Back to Journals » Psychology Research and Behavior Management » Volume 15

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

Authors Iqbal O , Ali Z, Azam A

Received 15 October 2022

Accepted for publication 28 November 2022

Published 15 December 2022 Volume 2022:15 Pages 3683—3697

DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S392249

Checked for plagiarism Yes

Review by Single anonymous peer review

Peer reviewer comments 2

Editor who approved publication: Dr Igor Elman



Omer Iqbal, Zeeshan Ali, Akbar Azam

FAST School of Management, National University of Computer & Emerging Sciences Lahore Campus, Punjab, Pakistan

Correspondence: Omer Iqbal, Email [email protected]

Purpose: Drawing on the assumptions of social exchange and conversation of resource theories, this study aims to empirically explore the underlying mechanism between perceived injustice and knowledge hiding in the organizational context. To explicate the relationship, this study examines the catalytic roles of employees’ self-serving behavior and perceived organizational politics.
Methods: A moderated-mediation model is developed and tested. Data collected from 234 individuals from both manufacturing and service sector firms.
Results: The findings of the study propose that self-serving behavior positively mediates the link between perceived injustice and knowledge hiding. Moreover, the result of two-way interaction between employees’ self-serving behavior and perceived organizational politics further amplifies the indirect relationship between perceived injustice and knowledge hiding.
Conclusion: The findings of this study help to enrich the extant research on knowledge hiding by determining and evaluating the factors that hitherto unspecified and explicate the relationship between perceived injustice and knowledge hiding within the organizational contexts. Moreover, this also highlights the importance of employing both individual and contextual elements together while studying knowledge hiding within the organizations.

Keywords: perceived injustice, knowledge hiding, self-serving behavior, perceived organizational politics, organizational context, moderated mediation

Introduction

In recent times, knowledge hiding (KH) as a phenomenon, has been receiving due attention by scholars of knowledge management.1–3 KH is referred to as “an intentional attempt to withhold or conceal knowledge that has been requested by another person”.4 Considering the significance, KH holds a substantial share in today’s workplace settings.5 For instance, the result of a Western-based survey indicated that 76% of the respondents admitted that they had been involved in KH at workplace.4 Similarly, the report of an Eastern-based survey confirmed that 46% of organizational employees confessed that they intentionally withhold knowledge at work.6 These survey reports propose that KH behavior is prevalent in both Eastern and Western contexts. In competitive circumstances, individuals who are involved in KH behaviors are threatening to both individual and organizational performance,7,8 and thus may be viewed as an element, ie, unethical and antisocial.9 Scholars also realize that KH may have detrimental effects on organizations10,11 either in the form of hindering organizational growth12 or in financial loss.13 For instance, KH among co-workers resulted in a financial loss of at least $31.5 billion a year for the “Fortune 500” companies.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.21–23 However, perceived injustice (PIJ) is also one of those critical facets that facilitates KH at workplace.24,25 PIJ is defined as “an unfavorable workplace experience that is pervasive and significant across cultural settings”.25 Since perceptions about injustice in escalating KH behavior are well established in the literature; hence, it is important to realize why and how such perceptions intensifies KH behaviors. Because beliefs about PIJ may be stressful for organizational employees which might affect their job performance or career prospects.25,26 To address this question, this study examines the potential role of employees’ self-serving behavior (SSB) as an outcome of PIJ that may lead individuals to exhibit KH behavior at the workplace. SSB is a type of behavior that urge individuals to “disregard one’s or group interests and, instead, prioritize their self-interest, for instance, by divesting scarce organizational resources away from collective purposes and toward themselves”.27

According to Blau,28 social exchange theory (SET) seeks to explain the behaviors involved in the transactions and relationship between two or more entities. Any sort of intervention into such reciprocal process of sharing resources between organization and its members may influence employees’ behaviors and attitudes.29 So, the type of treatment given by the organization would be reciprocated and reflected in employees’ behaviors in a similar way.30 Individuals are more concerned about the treatment they receive31 as it plays a crucial role in their actions and moral judgment about others’ behaviors.32,33 Any sort of mistreatment may harm individual resources and exhort their adverse behavioral reactions such as KH.34 Individuals may engage in KH to retaliate or undermine against others around them or to safeguard their personal interests.4 Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that PIJ among individuals stimulates their SSB which in turn elevates KH.

Alongside various organizational elements, studies have confirmed that both situational and individual factors are equally important in predicting employees’ behaviors at the workplace.4,35 To advance in the existing literature, this study further considers perceived organizational politics (POP) as a situational factor, that when interacts with an individual factor (ie, SSB), influences KH behavior. POP “involves an individual’s attribution to behaviors of self-serving intent, and is defined as an individual’s subjective evaluation about the extent to which the work environment is characterized by co-workers and supervisors who demonstrate such self-serving behavior”.36

Ferris, Kacmar37 argued that organizational outcomes are usually affected by the subjective percept of organizational politics, which in turn, influences individuals’ emotional, cognitive, and behavioral reactions. High perception of organizational politics may impel individuals to engage in KH behavior in order to safeguard their personal interests.38 Conversation of resource (COR) theory also suggests that individuals’ behaviors are driven by their desires in avoiding resource losses and protecting existing resources39. For instance, individuals believe that hiding knowledge may facilitate them in gaining political advantage at the workplace as it ultimately turns into a source of power.22 To build the argument and drawing the tenet of COR theory, we propose that organizational employees behave self-servingly and hide knowledge to others, when exposed to a highly political environment.

Recent studies proposed that both personal and situational factors are important40 and should be given due attention as it determines employees’ behaviors about unfair treatment,41 injustice42 and KH.43 Thus, responding to such needs and recent calls in the literature, we contend that PIJ may have a potential in affecting individuals’ intentions to hide knowledge.

Thus, the main aim of this study is to empirically examine the underlying mechanism between PIJ and KH. To explore this relationship, both SSB and POP are included as mediator and moderator, respectively, and investigated to decide whether these factors amplify or attenuate such potentially harmful outcomes, ie, KH. In respect of this the authors claim that this study holds some valuable contributions. First, to the best of authors’ knowledge, no study hitherto examined the relationship between PIJ and KH through these underlying catalysts (ie, SSB and POP) which is believed to be a valuable contribution in the extant research. Second, this study will also highlight the importance of both individual and contextual factors together while studying KH. Third, the study will significantly contribute to curbing KH behaviors in organizational contexts which may help reduce the potential risk of non-financial or financial loss. Therefore, the present study addresses the following questions:

(1) Does the PIJ positively impact employees’ SSB? (2) Does employees’ SSB positively related to KH? (3) Does employees’ SSB mediates the relationship between PIJ and KH? (4) Does POP moderate the SSB-KH relationship? Figure 1 shows the relationships to be analyzed.

