sustainability

Article
Examining Structural Relationships between Work
Engagement, Organizational Procedural Justice,
Knowledge Sharing, and Innovative Work Behavior
for Sustainable Organizations
Woocheol Kim 1 and Jiwon Park 2, *
1 School of Liberal Arts and HRD, Korea University of Technology and Education, Cheonan 31253, Korea;
kwccwk97@koreatech.ac.kr
2 Department of Learning and Performance Systems, Pennsylvania State University, University Park,
PA 16802, USA
* Correspondence: jwpark5252@gmail.com; Tel.: +01-814-863-2596

Academic Editor: Barbara Aquilani

Received: 2 October 2016; Accepted: 25 January 2017; Published: 2 February 2017

Abstract: Despite the importance of the human/social dimension of organizational sustainability, this
area of scholastic endeavor has received relatively little attention when compared to the economic
and environmental dimensions of sustainability. On the basis of social exchange theory, this study
posited the important role that employee work engagement is a key component for improving human
performance for organizational sustainability. In order to do so, it suggests the important role that
employee work engagement has on the relationships among various factors in the organization,
including organizational procedural justice, knowledge sharing, and innovative work behaviors.
A total of 400 complete responses from full-time employees in Korean organizations were used for
the purpose of data analysis with structural equation modeling (SEM). The results demonstrated that
organizational procedural justice is positively related with employee work engagement, knowledge
sharing, and innovative work behavior. In addition, work engagement enhances employee knowledge
sharing and innovative work behavior, and knowledge sharing enhances innovative work behavior.
With regard to the mechanisms of these relationships, work engagement and knowledge sharing
acted as significant mediators. Based on the findings, we suggested relevant research implications
and recommendations for future research on sustainable organizations.

Keywords: work engagement; procedural justice; knowledge sharing; innovative work behavior

1. Introduction
Over two decades, the topic of organizational sustainability has continuously and increasingly
received considerable attention from both academia and business because it is relevant to not only
organizational performance (e.g., high profitability and enhanced employee work-related attitude
or behavior including work engagement, knowledge sharing, and innovative work behavior) [1–6]
but it is also crucial to long-term organizational success [1,7,8]. It is empirically supported by the
results of a survey conducted for three consecutive years from 2009 to 2011 with a sample of more
than 2000 managers and executives from over 100 countries. The results revealed that there has been a
dramatic increase (i.e., from 25% in 2009 to 68% in 2011) in managers’ commitment to organizational
sustainability. In addition, the results of the survey in 2011 indicated that 67% of participants viewed
sustainability as a vital issue for organizations’ competitive advantage in today’s market place [9].
Sustainable organizations are thought to have the capability of simultaneously achieving good
economic, environmental, and social (i.e., human) performance in a collective manner called the triple

Sustainability 2017, 9, 205; doi:10.3390/su9020205 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2017, 9, 205 2 of 16

bottom line [8,10]. Economic performance is related to financial performance and good products
or services; environmental performance is related to environmental integrity and protection (e.g.,
protection from resource exploitation and environmental damage); while social performance is related
to the well-being of organizational employees. Thus, if organizations want to achieve and maintain
sustainable development, it is important to consider environmental, economic, and social (i.e., human)
dimensions in a comprehensive and enduring way [1].
However, among the three dimensions of organizational sustainability, the social dimension
(i.e., human dimension) has received relatively less attention when compared to economic and
environmental dimensions of sustainability [1,7,8]. This shows that more attention should be paid
to the human dimension of organizational sustainability. With regard to the human dimension, the
existing literature claims that this dimension is related to the processes of generating social health and
enhancing employee well-being (i.e., employee engagement at work) in organizations, and as such,
employee work engagement could be a key component of the human dimension of organizational
sustainability [1,7,9,11].
Employee work engagement refers to “a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is
characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption” ([12], p. 74). Scholars and practitioners in many
fields—including psychology, business, organization development, human resource development and
management—have paid considerable attention to employee work engagement because organizations
desire engaged employees who are energetic, dedicated, and absorbed in their work. Employee
work engagement makes a positive contribution to the fundamental line of any business and is
echoed in services they provide to customers and clients [6]. Specifically, employee work engagement
leads to enhanced individual and/or group performance. In addition, engaged employees generate
more customer loyalty. Consequently, engaged customers purchase more services and products
from a company and recommend other potential customers to the same company, which ultimately
helps to improve the company’s profitability and therefore lead to a more sustainable organizational
environment [6,13,14].
In addition to the link between employee work engagement and organizational sustainability,
the extant literature indicates that organizational procedural justice, employee knowledge sharing,
and employee innovative work behavior are relevant to organizational sustainability [5,15–17].
Organizational justice consists of three components—procedural justice, distributive justice, and
interactional justice—which positively influence employee’s psychological well-being, lowering
employee stress levels and turnover by establishing a fair work environment [16,18]. Procedural justice
refers to the perceived fairness of the procedures used in decision-making; distributive justice refers to
the perceived fairness of the outcomes that the individual employees receive; and interactional justice,
as an extension of procedural justice, refers to the perceived fairness of interactional communication and
treatment [16,19–22]. Regarding the three components of organizational justice, Karkoulian et al. [16]
empirically found that procedural justice and interactional justice positively influenced organizational
sustainability (i.e., they are strong predictors of organizational sustainability), whereas distributive
justice did not. In addition, with regard to the relationship between procedural justice and interactional
justice, procedural justice focuses on the exchange or relationship between employees and their
organization, while interpersonal justice focuses on the exchange or relationship between employees
and supervisors [20]. Although procedural justice and interactional justice are relevant to organizations,
this study intends to examine the effects of perceived fairness in the general context of the exchange
between employees and their organization rather than the specific context of the exchange between
supervisors and their subordinates. Based on the empirical and conceptual rationale mentioned earlier,
this study focused on organizational procedural justice.
With regard to knowledge sharing and innovative work behavior, knowledge sharing refers to the
process of exchanging task information, expert knowledge, and feedback regarding a procedure
or product in order to create new knowledge or ideas, deal with issues, and achieve common
goals [3,23–25]. Since knowledge is an essential organizational resource offering a competitive
Sustainability 2017, 9, 205 3 of 16

advantage for organizational sustainability [3,24], knowledge sharing is considered to be a fundamental

means through which employees make positive contributions to knowledge application and innovation
among individual employees and teams (e.g., by increasing firm innovation capabilities and reducing
production costs), ultimately leading to the sustainable development of the organization [3,4].
Innovative work behavior is defined as “the intentional creation, introduction and application of
new ideas within a work role, group, or organization, in order to benefit role performance, the group,
or the organization” ([26], p. 288). Janssen also described innovative work behavior as being comprised
of three different behavioral tasks: idea generation, idea promotion, and idea realization [5,26]. Since
innovation tends to rely greatly on employee behavior within organizations and is viewed as critical for
organizational success and survival in this knowledge-based society, it is conceivable that innovative
employee work behavior is pivotal to organizational sustainability [5].
Organizational procedural justice, knowledge sharing, and/or innovative work behavior have
also been examined in association with employee work engagement [24,27,28]. The findings suggest
that the serious efforts of organizations to be fair during the decision-making process (i.e., procedural
justice) may positively influence employee work engagement. Engaged employees are more likely
to have a strong intention to share their work-related knowledge and to put significant effort into
innovative work behavior for their organizations. These behaviors ultimately and positively influence
organizational sustainability.
Although the four research constructs (i.e., work engagement, organizational procedural justice,
knowledge sharing, and innovative work behavior) are relevant to organizational sustainability and
some previous research [27–31] has partially examined the relationships among them, there seems
to be a lack of research that comprehensively and simultaneously investigates the relationships
between them [14]. Therefore, the current study primarily aims to comprehensively examine employee
work engagement and its structural relationships with organizational procedural justice, employee
knowledge sharing, and employee innovative work behavior as they relate to the human dimension of
organizational sustainability.

