Why do employees withhold knowledge? The role of competitive climate, envy and narcissism

Abstract

Purpose Based on the self-evaluation maintenance model and social comparison theory, the purpose of this study is to test a novel model to explore the influence of competitive psychological climate on knowledge withholding of employees with the mediating role of envy. This study also investigated when the effect of climate on envy is more pronounced by assessing the role of a narcissistic personality. Design/methodology/approach The authors collected time-lagged data from 376 employees working in UAE national banks to test the model. Findings The findings of this study showed that a competitive psychological climate indirectly affects knowledge withholding behaviour because such a climate enhances the emotional response of employee envy. In a competitive climate, upward social comparisons are likely to be heightened, resulting in employee envy and knowledge withholding because knowledge is used as leverage to gain self-control and self-worth in the organisation. This effect of such a climate on employee envy was found to be stronger when employees have a narcissistic personality. Originality/value The findings offer practical insights to managers and practitioners on the importance of managing the competitive climate cautiously to address the likelihood of knowledge withholding behaviour among employees at work.

The role of leader favoritism, unfairness, and employability in employee psychological withdrawal behavior

“…Examining such mechanisms can also help researchers identify the specific processes through which a relationship operates, which is crucial for developing more robust and comprehensive theoretical models (Lim et al, 2023; Mohd. Shamsudin et al, 2023; Whetten, 1989). Hence, our study contributes to the development of a more nuanced understanding of the relationship between leader favoritism and psychological withdrawal behavior.…”

“…It explains how and why employees will reciprocate negative treatment at the workplace, such as leader favoritism, by withdrawing psychologically at work (Blau, 1964). Examining such mechanisms can also help researchers identify the specific processes through which a relationship operates, which is crucial for developing more robust and comprehensive theoretical models (Lim et al, 2023;Mohd. Shamsudin et al, 2023;Whetten, 1989).…”

Managing knowledge loss: a systematic literature review and future research directions

“…, 2015), forgetting (de Holan and Phillips, 2004), sabotage (He et al. , 2023; Serenko, 2019; Serenko and Choo, 2020; Shamsudin et al. , 2022; Siachou et al.…”

“…, 2015), knowledge sabotage is the intentional failure to share or misdirect key knowledge required by other employees (He et al. , 2023; Serenko, 2019; Serenko and Choo, 2020; Shamsudin et al. , 2022), and knowledge forgetting means discarding old action schemes and mental models affecting existing routines (de Holan and Phillips, 2004).…”

“…K-loss, an umbrella concept, incorporates impacts of knowledge leakage (Bloodgood and Chen, 2022;Frishammar et al, 2015), forgetting (de Holan and Phillips, 2004), sabotage (He et al, 2023;Serenko, 2019;Serenko and Choo, 2020;Shamsudin et al, 2022;Siachou et al, 2021) and workforce attrition (De Holan and Phillips, 2004;Jain, 2023;McQuade et al, 2007;Shafer et al, 2001;Tseole and Ngulube, 2022). Knowledge leakage involves the external release of knowledge meant to remain within organizational boundaries (Bloodgood and Chen, 2022;Frishammar et al, 2015), knowledge sabotage is the intentional failure to share or misdirect key knowledge required by other employees (He et al, 2023;Serenko, 2019;Serenko and Choo, 2020;Shamsudin et al, 2022), and knowledge forgetting means discarding old action schemes and mental models affecting existing routines (de Holan and Phillips, 2004). These organizational K-loss events occur when memory shrinks over time as key employees depart and knowledge-sharing practices erode (De Holan and Phillips, 2004;Jain, 2023;McQuade et al, 2007;Shafer et al, 2001;Tseole and Ngulube, 2022).…”