How perpetrators and targets construe knowledge hiding in organizations

Connelly, Catherine E.; Zweig, David

doi:10.1080/1359432x.2014.931325

Cited by 380 publications

(675 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

633

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We assume that, by contrast, KH has a negative impact on empowerment. Moreover, it is known that reciprocal KH tends to grow among colleagues, so that those who hide knowledge will also increasingly become victims of others' KH, receive less shared information by colleagues (Černe et al, ; Connelly & Zweig, ), and as a result, their empowerment diminishes.…”

Section: Theoretical Background and Hypotheses Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Lack of knowledge sharing can occur simply because there is a lack of knowledge, and therefore, it cannot be shared, whereas hiding knowledge indicates intentional attempts “to withhold or conceal knowledge that has been requested by another person” (Connelly et al, , p. 65) even though it is available to the person being asked. Although KH research is still nascent, important insights show that KH negatively affects individual creativity (Černe et al, ) and trust (Connelly et al, ), impairs perpetrator/victim relationships (Connelly & Zweig, ), and damages team‐level absorptive capacity and creativity (Bogilović et al, ; Fong, Men, Luo, & Jia, ). KH originates from interpersonal conflicts such as workplace ostracism (Zhao, Xia, He, Sheard, & Wan, ), distrust (Connelly et al, ), or individual attitudes such as territoriality or perceived knowledge ownership (e.g., Huo, Cai, Luo, Men, & Jia, ; Peng, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Leader‐signaled knowledge hiding: Effects on employees' job attitudes and empowerment

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary The authors introduce the concept of leader‐signaled knowledge hiding (LSKH) and conduct two studies observing what happens when leaders signal employees that knowledge hiding (KH) is practiced, tolerated, and expected. Social learning theory provides the basis for predicting that LSKH encourages subordinates to hide knowledge, even though they suffer from negative job attitudes in reaction. In Study 1, data measured at two time points (N = 1,162) shows that LSKH positively predicts KH among subordinates. The KH dimensions of evasive hiding and playing dumb (but not rationalized hiding) negatively relate to job satisfaction and positively affect turnover intentions. Study 2 (N = 1,169) replicates these results with cross‐sectional data. Moreover, Study 2 demonstrates that evasive hiding and playing dumb negatively affect empowerment, whereas rationalized hiding has a positive effect. Both studies reveal that subordinates will show less KH when they work under leaders who avoid LSKH and in turn have more job satisfaction, feel more empowered, and harbor fewer turnover intentions. The results in this study provide important practical implications for knowledge management activities.

show abstract

Section: Theoretical Background and Hypotheses Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Leader‐signaled knowledge hiding: Effects on employees' job attitudes and empowerment

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Knowledge hiding refers to employees’ efforts to withhold or conceal knowledge from colleagues rather than share it, even if that knowledge is useful for or needed by them (e.g., Connelly et al, 2012; Connelly and Zweig, 2015). Knowledge hiding is hence the opposite of sharing knowledge with and helping colleagues and forms the antisocial, unethical counterpart of pro-social affiliative OCB as it refers to an active and intentional attempt of employees to hide their knowledge from colleagues.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Angels and Demons: The Effect of Ethical Leadership on Machiavellian Employees’ Work Behaviors

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Machiavellians can be characterized as goal-driven people who are willing to use all possible means to achieve their ends, and employees scoring high on Machiavellianism are thus predisposed to engage in unethical and organizationally undesirable behaviors. We propose that leadership can help to manage such employees in a way that reduces undesirable and increases desirable behaviors. Studies on the effects of leadership styles on Machiavellian employees are scarce. Here we investigate the relationship of ethical leadership with prosocial (helping colleagues or affiliative OCB) and antisocial work behavior (knowledge hiding and emotional manipulation) for employees who are higher or lower in Machiavellianism. The effect of an ethical leadership style on employees predisposed to engage in unethical behaviors has not been investigated so far. In a cross-sectional multi-source survey study among a sample of 159 unique leader–follower dyads, we find interaction effects between leadership and employee Machiavellianism for prosocial and antisocial work behavior. As expected, employee Machiavellianism comes with reduced helping behavior and increased knowledge hiding and emotional manipulation, but only when ethical leadership is low. Under highly ethical leaders, such increases in organizationally undesirable behaviors of Machiavellian employees do not occur. While the cross-sectional design precludes conclusions about the direction of causality, findings of our study suggest to further explore (and from a practical perspective to invest in) ethical leadership as a potential remedy for undesirable behavior of Machiavellian employees.

show abstract

“…In fact, the perpetrator and targets of knowledge hiding will construe knowledge hiding very differently [3]. Once co-worker perceives knowledge hiding, accurately or not, they will back fire at the initial hide r [18].…”

Section: Limitations and Future Directionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Connelly et al (2012), for the first time, proposed and developed the novel construct of knowledge hiding to capture the phenomenon of an individual's intentional behaviour of withholding or concealing knowledge that has been requested by another individual [2]. People can engage in knowledge hiding by three different ways: playing dumb (i.e., the hider pretends to be ignorant of the knowledge), evasive hiding (the hider provides unrelated information, or misleading promise, but does not intend to tell the seeker), rationalized hiding (the hider provides a rational hiding reason, such as confidentiality) [2][3]. Ever since, researchers have realized that knowledge hiding is distinct from knowledge sharing, and argue it may be an alternative to explain why so many knowledge sharing initiatives failed.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does Darker Hide More Knowledge? The Relationship between Machiavellianism and Knowledge Hiding

Pan¹,

Zhou²,

Zhang³

2016

IJSIA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

How perpetrators and targets construe knowledge hiding in organizations

Cited by 380 publications

References 43 publications

Leader‐signaled knowledge hiding: Effects on employees' job attitudes and empowerment

Leader‐signaled knowledge hiding: Effects on employees' job attitudes and empowerment

Angels and Demons: The Effect of Ethical Leadership on Machiavellian Employees’ Work Behaviors

Does Darker Hide More Knowledge? The Relationship between Machiavellianism and Knowledge Hiding

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About