenured faculty – 0.237* 0.306**
members
Team size – 0.287** –
The total score of 1.00
Academic nursing leaders’ perceived authentic leadership
perceived
authentic Our academic nursing authentic leaders were perceived to listen to
leadership the ideas of others before making decisions, supported by Alzghoul et al.
The total score of the − 0.035 1.00
(2018). Such authentic leadership behavior should be sustained to
perceived
knowledge sharing contribute to effective decision-making, motivated members, and
The total score of the 0.021 0.517** 1.00 sharing of creative ideas (Duarte et al., 2021; Hassan & Din, 2019).
perceived On the other hand, academic nursing authentic leaders were
creativity
perceived to have less role in not allowing group pressure to control
*
Significance level 0.05. nursing faculty members. This perceived behavior indicate that
**
Significance level 0.01. authentic leader should have more role in managing the stress of their
teams. Considering that universities worldwide are undergoing massive
explained 7.80 % of the variance in the mean of the perceived quality and accreditation changes, academic nursing leaders should be
knowledge-sharing score. influential in managing stress and preventing burnout in their team
Age (B = 4.568, p-value = 0.029), level of education (B = 5.070, p- members; conducive work environments are mandated (aligned with
value = 0.002), quality initiatives in the organizations (B = − 10.064, p- Lee et al. (2019)). Work environment and burnout mediated the influ­
value = 0.001), and tenured faculty members (B = 3.902, p-value = ence of authentic leadership on nurses’ intent to leave (Lee et al. (2019),
0.023) were the predictors of the perceived faculty members’ creativity. which would also apply to nursing faculty members.
The model was significant (F(df = 12) = 5.11, adjusted R2 = 0.322, p-
value = 0.001, Table 6), explaining 32.20 % of the variance in the
The perceived knowledge sharing within the team
perceived faculty members’ creativity mean scores.
The team’s highest perceived mean of knowledge sharing was the
Discussion
implicit knowledge sharing related to service providers sharing exper­
tise obtained from education and training (similar to Lee, 2001). Suc­
The results augment nursing knowledge of the perceived nursing
cessful academic nursing settings should have an implicit mission to
leaders’ authentic leadership, knowledge sharing within the team, and
provide education and training as required for faculty members’
faculty members’ creativity in academic settings. Surprisingly, there
expertise to be flourished and be shared. However, the lowest perceived
were no links between academic nursing leaders’ perceived authentic
means were related to explicit knowledge sharing related to service
leadership on the perceived knowledge sharing within the team and the
providers sharing business manuals, models, and methodologies. This
perceived nursing faculty members’ creativity. The perceived authentic
result could be a natural behavior; Fauzi et al. (2019) explained that
leadership didn’t correlate with the academic sample’s characteristics.
people share manuals, models, and methodologies with those they trust
However, there was a link between the perceived knowledge sharing
and know, which applies to nursing faculty members.

168
M.T. Mrayyan et al. Journal of Professional Nursing 48 (2023) 163–172

Table 6
The perceived academic nursing leaders’ authentic leadership and subject’s characteristics as predictors of the perceived nursing, knowledge sharing within the team,
nursing faculty members’ creativity using GLM (N = 105).
Dependent and significant predictors B* t-Test p-Value R2 Adjusted R2 F-test (df)
(p-value)**

The total score of the perceived knowledge sharing within the team 0.193 0.078 1.83(12)
(0.054)
Gender − 1.334 − 0.99 0.321
Marital status − 0.914 − 0.60 0.545
Age 2.322 1.32 0.187
Time commitment 2.977 1.23 0.220
Level of education 0.218 0.15 0.874
Accreditation initiatives in the organizations − 2.779 − 1.06 0.288
Quality initiatives in the organizations − 3.241 − 1.49 0.138
Tenured faculty members 2.623 1.83 0.070
Team size in work 2.015 1.55 0.123
The sector of work 1.304 0.88 0.379
The total score of the perceived nursing faculty members’ creativity 0.400 0.322 5.11(12)
(0.001)
Gender − 2.719 − 1.72 0.087
Marital status − 2.871 − 1.62 0.108
Age 4.568 2.22 0.029
Time commitment − 0.086 − 0.03 0.976
Level of education 5.070 3.14 0.002
Accreditation initiatives in the organizations − 3.335 − 1.09 0.278
Quality initiatives in the organizations − 1.064 − 3.94 0.001
Tenured faculty members 3.902 2.32 0.023
Team size in work − 1.196 − 0.78 0.435
The sector of work 1.010 0.58 0.562
*
B = unstandardized coefficients.
