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

Serenko, Alexander

doi:10.1108/jkm-10-2021-0796

Cited by 11 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 162 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Instead, this fear may lead employees to engage in more extreme counterproductive behaviors, such as knowledge sabotage. In his study of personality disorders and counterproductive knowledge behaviors, Serenko (2023) has reported a similar observation. The results of his study suggest that personality disorders are not significant predictors of knowledge hoarding; instead, they drive employees to engage in behaviors such as knowledge sabotage.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 57%

“You reap what you sow”: unraveling the determinants of knowledge hoarding behavior using a three-wave study

Shukla,

Tyagi,

Mishra

2023

JKM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Based on the conservation of resources theory, this study aims to investigate if the fear of career harm influences employees’ knowledge-hoarding behavior. The study further examines felt violation as the predictor of employees’ fear of career harm. The study also explores leader-member exchange as a boundary factor influencing the effect of felt violation on employees’ fear of career harm. Design/methodology/approach The data were collected in three waves from 402 professionals working in the information technology industry in Bengaluru, popularly known as the Silicon Valley of India. Findings The findings indicate fear of career harm as a critical predictor of employees’ knowledge-hoarding behavior. Moreover, felt violation indirectly impacts knowledge-hoarding behavior by enhancing employees’ fear of career harm. The adverse effect of felt violation was found to be stronger for employees with poor-quality relationships with their leaders. Practical implications The study carries important managerial implications as it uncovers the antecedents of knowledge hoarding. First, the human resource department can devise specific guidelines to ensure that the employees are treated the way they were promised. They can also organize training opportunities and mentoring so that the employees’ performance and growth do not get hampered, even if there is a violation. Moreover, such cases should be addressed in an adequate and expedited manner. More significantly, leaders can compensate for the failure of organizational-level levers by developing quality relationships with their subordinates. Originality/value The study advances the existing literature on knowledge hoarding by establishing a novel antecedent. Furthermore, it identifies how the employee-leader relationship’s quality can mitigate the adverse effect of felt violation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 57%

“You reap what you sow”: unraveling the determinants of knowledge hoarding behavior using a three-wave study

Shukla,

Tyagi,

Mishra

2023

JKM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…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.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Serenko

2023

JKM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this Real Impact Viewpoint Article is to analyze the quiet quitting phenomenon from the human capital management perspective. Design/methodology/approach The methods comprise the analysis of 672 TikTok comments, the use of secondary data and literature review. Findings Quiet quitting is a mindset in which employees deliberately limit work activities to their job description, meet yet not exceed the preestablished expectations, never volunteer for additional tasks and do all this to merely maintain their current employment status while prioritizing their well-being over organizational goals. Employees quiet quit due to poor extrinsic motivation, burnout and grudges against their managers or organizations. Quiet quitting is a double-edged sword: while it helps workers avoid burnout, engaging in this behavior may jeopardize their professional careers. Though the term is new, the ideas behind quiet quitting are not and go back decades. Practical implications Employees engaged in quiet quitting should become more efficient, avoid burnout, prepare for termination or resignation and manage future career difficulties. In response to quiet quitting, human capital managers should invest in knowledge sharing, capture the knowledge of potential quiet quitters, think twice before terminating them, conduct a knowledge audit, focus on high performers, introduce burnout management programs, promote interactional justice between managers and subordinates and fairly compensate for “going above and beyond.” Policymakers should prevent national human capital depletion, promote work-life balance as a national core value, fund employee mental health support and invest in employee efficiency innovation. Originality/value This Real Impact Viewpoint Article analyzes quiet quitting from the human capital management perspective.

show abstract

“…Future studies can also examine the influence of employees’ characteristics, such as gender or personality type, on undesirable knowledge rejection. Serenko and Choo (2020) examined the effects of personality traits on CKB, and Serenko (2023) examined the impact of personality disorders on CKB. Drawing from these studies and the present paper, researchers can conduct empirical investigations on the effects of employees’ characteristics on undesirable knowledge rejection in organizations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Future studies can also examine the influence of employees' characteristics, such as gender or personality type, on undesirable knowledge rejection. Serenko and Choo (2020) examined the effects of personality traits on CKB, and Serenko (2023) Researchers may also examine the effect of high usage of, or exposure to, information technology, the internet and social media on knowledge rejection in organizations.…”

Section: Research Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…CKBs differ in terms of the adverse effects they can have on organizations (Serenko, 2020). Different CKB types negatively impact organizations differently, starting from minimum to critical impact on the organization (Serenko, 2023; Serenko and Bontis, 2016). Similarly, we argue that knowledge rejection may also have a range of impact on the organization – from minor (e.g.…”

Section: Knowledge Rejectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Knowledge rejection: a microfoundation-based framework

Montgomery

Michailova

Husted

2023

JKM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This study aims to adopt the microfoundation perspective to investigate undesirable knowledge rejection by individuals in organizations in the context of counterproductive knowledge behavior (CKB). The paper advances a conceptual framework of the conditions of knowledge rejection by individuals and their respective knowledge rejection behavior types. Design/methodology/approach This study reviews the limited literature on knowledge rejection and outline a set of antecedents leading to rejecting knowledge as well as a set of different types of knowledge rejection behaviors. This study reviews and synthesizes articles on knowledge rejection from a microfoundation perspective. Findings The proposed conceptual framework specifies four particular conditions for knowledge rejection and outlines four respective knowledge rejection behavior types resulting from these conditions. Recipients’ lack of capacity leads to ineptitude, lack of motivation leads to dismissal of knowledge, lack of alignment with the source leads to disruption and doubts about the validity of external knowledge lead to resistance. The authors treat these behaviors as variants of CKB, as they can hinder the productive use of knowledge resources in the organization. Research limitations/implications Further investigation of both knowledge rejection causes and the resulting knowledge rejection behaviors will ensure a more thorough grasp of the relationships between them, both in terms of the inherent nature of these relationships and their dynamics that would likely be context-sensitive. Although this study focuses only on the individual level, future studies can conduct multi-level analyses of undesirable knowledge rejection, including team and organizational levels. Practical implications Practitioners can use the framework to identify, diagnose and manage knowledge rejection more meaningfully, accurately and purposefully in their organizations. This study offers valuable insights for managers facing undesirable knowledge rejection, and provides recommendations on how to address this behavior, improves the constructive use of knowledge resources and the effectiveness of knowledge processes in their organizations. Managers should be aware of undesirable knowledge rejection, its potential cost or concealed cost to their organizations and develop strategies to reduce or prevent it. Originality/value The paper contributes toward understanding the relatively neglected topic of knowledge rejection in the knowledge management field and offers a new way of conceptualizing the phenomenon. It proposes that there are two types of knowledge rejection – undesirable and desirable – and advances a more precise and up-to-date definition of undesirable knowledge rejection. Responding to calls for more research on CKBs, the study examines a hitherto unresearched behavior of knowledge rejection and provides a foundation for further study in this area.

show abstract

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

Cited by 11 publications

References 162 publications

“You reap what you sow”: unraveling the determinants of knowledge hoarding behavior using a three-wave study

“You reap what you sow”: unraveling the determinants of knowledge hoarding behavior using a three-wave study

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

Knowledge rejection: a microfoundation-based framework

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About