Antecedents and consequences of knowledge sabotage in the Turkish telecommunication and retail sectors

Abstract

Purpose This study aims to propose and test a model explicating the antecedents and consequences of knowledge sabotage. Design/methodology/approach Data obtained from 330 employees working in the Turkish retail and telecommunication sectors were analyzed by means of the Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling technique. Findings Co-worker knowledge sabotage is the key factor driving knowledge sabotage behavior of individual employees, followed by co-worker incivility. Interactional justice suppresses individual knowledge sabotage, while supervisor incivility does not affect it. Co-worker knowledge sabotage reduces job satisfaction of other employees, which, in turn, triggers their voluntary turnover intention. Contrary to a popular belief that perpetrators generally benefit from their organizational misbehavior, the findings indicate that knowledge saboteurs suffer from the consequences of their action because they find it mentally difficult to stay in their current organization. Employees understate their own knowledge sabotage engagement and/or overstate that of others. Practical implications Managers should realize that interactional justice is an important mechanism that can thwart knowledge sabotage behavior, promote a civil organizational culture, develop proactive approaches to reduce co-worker incivility and strive towards a zero rate of knowledge sabotage incidents in their organizations. Co-worker incivility and co-worker knowledge sabotage in the workplace are possible inhibitors of intraorganizational knowledge flows and are starting points for job dissatisfaction, which may increase workers’ turnover intention. Originality/value This study is among the first to further our knowledge on the cognitive mechanisms linking interactional justice and uncivil organizational behavior with knowledge sabotage and employee outcomes.

Narcissistic rivalry and admiration and knowledge hiding: mediating roles of emotional exhaustion and interpersonal trust

“…IJP positively moderates the relationship between NA and TR, and the interactive effect between IJP and NA reduces the behavior of HIDE by increasing the level of TR. These findings are both novel and exciting and resemble the previous conclusion that the perception of interactive justice can override self-interest norms toward reciprocal assistance (Van Dijke et al, 2019;Amoako et al, 2021;Serenko and Abubakar, 2022).…”

The human capital management perspective on quiet quitting: recommendations for employees, managers, and national policymakers

“…Researchers are recommended to launch empirical investigations to better understand the underlying causes of quiet quitting. For instance, they may explore the role of personality traits (Matzler et al , 2011), mental problems (Issac et al , 2021; Kmieciak, 2022; Serenko, 2023b), organizational and national culture (Del Giudice, 2012) and management-employee relations (Serenko and Abubakar, 2023), in the context of quiet quitting. Given the novelty and significance of this phenomenon, future research avenues are virtually unlimited.…”

“…Even though the Chinese top court recognized the 996 working hour system as illegal in August 2021 (Huang, 2021), the excessive work culture is still considered acceptable and often even necessary – and this inspired the Tang Ping social movement. Similarly, work-to-rule and malicious compliance/obedience mostly stem from employee-employer disagreement over compensation, and employee sabotage is often driven by interpersonal conflict (Serenko, 2019; Serenko and Abubakar, 2023). Likewise, the roots of employee withdrawal and work disengagement may be traced to workers’ disappointment with the overall direction of their organization as well as burnout.…”

Personality disorders as a predictor of counterproductive knowledge behavior: the application of the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-IV

“…Third, it is argued that personality disorders may lead to knowledge sabotage. Knowledge sabotage is mostly directed at other coworkers rather than an entire organization and is often driven by a need for retaliation (Serenko and Abubakar, 2022). Workplace conflict is an unavoidable part of routine organizational processes.…”

“…Knowledge sabotage represents the most destructive category of counterproductive knowledge behavior (Serenko, 2019; Ferraris and Perotti, 2020; Serenko, 2020; Serenko and Abubakar, 2022). It occurs “when an employee intentionally provides incorrect knowledge to another or conceals knowledge from another while being fully aware that the knowledge in question is needed by and extremely important to the other party” (Serenko and Choo, 2020, p. 2299).…”