**
p < 0.001 (2-tailed).

The perceived nursing faculty members’ creativity
Nursing faculty members perceived their own creativity as “high”
regarding suggesting new ways to increase the quality of work; this is
better than adapting existing ones (Hassan & Din, 2019). Nursing faculty
members should be innovative and creative as they shape their students
into safe and creative nurses. This result is a logical consequence of the
above result related to implicit knowledge and expertise sharing based
on education and training (in line with Lee, 2001). Knowledge sharing
fosters creative behaviors and produces team members’ creativity (re­
ported by Duarte et al., 2021; Hassan & Din, 2019; Hu et al., 2018; Liao
et al., 2018; Pellegrini et al., 2020; Rehman & Iqbal, 2020); including
faculty members (Hassan & Din, 2019).
The lowest mean of nursing faculty members’ creativity was that
they were not afraid to take risks. As they reported themselves to be
creative, those nursing faculty members are expected to work in creative
climates that encourage risk-taking. Implicit knowledge and expertise-
sharing faculty members should be ready to take risks. Current
nursing faculty members were afraid to take risks as they were young.
Higher-ranked faculty members, such as full professors, usually take
more risks in their educational careers (Cutri et al., 2020).
Correlations of the concepts and sample’s characteristics
The perceived authentic leadership of nursing leaders didn’t corre­
late with any of the academic sample’s characteristics (congruent with
Baptiste (2018), who reported that the sample’s characteristics were not
predictors of authentic leadership). Authentic leaders are authentic by
nature regardless of gender, marital status, age, time commitment, level
of education, and other personal and organizational characteristics.
These factors may increase authentic leadership but not originate it.
Moreover, these results mandate that the nursing leadership research
search for highly predictive rather than significant variables (Polit &
Beck, 2019). The current researchers focused more on prediction than
correlation; thus, we must relay significance as the only selection stan­
dard. Yet, all researchers must remember that correlation doesn’t imply
causality; thus, results should be explained cautiously.
The perceived authentic leadership of nursing leaders didn’t corre­
late with the perceived knowledge sharing within the team (as in Hassan
and Din (2019)) and is contradictory to Goswami and Agrawal (2022)
and Zeb et al. (2020). The current study measured nursing faculty
members’ perceptions of their leaders’ authentic leadership; the current
result may indicate that negative leadership harms knowledge sharing
(supported by Lee et al., 2020); abusive leadership is common in Jor­
danian universities.
The perceived authentic leadership of nursing leaders didn’t corre­
late with the perceived nursing faculty members’ creativity (similar to
Elrehail et al., 2018 but contradictory to Alzghoul et al. (2018); Grošelj
et al. (2020); Zeb et al. (2020). This result is similar to Elrehail et al.
(2018) and Hassan and Din (2019), who reported no impact of authentic
leadership on creativity in higher education academic settings. This
result suggests the presence of other sample characteristics, such as
salary and other types of leadership, such as transformational leadership
(as in Elrehail et al., 2018; Grošelj et al., 2020; Lee et al., 2020; Sulis­
tiyani & Rahardja, 2018) to influence knowledge-sharing within the and
faculty members’ creativity in academic nursing settings. A situation
such as that related to salary is abundant in Jordan, especially when we
compare the salaries of nursing faculty members in governmental uni­
versities versus those in private universities; the latter is much lower.
Authentic nursing leaders in private universities have nothing to do with
the salary scale; thus, they may not be able to influence the creativity of
their nursing faculty members. The first researcher experienced the
exact situation during a sabbatical leave from a government university
to a private one; the salary was reduced.
The perceived knowledge sharing within the team correlated posi­
tively with the perceived nursing faculty members’ creativity scores.
This result makes sense and is self-explanatory; knowledge sharing
would open the door for creative ideas (Akturan & Çekmecelioğlu, 2016;
Hu et al., 2018; Liao et al., 2018; Pellegrini et al., 2020; Rehman & Iqbal,
2020), that could improve academic nursing practice.
The perceived knowledge sharing within the team correlated posi­
tively with the tenured faculty members and team size. Longer-lived,
small to middle-sized teams would facilitate more knowledge sharing
and trust (similar to Zhang et al., 2019).

169
M.T. Mrayyan et al.
