Does small and medium enterprise differential leadership increase subordinate knowledge hiding? Evidences from job insecurity, territorial consciousness and leadership performance expectation

Abstract

Leadership is considered as a significant antecedent of knowledge hiding in SMEs (small and medium enterprises), but the differential dimension of leadership has been evidently neglected in both theoretical and empirical areas. Drawing on conservation of resource theory and social cognitive theory, this research investigates whether and how SME differential leadership influences subordinate knowledge hiding. Specifically, we analyze the underlying mechanisms of a chain-mediator—job insecurity and territorial consciousness and a boundary condition—leadership performance expectation. Multi-wave and multi-source data were collected from a sample of 704 Chinese SME employees and 140 relevant leaders and applied HLM meso-mediational frameworks, and Bootstrap technique with non-parametric percentile residuals for deviation correction. The results show that differential leadership plays a potential role in promoting subordinate knowledge hiding through the serial intervening mechanism of job Insecurity and territorial consciousness in SMEs. Furthermore, the positive relationship between SME differential leadership and job insecurity becomes stronger among subordinates under higher leadership performance expectation; the positive indirect relationship between SME differential leadership and subordinate knowledge hiding is stronger with higher levels of leadership performance expectation. This study contributes to the existing academic literature by empirically analyzing the under-investigated correlation between differential leadership and subordinate knowledge hiding in SMEs, and by exploring the underlying mechanisms and a boundary condition.

How Job Insecurity Affects Innovative Work Behavior in the Hospitality and Tourism Industry? The Roles of Knowledge Hiding Behavior and Team Anti-Citizenship Behavior

“…The tendency of employees to hide their knowledge increases as a result of the instability of the work environment, and the tendency of organizations to reduce the size of their employment [15]. According to Xu et al [15], Shoss et al [19], and Chhabra and Pandey [59], there is a positive relationship between job insecurity and knowledge-hiding behavior. The study by Jeong et al [60] confirmed the positive relationship between job insecurity and knowledge-hiding behavior.…”

“…The threat of job loss and the ambiguity surrounding employees' roles and future career prospects can contribute to an increase in anti-citizenship behavior within work teams [14]. The effects of job insecurity extend further to influence employees' inclination to hide their knowledge, as they feel threatened by the potential impact on their future careers, the possibility of job loss, and the resulting anxiety and stress stemming from job instability [15]. Some studies investigated the impact of job insecurity (JI) on innovative work behavior (IWB) (e.g., [8,13,16,17]), knowledge-hiding behavior (KHB) (e.g., [15,18,19]), and team anti-citizenship behavior (TAB) (e.g., [9,20]).…”

“…The effects of job insecurity extend further to influence employees' inclination to hide their knowledge, as they feel threatened by the potential impact on their future careers, the possibility of job loss, and the resulting anxiety and stress stemming from job instability [15]. Some studies investigated the impact of job insecurity (JI) on innovative work behavior (IWB) (e.g., [8,13,16,17]), knowledge-hiding behavior (KHB) (e.g., [15,18,19]), and team anti-citizenship behavior (TAB) (e.g., [9,20]). Likewise, some studies assessed the effect of knowledge-hiding behavior and team anti-citizenship behavior on innovative work behavior (e.g., [21][22][23][24][25][26]).…”

Unraveling the effect of differential leadership on employee performance: Evidence from China

“…Most previous papers measuring differential leadership have used leader or team leader self-evaluation approaches, which are prone to covariance bias (Xu et al, 2022). Gathering answers from employees circumvents the covariance problem arising from leader selfevaluation.…”

“Loyalty to organizations” or “loyalty to supervisors”? Research on differential leadership and employee loyalty behavior: A perspective of insiders and outsiders

“…Under the differential pattern, there is a tripartite interaction mechanism in the formation of behavioral loyalty. From the supervisor’s point of view, they will only give partiality and care to employees (insiders) from the employee’s point of view, the supervisor has the power to control important resources in the organization, which is extremely important to employee’s career development ( Xu et al, 2022 ). According to social exchange theory, interpersonal communication is a process of resource exchange, reflecting in material resources and emotional resources.…”