2. Conceptual Framework and Research Hypotheses Development

2.1. Conceptual Framework

Social exchange theory, as a widely used conceptual framework in organizational research [32],
can be utilized to support the relationships among the four research constructs used in our study. Social
exchange theory is one of the most influential perspectives for understanding employee behavior
in the workplace based on a number of social science disciplines, including management, social
psychology, and anthropology [32,33]. Social exchanges refer to transactions or relationships between
two or more parties (e.g., relationships between employees and their organization) that involve
unspecified future obligations through a reciprocal process of exchanging resources (i.e., reciprocity as
interdependent exchanges) for which some future repayment or return is expected for the positive
contribution made [21,32,33]. Thus, if an organizational actor (i.e., organization, supervisor, or
co-worker) provides positive initiating actions (e.g., fair and transparent organizational procedures),
targets (e.g., individual employees) will tend to choose to reciprocate these initiating actions with
positive responses through a high-quality social exchange relationship [32]. That is, if employees
perceive the organizational procedures used in the decision-making process to be fair, they are more
likely to repay their organization by not only cognitively, emotionally, and physically engaging in
their work (i.e., psychological engagement and behavioral engagement) but by also forming positive
work attitudes and voluntary cooperation toward their organization (i.e., enhancing employee work
engagement, encouraging knowledge sharing among employees either within teams or across teams,
and facilitating innovative work behavior) [20,21,32,34,35].
Sustainability 2017, 9, 205 4 of 16

2.2. The Effects of Organizational Procedural Justice

Research on organizational justice found that employee perceptions about procedural justice are
related to various organizational outcomes (e.g., job satisfaction, trust, organizational commitment,
and organizational citizenship behaviors) [36]. More particularly, the current literature shows that
organizational procedural justice has a strong and positive impact on employee work engagement
both directly and indirectly [22,27,34,37]. As stated earlier, based on the perspective of the social
exchange theory, the feeling of being fairly treated by an organization can make employees more
engaged in their work because fair organizational procedures enhance the level of trust and confidence
they have in the organization, which in turn sees them reciprocate by displaying positive attitudes and
behaviors in their work [22,34]. Similarly, organizational procedural justice also enhances employee
knowledge sharing [3,30,38] because the employee discretionary behaviors, such as sharing skills
and expertise with their co-workers, are intrinsically encouraged due to perceptions of reciprocity
when employee expectations about being fairly treated by the organization are met [30]. In addition,
according to several empirical studies [15,28,39], organizational procedural justice has a significant
and positive direct and indirect effect on innovative work behavior by employees. When individuals
believe that their organizations care and provide fair treatment, their obligation toward performing
their jobs successfully may increase, which, in turn, makes them involved in work-related idea
generation, development, and application. More particularly, a recent study, which examined the effect
of five dimensions of organizational justice (i.e., distributive, procedural, interactional, temporal, and
spatial organizational justice) on employee innovative work behavior, revealed that procedural justice
among five dimensions of organizational justice was the most strongly and positively correlated with
employee innovative behavior [15]. However, despite the importance of procedural justice acting as a
symbolic resource that fosters reciprocative behaviors of employees on the basis of the social exchange
theory [40], there have been only a few studies that thoroughly investigated the effects of procedural
justice on an organization (e.g., [41]). Therefore, this study attempts to investigate the impacts of
procedural justice on employee work attitudes and behaviors, namely work engagement, knowledge
sharing, and employee innovative work behavior. We hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 1. Organizational procedural justice positively influences employee work engagement, knowledge
sharing, and innovative work behavior.

2.3. The Effects of Work Engagement and Knowledge Sharing

With the rapid expansion of interest in the work/employee engagement concept, various
conceptualizations and definitions have been developed over the last few decades (for a review,
see [42]). The most popular and accepted definition of work engagement, developed by
Schaufeli et al. ([12], p. 74), states that employee work engagement refers to “a positive, fulfilling,
work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption”. When
individuals are highly engaged in their work, they typically show high levels of energy and mental
resilience, and voluntarily invest considerable effort (vigor) in the relevant tasks that they carry
out. In addition, engaged employees have a sense of significance, enthusiasm, inspiration, pride,
and challenge (dedication), and are deeply engrossed in their work (absorption). As Shuck and
Wollard [42] pointed out, similar definitions of work engagement, such as personal engagement,
behavior engagement, and trait engagement, exist in the literature, and each presents a unique
perspective and framework. However, for the purpose of this research, the term “work engagement”
is elected and defined according to the terms mentioned earlier. When compared to other similar
terms, work engagement encompasses various aspects of the employee experience of engagement
(e.g., cognitive, emotional, and behavioral levels) [42]. This definition has been widely adopted in a
majority of engagement-related studies [14] and is consistent the measures used by Schaufeli and his
colleagues [12].
Sustainability 2017, 9, 205 5 of 16

A handful of previous studies have demonstrated that employee work engagement has a
significant and positive effect on employee intentions to share knowledge [24,31,43]. As knowledge
sharing itself is a self-motivated and proactive behavior, employees will be more likely to share
work-related ideas and expertise with their co-workers only when they are dedicated to their work and
enthusiastic about it [31]. Studies have also shown that employee work engagement is significantly
and positively related to employee innovative work behavior [28,44,45]. With a great deal of attention
being focused on the work engagement domain, many researchers have agreed that work engagement
is a strong factor affecting organizational performance and success. Moreover, empirical studies have
offered sufficient proof to confirm the effect of work engagement on organizational outcomes, such
as job satisfaction, organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behavior, and intention
to quit [14,46,47]. However, researchers have found that relatively little attention is assigned to the
relationship that may exist between work engagement and knowledge sharing [31].
In addition, research has found that employee’s knowledge sharing has a significant and positive
influence on their innovative work behavior [29,48,49]. Radaelli et al. [29] explained that when
employees share their knowledge, they are more likely to elaborate, integrate, and translate information
rather than simply passing on information to recipients. This exercise promotes employee involvement
in innovative work behavior, including searching for opportunities for change and applying new
ideas to existing organizational practices. Taken together, it is conceivable that employee enhanced
work engagement has a positive impact on their knowledge sharing and innovative behavior and that
employee innovative work behavior is positively influenced by their knowledge sharing. Thus, we
hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 2. Employee work engagement positively influences their knowledge sharing and innovative
work behavior.
Hypothesis 3. Employee knowledge sharing positively influences their innovative work behavior.