The perceived knowledge sharing within the team correlated
inversely with quality initiatives in the organizations. This was an un­
expected result but novel; knowledge sharing is expected to be increased
when nursing faculty members are involved in quality initiatives. Yet,
because they are centralized in managing quality initiatives at the
nursing schools, our nursing leaders usually share knowledge with the
formed quality teams only.
The perceived nursing faculty members’ creativity correlated
inversely with gender and quality initiatives in the organizations. This
finding was also unexpected but novel results; creativity is expected to
be increased when nursing faculty members in academic settings are
involved in quality initiatives. Yet, nursing faculty members may be less
creative because of their nursing deans’ centralized management of
quality initiatives at the nursing schools. Women are reported to be
more creative (Laguía et al., 2019). Most of the current sample were
female nursing academics, and the correlation was negative, indicating
that male nursing academics were perceived to be more creative. This is
a strong existing stereotype in most academic settings in Jordan.
The perceived nursing faculty members’ creativity correlated posi­
tively with age, level of education, and tenured faculty members; the
results were also novel. Consistent with Timalsina et al. (2018), who
reported that nursing faculty members’ organizational commitment,
which is an outcome of creativity, significantly, positively, and moder­
ately correlated to the level of education in nursing, position, current
tenured faculty members, and, accordingly, age; these were predictors of
organizational commitment. Timalsina et al.’s (2018) variables may also
apply to current faculty perceived members’ creativity.
Predictors of the perceived knowledge sharing within the team and nursing
faculty members’ creativity
Academic nursing leaders’ perceived authentic leadership didn’t
predict the perceived knowledge sharing within the team (unlike Gos­
wami & Agrawal, 2022) or the perceived nursing faculty members’
creativity (inconsistent with Alzghoul et al., 2018; Grošelj et al., 2020;
Zeb et al., 2020). However, this result is similar to Elrehail et al. (2018),
who reported no impact of authentic leadership on innovation in Jor­
danian higher education academic settings. Also, this result is supported
by Hassan and Din (2019), who revealed no mediation between intrinsic
motivation and authentic leadership with faculty members’ creativity.
Although the model was insignificant, such a result can be explained by
the fact that other types of nursing leadership influence academic
nursing settings. Authentic leadership worked well in clinical nursing
settings in Jordan related to safety climate (Mrayyan et al., 2022) but
may not work well in the academic climate. However, as a previous
nurse and a current nursing faculty member, the first author would like
to attest that academic nursing settings in Jordan are getting hugely
reformed in the light of quality and accreditation initiatives on the na­
tional and international levels (as the Accreditation Commission for
Education in Nursing (ACEN)). Thus, authentic leadership may not
work, pointing out that another type of leadership is taking place.
However, before jumping to conclusions about the absence of pre­
dictors, the researchers should check the correlation matrix before
performing the GLM model; variables with the highest correlations are
generally good predictors (Polit & Beck, 2019).
Other types of leadership may be adopted to adapt to the new aca­
demic initiatives in Jordan and create the needed changes while taking
into account the transformational changes also associated with the
COVID-19 pandemic, such as 1) Transformational leadership (like Elrehail
et al., 2018; Grošelj et al., 2020; Lee et al., 2020; Sulistiyani & Rahardja,
2018). 2) Ethical leadership was reported as a predictor of team members
and organizational creativity (Shafique et al., 2020). 3) Knowledge-ori­
ented leadership impacts knowledge management and innovation orga­
nizational performance in higher education (Goswami & Agrawal, 2022;
Lee et al., 2020; Pellegrini et al., 2020; Rehman & Iqbal, 2020; Shamim
et al., 2019). 4) In their meta-analysis, Lee et al. (2020) reported that
170
Journal of Professional Nursing 48 (2023) 163–172
transactional (contingent reward) and supportive leadership are needed for
innovative performance.
There were no predictors of the perceived knowledge-sharing within
the team. Knowledge-sharing in academic settings is a mandate, not a
choice. This also may suggest new predictors of knowledge-sharing,
such as restrictions in academic settings, including sharing climate
and trust (similar to Gerbin & Drnovsek, 2020). As academics partici­
pating in quality initiatives at the nursing school, we seek a conducive
working environment where knowledge is shared rather than preserved
at the top level, pointing out aggressive and centralized supervision is
taking place.