Figure 1 Theoretical framework (moderated mediation model).

Review of Literature and Hypotheses Development

The research framework of this study is established using the theoretical lens of both SET28 and COR theory39 to explicate those elements that trigger KH behavior among individuals at workplace.

Knowledge Hiding

Knowledge is defined as “the idea, information, or expertise required by the employees of an organization to complete specific tasks”.4,44–46 In knowledge-intensive organizations, employees are exposed to a complex power/knowledge paradigm that determines their KH behaviors.47 Thus, employers consider KH is as counter-productive48 and deviant behavior.49 Scholar have agreed that KH specifically involves the concealment or withholding knowledge from others.19 Connelly, Zweig, Webster, Trougakos4 described three forms of KH: (1) playing dumb which is referred as the false claims by the individuals against the requested information or knowledge, (2) evasive hiding is all about providing incorrect or wrong information or knowledge to the requestor, and (3) rationalized hiding is the logical explanation for individuals’ reluctance to share knowledge. Since each form of KH holds a negative connotation of individuals’ behavior at workplace, this study considers KH as a unidimensional construct.

Perceived Injustice and Knowledge Hiding

A stream of behavioral studies highlights that organizations’ interactions are embedded in a system of fairness and justice especially when organizations seek to compare costs and rewards in such interactions.50,51 So, justice plays a pivotal role in a healthy relationship performance.52 The perception of a fair justice system enhances commitment, relationship investment and knowledge sharing behavior among organizational employees.53 Conversely, injustice may increase the potential of generating conflicts, deteriorate trust,54 and ultimately spoil relationships among employees.55 Scholars have characterized organizational justice into three dimensions: (1) distributive justice which refers to being fair while giving rewards (most often financial) to employees, (2) procedural justice which involves a fair process and procedure of compensating employees, and (3) interactional justice refers to the informational and interpersonal interactions among employees.56–59 However, any sort of unfair treatment or PIJ may support negative reactions (eg, SSB) and escalate KH among employees. This study considers all dimensions of injustice in a single construct as PIJ. The findings of a study showed that intentions of hiding knowledge among knowledge-intensive groups are predicted by organizational factors such as social exchange, task interdependence, and perception of (in)justice.60 The likelihood of KH in response to PIJ increases because individuals at workplace sought to delineate themselves with attributes that are mismatched to those which determine their organizations.61 Such perceptions of unfair treatment create psychological distances among employees, that as a result, elevate their KH behavior.49,62,63

Mediation by Self-Serving Behavior

SET28 has been considered as one of the crucial paradigms in understanding employees’ behaviors at the workplace.64 SET entails that individuals seek to formulate exchange relationships with their immediate supervisors and organizations which are solely based on their experiences.65–67 Such relationships bring forth reciprocal behaviors at the workplace68 in which individuals behave in the same way as what they get, eg, bad against bad or good against good.69 Studies on organizational (in)justice are broadly focused on individuals’ perceptions about (un)fair treatments and their significant impacts on individuals’ workplace behaviors and attitudes.63,70 Employees’ PIJ may foster deviant behaviors71 and potential opportunism at their workplace.72 Moreover, the perceptions of such mistreatment increases individuals’ SSB which in turn diminishes their voice and prosocial behavior.70 The preceding literature manifests that perceptions of injustice are strong predictors of molding employees’ adverse behaviors (eg, SSB) at the workplace. Therefore, it is reasonable to say that PIJ strongly intensifies employees’ SSB at the workplace which is hypothesized as follows:

Hypothesis 1: Perceived injustice has a significant and positive impact on employees’ self-serving behavior.

Research suggests that employees’ engagement in SSB may have many detrimental outcomes at the workplace.73 These include stealing, cheating, corruption, loafing, and knowledge hiding.18 Considering the tenets of SET, employees’ SSB not only restricts them in generating creative ideas at the workplace but also predicts a reciprocal distrust loop in which they are more prone to hide knowledge.74 If the individuals perceive that their personal interests are at stake or there is any harm to their personal competitiveness, they engage in KH.4 The strategy of KH enables individuals to maximize their personal interest and gaining competitive advantage at the workplace.75 Similarly, individuals make self-interested strategies to misguide their co-workers to get more incentives and personal benefits at the workplace, thus their motivation in engaging KH becomes justified.76 In this study, we are suggesting SSB is one of the contributing factors that urge organizational employees to observe KH behavior. Thus, keeping in view the pertinent literature, following hypothesis is developed:

Hypothesis 2: Employees’ self-serving behavior is positively associated with knowledge hiding.

SET proposes that employees are motivated by their personal interests. Every act of sharing something valuable (eg, knowledge) may prompt a reciprocal behavior which then initiates a mutual process of exchanging rewards.19 Scholars agree that employees’ interaction within the organization represents a two-way reciprocal exchange with others which is embedded with expectations and potential rewards.77,78 However, when individuals have some conflicts with their subordinates, colleagues, managers, or employers, they may perceive that quality of their interactions gets compromised.79 Considering the perspective of interactional injustice, the phenomenon of perceived quality (ie, fairness, dignity, respect, and politeness) talks about the treatment which employees receive from other members of the organization.56 So, if the employee feel that norms of interactions are violated, they may indulge in retaliatory behavior80 such as KH. The COR theory39 also suggests that when organizational employees are threatened in losing their resources (ie, knowledge), the behave self-servingly and seek protection against perceive threats (ie, injustice) by hiding these resources.81,82 Thus, keeping in view the relevant studies, we devise the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3: Employees’ self-serving behavior positively mediates the link between perceived injustice and knowledge hiding.

Moderation by Perceived Organizational Politics

POP viewed as an important situational factor in organizational behavior studies is mostly perceived with negative connotation.63 A politically charged environment possesses uncertainties and ambiguities that impulse individuals to engage in unlawful self-serving tactics for their personal gains.83 In a similar vein, political activities are usually viewed as self-serving actions in which individuals do not bother to consider the welfare of their colleagues or even the organizations.84 In addition, a political work environment having self-centered behaviors and selfish motives impels individuals to protect their self-interests.85 For instance, a few motives of a political behavior include promoting one’s personal interest, fighting for the valuable rewards, and evening the score against the past organizational injustice.80 Individuals also manifest several illegitimate political activities (eg, influencing favoritism-based promotion and pay decisions, building coalitions, and backstabbing) which are planned strategically to protect, benefit or enhance their self-interests, often irrespective of the well-being of the organization.86