2.4. The Mediating Effects of Work Engagement and Knowledge Sharing

A great deal of the extant literature has emphasized the mediating role that work
engagement plays in the relationships between antecedents and consequences in organizational
settings [50,51]. Regarding the mediating effects of work engagement on the relationships
among organizational procedural justice, knowledge sharing, and innovative work behavior, the
existing literature [3,24,28–30,52] indicates that if organizations seriously care about fairness in
the decision-making process, their efforts will facilitate and support employee work engagement.
The support given to employee work engagement, in turn, increases the willingness of employees
to share their work-related knowledge with other organizational members and/or actively suggest
new ideas for their organization and transform the new ideas into applications by obtaining peer or
managerial support (i.e., innovative work behavior).
The theoretical framework which draws on social exchange theory also supports this proposition.
According to the review of social exchange theory on the justice literature and meta-analysis [40],
the voluntary and discretionary behaviors of employees can be encouraged by organizational justice
through various social exchange qualities. In this regard, it was found that social exchange quality,
with characteristics such as trust, leader–member exchange, and perceived organizational support, acts
as a mediating factor between justice and positive behavior outcomes by strengthening the obligation
and reciprocity in the exchange relationships. Although this study did not attempt to test the effects
of work engagement explicitly in Colquitt et al.’s meta-analysis [40], it has the potential to serve as a
mediator in the justice-discretionary behavior relationship because researchers found that mutual and
exchange relationships between employees and the organization (i.e., supervisors/leaders; [28,44,53])
positively influence employees’ work engagement, and hence, it may lead to an increase in positive
employee behavior (i.e., knowledge sharing and innovative work behavior).
Sustainability 2017, 9, 205 6 of 16

Furthermore, based on the perspective of social exchange theory and the findings of previous
studies regarding the mediating role of knowledge sharing in the association between organizational
procedural justice and innovative work behavior, employee perceptions of organizational procedural
justice are positively related to knowledge sharing [3,30,37]. We propose that this positive relationship
can further influence the development of employee innovative work behavior. The proactive behavior
(i.e., sharing task-relevant knowledge) promoted by fair treatment in work procedures may increase
opportunities to engage in innovative work behaviors because employees can be involved in various
exercises that provoke innovative thinking and actions while sharing knowledge (e.g., internalization,
integration, translation, externalization, and socialization) [29,43]. Perceiving the fairness of procedures
in the workplace sparks a willingness to share their knowledge with co-workers, leading to creation,
introduction, and application of new ideas. Therefore, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 4. Employee work engagement plays a mediating role in the relationship between organizational
procedural justice and employee knowledge sharing and innovative work behavior.

Hypothesis 5. Employee knowledge sharing plays a mediating role in the relationship between organizational
procedural justice and employee innovative work behavior.

3. Methods

3.1. Sample and Procedure

The target population analyzed in this study was comprised of full-time employees from
organizations in South Korea. A self-reported survey approach with a Korean version of questionnaires
was utilized in this study. The survey questionnaires were designed by using an online survey domain
and conducted by a professional survey company in Korea with a convenient sampling approach. Since
the survey company has an online panel with over a million members in Korea, a link to the online
survey was distributed to the online panel (i.e., potential participants) in November 2015. Through a
screen item, only full-time employees were allowed to take part in the survey. In addition, participants
who finished the survey, leaving no responses incomplete, were rewarded with participation points.
As a result, 400 complete responses were gathered over three weeks and included in the final data set.
The following demographic information was collected from participants: gender, age, education
level, industry, work position, job area, and length of current company employment. Approximately
81% of respondents were men. Of the total respondents, about 80% were in their 30s or 40s (30–39 years:
35.8%; 40–49 years: 43.8%); approximately 79% of the total sample had graduated from a 4-year college
or higher (4-year college: 60.5%; graduate school: 18.3%). In addition, in regards to industry of
employment, the majority of the respondents (72.1%) worked in four industries: manufacturing
(30.5%), service (18.8%), information technology (11.5%), and construction (11.3%). With regard to
work position, approximately 77% of the total respondents worked either as assistant managers (17.8%)
or as managers (managers: 22.5%; general assistant managers: 13.5%; and general managers: 22.8%).
About 76% of the total sample worked in four job areas: management support (38.8%), R&D (14%),
marketing and sales (13%), and manufacturing (10.5%). Regarding the work year, approximately 62%
of respondents had worked in their current organizations for 10 years or less (less than one year: 7.5%;
1–5 years: 27.8%; and 6–10 years: 26.5%).

3.2. Measurements
Organizational procedural justice was assessed with seven items of formal procedural justice
using a 5-point Likert scale developed by Moorman [54]. A sample item is “My organization uses
procedures designed to collect accurate information necessary for making decisions.” The Cronbach’s
alpha for this measurement varied from 0.90 to 0.98 across several studies [55–57].
Sustainability 2017, 9, 205 7 of 16

Work engagement was assessed with the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale with nine items
(UWES-9) developed by Schaufeli and colleagues [12]. The UWES-9 has three sub-scales, such as vigor,
dedication, and absorption, and each sub-scale consists of three items. All items of the UWES-9 were
presented with a 7-point Likert scale. An example item is “My job inspires me.” The Cronbach’s alpha
for the total UWES-9 varied from 0.85 to 0.92 across 10 different national samples [58].
Knowledge sharing was assessed with a five-item measurement using a 5-point Likert scale
developed by Bock and colleagues [59]. This instrument measures two types of knowledge-sharing
intentions: (1) intention to share explicit knowledge; (2) intention to share tacit knowledge. The
Cronbach’s alpha for this measurement was 0.93 [59]. A sample item of this measure is “My knowledge
sharing with other organizational members is good.”
Innovative work behavior was assessed with a nine-item measurement with a 7-point Likert
scale developed by Janssen [26]. This instrument measures three aspects of innovative work behavior:
(1) generating a new idea; (2) acquiring support from others; and (3) transforming an idea into an
application. The Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was 0.92 [44]. A sample item includes “I am creating
new ideas for difficult issues.”

3.3. Data Analysis

The current study employed structural equation modeling (SEM) with descriptive statistics
such as normality, reliability, and correlation, and a common method bias (CMB) test to ensure
basic assumptions. To assess the overall model fit of the research model, this research examined the
Satorra–Bentler (SB) scaled chi-square for robust maximum likelihood (ML) estimation to handle the
non-normality of data [60], the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), the standardized
root mean square residual (SRMR), the non-normed fit index (NNFI, also known as the Tucker–Lewis
index [TLI]), and the comparative fit index (CFI) with cutoff criteria (RMSEA < 0.08, SRMR < 0.08,
NNFI > 0.95, and CFI > 0.95) [61–64]. In order to check any indications of possible improper
solutions of the model, individual parameter estimates and their estimated standard errors were
also investigated [64]. Furthermore, to test research hypotheses, this study utilized standardized path
coefficients (SPC) with t-values and bootstrap estimates of the mediation effects.