The predictors of nursing faculty members’ perceived creativity were
age, level of education, quality initiatives in the organizations, and
tenured faculty members. Age, education, and tenured faculty members
are prerequisites for organizational citizenship and creativity (Yaakobi
& Weisberg, 2020), which may also apply to organizational quality
initiatives. The perceived creativity of nursing faculty members would
be enhanced with age and education, and in turn, tenureship, and when
challenged with the extensive work needed for quality initiatives or
projects. Smart, authentic leaders should invest in their tenure and
experienced faculty members, especially when quality initiatives occur.
Regardless of any predictor, creativity is vital for organizational
growth, sustainability, national advancement, and international
competition (Hassan & Din, 2019). Creativity fuels the responsiveness
and renewal of any organization (Hassan & Din, 2019), including aca­
demic settings.
Limitations
This study was conducted in Jordan, a non-western country that
significantly differs in cultural context. Data were collected from uni­
versities using convenience snowball sampling, limiting the generaliz­
ability of the results. Because the current study’s cross-sectional
methodology limited causality, other research designs should be used in
future studies about authentic leadership in academic settings. Because
professionals tend to focus on the positive aspects of their leaders, more
objective measures of academic leaders’ authentic leadership are
required.
Implications
The current study augments leadership knowledge in academic
nursing settings. The current study’s findings have education, research,
and practice implications. For faculty members to excel and be creative
and for academic organizations to build a reputable academic image,
organizations and governments should provide development programs,
fellowships, and scholarships, while promoting faculty members’
motivation, support, and enthusiasm (Hassan & Din, 2019). Today’s
students are tomorrow’s nurses in education; therefore, authentic
leadership, knowledge sharing, and team members’ creativity should be
incorporated into the nursing curricula.
Academic nursing authentic leadership was found to have no impact
on knowledge sharing within the team and the creativity of faculty
members. This finding necessitates a deeper investigation into this
result, opening a new direction for future research. Further research is
required to understand in-depth academic nursing authentic leadership,
knowledge sharing within the team, and the creativity of nursing faculty
members, including conducting qualitative and mediation studies, other
research designs, larger and random samples, and other sample char­
acteristics. It is also recommended to replicate this study in other
organizational settings. More research in other countries is required
because our academic settings in Jordan, including nursing, have a high-
power distance culture and are highly collectivist (as described by Wang
et al., 2018). Qualitative research design should explore in-depth female
nursing academics and creativity. Because there were no predictors of
knowledge-sharing in the team in the current study, predictors other
M.T. Mrayyan et al.
than leaders’ authentic leadership should be studied in further research.
In practice, authentic leadership must be taught and practiced (Rego
et al., 2017; Rego et al., 2021), necessitating formal learning and skills
development to assist leaders in understanding and developing
authentic leadership. Authentic leadership of academic nursing leaders
is important in promoting knowledge sharing within the team and the
creativity of nursing faculty members. These faculty members recipro­
cate the authentic behaviors of their academic leaders. Therefore,
authentic nursing leadership should be synergized with other factors
that may promote nursing faculty members’ creativity in conducive
work environments that promote the psychological safety of nursing
faculty members with a teamwork culture.
As females were perceived as less creative, nursing females should be
empowered in academia. Academic organizations should invest in fac­
ulty members; their creativity increases with age, education, and
tenured faculty members when challenged with quality-extensive
initiatives.
Academic organizations should concentrate on knowledge sharing
and provide universities with a culture that enhances knowledge sharing
among faculty members at all levels.
Conclusion
Nursing faculty members rated high (agreed) their academic leaders’
authentic leadership, knowledge sharing within the team, and crea­
tivity. However, academic nursing leaders’ authentic leadership didn’t
predict knowledge sharing within the team or nursing faculty members’
creativity. Thus, authentic academic leaders should create conducive
work environments where they share their knowledge within the team
and improve their nursing faculty members’ creativity. Other types of
nursing leadership could influence knowledge sharing within the team
and creativity in academic nursing settings, warranting more future
studies.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Majd T. Mrayyan: conceived and designed the experiments; per­
formed the experiments; analyzed and interpreted the data; contributed
reagents, materials, analysis tools or data; wrote the paper. Marwan H.
Al-Shaikh Ali: contributed reagents, materials, analysis tools or data;
wrote the paper; Manar Mrayan, contributed reagents, materials, anal­
ysis tools or data; wrote the paper.
Funding
The authors report no funding source for the work that resulted in the
article or its preparation.
Disclaimer
None.
