Abusive supervision and knowledge hiding in service organizations: exploring the boundary conditions

Abstract

Purpose Despite burgeoning interest in knowledge hiding (KH), there are still significant gaps in the understanding of the boundary conditions under which KH is more or less likely to occur. To address this research gap, the researchers examined abusive supervision as an interpersonal antecedent of KH. In addition, this paper aims to investigate the moderating roles of negative reciprocity beliefs (NRB) and moral disengagement (MD) in the relationship between abusive supervision and KH. Design/methodology/approach Two-wave data using a non-experimental face-to-face method was collected from 257 service employees in Pakistan, which supported the hypothesized model. Considering minimum sample size requirements (i.e. n = 208) in partial least squares structural equation modeling, the researchers analyzed a two-stage approach to test the measurement model and the structural model. Findings The study found that abusive supervision was positively related to evasive hiding and playing dumb but not associated with rationalized hiding. Further, the results confirm the moderating roles of NRB and MD. The positive relationships between abusive supervision and evasive hiding and playing dumb are intensified at high levels of NRB and MD. Originality/value Given the complicated nature of KH, this is one of the few efforts that outstretch the boundary conditions of KH.

Workplace ostracism and employee silence in service organizations: the moderating role of negative reciprocity beliefs

“…The study's purpose is twofold. First, this study responds to the repeated calls for research on employee silence in non-Western countries (Ayub et al ., 2021a, b; Jahanzeb et al ., 2020; Srivastava et al ., 2019). Most of the previous studies have been conducted in Western countries (Jahanzeb and Fatima, 2018).…”

“…The intensity of this issue elevates in the service organizations because service employees have high workloads (Jung and Yoon, 2019) and must respond to diverse customers’ demands (Jain, 2015). Nevertheless, when exposed to unfavorable work situations, for instance, workplace ostracism, they become behaviorally disengaged from their work by demonstrating silence, which limits their ability to meet diverse customers' demands (Ayub et al ., 2021a, b). Prior studies on the construct render support that employee silence offers the limited capacity to deliver an effective in-role performance of the service employees (Ayub et al ., 2021a, b; Jahanzeb et al.…”

“…It has been established that in non-Western cultural contexts, where power distance is high and people hold collective values (Zhao et al. , 2016), employee silence behavior is more eminent (Ayub et al ., 2021a, b). It is due to the tendency of employees to avoid confrontation with authorities and be loyal to the group norms by withholding independent opinions (Knoll et al.…”

I cannot be creative due to my exploitative leader! A moderated mediation interplay of leader–member exchange quality and knowledge hiding

“…In some instances, the knowledge hider might have an appropriate reason not to share knowledge with other colleagues, i.e. hiding may be guided by an intention of safeguarding the rights or confidentiality of some other colleague or to protect another person's feelings (Ayub et al. , 2021).…”

Consequences of abusive supervision on Indian service sector professionals: a PLS-SEM-based approach

“…AS decreases job commitment (Tepper, 2000), job engagement (Haar et al , 2016; Tepper, 2000), task performance (Harris et al , 2007) and increases the sense of helplessness during role conflict (Martinko et al , 2013; Pradhan and Gupta, 2021; Tepper, 2000). It badly influences the well-being of the subordinates, increases withdrawal tendencies (Schyns and Schilling, 2013) evasive hiding and playing dumb tendencies (Ayub et al , 2021), adversely affecting employee’s organization-directed citizenship behaviour and individual-directed citizenship behaviour (Zeng et al , 2018), thus developing increased turnover intention (Haar et al , 2016; Pradhan and Jena, 2017; Pradhan and Jena, 2018b; Pradhan et al , 2019; Schyns and Schilling, 2013; Tepper, 2000).…”