4. Results

4.1. Common Method Bias, Normality, Reliability, and Correlation

Common method bias, normality, reliability, and the correlation matrix were investigated during
a preliminary analysis. First of all, since common method bias may have potentially significant
influences on the research findings, two statistical techniques, including Harman’s single factor test
and the confirmatory factor analysis for the single factor model were utilized to address the issue
of common method bias [65]. The results of Harman’s single-factor test (i.e., about 45.77% of total
variance explained) demonstrated that all of the observed items from the measurements obtained in
this study did not load onto one common and major factor. Also, the results of confirmatory factor
analysis for the single factor model indicated that the single factor model had a poor fit with the data
(χ2 (252) = 4668.812, p < 0.001; RMSEA = 0.210; SRMR = 0.152; NNFI = 0.777; CFI = 0.797), meaning
that no single factor accounted for all of the variance in our data. Both of these results showed that our
collected data was not likely contaminated by the common method bias of the study. Thus, it might be
reasonable to conclude that common method bias is not a major problem in this study.
In addition, the normality (i.e., both univariate and multivariate normality) of the variables was
examined by values of skewness and kurtosis provided from PRELIS in LISREL. Based on the results
of the univariate test (|skewness| < 2, |kurtosis| < 7) [66], as well as multivariate normality (p values
of skewness and kurtosis < 0.05) with the relative multivariate kurtosis (1.310 (< 3)) [67], it can be
concluded that, overall, our data set had a moderate non-normality, which can be dealt with the robust
ML using the SB correction method. In regards to reliability and correlation, both internal consistency,
Sustainability 2017, 9, 205 8 of 16

found using Cronbach’s alpha, and bivariate correlations among latent variables were calculated and
are displayed in Table 1. The results show that all measures in this study had an acceptable level of
reliability (α ranged from 0.882 to 0.959). In addition, given that all bivariate correlations were less
Sustainability 2017, 9, 205 8 of 16
than 0.85 (|r| < 0.85), the Pearson correlations indicated no multicollinearity issue [64].
correlations were less than 0.85 (|r| < 0.85), the Pearson correlations indicated no multicollinearity
issue [64]. Table 1. Descriptive statistics and reliabilities among latent variables.

Variable Mstatistics SD
Table 1. Descriptive 1
α among latent
and reliabilities 2
variables. 3 4
1. Procedural Justice
Variable 2.87 M 0.738 SD 0.924 α 1 1 2 3 4
2. Work Engagement 3.53 1.252 0.946 0.403 1
1. Procedural Justice 2.87 0.738 0.924 1
3. Knowledge Sharing 3.45 0.641 0.882 0.411 0.497 1
2. Work Engagement 3.53 1.252 0.946 0.403 1
4. Innovative Work Behavior 3.66 1.013 0.959 0.464 0.694 0.601 1
3. Knowledge Sharing 3.45 0.641 0.882 0.411 0.497 1
Note. α = Cronbach’s alpha; M = mean; SD = standard deviation. All correlations are significant at the 0.01 level.
4. Innovative Work Behavior 3.66 1.013 0.959 0.464 0.694 0.601 1
Note. α = Cronbach’s alpha; M = mean; SD = standard deviation. All correlations are significant at the 0.01 level.
4.2. Item Parceling of Innovative Work Behavior
4.2. Item Parceling of Innovative Work Behavior
Since the measurement part of our research model in this study included a large number of
variables,Since
a modelthe measurement
of innovative partwork
of ourbehavior
research model in this study to
was investigated included a largeitnumber
reconstruct through of item
variables, a model of innovative work behavior was investigated to reconstruct it through item
parceling. The results of the overall fit displayed in Table 2 indicate that although the SB scaled
parceling. The results of the overall fit displayed in Table 2 indicate that although the SB scaled
chi-square values of the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) models were statistically significant,
chi-square values of the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) models were statistically significant, χ2
χ2 (24)
(24) = 72.568,pp<<0.001,
= 72.568, 0.001, indicating thatthe
indicating that themodels
modelswere
were not
not consistent
consistent withwith
theirtheir covariance
covariance data. data.
OtherOther
overall
overall fit indices such as RMSEA (< 0.08), SRMR (< 0.08), NNFI (> 0.95), and CFI (> 0.95)0.95)
fit indices such as RMSEA (< 0.08), SRMR (< 0.08), NNFI (> 0.95), and CFI (> met met
the cutoff criteria.
the cutoff Therefore,
criteria. Therefore,thethe
measurement
measurement model ofinnovative
model of innovative work
work behavior
behavior waswas found
found to beto be
statistically acceptable.
statistically acceptable.

TableTable 2. Overall
2. Overall fit the
fit of of the confirmatoryfactor
confirmatory factor analysis
analysis (CFA)
(CFA)model
modelofof
innovative work
innovative behavior.
work behavior.

SB Scaled
SB Scaled Chi-Square
Chi-Square (df) (df) RMSEA
RMSEA SRMR
SRMR NNFI
NNFI CFI
CFI
Innovative Work Behavior χ2 (24) = 72.568, p < 0.001 0.0712 0.0257 0.990 0.994
Innovative Work Behavior χ2 (24) = 72.568, p < 0.001 0.0712 0.0257 0.990 0.994
SB: Satorra–Bentler; RMSEA: root mean square error of approximation; SRMR: standardized root mean square
residual; NNFI: non-normed fit index; CFI: comparative fit index.
SB: Satorra–Bentler; RMSEA: root mean square error of approximation; SRMR: standardized root
mean square residual; NNFI: non-normed fit index; CFI: comparative fit index.
In regard to any indications of possible improper solutions of the CFA model of innovative
work behavior,
In regard thetoresults revealed
any indications of that all factor
possible improperloadings and
solutions path
of the coefficients
CFA in the model
model of innovative workwere
behavior,
statistically the results(|t|
significant revealed that
> 1.96, p <all0.05).
factor Inloadings andall
addition, path coefficients
signs in the model
and magnitudes were
of parameter
statistically significant (|t| > 1.96, p < 0.05). In addition, all signs and magnitudes
estimates in the model made sense as there were neither negative error variances nor out-of-range (i.e., of parameter
r < 1)estimates
findings,inwhile the model made sense
the standard as there
errors werewerealso neither negative
reasonable. error
Taken variances
together, nor out-of-range
it can be assumed that
(i.e., r < 1) findings, while the standard errors were also reasonable. Taken together, it can be assumed
there were no indications of possible improper solutions. Thus, this study uses the parceling model of
that there were no indications of possible improper solutions. Thus, this study uses the parceling
innovative work behavior as shown in Figure 1 [68].
model of innovative work behavior as shown in Figure 1 [68].

Figure 1. Measurement model of innovative work behavior with item parceling.

Figure 1. Measurement model of innovative work behavior with item parceling.
Sustainability 2017, 9, 205 9 of 16

Since we utilized the parceling model of innovative work behavior, the normality of the model was
rechecked. The results of the study showed that, overall, our data set had a moderate non-normality
(|skewness| < 2, |kurtosis| < 7, relative multivariate kurtosis = 1.319 (< 3)), which we handled by
utilizing robust ML [66].

4.3. Assessment of Model Fit

The overall fit statistics of the measurement model (i.e., CFA model) and the full model, including
both measurement and structural models, were evaluated in turn. The overall fit indices in Table 3
indicate that the SB scaled chi-square of the measurement model was statistically significant (χ2 (246)
= 819.925, p < 0.001), showing that the exact-fit hypothesis was rejected. Other fit indices, however,
met the cutoff criteria (RMSEA = 0.0765 (< 0.08), SRMR = 0.0448 (< 0.08), NNFI = 0.970 (> 0.95), and
CFI = 0.974 (> 0.95)). In addition, the parameter estimates (sign and magnitude) and their reasonable
standard errors were examined to check possible improper solutions. When it comes to parameter
estimates, all factor loadings in the measurement equations were statistically significant (|t| > 1.96,
p < 0.05). Signs and magnitudes of the parameter estimates in the measurement model made sense
and had neither negative variances nor out-of-range (r < 1). Standard errors in the model were
also reasonable. Taken together, the overall fit and the estimation solution demonstrated that the
measurement model was an adequate fit for the data.

Table 3. Overall fit of the measurement and full models.