In contrast to the assumptions of SET, employees in a “politically charged” work environment might not be motivated to employ reciprocal responses.43 Therefore, they draw themselves out from pro-social behaviors30,64 and get involved in deviant behaviors such as KH.25,62,87 In knowledge-intensive organizations, collaboration among employees requires knowledge sharing.88 Employees confront immense competition because they not only feel the pressure to perform but the urge to outperform others.20,89 Such competitive pressure, when coupled with a “highly political environment” drives employees to hide knowledge in gaining competitive advantage and staying ahead in the race.20 Moreover, they may also hide knowledge from others as a defensive behavior.85 Because a highly political work environment advocate employees to display defensive behavior so they cope up with unfairness, uncertainties and stress at their workplace.90,91 By drawing on the COR theory, it may be argued that employees, when exposed to a stressful situation, usually tend to minimize the loss of their resource (ie, knowledge) by not sharing it with others in order to safeguard their capital.39 Thus, we believe that POP may compliment the reasons of individuals’ engagement in SSB at their workplace.92 Such behaviors usually predict a reciprocal loop of distrust that impels employees to hide knowledge with others74 in order to safeguard their personal interests4 and to remain indispensable in their organizations.93

Therefore, it is fair to propose that in a politically charged work environment, and where self-serving activities are in abundance, employees will prefer to hide knowledge with others. Nevertheless, perceptions of a highly political work environment, when combined with SSB, may intensify their indulgence in KH behavior. So, the logic is hypothesized as follows:

Hypothesis 4: Perceived organizational politics will moderate the relationship between employees’ self-serving behavior and knowledge hiding and the positive relationship will be stronger (weaker) at higher (lower) levels of perceived organizational politics.

If employees perceive their work environment as highly political, they become more conscious to preserve their personal resource by attributing deviant behavior (eg, SSB) in response to the unfair treatment from their supervisor and organization.63 Moreover, perceptions of such environment may also lead employees in engaging KH – a form of counterproductive behavior.19,85 Because when organizational employees experience politics in the environment, the probability of their indulgence in counterproductive/deviant work behaviors turns high.94 So, it is fair to expect that employees’ PIJ propels them to resort to SSB leading them to exhibit KH, especially when they perceive politics at the workplace. Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 5: Perceived organizational politics will positively moderate the indirect relationship of perceived injustice on knowledge hiding via employees’ self-serving behavior. However, this indirect relationship will be stronger (weaker) at higher (lower) level of perceived organizational politics.

Methods

Procedure

In this survey-based study, data were gathered through questionnaires and distributed to the individuals employed in both manufacturing and service sector of Pakistan. The questionnaire was formulated in English language as it is employed as the official language in all organizational sectors.63,95,96 To reduce the bias, entire data were collected in two different waves to maintain an appropriate temporal separation (time lag) between predictor, moderator/mediator, and criterion variables. Because if the lag is short, it cannot diminish the salience of the predicting variable. And if the lag is too high, then it allows factors that may intervene and contaminate between predictor and criterion variables.97 Hence, this present research adopted a lag of six weeks which seemed to meet the criteria as above. Specifically, at first wave (time 1), 263 respondents were asked to fill the questionnaire on PIJ and POP. They were also requested to rate their opinions on questions about social desirability bias.98 At this time, we also noted their demographical information (eg, age, gender, education, and work experience). After six weeks (time 2), these respondents were approached again to share their opinions on questions about SSB and KH. The style of the questionnaire remained unchanged as floated in the first wave. To attain appropriate and fair responses, additional information about confidentiality was also added at the prefatory section of the questionnaire in both waves. After equating the collected responses, a final sample of 234 was found valid and reasonable for analysis in the study with an overall 88.97% response rate.

Sample

The selection of the companies was done using professional and personal links; contacts of one of the authors who also assisted in data collection procedure. For data collection, we targeted both manufacturing and service sector of Pakistan because it contained a broad range of knowledge-intensive firms such as academia, food, packaging, healthcare, telecom, IT, and banks. We approached more than 130 companies, and the final sample was taken from 102 companies. In the final sample of 234, 76 respondents were females and 158 were males with an average age of 34.68 years (SD = 6.27). The average organizational experience was 11.03 years (SD = 5.78). Moreover, the sample contained a diverse range of educational qualifications including secondary school certificates (1.70%), college degree holders (3.84%), university graduates (26.06%), master’s degree holders (44.44%), respondents with post-grad university degree (20.51%), and doctorates (3.41%).

Measures

In this survey-based study, a Likert scale of 5-point ranging from 1 (“Strongly Disagree”) to 5 (“Strongly Agree”) was used to gauge all study variables.

Independent Variable: Perceived Injustice

Niehoff, Moorman99 developed a 20 items scale to measure organizational justice. We used 15 items from this scale to measure perceived justice following Khattak, Zolin, Muhammad.63 Since, this study emphasizes on perceived injustice, so the score of each item was reverse coded as the score of injustice. This justice scale was comprised of three sub-dimensions of justice, ie, distributive (in)justice, procedural (in)justice, and interactional (in)justice. Distributive (in)justice was evaluated using five-item scale measuring the pay levels, fairness, job responsibilities and workload. One of the items of this scale included “My work schedule is fair”. Procedural (in)justice was measured by employing a scale of six-items to assess formal work procedures. One of the items included “Job decisions taken by my manager/boss are taken in an unbiased manner”. Interactional (in)justice was analyzed using four-items scale. The example included “My manager/boss explains very clearly any decision made about my job”. Hence, PIJ was taken and measured as a single construct. The coefficient of Cronbach’s Alpha was 0.91.

Dependent Variable: Knowledge Hiding

KH was gauged on 12-items scale devised by Connelly, Zweig, Webster, Trougakos.4 This scale unfolded with the following statements “I agree to help him/her but never really intend to”. The coefficient of Cronbach’s Alpha was 0.89.

Mediating Variable: Self-Serving Behavior

An eight-items scale devised by Rus, Van Knippenberg, Wisse100 was employed to measure SSB. This scale opened with the following sample item: “I have negotiated a bonus for myself that was substantially higher than the bonus my subordinates received”. The coefficient of Cronbach’s Alpha was 0.82.

Moderating Variable: Perceived Organizational Politics

A scale of 15-items developed by Kacmar, Carlson101 was employed to assess the phenomenon of POP. This scale unfolded with a sample statement: “There has always been an influential group in this department that on one ever crosses.” The coefficient of Cronbach’s Alpha was 0.62.

Control Variables

In this study, gender, age, education, work experience, and social desirability bias are included as control variables because past research suggest that these factors may cause a potential confounding effect on human behaviors.102–104 Therefore, to get a purified effect, control for these variables is essential.

