Top-down knowledge hiding and innovative work behavior (IWB): a three-way moderated-mediation analysis of self-efficacy and local/foreign status

Abstract

Purpose This paper aims to examine the consequences for innovative work behavior (IWB) of top-down knowledge hiding – that is, supervisors’ knowledge hiding from supervisees (SKHS). Drawing on social learning theory, the authors test the three-way moderated-mediation model in which the direct effect of SKHS on IWB is first mediated by self-efficacy and then further moderated by supervisor and supervisee nationality (locals versus foreigners). Design/methodology/approach The authors collected multi-sourced data from 446 matched supervisor-supervisee pairs working in a diverse range of organizations operating in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. After initial data screening, confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to test for the factorial validity of the used measures with AMOS. The hypothesized relationships were tested in regression analysis with SPSS. Findings Results showed that SKHS had both direct and mediation effects, via the self-efficacy mediator, on supervisee IWB. The mediation effect was further moderated by supervisor and supervisee nationality (local versus foreigners), which highlighted that the effect was stronger for supervisor–supervisee pairs that were local-local or foreigner-foreigner than for pairs that were local-foreigner or foreigner-local. Originality/value This study contributes to both knowledge hiding and IWB literature and discusses the useful theoretical and practical implications of the findings.

Consequences of Supervisor Knowledge Hiding in Organizations: A Multilevel Mediation Analysis

“…So far, to the best of our knowledge, only two empirical studies (i.e. Arain et al, 2018, 2019) have focused on KHSS and its detrimental consequences on subordinates’ self‐efficacy, supervisor directed trust, innovative work behavior, and supervisor directed organizational citizenship behavior (SOCB). Subsequently, more research on the consequences of KHSS is warranted for at least two reasons.…”

“…First, studies focusing on the consequences of KHSS (i.e. Arain et al, 2018, 2019) have suggested that reducing positive work attitudes and behaviors are the most likely manifestations of subordinates’ response to KHSS. Taking a step further, we suggest that subordinates may respond to KHSS by not only decreasing these positive work attitudes and behaviors but also by increasing their counterproductive behavior, such as SS.…”

Knowledge hiding in a buyer‐supplier relationship: A pilot study

“…Knowledge hiding has gained prominent attention in the past few years. Plenty of recent studies have either tried to identify the consequences as well as the potential antecedents of knowledge hiding either between coworkers or in a top‐down management context (Butt and Ahmad, 2019; Butt, 2019a,b,c; Connelley et al, 2019; Cheng et al, 2008; Samuel et al, 2011; Fang, 2017; Rashed et al 2010; Shih et al, 2012: Arain et al, 2018; Arain et al, 2019). Connelly et al (2012, p. 65) define knowledge hiding as “an intentional attempt by an individual to withhold or conceal knowledge that has been requested by another person.” Extant literature on the potential antecedents of knowledge hiding in a business discipline argues that managers hide knowledge for various reasons.…”

Trust in the Diffusion of Professional Knowledge

“…Specialists usually have knowledge resources, the circulation of which is limited due to its specificity (stickiness, ambiguity), or the attitudes of the intellectual workers themselves. They often believe that knowledge sharing is unnatural (Arain et al, 2019), or that knowledge is the source of individual notions of power in an organization (Butler, 2016). In their case, interpersonal relationships and personal contacts that create the context of trust and reciprocity are the most important (Ensign and Hébert, 2010;Anand et al, 2019).…”

“…Being "deep-smarts" (Sumbal et al, 2020), most knowledge workers consider knowledge as power and may not be willing to share their knowledge entirely (Jayasingam et al, 2016). They adopt attitudes that restrain the flow of knowledge, even deliberately concealing it (Arain et al, 2019), considering their knowledge too valuable (Afshar Jalili and Ghaleh, 2020) for free diffusion. This is especially true with tacit knowledge (Holste and Fields, 2010).…”