SB Scaled Chi-Square (df) RMSEA SRMR NNFI CFI

Measurement Model χ2 (246) = 819.925, p < 0.001 0.0765 0.0448 0.970 0.974
Full Model χ2 (247) = 830.766, p < 0.001 0.0770 0.0560 0.970 0.973

Because the measurement model was acceptable, the overall fit statistics of the full model were
evaluated. According to the results of the overall fit in Table 3, the SB scaled chi-square of the full
model was statistically significant, χ2 (247) = 830.766, p < 0.001, indicating that the exact-fit hypothesis
was rejected. Other absolute and relative fit indices, however, met the cutoff criteria (RMSEA = 0.0770
(< 0.08), SRMR = 0.0560 (< 0.08), NNFI = 0.970 (> 0.95), and CFI = 0.973 (> 0.95)). Regarding any
indications of possible improper solutions, the results of parameter estimates, including signs and
magnitudes and their standard errors, indicated that there was no indication of improper solutions in
the full model. Based on the results of the overall fit and the estimation solution, it can be concluded
that the full model was an adequate fit for the data.

4.4. Hypothesis Testing

Based on the results from the evaluation of the full model fit, all proposed research hypotheses
were tested. SPC estimates were primarily used to measure the magnitudes of the paths among four
of the proposed latent research variables, as displayed in Figure 2. Bootstrap estimates were also
examined to determine the mediating effects of work engagement and knowledge sharing in the
proposed model.
Sustainability 2017, 9, 205 10 of 16
Sustainability 2017, 9, 205 10 of 16

Figure 2. Structural model with standardized estimates.

With regard
With regard to to hypothesis
hypothesis 1, 1, the
the results
results of of the
the structural
structural model
model showed
showed that that the
the positive
positive and and
direct effects of organizational procedural justice on employee work engagement
direct effects of organizational procedural justice on employee work engagement (γ11 = 0.40 (γ = path (γ 11 = 0.40 (γ = path

coefficient between
coefficient between an an exogenous
exogenous variable
variable and and anan endogenous
endogenous variable),
variable), tt == 6.29),
6.29), knowledge
knowledge sharing sharing
(γ21 = 0.25, t = 3.74), and innovative work behavior (β31 = 0.14 (β = path coefficient between endogenous
(γ21 = 0.25, t = 3.74), and innovative work behavior (β31 = 0.14 (β = path coefficient between endogenous
variables), tt =
variables), = 3.31)
3.31) were
were statistically
statistically significant.
significant. Thus,
Thus, hypothesis
hypothesis 11 waswas supported.
supported. For For hypothesis
hypothesis 2, 2,
the results indicated that the positive and direct effects of employee
the results indicated that the positive and direct effects of employee work engagement on their work engagement on their
knowledge sharing
knowledge sharing (β (β21 == 0.40,
0.40, tt == 5.92)
5.92) and innovative work
and innovative work behavior
behavior (β (β31 == 0.49,
0.49, tt = = 8.78) were
8.78) were
21 31
statistically significant. Thus, hypothesis 2 was supported. Regarding hypothesis
statistically significant. Thus, hypothesis 2 was supported. Regarding hypothesis 3, the positive and 3, the positive and
direct effect
direct effect ofof employee
employee knowledge
knowledge sharingsharing on on their
their innovative
innovative workwork behavior
behavior (β (β32 = = 0.30,
0.30, tt == 5.03)
5.03)
32
was statistically significant. Thus, hypothesis 3 was supported. With
was statistically significant. Thus, hypothesis 3 was supported. With regard to hypotheses 4 and regard to hypotheses 4 and 5, 5,
a
abootstrap
bootstrapestimate
estimateapproach
approachwas wasperformed
performedtototest testthe
themediating
mediating effects
effects of of work
work engagement
engagement and and
knowledge sharing.
knowledge sharing.
According to
According to Preacher
Preacher and and Hayes
Hayes [69],[69], the
the bootstrapping
bootstrapping approach
approach is is the
the most
most powerful
powerful test test
method for
method for specific
specific indirect
indirect effects
effects under
under mostmost sample
sample conditions
conditions and and utilizes
utilizes aa non-parametric
non-parametric
re-sampling procedure without a normal distribution assumption
re-sampling procedure without a normal distribution assumption of variables. Furthermore, sinceof variables. Furthermore, since
Preacher and Hayes [69] strongly recommended the bias-corrected
Preacher and Hayes [69] strongly recommended the bias-corrected (BC) bootstrapping procedure, (BC) bootstrapping procedure,
the current
the current study
study tested
tested the
the mediating
mediating effectseffects through
through the the BC
BC bootstrapping
bootstrapping procedure
procedure with with 1000
1000
bootstrap samples. The results of the bootstrap estimates are presented
bootstrap samples. The results of the bootstrap estimates are presented in Table 4. The results in Table 4. The results
demonstrate the
demonstrate statistically significant
the statistically significant mediating
mediating effectseffects of work engagement
of work engagement in the relationship
in the relationship
between organizational procedural justice and the innovative work
between organizational procedural justice and the innovative work behavior of employees (completely behavior of employees
(completely standardized estimate of the mediating effect, ab = 0.196,
standardized estimate of the mediating effect, ab = 0.196, p < 0.01, 99% confidence interval, CI (0.115, p < 0.01, 99% confidence
interval,asCI
0.278)) well (0.115,
as also0.278)) as well as that
the relationship also exists
the relationship that exists between
between organizational procedural organizational
justice and
procedural justice and employee knowledge sharing (ab = 0.159,
employee knowledge sharing (ab = 0.159, p < 0.01, 99% CI (0.082, 0.236)). In addition, the p < 0.01, 99% CI (0.082, 0.236)). In
results
addition, the results of the bootstrap estimate show that the standardized
of the bootstrap estimate show that the standardized mediating effect of knowledge sharing in the mediating effect of
knowledge sharing
relationship betweeninorganizational
the relationship between justice
procedural organizational procedural
and employee justice work
innovative and employee
behavior
innovative work behavior (ab = 0.075, p < 0.01, 99% CI (0.018, 0.133))
(ab = 0.075, p < 0.01, 99% CI (0.018, 0.133)) was statistically significant. Furthermore, the resultswas statistically significant.
reveal
Furthermore, the results reveal that the multi-mediating effects of
that the multi-mediating effects of work engagement and knowledge sharing in the relationshipwork engagement and knowledge
sharing in
between the relationship
organizational between
procedural organizational
justice and the innovative procedural
work justice
behavior and the innovative
of employees work
(ab = 0.048,
behavior of employees (ab = 0.048, p < 0.01, 99% CI (0.014, 0.082)) were statistically
p < 0.01, 99% CI (0.014, 0.082)) were statistically significant. Taken together, hypotheses 4 and 5 were significant. Taken
together, hypotheses
supported. Therefore, 4alland 5 werehypotheses
research supported.proposed
Therefore, all research
in this study were hypotheses
supported proposed
by the data.in this
study were supported by the data.
Sustainability 2017, 9, 205 11 of 16

Table 4. Bootstrap estimates of the mediating effects of work engagement and knowledge sharing.

Product of Coefficients BC 99% CI *

Path: IV → MV → DV ab
SE Z Lower Upper
OPJ → WE → IWB 0.196 0.032 6.194 0.115 0.278
OPJ → WE → KS 0.159 0.030 5.338 0.082 0.236
OPJ → KS → IWB 0.075 0.022 3.378 0.018 0.133
OPJ → WE → KS → IWB 0.048 0.013 3.606 0.014 0.082
Note. IV: independent variable; MV: mediating variable; DV: dependent variable; ab: completely standardized
estimate of the mediating effect; SE: standard error; BC: bias corrected; CI: confidence interval; OPJ: organizational
procedural justice; WE: work engagement; KS: knowledge sharing; IWB: innovative work behavior. * This 99%
confidence interval excludes zero; therefore, the mediating effects are statistically significant at p < 0.01.