Analysis of Data and Results

Measurement Models

To establish discriminant validity among all study variables, a series of confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) were carried out via using JASP 0.14.1. Given the length of measuring variables, an items-parceling approach is adopted105 to develop indicators for measuring variables and to formulate an appropriate sample size-to-indicator ratio.106,107 In this study, the items of PIJ, KH, and POP were covering three sub-dimensions each, so these measures were parceled into the indicators accordingly. Similarly, a random parceling into three indicators was made as well for SSB. Since, this study employed a unidimensional scale, thus parceling strategy remained appropriate and productive.108 Furthermore, model fitness was analyzed on the bases of fit indices, ie, TLI, CFI, SRMR, and RMSEA. The discriminant validity of study variables emerged by comparing the fit of the constrained models. Considering all the constructs and their sub-dimensions, four possible combinations could be generated for models’ comparison. As shown in Table 1, a four-factors model (perceived injustice, self-serving behavior, perceived organizational politics, and knowledge hiding) yielded a reasonably good fit within the given data, ie, χ2=107.938, df = 48 (p<0.001), TLI = 0.915, CFI = 0.938, SRMR = 0.062, and RMSEA = 0.073. All of these indicators were effectively conforming the criteria as suggested by109 hence, showed enough support for an adequate discriminant validity among all study variables.

Table 1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Moreover, using SPSS 24.0, we also analyzed the standardized factor loadings of the parcels developed for each construct to determine convergent validity. The subsequent resulting values of factor loadings are reported in Table 2 suggesting a good fit against cut-off values of average variance extracted (AVE) proposed by110–113 and composite reliability (CR) as suggested by,114,115 hence the results were evident enough for reasonable convergent validity among each construct.

Table 2 Convergent Validity

Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Matrix

The descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations) and correlation matrix for the variables are reported in Table 3. In the matrix, SSB was positive and significantly correlated to both PIJ and KH. Similarly, the relationship between POP and KH was also significant and positive.

Table 3 Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Matrix

Hypotheses Testing

The four-factors model (Figure 1) represents a moderated mediation model in which the effect of moderation lies at the second stage of the mediation. We conducted a series of regression models via using PROCESS macro v3.5116 in SPSS 24.0 to test the devised hypotheses and estimating the direct, indirect, and conditional indirect effects. Moreover, the effects of mediation, moderation, and moderated-mediated were tested by employing the bootstrapped approach method (with five-thousand samples) and rendering 95% bias-corrected confidence intervals (CIs)117 If the CI is without zero, it stands significant.118 Furthermore, while calculating the conditional indirect effect, both SSB and POP were mean centered118 prior to estimate the interactional effect and to avert multicollinearity.119

Table 4 shows the results of the regression models applied to test the hypotheses. The results suggest that PIJ had a significant and positive impact on employees’ SSB, hence providing support to H1. Results also revealed that employees’ SSB also had a positive relationship with KH, thus supported H2. Likewise, the results of hypothesized mediation revealed that CIs were without zero values (ie, β = 0.12, BootSE = 0.04, CI = 0.04, 0.22), hence lending support to H3 (ie, full mediation of employees’ SSB in the link between PIJ and KH).

Table 4 Regression Results

In support of H4, the results as given in Table 4 indicated that POP positively moderated the relationship between employees’ SSB and KH, because the coefficient of two-way interaction (POP×SSB) had a significant and positive impact on KH (ie, β = 0.47, BootSE = 0.16, p < 0.05), hence H4 is supported. This interaction is also plotted as in Figure 2.

Figure 2 The moderating effect of perceived organizational politics (POP) on the relationship between employees’ self-serving behavior and knowledge hiding.

Table 5 reports the results of conditional indirect effect (ie, PIJ → SSB → KH). It showed that the effect sizes were different at both values of POP. At low value, the effect of was significant and positive (no zero exists between LLCI and ULCI) (ie, β = 0.07, BootSE = 0.04, 95% CI = 0.01, 0.16), and became amplified at high value of POP (ie, β = 0.16, BootSE = 0.06, 95% CI = 0.05, 0.28). Hence, fully supported H5. Moreover, the index value of moderated mediation was adequate to prove a successful moderated mediation at the second stage of mediation path (ie, Index = 0.10, BootSE = 0.05, 95% CI = 0.003, 0.217). The results were significant because CI was without zero value.

Table 5 Conditional Indirect Effect of Perceived Injustice on Knowledge Hiding Through Employees’ Self-Serving Behavior at Three Levels of Perceived Organizational Politics

Discussion

The main aim of this study was to explore the underlying mechanism between PIJ and KH. The results of this study successfully supported the hypothesized moderated-mediation model which evidenced that both employees’ SSB and POP appeared to be the key underlying mechanisms. Moreover, we established that employees’ perception of injustice positively predicted their SSB at the workplace. These findings are aligned with the past research which determined a significant relationship of injustice and counterproductive and deviant workplace behaviors.63,120 Results also revealed that employees’ SSB, stemmed with PIJ, facilitates KH. Because the likelihood of KH is eminent in those individuals who look up to maximize their personal interests.87 We also found a significant and positive relationship between POP and KH. The findings were coherent with previous studies proposing that an environment, which is politically charged, urge organizational employees to exhibit KH.38,85 Furthermore, the findings also unveiled that POP moderates the association between employees’ SSB and KH. Based on the results, we may conclude that a high political work environment escalates the intentions of hiding knowledge among self-serving employees when already experiencing injustice at the workplace.

Theoretical Implications

This study can make several theoretical contributions. Firstly, it enriches the existing literature on KH by identifying its crucial antecedents that are caused by PIJ. Though few studies investigated that employees’ perceptions of unfair treatment might motivate them to hide knowledge,4,49,121 but little empirical studies investigated that how PIJ contribute in exhibiting KH behaviors among employees. Thus, based on the concepts of social exchange28 and COR39 theories, this study helps in filling these gaps by identifying the potential causes of KH in response to PIJ. In organizational contexts, the perceptions of injustice are very much visible and possess many detrimental outcomes. Recent studies determined certain elements that evoke employees’ KH behaviors when they perceive some sort of injustice such as role conflict,5 workplace bullying,122 and abusive supervision40. Secondly, this study fairly revealed the mediating role of employees’ SSB in the PIJ-KH relationship. To the best of authors’ knowledge, no study has yet explored this mediating mechanism linking PIJ and KH. So, to fulfil this essential gap we suggested that employees’ SSB, predicted by PIJ, represents as a crucial impediment which strongly intensifies KH. Thirdly, to get more in-depth insights about the association between employees’ SSB and KH, we examined the moderating impact of POP on SSB-KH relationship. The findings enrich the pertinent literature on KH by exhibiting that a politically charged environment encourages self-serving employees to exhibit KH. The results also proved that two-way interaction between SSB and POP positively affected KH. The findings are in alignment with the study by9 and fairly propose a joint consideration of both individual and situational factors while advancing in the studies related to organizational behavior, psychology and KH.