Ethical consideration
The Institutional Review Board (IRB) of The Hashemite University-
Jordan approved the study; the reference numbers are 2/1/2020/
2021 (Oct 18th 2020) and 11/8/2021/2022 (July 25th 2022).
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
171
Journal of Professional Nursing 48 (2023) 163–172
Data availability
Data are available on request due to privacy/ethical restrictions.
Acknowledgment
The researchers thanks the nursing faculty members for their input in
the current research.
References
Akturan, A., & Çekmecelioğlu, H. G. (2016). The effects of knowledge sharing and
organizational citizenship behaviors on creative behaviors in educational
institutions. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 235, 342–350. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.11.042
Alzghoul, A., Elrehail, H., Emeagwali, O. L., & AlShboul, M. K. (2018). Knowledge
management, workplace climate, creativity and performance: The role of authentic
leadership. Journal of Workplace Learning, 30(8), 592–612. https://doi.org/10.1108/
JWL-12-2017-0111
Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the
root of positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 315–338.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.03.001
Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2007). Authentic leadership
questionnaire. Available at: http://www.mindgarden.com.
Avolio, B. J., & Mhatre, K. H. (2012). Advances in theory and research on authentic
leadership. In K. S. Cameron, & G. Spreitzer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of positive
organizational scholarship (pp. 773–783). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Baptiste, B. (2018). The relationship between the Big Five personality traits and
authentic leadership. Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies, 4714. https://scho
larworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations/4714.
Cervo, C. S., Mónico, L. D. S. M., Santos, N. R. D., Hutz, C. S., & Pais, L. (2016). Authentic
Leadership Questionnaire: Invariance between samples of Brazilian and Portuguese
employees. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica, 29. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41155-016-
0046-4
Cutri, R. M., Mena, J., & Whiting, E. F. (2020). Faculty readiness for online crisis
teaching: Transitioning to online teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic. European
Journal of Teacher Education, 43(4), 523–541. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02619768.2020.1815702
Dirik, H. F., & Seren Intepeler, S. (2017). The influence of authentic leadership on safety
climate in nursing. Journal of Nursing Management, 25(5), 392–401. https://doi.org/
10.1111/jonm.12480
Duarte, A. P., Ribeiro, N., Semedo, A. S., & Gomes, D. R. (2021). Authentic leadership
and improved individual performance: Affective commitment and individual
creativity’s sequential mediation. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 675749. https://
doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.675749
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999
Elrehail, H. (2018). The relationship among leadership, innovation and knowledge
sharing: A guidance for analysis. Data in Brief, 19, 128–133. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.dib.2018.04.138
Elrehail, H., Emeagwali, O. L., Alsaad, A., & Alzghoul, A. (2018). The impact of
transformational and authentic leadership on innovation in higher education: The
contingent role of knowledge sharing. Telematics and Informatics, 35(1), 55–67.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.09.018
Fauzi, M. A., Nya-Ling, C. T., Thursamy, R., & Ojo, A. O. (2019). Knowledge sharing: Role
of academics towards research productivity in higher learning institution. VINE
Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, 49(1), 136–159. https://
doi.org/10.1108/VJIKMS-09-2018-0074
Gardner, W. L., Cogliser, C. C., Davis, K. M., & Dickens, M. P. (2011). Authentic
leadership: A review of the literature and research agenda. Leadership Quarterly, 22
(6), 1120–1145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.09.00.7
Gerbin, A., & Drnovsek, M. (2020). Knowledge-sharing restrictions in the life sciences:
Personal and context-specific factors in academia–industry knowledge transfer.
Journal of Knowledge Management, 24(7), 1533–1557. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-
11-2019-0651
Goswami, A. K., & Agrawal, R. K. (2022). It’s a knowledge centric world! Does ethical
leadership promote knowledge sharing and knowledge creation? Psychological
capital as mediator and shared goals as moderator. Journal of Knowledge
Management.. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-09-2021-0669. Ahead-of-print No.
Grošelj, M., Černe, M., Penger, S., & Grah, B. (2020). Authentic and transformational
leadership and innovative work behaviour: The moderating role of psychological
empowerment. European Journal of Innovation Management, 24(3), 677–706. https://
doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-10-2019-0294
Hassan, S., & Din, B. (2019). The mediating effect of knowledge sharing among intrinsic
motivation, high-performance work system and authentic leadership on university
faculty members’ creativity. Management Science Letters, 9(6), 887–898. https://doi.
org/10.5267/j.msl.2019.2.013
Hu, J., Erdogan, B., Jiang, K., Bauer, T. N., & Liu, S. (2018). Leader humility and team
creativity: The role of team information sharing, psychological safety, and power
distance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(3), 313. https://doi.org/10.1037/
apl0000277
IBM Corp. (2015). IBM SPSS statistics for windows, version 25.0. NY: IBM Corporation.