5. Discussion
The main purpose of the current study was to examine the structural relationships among four
research variables—organizational procedural justice, work engagement, knowledge sharing, and
innovative work behavior—in a Korean organizational context. Given that the results of this study
supported all proposed research hypotheses, the current research provides implications for researchers
and practitioners.

5.1. Theoretical Implications

Firstly, the current study contributes to the existing literature by empirically investigating and
validating relationships among four research constructs (i.e., organizational procedural justice, work
engagement, knowledge sharing, and innovative work behavior). The results of the study demonstrate
empirically that the direct and positive relationships among four research variables are all statistically
significant. Among the direct relationships, it reveals that organizational procedural justice has a more
powerful effect on employee work engagement when compared to its effect on knowledge sharing and
innovative work behavior and that employee knowledge sharing and innovative work behavior are
more strongly influenced by their work engagement. Furthermore, the results of the mediating effects
among them show that employee work engagement has a strong indirect impact on the relationships
among organizational procedural justice, knowledge sharing, and innovative work behavior. Based
on the research findings, researchers could replicate the proposed research model in other settings
and extend the results of this study by including other antecedent and consequent variables, which
are related to organizational sustainability, in order to better comprehend and generalize the results
of this study. Moreover, considering the significant mediating role of employee work engagement
with support from extant literature [50,70], researchers could focus on investigating roles of employee
work engagement in various settings (e.g., individual/team/organizational level of work engagement,
different level of positions, and crossover of engagement overtime) by employing a quantitative or
qualitative approach.
Secondly, although it is important for organizations to consider the economic, environmental,
and human (social) dimensions of organizational sustainability in balanced and enduring ways, the
existing literature indicates that the human dimension has received relatively less attention [1,7,8].
Given that the human dimension entails the processes of generating social health and improving
employee well-being (i.e., employee engagement at work) within an organizational context, the
current study attempts to investigate employee work engagement as a key component of the human
dimension [1,7,9,11] and its relationship with three organizational variables (i.e., organizational
procedural justice, knowledge sharing, and innovative work behavior), which are assumed to be
relevant both conceptually and empirically to work engagement and the human dimension of
organizational sustainability. The results of the study show that all of the direct and indirect effects that
exist among work engagement, organizational procedural justice, knowledge sharing, and innovative
work behavior are statistically significant. Moreover, the results demonstrate that employee work
Sustainability 2017, 9, 205 12 of 16

engagement plays a central role among the various structural relationships in several ways. Firstly,
organizational procedural justice has a stronger impact on work engagement and secondly, because the
direct and indirect effects of work engagement on knowledge sharing and innovative work behavior
are stronger than those of the other variables examined. It is implied that the proposed research
model is a valid model, and it suggests a meaningful link to the human dimension of organizational
sustainability. However, it should be noted that since the current study claims the link between the
proposed research model and the human dimension of organizational sustainability from a more
conceptual perspective, it might be limited in providing more in-depth implications for organizational
sustainability. Thus, researchers could extend the research model by empirically linking the results
to the human dimension of organizational sustainability based on a robust theoretical framework.
Furthermore, researchers could consider the link between extended or modified research models
and organizational sustainability not only in terms of the human dimension but also in terms of
the economic and environmental dimensions of organizational sustainability, e.g., increased work
engagement (human dimension) positively affects saving and creating organizational core resources
(environmental dimension), which ultimately leads to increased revenues (economic dimension).

5.2. Practical Implications

Firstly, given the positive influence of organizational procedural justice on work engagement,
knowledge sharing, and innovative work behavior, organizations should make significant efforts
to improve and maintain the level of formal procedural justice within organizations by not only
sharing relevant information and providing useful feedback about their decision-making processes in
transparent and fair ways, but also by actively listening to employee opinions and involving employee
groups that encompass various work positions and the job areas involved in the process of making
decisions. In addition, the results of the study reveal that the effects of organizational procedural justice
on employee innovative work behavior and knowledge sharing are stronger when they are mediated
by employee work engagement. It implies that if organizations set up and implement transparent and
fair procedures in decision-making, employees are more likely to repay them not only by being more
engaged in their work but also by facilitating and encouraging knowledge sharing and innovative
work behavior. Thus, it is noteworthy that organizational efforts regarding organizational procedural
justice would be more effective and efficient when aligned with supporting work engagement.
Secondly, organizations should consider on- and off-line environments to facilitate, support, and
share job-related tacit knowledge, as well as explicit knowledge among employees or teams/groups.
It is important to reduce or remove organizational silos, catalyze the sharing of relevant knowledge
or ideas to address work-related issues among engaged employees or teams/groups without any
barriers, and systematically manage any kinds of knowledge created within an organization. For
example, organizations could create a virtual collective intelligence platform where employees share
knowledge, ideas, and opinions related to their projects and management challenges and collectively
explore innovative ideas and problem-solving interventions, which, in turn, could lead to relevant
value creation to organizational sustainability.
Thirdly, organizations need to pay continuous attention to maintaining and strengthening
employee innovative work behavior, which is positively influenced by organizational and individual
efforts (i.e., procedural justice, work engagement, and knowledge sharing). Specifically, Human
Resources (HR) practitioners should consider either creating or modifying HR-related policies (e.g.,
creative culture, incentives for innovative work behavior) to link employee innovative behavior (i.e.,
human performance) to economic performance to create sustainable organizations. For instance,
if employees have innovative and realistic ideas and high degree of enthusiasm for developing
them into real services and products, organizations could consider providing employees with
substantive opportunities so as to improve organizational performance levels (e.g., new patents
and business projects).
Sustainability 2017, 9, 205 13 of 16

6. Conclusions, Limitations, and Future Research

This research has made a significant effort to investigate employee work engagement and its
relationship with organizational procedural justice, knowledge sharing, and innovative work behaviors
in organizations in terms of the human dimension of organizational sustainability. The results of
the study demonstrate that all of the direct and indirect relationships among work engagement,
organizational procedural justice, knowledge sharing, and innovative work behavior are positively
and statistically significant, supporting all proposed hypotheses. However, several limitations should
be noted and considered when conducting future research.
Firstly, since this study used the self-reported survey approach to collect the data, response bias
may exist, even though the CMB test was implemented through the single factor test and the single
factor model. In order to deal with this potential issue and increase the objectivity of the data, using
advanced measurements (e.g., cross-rating approach) or a longitudinal research design (e.g., latent
growth model) with a multi-level or more complex model is recommended.
Secondly, the data were collected from organizations in South Korea through a convenience
sampling approach, which may restrict the generalizability of the study results. Moreover, among the
research sample, about 81% of the total sample were male, and 79% of the participants had a 4-year
college degree or higher, which may limit the generalization of the results. To obtain more precise
results and increase generalizability of the study findings, the stratified sampling (e.g., gender, age,
industry, and/or job area) or the random sampling method is recommended. In addition, as this
research was conducted in organizations within the Asian context, future research could be replicated
to examine the current research model in various settings (e.g., Western or European countries) and
explore any similarities and differences that may exist between the research findings from the current
study and those from other settings.
Last, the current study focused on only the structural relationships that exist among four
latent variables (i.e., organizational procedural justice, work engagement, knowledge sharing, and
innovative work behavior) from the perspective of organizational sustainability. However, given
that organizational sustainability was not directly measured and examined in this study, future
studies should consider measuring the concept of organizational sustainability [16] and investigate its
relationship with the aforementioned four latent variables or other existing constructs that are related to
organizational sustainability (e.g., organizational commitment and organizational support or objective
tangible outcome variables) or the associated moderating variables (e.g., position, organization size,
and gender).

