## 3 Results  
All analyzed variables show adequate reliability (Table 1). The internal consistency of each variable was confirmed using Cronbach's alpha, with all values exceeding the recommended threshold of 0.70, indicating good reliability. The variable with the highest internal consistency was _organizational innovation_ (\(\alpha\) = 0.911), while _job performance_ had the lowest, though still acceptable, value (\(\alpha\) = 0.742). In order to assess the assumption of normality, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was performed on the variables (Table 2). The results indicated that none of the variables followed a normal distribution (\(p\) < 0.05), which justified the use of non-parametric statistical methods in subsequent analyses. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c} \hline \hline  & **Cronbach’s Alpha** \\ \hline Knowledge transfer behavior & 0.899 \\ Organizational innovation & 0.911 \\ Competitive advantage & 0.790 \\ Organizational strategy & 0.815 \\ Organizational performance & 0.839 \\ Job performance & 0.742 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Source: Own elaboration.  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Internal consistency results. To further evaluate the construct validity of the instruments, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted for each of the six variables under study using principal component analysis (Table 3). The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy for all constructs exceeded the acceptable threshold of 0.70, ranging from 0.715 (_job performance_) to 0.900 (_knowledge transfer behavior_), indicating that the data were suitable for factor analysis. [PERSON]'s test of sphericity was statistically significant in all cases (\(p<0.001\)), confirming the presence of sufficient correlations among items within each construct. The exploratory factor analysis supported the internal structure of the scales. According to the [PERSON] criterion (eigenvalues > 1), most constructs exhibited a unidimensional structure, except for _knowledge transfer behavior_ and _job performance_, which revealed two factors each. The total variance explained by the extracted factors ranged from 48.68% for _organizational strategy_ to 78.97% for _organizational innovation_, indicating acceptable levels of explained variance across constructs. The structural equation modeling using the partial least squares (PLS-SEM) method revealed that _knowledge transfer behavior_ significantly and positively influenced _organizational innovation_ (\(\beta=0.440\), t = 5.319, \(p<0.001\)) and _job performance_ (\(\beta=0.432\), t = 4.739, \(p<0.001\)). The relationships with _organizational performance_ (\(\beta=-0.103\), \(p=0.272\)), _organizational strategy_ (\(\beta=0.040\), \(p=0.675\)), and _competitive advantage_ (\(\beta=-0.054\), \(p=0.600\)) were not statistically significant. The model explained 47.7% of the variance in knowledge transfer behavior (R\({}^{2}\) = 0.477, \(p<0.001\)), indicating a moderate explanatory power. Regarding model fit, the SRMR value was 0.074, which is below the recommended threshold of 0.08, suggesting an acceptable global model fit. All constructs demonstrated strong internal consistency reliability with composite reliability (CR) and Cronbach's alpha values exceeding 0.70. Convergent validity was confirmed with average variance extracted (AVE) values above 0.50 for all constructs. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Kolmogorov–Smirnov**} \\ \hline  & **Statistic** & **df** & **Sig.** \\ \hline Knowledge transfer behavior & 0.117 & 168 & \textless{}0.001 \\ Organizational innovation & 0.117 & 168 & \textless{}0.001 \\ Competitive advantage & 0.114 & 168 & \textless{}0.001 \\ Organizational strategy & 0.089 & 168 & 0.002 \\ Organizational performance & 0.126 & 168 & \textless{}0.001 \\ Job performance & 0.135 & 168 & \textless{}0.001 \\ \hline \end{tabular} Source: Own elaboration.  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Normality results.