Practical Implications

This study offers some notable implications for the practitioners. First, any perceptions of injustice may cause a psychological disengagement among employees leading them to hide knowledge. So, there should be a mechanism that could monitor and address the potential elements of injustice as the workplace.123 This could only be done when employers review their policies (compensation, HR, equity, whistleblowing, etc.) and design them in a way that all employees may freely participate to raise their concerns. Such steps may guarantee to boost employees’ sense of ownership about their work and organization.124 Second, the empirical findings revealed that employees’ SSB mediates the PIJ-KH relationship. Therefore, a healthy corporate culture should be adopted to ensure value, transparency, trust, and respect to deal with such behaviors. For example, if employers value fair decisions regarding lay-offs, demotions, etc., they may gain trust of its employees that in turn, elicit their urge to pursue collective interests rather than personal interests.125 Third, POP when rooted with unfairness may sabotage the effort-reward expectancies. So, strategies could be made that may diminish the POP which include: (1) implementing a transparent performance-based reward system, (2) formulating clear guidelines and rules to ensure fairness while allocating the resources, and (3) providing open forums to employees for negotiating and discussing their concerns with top managers fearlessly. Lastly, the employers should review its management practice to curb the prevalence of KH by promoting a culture of collaboration, learning, and cooperation. Moreover, they should emphasize having collective ownership of knowledge,6 promoting norms and building rewards systems against knowledge sharing.18

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

The study carries some limitations. First, the present study tested KH as a single construct, which might be extended by considering its three sub-dimensions (playing dumb, evasive and rationalized hiding)4 for further investigations. Moreover, potential unique predictors may also be explored for each dimension of KH along with specifying the interventions that could effectively evaluate their adverse effects.20 Second, this study identified employees’ SSB as a connector between injustice and KH relationship. However, other individual factors such as psychological contract breach,122 cynicism,126 and power dynamics127 may also be considered while investigating injustice and KH relationship. Third, this study employed POP as a moderating variable that augmented KH behavior in self-serving employees. Variables, such as thriving at work,128 or perceived mastery climate129 may also be added as buffers to exert negative effect on KH. Fourth, this survey-based study gathered data from knowledge intensive firms of Pakistan, which might call the issue of generalizability. So, the findings may not be uniformly applicable in other cultural contexts. To ensure replicability, more studies are to be conducted outside Pakistan considering the moderating roles of individual and cultural differences.130

Conclusion

The findings of this study help to enrich the extant research on the detrimental effects of PIJ within the organizational contexts by exploring the catalytic roles of employees’ SSB and POP on KH. We demonstrated that employees’ SSB positively mediates PIJ-KH relationship. Further, POP also moderates the positive relationship between employees’ SSB and KH. The two-way interaction between SSB and POP further escalates the employees’ intentions to hide knowledge. This study also presents the importance of employing both individual and contextual elements while studying KH within organizations.

Data Sharing Statement

The data that support findings and conclusions of this study will be available from the corresponding author upon a reasonable request.

Statement of Ethics

The present survey-based study involved human participants and conducted adhering to the Declaration of Helsinki guidelines, further reviewed, and approved by the Committee of Professional Ethics FAST School of Management, National University of Computer and Emerging Sciences, Lahore Campus. Moreover, all participants furnished their informed consent after receiving a guarantee of anonymity and data security from the authors.

Funding

The authors declare that they did not receive any sort of grant for this study from any funding institution either in the public, private, commercial, or non-for-profit sectors.

Disclosure

The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

References

1. Koon V-Y. The role of organisational compassion in knowledge hiding and thriving at work. Knowl Manag Res Pract. 2022;20:1–16.

2. Gagné M, Tian AW, Soo C, Zhang B, Ho KSB, Hosszu K. Different motivations for knowledge sharing and hiding: the role of motivating work design. J Organ Behav. 2019;40(7):783–799. doi:10.1002/job.2364

3. Fong PS, Men C, Luo J, Jia R. Knowledge hiding and team creativity: the contingent role of task interdependence. Manag Decision. 2018;56(2):329–343. doi:10.1108/MD-11-2016-0778

4. Connelly CE, Zweig D, Webster J, Trougakos JP. Knowledge hiding in organizations. J Organ Behav. 2012;33(1):64–88. doi:10.1002/job.737

5. Semerci AB. Examination of knowledge hiding with conflict, competition and personal values. Int J Conflict Manag. 2019;30(1):111–131.

6. Peng H. Why and when do people hide knowledge? J Knowl Manag. 2013;17(3):398–415. doi:10.1108/JKM-12-2012-0380

7. Černe M, Hernaus T, Dysvik A, Škerlavaj M. The role of multilevel synergistic interplay among team mastery climate, knowledge hiding, and job characteristics in stimulating innovative work behavior. Hum Resour Manag J. 2017;27(2):281–299. doi:10.1111/1748-8583.12132

8. Wang Y, Han MS, Xiang D, Hampson DP. The double-edged effects of perceived knowledge hiding: empirical evidence from the sales context. J Knowl Manag. 2018;23(2):279–296.

9. Arain GA, Bhatti ZA, Ashraf N, Fang Y-H. Top-down knowledge hiding in organizations: an empirical study of the consequences of supervisor knowledge hiding among local and foreign workers in the Middle East. J Bus Ethics. 2020;164(3):611–625. doi:10.1007/s10551-018-4056-2

10. Oliveira M, Curado C, de Garcia PS. Knowledge hiding and knowledge hoarding: a systematic literature review. Knowl Process Manag. 2021;28(3):277–294. doi:10.1002/kpm.1671

11. Škerlavaj M, Connelly CE, Cerne M, Dysvik A. Tell me if you can: time pressure, prosocial motivation, perspective taking, and knowledge hiding. J Knowl Manag. 2018;22(7):1489–1509. doi:10.1108/JKM-05-2017-0179

12. Nguyen T-M, Malik A, Budhwar P. Knowledge hiding in organizational crisis: the moderating role of leadership. J Bus Res. 2022;139:161–172. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.09.026

13. Zhao H, Xia Q, He P, Sheard G, Wan P. Workplace ostracism and knowledge hiding in service organizations. Int J Hospital Manag. 2016;59:84–94. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2016.09.009

14. Babcock P. Shedding light on knowledge management. HR Magazine. 2004;49(5):46–51.

15. Pan W, Zhang Q, Teo TS, Lim VK. The dark triad and knowledge hiding. Int J Inf Manage. 2018;42:36–48. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.05.008

16. Panopto. Panopto workplace knowledge and productivity report; 2018.

17. Issac AC, Bednall TC, Baral R, Magliocca P, Dhir A. The effects of expert power and referent power on knowledge sharing and knowledge hiding. J Knowl Manag. 2022. doi:10.1108/JKM-10-2021-0750

18. Peng J, Wang Z, Chen X. Does self-serving leadership hinder team creativity? A moderated dual-path model. J Bus Ethics. 2019;159(2):419–433. doi:10.1007/s10551-018-3799-0

19. Serenko A, Bontis N. Understanding counterproductive knowledge behavior: antecedents and consequences of intra-organizational knowledge hiding. J Knowl Manag. 2016;20(6):1199–1224. doi:10.1108/JKM-05-2016-0203

20. Hernaus T, Cerne M, Connelly C, Vokic NP, Škerlavaj M. Evasive knowledge hiding in academia: when competitive individuals are asked to collaborate. J Knowl Manag. 2018;23(4):597–618.