Acknowledgments: This research was supported by Korea University of Technology and Education,
(KoreaTech), Korea.
Author Contributions: Woocheol Kim designed the experiments and collected and analyzed the data; Jiwon Park
and Woocheol Kim wrote the paper.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Florea, L.; Cheung, Y.H.; Herndon, N.C. For all good reasons: Role of values in organizational sustainability.
J. Bus. Ethics 2013, 114, 393–408. [CrossRef]
2. Eccles, R.G.; Ioannou, I.; Serafeim, G. The impact of corporate sustainability on organizational processes and
performance. Manag. Sci. 2014, 60, 2835–2857. [CrossRef]
3. Wang, S.; Noe, R.A. Knowledge sharing: A review and directions for future research. Hum. Resour.
Manag. Rev. 2010, 20, 115–131. [CrossRef]
4. Cabrera, E.F.; Cabrera, A. Fostering knowledge sharing through people management practices. Int. J. Hum.
Resour. Manag. 2005, 16, 720–735. [CrossRef]
5. Thurlings, M.; Evers, A.T.; Vermeulen, M. Toward a Model of Explaining Teachers’ Innovative Behavior:
A Literature Review. Rev. Educ. Res. 2015, 85, 430–471. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2017, 9, 205 14 of 16

6. Aninkan, D.O.; Oyewole, A.A. The influence of individual and organizational factors on employee
engagement. Int. J. Dev. Sustain. 2014, 3, 1381–1392.
7. Kim, W.; Khan, G.F.; Wood, J.; Mahmood, M.T. Employee Engagement for Sustainable Organizations:
Keyword Analysis Using Social Network Analysis and Burst Detection Approach. Sustainability 2016, 8, 631.
[CrossRef]
8. Spreitzer, G.; Porath, C.L.; Gibson, C.B. Toward human sustainability: How to enable more thriving at work.
Organ. Dyn. 2012, 41, 155–162. [CrossRef]
9. Kiron, D.; Kruschwitz, N.; Haanaes, K.; Velken, I.V.S. Sustainability nears a tipping point. MIT Sloan
Manag. Rev. 2012, 53, 69. [CrossRef]
10. Hart, S.L.; Milstein, M.B. Creating sustainable value. Acad. Manag. Exec. 2003, 17, 56–67. [CrossRef]
11. Schaufeli, W.B.; Taris, T.W.; Van Rhenen, W. Workaholism, burnout, and work engagement: Three of a kind
or three different kinds of employee well-being? Appl. Psychol. 2008, 57, 173–203. [CrossRef]
12. Schaufeli, W.B.; Salanova, M.; González-Romá, V.; Bakker, A.B. The measurement of engagement and
burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. J. Happiness Stud. 2002, 3, 71–92. [CrossRef]
13. Kim, W.; Kolb, J.A.; Kim, T. The relationship between work engagement and performance: A review of
empirical literature and a proposed research agenda. Hum. Resour. Dev. Rev. 2012, 12, 248–276. [CrossRef]
14. Bailey, C.; Madden, A.; Alfes, K.; Fletcher, L. The meaning, antecedents and outcomes of employee
engagement: A narrative synthesis. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2015, 19, 31–53. [CrossRef]
15. Akram, T.; Haider, M.J.; Feng, Y.X. The Effects of Organizational Justice on the Innovative Work Behavior of
Employees: An Empirical Study from China. Innovation 2016, 2, 114–126.
16. Karkoulian, S.; Assaker, G.; Hallak, R. An empirical study of 360-degree feedback, organizational justice,
and firm sustainability. J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 1862–1867. [CrossRef]
17. Witherspoon, C.L.; Bergner, J.; Cockrell, C.; Stone, D.N. Antecedents of organizational knowledge sharing:
A meta-analysis and critique. J. Knowl. Manag. 2013, 17, 250–277. [CrossRef]
18. Silva, M.R.; Caetano, A. Organizational justice: What changes, what remains the same? J. Organ.
Change Manag. 2014, 27, 23–40. [CrossRef]
19. Cohen-Charash, Y.; Spector, P.E. The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Organ. Behav. Hum.
Decis. Process. 2001, 86, 278–321. [CrossRef]
20. Cropanzano, R.; Prehar, C.A.; Chen, P.Y. Using social exchange theory to distinguish procedural from
interactional justice. Group Organ. Manag. 2002, 27, 324–351. [CrossRef]
21. Konovsky, M.A. Understanding procedural justice and its impact on business organizations. J. Manag. 2000,
26, 489–511. [CrossRef]
22. He, H.; Zhu, W.; Zheng, X. Procedural justice and employee engagement: Roles of organizational
identification and moral identity centrality. J. Bus. Ethics 2014, 122, 681–695. [CrossRef]
23. Cummings, J.N. Work Groups, Structural Diversity, and Knowledge Sharing in a Global Organization.
Manag. Sci. 2004, 50, 352–364. [CrossRef]
24. Song, J.H.; Kim, W.; Chai, D.S.; Bae, S.H. The impact of an innovative school climate on teachers’ knowledge
creation activities in Korean schools: The mediating role of teachers’ knowledge sharing and work
engagement. KEDI J. Educ. Policy 2014, 11, 179–203.
25. Van den Hooff, B.; De Ridder, J.A. Knowledge sharing in context: The influence of organizational
commitment, communication climate and CMC use on knowledge sharing. J. Knowl. Manag. 2004, 8,
117–130. [CrossRef]
26. Janssen, O. Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness and innovative work behaviour. J. Occup.
Organ. Psychol. 2000, 73, 287–302. [CrossRef]
27. Karatepe, O.M. Procedural justice, work engagement, and job outcomes: Evidence from Nigeria. J. Hosp.
Mark. Manag. 2011, 20, 855–878. [CrossRef]
28. Agarwal, U.A. Linking justice, trust and innovative work behaviour to work engagement. Pers. Rev. 2014,
43, 41–73. [CrossRef]
29. Radaelli, G.; Lettieri, E.; Mura, M.; Spiller, N. Knowledge sharing and innovative work behaviour in
healthcare: A micro-level investigation of direct and indirect effects. Creat. Innov. Manag. 2014, 23, 400–414.
[CrossRef]
30. Schepers, P.; Van den Berg, P.T. Social factors of work-environment creativity. J. Bus. Psychol. 2007, 21,
407–428. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2017, 9, 205 15 of 16