M.T. Mrayyan et al.
Jyoti, J., & Dev, M. (2015). The impact of transformational leadership on employee
creativity: The role of learning orientation. Journal of Asia Business Studies, 9(1),
78–98. https://doi.org/10.1108/JABS-03-2014-0022. No. 1.
Labrague, L. J., Al Sabei, S. D., AbuAlRub, R. F., Burney, I. A., & Al Rawajfah, O. (2021).
Authentic leadership, nurse-assessed adverse patient events and quality of care: The
mediating role of nurses’ safety actions. Journal of Nursing Management, 29(7),
2152–2162. https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.13356
Laguía, A., Moriano, J. A., & Gorgievski, M. J. (2019). A psychosocial study of self-
perceived creativity and entrepreneurial intentions in a sample of university
students. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 31, 44–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tsc.2018.11.004
Lee, A., Legood, A., Hughes, D., Tian, A. W., Newman, A., & Knight, C. (2020).
Leadership, creativity and innovation: A meta-analytic review. European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, 29(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/
1359432X.2019.1661837
Lee, H. F., Chiang, H. Y., & Kuo, H. T. (2019). Relationship between authentic leadership
and nurses’ intent to leave: The mediating role of work environment and burnout.
Journal of Nursing Management, 27(1), 52–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.12648
Lee, J. N. (2001). The impact of knowledge sharing, organizational capability and
partnership quality on IS outsourcing success. Information & Management, 38(5),
323–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7206(00)00074-4
Liao, S.-H., Chen, C.-C., & Hu, D.-C. (2018). The role of knowledge sharing and LMX to
enhance employee creativity in theme park work team: A case study of Taiwan.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 30(5), 2343–2359.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-09-2016-0522
Lim, J. T. Y., Tan, W. S., & Tsai, N. C. Y. (2020). Relationship between fear of failure,
creative process engagement and self-related creativity among Malaysian undergraduates.
Doctoral dissertation: University of Tunku Abdul Rahman (UTAR).
Martinez, M. G. (2015). Solver engagement in knowledge sharing in crowdsourcing
communities: Exploring the link to creativity. Research Policy, 44(8), 1419–1430.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.05.010
Maziero, V. G., Bernardes, A., Righetti, E. A. V., Spiri, W. C., & Gabriel, C. S. (2020).
Positive aspects of authentic leadership in nursing work: Integrative review. Revista
Brasileira de Enfermagem, 73. https://doi.org/10.1590/0034-7167-2019-0118
Mrayyan, M. T., Al-Atiyyat, N., Al-Rawashdeh, S., Algunmeeyn, A., & Abunab, H. Y.
(2022). Authentic leadership and safety climate in nursing: Differences according to
areas of work and types of hospitals. Leadership in Health Services, 35(3), 372–389.
https://doi.org/10.1108/LHS-05-2021-0040
Pellegrini, M. M., Ciampi, F., Marzi, G., & Orlando, B. (2020). The relationship between
knowledge management and leadership: Mapping the field and providing future
research avenues. Journal of Knowledge Management, 24(6), 1445–1492. https://doi.
org/10.1108/JKM-01-2020-0034
Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2019). Nursing research: Generating and assessing evidence for
nursing practice (11th ed.). Lippincott Williams, & Wilkins.
Ramayah, T., Yeap, J. A. L., & Ignatius, J. (2014). Assessing knowledge sharing among
academics: A validation of the knowledge sharing behavior scale (KSBS). Evaluation
Review, 38(2), 160–187. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X14539685
Rego, A., Melo, A. I., Bluhm, D. J., Cunha, M. P., & Reis, D., Jr. (2021). Leader-expressed
humility predicting team psychological safety: A personality dynamics lens. Journal
of Business Ethics, 174, 669–686. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04622-1
Rego, A., Owens, B., Leal, S., Melo, I., Cunha, M. P., Gonçalves, L., & Ribeiro, P. (2017).