21. Anand P, Jain KK. Big five personality types & knowledge hiding behaviour: a theoretical framework. Arch Bus Res. 2014;2(5):47–56. doi:10.14738/abr.25.355

22. Webster J, Brown G, Zweig D, Connelly CE, Brodt S, Sitkin S. Beyond knowledge sharing: withholding knowledge at work. In: Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management. Emerald Group Publishing Limited; 2008.

23. Demirkasimoglu N. Knowledge hiding in academia: is personality a key factor? Int J Higher Educ. 2016;5(1):128–140.

24. Barclay LJ, Saldanha MF. Facilitating forgiveness in organizational contexts: exploring the injustice gap, emotions, and expressive writing interventions. J Bus Ethics. 2016;137(4):699–720. doi:10.1007/s10551-015-2750-x

25. Jahanzeb S, De Clercq D, Fatima T. Organizational injustice and knowledge hiding: the roles of organizational dis-identification and benevolence. Manag Decision. 2020;59(2):446–462. doi:10.1108/MD-05-2019-0581

26. Dahling JJ. Exhausted, mistreated, or indifferent? Explaining deviance from emotional display rules at work. Eur J Work Organ Psychol. 2017;26(2):171–182. doi:10.1080/1359432X.2016.1229307

27. Rus D, van Knippenberg D, Wisse B. Leader power and self-serving behavior: the moderating role of accountability. Leadersh Q. 2012;23(1):13–26. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.11.002

28. Blau P. Power and Exchange in Social Life. New York: J Wiley & Sons; 1964.

29. Abubakar AM, Behravesh E, Rezapouraghdam H, Yildiz SB. Applying artificial intelligence technique to predict knowledge hiding behavior. Int J Inf Manage. 2019;49:45–57. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.02.006

30. Cropanzano R, Anthony EL, Daniels SR, Hall AV. Social exchange theory: a critical review with theoretical remedies. Acad Manag Ann. 2017;11(1):479–516. doi:10.5465/annals.2015.0099

31. Adams JS. Inequity in social exchange. In: Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Vol. 2. Elsevier; 1965:267–299.

32. Camps J, Decoster S, Stouten J. My share is fair, so i don’t care. J Person Psychol. 2012;11(1):49–59. doi:10.1027/1866-5888/a000058

33. Gino F, Moore DA, Bazerman MH. No Harm, No Foul: The Outcome Bias in Ethical Judgments. Citeseer; 2008.

34. Qin Y, Xie Y, Cooke FL. Unethical leadership and employee knowledge-hiding behavior in the Chinese context: A moderated dual-pathway model. Asian Bus Manag. 2021:1–25. doi:10.1057/s41291-021-00154-2

35. Hershcovis MS, Turner N, Barling J, et al. Predicting workplace aggression: a meta-analysis. J Appl Psycho. 2007;92(1):228. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.228

36. Ferris GR, Harrell-Cook G, Dulebohn JH. Organizational politics: the nature of the relationship between politics perceptions and political behavior. In: Research in the Sociology of Organizations. Emerald Group Publishing Limited; 2000.

37. Ferris GR, Kacmar KM. Perceptions of organizational politics. J Manage. 1992;18(1):93–116. doi:10.1177/014920639201800107

38. Cui Y, Park H-H, Paik Y. Individual and organizational antecedents of knowledge hiding behavior. Korean J Bus Administr. 2016;29(8):1215–1239.

39. Hobfoll SE. Conservation of resources: a new attempt at conceptualizing stress. Am Psychologist. 1989;44(3):513. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513

40. Ma Z, Song L, Huang J. How peer abusive supervision affects sales employees’ customer knowledge hiding: the roles of rivalry and schadenfreude. Psychol Res Behav Manag. 2022;15:1067. doi:10.2147/PRBM.S359360

41. De Clercq D, Kundi YM, Sardar S, Shahid S. Perceived organizational injustice and counterproductive work behaviours: mediated by organizational identification, moderated by discretionary human resource practices. Person Rev. 2021;50(7/8):1545–1565. doi:10.1108/PR-06-2020-0469

42. Peng H, Bell C, Li Y. How and when intragroup relationship conflict leads to knowledge hiding: the roles of envy and trait competitiveness. Int J Conflict Manag. 2020. doi:10.1108/IJCMA-03-2020-0041

43. Modem R, Lakshminarayanan S, Pattusamy M, Prabhu N. Is knowledge hiding in higher education a political phenomenon? An explanatory sequential approach to explore non-linear and three-way interaction effects. J Knowl Manag. 2022. doi:10.1108/JKM-10-2021-0748

44. Alavi M, Leidner DE. Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarter. 2001;25(1):107–136.

45. Bartol KM, Srivastava A. Encouraging knowledge sharing: the role of organizational reward systems. J Leader Organ Stud. 2002;9(1):64–76. doi:10.1177/107179190200900105

46. Rasheed K, Mukhtar U, Anwar S, Hayat N. Workplace knowledge hiding among front line employees: moderation of felt obligation. VINE J Informat Knowl Manag Syst. 2020. doi:10.1108/VJIKMS-04-2020-0073

47. Heizmann H, Olsson MR. Power matters: the importance of Foucault’s power/knowledge as a conceptual lens in KM research and practice. J Knowl Manag. 2015;19(4):756–769. doi:10.1108/JKM-12-2014-0511

48. Xiao M, Cooke FL. Why and when knowledge hiding in the workplace is harmful: a review of the literature and directions for future research in the Chinese context. Asia Pacific J Human Res. 2019;57(4):470–502. doi:10.1111/1744-7941.12198

49. Singh SK. Territoriality, task performance, and workplace deviance: empirical evidence on role of knowledge hiding. J Bus Res. 2019;97:10–19. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.12.034

50. Brown JR, Cobb AT, Lusch RF. The roles played by interorganizational contracts and justice in marketing channel relationships. J Bus Res. 2006;59(2):166–175. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2005.04.004

51. Luo Y, Liu Y, Yang Q, Maksimov V, Hou J. Improving performance and reducing cost in buyer–supplier relationships: the role of justice in curtailing opportunism. J Bus Res. 2015;68(3):607–615. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.08.011