31. Chen, Z.J.; Zhang, X.; Vogel, D. Exploring the Underlying Processes Between Conflict and Knowledge
Sharing: A Work-Engagement Perspective1. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2011, 41, 1005–1033. [CrossRef]
32. Cropanzano, R.; Anthony, E.; Daniels, S.; Hall, A. Social exchange theory: A critical review with theoretical
remedies. Acad. Manag. Ann. 2016, 11, 1–38.
33. Cropanzano, R.; Mitchell, M.S. Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. J. Manag. 2005, 31,
874–900. [CrossRef]
34. Biswas, S.; Varma, A.; Ramaswami, A. Linking distributive and procedural justice to employee engagement
through social exchange: A field study in India. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2013, 24, 1570–1587. [CrossRef]
35. Tyler, T.R.; Blader, S.L. The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative
behavior. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 2003, 7, 349–361. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
36. Colquitt, J.A.; Conlon, D.E.; Wesson, M.J.; Porter, C.O.; Ng, K.Y. Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic
review of 25 years of organizational justice research. J. Appl. Psychol. 2001, 86, 425–445. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
37. Inoue, A.; Kawakami, N.; Ishizaki, M.; Shimazu, A.; Tsuchiya, M.; Tabata, M.; Akiyama, M.; Kitazume, A.;
Kuroda, M. Organizational justice, psychological distress, and work engagement in Japanese workers.
Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 2010, 83, 29–38. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
38. Tsai, C.-Y.; Horng, J.-S.; Liu, C.-H.; Hu, D.-C. Work environment and atmosphere: The role of organizational
support in the creativity performance of tourism and hospitality organizations. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2015, 46,
26–35. [CrossRef]
39. Ramamoorthy, N.; Flood, P.C.; Slattery, T.; Sardessai, R. Determinants of innovative work behaviour:
Development and test of an integrated model. Creat. Innov. Manag. 2005, 14, 142–150. [CrossRef]
40. Colquitt, J.A.; Scott, B.A.; Rodell, J.B.; Long, D.M.; Zapata, C.P.; Conlon, D.E.; Wesson, M.J. Justice at
the millennium, a decade later: A meta-analytic test of social exchange and affect-based perspectives.
J. Appl. Psychol. 2013, 98, 199–236. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
41. Ehrhart, M.G. Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents of unit-level organizational
citizenship behavior. Pers. Psychol. 2004, 57, 61–94. [CrossRef]
42. Shuck, B.; Wollard, K. Employee engagement and HRD: A seminal review of the foundations. Hum. Resour.
Dev. Rev. 2010, 9, 89–110. [CrossRef]
43. Tang, P.M.; Bavik, Y.L.; Chen, Y.-F.; Tjosvold, D. Linking Ethical Leadership to Knowledge Sharing and
Knowledge Hiding: The Mediating Role of Psychological Engagement. Int. Proc. Econ. Dev. Res. 2015, 84,
71–76.
44. Agarwal, U.A.; Datta, S.; Blake-Beard, S.; Bhargava, S. Linking LMX, innovative work behaviour and
turnover intentions: The mediating role of work engagement. Career Dev. Int. 2012, 17, 208–230. [CrossRef]
45. Spiegelaere, S.; Gyes, G.; Hootegem, G. Not All Autonomy is the Same. Different Dimensions of Job
Autonomy and Their Relation to Work Engagement & Innovative Work Behavior. Hum. Factors Ergon. Manuf.
Serv. Ind. 2016, 21, 407–428.
46. Andrew, O.C.; Sofian, S. Individual factors and work outcomes of employee engagement. Procedia-Soc.
Behav. Sci. 2012, 40, 498–508. [CrossRef]
47. Saks, A.M. Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. J. Manag. Psychol. 2006, 21, 600–619.
[CrossRef]
48. Kim, S.-J.; Park, M. Leadership, Knowledge Sharing, and Creativity: The Key Factors in Nurses’ Innovative
Behaviors. J. Nurs. Adm. 2015, 45, 615–621. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
49. Yu, C.; Yu-Fang, T.; Yu-Cheh, C. Knowledge sharing, organizational climate, and innovative behavior:
A cross-level analysis of effects. Soc. Behav. Personal. Int. J. 2013, 41, 143–156. [CrossRef]
50. Kim, W.; Park, C.H.; Song, J.H.; Yoon, S.W. Building a Systematic Model of Employee Engagement: The Implications
to Research in Human Resource Development; 2012 Conference Proceedings of the Academy of Human Resource
Development: St. Paul, MN, USA, 2012; pp. 3916–3949.
51. Kim, W. Creating engaged employees: It’s worth the investment. In Creating Engaged Employees: It’s Worth
the Investment; Rothwell, W.J., Ed.; American Society for Training and Development: Alexandria, VA, USA,
2014; pp. 1–12.
52. Kim, W.C.; Mauborgne, R. Procedural justice, strategic decision making, and the knowledge economy.
Strateg. Manag. J. 1998, 19, 323–338.
53. Hassan, A.; Ahmed, F. Authentic leadership, trust and work engagement. Int. J. Hum. Soc. Sci. 2011, 6,
164–170.
Sustainability 2017, 9, 205 16 of 16

54. Moorman, R.H. Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors: Do
fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? J. Appl. Psychol. 1991, 76, 845. [CrossRef]
55. Kang, I.; Hoon Song, J.; Kim, W. The mediating effect of team-level knowledge creation on organizational
procedural justice and team performance improvement. Perform. Improv. Q. 2012, 25, 43–64. [CrossRef]
56. Moorman, R.H.; Blakely, G.L.; Niehoff, B.P. Does perceived organizational support mediate the relationship
between procedural justice and organizational citizenship behavior? Acad. Manag. J. 1998, 41, 351–357.
[CrossRef]
57. Williams, S.; Pitre, R.; Zainuba, M. Justice and organizational citizenship behavior intentions: Fair rewards
versus fair treatment. J. Soc. Psychol. 2002, 142, 33–44. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
58. Schaufeli, W.B.; Bakker, A.B.; Salanova, M. The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire:
A cross-national study. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 2006, 66, 701–716. [CrossRef]
59. Bock, G.-W.; Zmud, R.W.; Kim, Y.-G.; Lee, J.-N. Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing:
Examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces, and organizational climate. MIS Q.
2005, 29, 87–111.
60. Kline, R.B. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling; Guilford Publications: New York, NY,
USA, 2011.
61. Browne, M.W.; Cudeck, R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociol. Methods Res. 1992, 21, 230–258.
[CrossRef]
62. Hong, S. The criteria for selecting appropriate fit indices in structural equation modeling and their rationales.
Korean J. Clin. Psychol. 2000, 19, 161–177.
63. Hu, L.; Bentler, P.M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria
versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. Multidiscip. J. 1999, 6, 1–55. [CrossRef]
64. Lei, P.-W.; Wu, Q. Introduction to structural equation modeling: Issues and practical considerations.
Educ. Meas. Issues Pract. 2007, 26, 33–43. [CrossRef]
65. Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.-Y.; Podsakoff, N.P. Common method biases in behavioral research:
A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 88, 879–903. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
66. Finney, S.J.; DiStefano, C. Non-normal and categorical data in structural equation modeling. In Structural
Equation Modeling: A Second Course; Hancock, G.R., Muller, R.O., Eds.; Information Age: Greenwich, CT,
USA, 2013; pp. 439–492.
67. Pellegrini, E.K.; Scandura, T.A. Construct equivalence across groups: An unexplored issue in mentoring
research. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 2005, 65, 323–335. [CrossRef]
68. Matsunaga, M. Item parceling in structural equation modeling: A primer. Commun. Methods Meas. 2008, 2,
260–293. [CrossRef]
69. Preacher, K.J.; Hayes, A.F. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects
in multiple mediator models. Behav. Res. Methods 2008, 40, 879–891. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
70. Bakker, A.B.; Demerouti, E. Towards a model of work engagement. Career Dev. Int. 2008, 13, 209–223.
[CrossRef]

© 2017 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).