The effects of expert power and referent power on knowledge sharing and knowledge hiding

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this research study is to determine the ways in which employees’ personal power-expert and referent power influences their knowledge sharing and hiding behaviour. There are hardly any studies that have investigated the effects of employee power and expectations regarding the consequences of divulging knowledge. In this study, the authors investigate whether expected gains and losses in employee personal power influence employees’ willingness to participate in knowledge transfer. Design/methodology/approach The authors adopted a two-wave survey design and collected critical data from 288 employees of knowledge-intensive industries identified through online techno-groups, such as Stack Exchange. In the first wave, out of the total, 192 knowledge workers attended the follow-up survey. The authors apply polynomial regression followed by surface response analysis to establish the effects of any discrepancy between the current levels of employees’ personal power and their expected levels if they divulge their unique critical knowledge. Findings The authors find out that employees having relatively strong personal power are more likely to share knowledge, and the expected losses in power are categorically associated with a reduced intention to share knowledge. The authors also observed an increased knowledge hiding with expected losses in power. Surprisingly, the authors find that these established negative outcomes are also specifically associated with the expected gains in personal power. Research limitations/implications The most significant contribution of this study is to establish that power plays an important but complex role in determining the employees’ participation in knowledge transfer activities. The authors specifically conclude that the optimal scenario for knowledge sharing is one in which the employees’ contributions are fairly valued and their reputation is not expected to change because of knowledge sharing. Originality/value To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is one of the first comprehensive studies that link power to both sharing and hiding of knowledge. This study is also unique in terms of its investigation of the effects of any discrepancy between current levels of employees’ personal power and their expected levels if they share or hide their unique critical knowledge. Thus, this research study is a unique contribution in terms of what and why of an untouched area in the entire knowledge management literature with a special focus on knowledge sharing and hiding.

Exploring the Underlying Mechanism Between Perceived Injustice and Knowledge Hiding: An Empirical Investigation

“…14,15 Similarly, KH behavior has also cost up to $47 million in productivity to US organizations in a single calendar year. 16 Past research highlighted many individual and organizational factors that contribute to affect individuals' KH behavior, such as power dynamics, 17 self-serving leadership, 18 job security, 19 trait competitiveness, 20 workplace ostracism, 13 and personality traits. [21][22][23] However, perceived injustice (PIJ) is also one of those critical facets that facilitates KH at workplace.…”

Exploring the underlying mechanism between fear of losing power and knowledge hiding

“…Thus, drawing the on assumptions of approach/inhibition theory of power (AITP) ( Keltner et al, 2003 ), we expect that FOLP may increase employees’ SSB ( Wisse et al, 2019 ) that leads to KH. In line with COR theory, expected loss in power of employees is strongly linked with reduced knowledge sharing as well as increased KH, and these negative practices are executed for more resource (e.g., power) acquisition ( Issac et al, 2022 ).…”

“…The purpose behind KH by individuals is to remain dominant and indispensable within the organization ( Butt, 2021 ). Expected loss in power of employees is strongly linked with reduced knowledge sharing as well as increased KH, and these negative practices are executed for more power acquisition ( Issac et al, 2022 ).…”

“…Past studies highlighted numerous individual factors that facilitate KH behaviors within the organizations, such as job security ( Serenko and Bontis, 2016 ), territoriality ( Huo et al, 2017 ; Singh, 2019 ), ostracism at workplace ( Zhao et al, 2016 ), perceived organizational politics ( Malik et al, 2019 ), and injustice ( Jahanzeb et al, 2020 ). In similar vein, power dynamics also play a significant but complex role in affecting individuals’ participation in KH ( Issac et al, 2022 ). Keltner et al (2003) defined power as “an individual’s relative capacity to modify others’ states by providing or withholding resources or administering punishments”.…”

“…First, to the best of authors’ knowledge, very less pertinent literature is available that specifically views the association between FOLP and KH. Though Issac et al (2022) studied the effects of power dynamics (expert power and reward power) with KH in recent times, its relationship with FOLP is still an unexplored avenue and requires due attention which is believed to be a significant theoretical contribution in this domain. Second, we also expect that employees’ SSB has a catalytic mediating role between FOLP-KH relationship.…”