52. Bouazzaoui M, Wu H-J, Roehrich JK, Squire B, Roath AS. Justice in inter-organizational relationships: a literature review and future research agenda. Industr Market Manag. 2020;87:128–137. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.02.003

53. Liu Y, Huang Y, Luo Y, Zhao Y. How does justice matter in achieving buyer–supplier relationship performance? J Operat Manag. 2012;30(5):355–367. doi:10.1016/j.jom.2012.03.003

54. Narasimhan R, Narayanan S, Srinivasan R. An investigation of justice in supply chain relationships and their performance impact. J Operat Manag. 2013;31(5):236–247. doi:10.1016/j.jom.2013.05.001

55. Yang D, Sivadas E, Kang B, Oh S. Dissolution intention in channel relationships: an examination of contributing factors. Industr Market Manag. 2012;41(7):1106–1113. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2012.04.010

56. Bies RJ. Interactional justice: looking backward, looking forward. In: The Oxford Handbook of Justice in the Workplace. Oxford University Press; 2015:89.

57. Greenberg J. Organizational justice: yesterday, today, and tomorrow. J Manage. 1990;16(2):399–432. doi:10.1177/014920639001600208

58. Thibaut JW, Walker L. Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis. L. Erlbaum Associates; 1975.

59. Konovsky MA. Understanding procedural justice and its impact on business organizations. J Manage. 2000;26(3):489–511. doi:10.1177/014920630002600306

60. Tsay C-H-H, Lin T-C, Yoon J, Huang C-C. Knowledge withholding intentions in teams: the roles of normative conformity, affective bonding, rational choice and social cognition. Decis Support Syst. 2014;67:53–65. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2014.08.003

61. Zagenczyk TJ, Cruz KS, Woodard AM, et al. The moderating effect of Machiavellianism on the psychological contract breach–organizational identification/disidentification relationships. J Bus Psychol. 2013;28(3):287–299. doi:10.1007/s10869-012-9278-1

62. Zhao H, Liu W, Li J, Yu X. Leader–member exchange, organizational identification, and knowledge hiding: the moderating role of relative leader–member exchange. J Organ Behav. 2019;40(7):834–848. doi:10.1002/job.2359

63. Khattak MN, Zolin R, Muhammad N. The combined effect of perceived organizational injustice and perceived politics on deviant behaviors. Int J Conflict Manag. 2020. doi:10.1108/IJCMA-12-2019-0220

64. Cropanzano R, Mitchell MS. Social exchange theory: an interdisciplinary review. J Manage. 2005;31(6):874–900. doi:10.1177/0149206305279602

65. Coyle-Shapiro JA, Conway N. The employment relationship through the lens of social exchange; 2004.

66. Shore LM, Cleveland JN, Goldberg CB. Work attitudes and decisions as a function of manager age and employee age. J Appl Psycho. 2003;88(3):529. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.3.529

67. Rupp DE, Cropanzano R. The mediating effects of social exchange relationships in predicting workplace outcomes from multifoci organizational justice. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2002;89(1):925–946. doi:10.1016/S0749-5978(02)00036-5

68. Levinson H. Reciprocation: the relationship between man and organization. Adm Sci Q. 1965;9(4):370. doi:10.2307/2391032

69. Mitchell MS, Ambrose ML. Abusive supervision and workplace deviance and the moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. J Appl Psycho. 2007;92(4):1159. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.1159

70. Liu H, Chiang JT-J, Fehr R, Xu M, Wang S. How do leaders react when treated unfairly? Leader narcissism and self-interested behavior in response to unfair treatment. J Appl Psycho. 2017;102(11):1590. doi:10.1037/apl0000237

71. Jones DA. Getting even with one’s supervisor and one’s organization: relationships among types of injustice, desires for revenge, and counterproductive work behaviors. J Organ Behav. 2009;30(4):525–542. doi:10.1002/job.563

72. Trada S, Goyal V. The dual effects of perceived unfairness on opportunism in channel relationships. Industr Market Manag. 2017;64:135–146. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2017.01.008

73. Decoster S, Stouten J, Tripp TM. Followers’ reactions to self-serving leaders: the influence of the organization’s budget policy. Am J Bus. 2014;29(3/4):202–222. doi:10.1108/AJB-12-2013-0076

74. Černe M, Nerstad CG, Dysvik A, Škerlavaj M. What goes around comes around: knowledge hiding, perceived motivational climate, and creativity. Acad Manag J. 2014;57(1):172–192. doi:10.5465/amj.2012.0122

75. Siachou E, Trichina E, Papasolomou I, Sakka G. Why do employees hide their knowledge and what are the consequences? A systematic literature review. J Bus Res. 2021;135:195–213. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.06.031

76. Sulistiawan J, Moslehpour M, Diana F, Lin P-K. Why and when do employees hide their knowledge? Behav Sci. 2022;12(2):56. doi:10.3390/bs12020056

77. Emerson RM. Social Exchange Theory. Annu Rev Sociol. 1976;2(1):335–362. doi:10.1146/annurev.so.02.080176.002003

78. Molm LD, Collett JL, Schaefer DR. Building solidarity through generalized exchange: a theory of reciprocity. Am J Sociol. 2007;113(1):205–242. doi:10.1086/517900

79. Serenko A. Knowledge sabotage as an extreme form of counterproductive knowledge behavior: the perspective of the target. J Knowl Manag. 2020;24(4):737–773. doi:10.1108/JKM-06-2019-0337

80. Skarlicki DP, Folger R. Retaliation in the workplace: the roles of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. J Appl Psycho. 1997;82(3):434. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.82.3.434

81. Riaz S, Xu Y, Hussain S. Workplace ostracism and knowledge hiding: the mediating role of job tension. Sustainability. 2019;11(20):5547. doi:10.3390/su11205547

82. Simha A, Elloy DF, Huang H-C. The moderated relationship between job burnout and organizational cynicism. Manag Decision. 2014;52(3):482–504. doi:10.1108/MD-08-2013-0422

83. Kacmar KM, Ferris GR. Perceptions of organizational politics scale (POPS): development and construct validation. Educ Psychol Meas. 1991;51(1):193–205. doi:10.1177/0013164491511019

84. Kacmar KM, Baron RA. Organizational politics: the state of the field, links to related processes, and an agenda for future research. In: Research in Human Resources Management. Vol. 17. US: Elsevier Science/JAI Press; 1999:1–39.