How leader humility helps teams to be humbler, psychologically stronger, and more
effective: A moderated mediation model. Leadership Quarterly, 28, 639–658. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.02.002
Rego, A., Sousa, F., Marques, C., & Cunha, M. P. (2014). Hope and positive affect
mediating the authentic leadership and creativity relationship. Journal of Business
Research, 67(2), 200–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.10.003
Rehman, U. U., & Iqbal, A. (2020). Nexus of knowledge-oriented leadership, knowledge
management, innovation and organizational performance in higher education.
172
Journal of Professional Nursing 48 (2023) 163–172
Business Process Management Journal, 26(6), 1731–1758. https://doi.org/10.1108/
BPMJ-07-2019-0274
Semedo, A. S., Coelho, A., & Ribeiro, N. (2018). The relationship between authentic
leaders and employees’ creativity: What are the roles of affective commitment and
job resourcefulness? International Journal of Workplace Health Management, 11(2),
58–73. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJWHM-06-2017-0048
Sengupta, S., Sharma, S., & Singh, A. (2021). Authentic leadership fostering creativity in
start-ups: Mediating role of work engagement and employee task proactivity.
Business Perspectives and Research, 9(2), 235–251. https://doi.org/10.1177/
2278533720964298
Shafique, I., Ahmad, B., & Kalyar, M. N. (2020). How ethical leadership influences
creativity and organizational innovation: Examining the underlying mechanisms.
European Journal of Innovation Management, 23(1), 114–133. https://doi.org/
10.1108/EJIM-12-2018-0269
Shamim, S., Cang, S., & Yu, H. (2019). Impact of knowledge oriented leadership on
knowledge management behaviour through employee work attitudes. The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 30(16), 2387–2417. https://
doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2017.1323772
Sulistiyani, E., & Rahardja, E. (2018). Examining the effect of transformational
leadership, extrinsic reward, and knowledge sharing on creative performance of
Indonesian SMEs. Quality-Access to Success, 19(167).
Tan, C.-S., & Ong, A. W. H. (2019). Psychometric qualities and measurement invariance
of the modified self-rated creativity scale. Journal of Creative Behavior, 53(4),
593–599. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.222
Tepret, N. Y., & Tuna, K. (2015). Effect of management factor on employee job
satisfaction: An application in telecommunication sector. Procedia-Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 195, 673–679. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.06.264
Timalsina, R., Sarala, K. C., Rai, N., & Chhantyal, A. (2018). Predictors of organizational
commitment among university nursing Faculty of Kathmandu Valley, Nepal. BMC
Nursing, 17(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-018-0298-7
Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T. S., & Peterson, S. J. (2008).
Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure.
Journal of Management, 34(1), 89–126. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0149206307308913
Walumbwa, F. O., Mayer, D. M., Wang, P., Wang, H., Workman, K., & Christensen, A. L.
(2011). Linking ethical leadership to employee performance: The roles of
leader–member exchange, self-efficacy, and organizational identification.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115(2), 204–213. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.11.002
Wang, Y., Liu, J., & Zhu, Y. (2018). Humble leadership, psychological safety, knowledge
sharing, and followers’ creativity: A cross-level investigation. Frontiers in Psychology,
9, 1727. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01727
Wong, C., Walsh, E. J., Basacco, K. N., Domingues, M. C. M., & Pye, D. R. (2020).
Authentic leadership and job satisfaction among long-term care nurses. Leadership in
Health Services, 33(3), 247–263. https://doi.org/10.1108/LHS-09-2019-0056
Yaakobi, E., & Weisberg, J. (2020). Organizational citizenship behavior predicts quality,
creativity, and efficiency performance: The roles of occupational and collective
efficacies. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 758. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpsyg.2020.00758
Zeb, A., Abdullah, N. H., Hussain, A., & Safi, A. (2020). Authentic leadership, knowledge
sharing, and employees’ creativity. Management Research Review, 43(6), 669–690.
https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-04-2019-0164
Zhang, W., Sun, S. L., Jiang, Y., & Zhang, W. (2019). Openness to experience and team
creativity: Effects of knowledge sharing and transformational leadership. Creativity
Research Journal, 31(1), 62–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2019.1577649
Zhang, Y., Guo, Y., Zhang, M., Xu, S., Liu, X., & Newman, A. (2022). Antecedents and
outcomes of authentic leadership across culture: A meta-analytic review. Asia Pacific
Journal of Management, 39(4), 1399–1435. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-021-
09762-0