85. Malik OF, Shahzad A, Raziq MM, Khan MM, Yusaf S, Khan A. Perceptions of organizational politics, knowledge hiding, and employee creativity: the moderating role of professional commitment. Pers Individ Dif. 2019;142:232–237. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2018.05.005

86. Chang C-H, Rosen CC, Levy PE. The relationship between perceptions of organizational politics and employee attitudes, strain, and behavior: a meta-analytic examination. Acad Manag J. 2009;52(4):779–801. doi:10.5465/amj.2009.43670894

87. Zhu Y, Chen T, Wang M, Jin Y, Wang Y. Rivals or allies: how performance‐prove goal orientation influences knowledge hiding. J Organ Behav. 2019;40(7):849–868. doi:10.1002/job.2372

88. Singh SK, Mazzucchelli A, Vessal SR, Solidoro A. Knowledge-based HRM practices and innovation performance: role of social capital and knowledge sharing. J Int Manag. 2021;27(1):100830. doi:10.1016/j.intman.2021.100830

89. Vrontis D, Thrassou A, Melanthiou Y. A contemporary higher education student-choice model for developed countries. J Bus Res. 2007;60(9):979–989. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.01.023

90. Wang X, Zhou F. Managing uncertainty inherent in prohibitive voice: how leadership interacts with employee political skill. Front Psychol. 2021:5710. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.702964

91. Ashforth BE, Lee RT. Defensive behavior in organizations: a preliminary model. Hum Relat. 1990;43(7):621–648. doi:10.1177/001872679004300702

92. Kacmar KM, Zivnuska S, White CD. Control and exchange: the impact of work environment on the work effort of low relationship quality employees. Leadersh Q. 2007;18(1):69–84. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.11.002

93. Butt AS. Determinants of top-down knowledge hiding in firms: an individual-level perspective. Asian Bus Manag. 2021;20(2):259–279. doi:10.1057/s41291-019-00091-1

94. Bedi A, Schat AC. Perceptions of organizational politics: a meta-analysis of its attitudinal, health, and behavioural consequences. Can Psychol. 2013;54(4):246. doi:10.1037/a0034549

95. Khan K, Abbas M, Gul A, Raja U. Organizational justice and job outcomes: moderating role of Islamic work ethic. J Bus Ethics. 2015;126(2):235–246. doi:10.1007/s10551-013-1937-2

96. Raja U, Javed Y, Abbas M. A time lagged study of burnout as a mediator in the relationship between workplace bullying and work–family conflict. Int J Stress Manag. 2018;25(4):377. doi:10.1037/str0000080

97. Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Podsakoff NP. Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Ann Rev Psychol. 2012;63:539–569. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452

98. Crowne DP, Marlowe D. A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. J Consult Psychol. 1960;24(4):349. doi:10.1037/h0047358

99. Niehoff BP, Moorman RH. Justice as a mediator of the relationship between methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior. Acad Manag J. 1993;36(3):527–556. doi:10.2307/256591

100. Rus D, Van Knippenberg D, Wisse B. Leader power and leader self-serving behavior: the role of effective leadership beliefs and performance information. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2010;46(6):922–933. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2010.06.007

101. Kacmar KM, Carlson DS. Further validation of the perceptions of politics scale (POPS): a multiple sample investigation. J Manage. 1997;23(5):627–658. doi:10.1177/014920639702300502

102. Wang S, Noe RA. Knowledge sharing: a review and directions for future research. Hum Resour Manag Rev. 2010;20(2):115–131. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.10.001

103. Marcus B, Schuler H. Antecedents of counterproductive behavior at work: a general perspective. J Appl Psycho. 2004;89(4):647. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.4.647

104. Kish-Gephart JJ, Harrison DA, Treviño LK. Bad apples, bad cases, and bad barrels: meta-analytic evidence about sources of unethical decisions at work. J Appl Psycho. 2010;95(1):1. doi:10.1037/a0017103

105. Liu Y, Janssen O, Vriend T, van der Linden D. How self-construals relate to employee incremental and radical creativity: a behavioral strategy perspective. Eur J Work Organ Psychol. 2022;1–13. doi:10.1080/1359432X.2022.2104716

106. Williams LJ, O’Boyle EH. Measurement models for linking latent variables and indicators: a review of human resource management research using parcels. Hum Resour Manag Rev. 2008;18(4):233–242. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2008.07.002

107. Coffman DL, MacCallum RC. Using parcels to convert path analysis models into latent variable models. Multivariate Behav Res. 2005;40(2):235–259. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr4002_4

108. Little TD. Longitudinal Structural Equation Modeling. Guilford press; 2013.

109. Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equat Model. 1999;6(1):1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118

110. Chen B, Zuo Y, Zhao Y. The relationship between subjective social class and aggression: a serial mediation model. Pers Individ Dif. 2018;131:174–179. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2018.04.036

111. Lam LW. Impact of competitiveness on salespeople’s commitment and performance. J Bus Res. 2012;65(9):1328–1334. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.10.026

112. Huang C-C, Wang Y-M, Wu T-W, Wang P-A. An empirical analysis of the antecedents and performance consequences of using the moodle platform. Int J Informat Educ Technol. 2013;3(2):217. doi:10.7763/IJIET.2013.V3.267

113. Farasat M, Azam A. Supervisor bottom-line mentality and subordinates’ unethical pro-organizational behavior. Person Rev. 2020. doi:10.1108/PR-03-2020-0129

114. Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Market Res. 1981;18(1):39–50. doi:10.1177/002224378101800104

115. Tseng W-T, Dörnyei Z, Schmitt N. A new approach to assessing strategic learning: the case of self-regulation in vocabulary acquisition. Appl Linguist. 2006;27(1):78–102. doi:10.1093/applin/ami046

116. Preacher KJ, Rucker DD, Hayes AF. Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behav Res. 2007;42(1):185–227. doi:10.1080/00273170701341316

117. Hayes AF. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. Guilford Publications; 2017.

118. Agerström J, Björklund F, Allwood C, Aiken LS, West SG. Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. London: Sage; 1991:305–307.

119. Hayes AF. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: a regression-based approach. J Educ Meas. 2013;53(3):335–337.

120. Cohen-Charash Y, Spector PE. The role of justice in organizations: a meta-analysis. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2001;86(2):278–321. doi:10.1006/obhd.2001.2958

121. Khalid M, Bashir S, Khan AK, Abbas N. When and how abusive supervision leads to knowledge hiding behaviors: an Islamic work ethics perspective. Leader Organ Dev J. 2018;39(6):794–806. doi:10.1108/LODJ-05-2017-0140

122. Bari MW, Khan Q, Waqas A. Person related workplace bullying and knowledge hiding behaviors: relational psychological contract breach as an underlying mechanism. J Knowl Manag. 2022. doi:10.1108/JKM-10-2021-0766

123. Lavelle JJ, Harris CM, Rupp DE, et al. Multifoci effects of injustice on counterproductive work behaviors and the moderating roles of symbolization and victim sensitivity. J Organ Behav. 2018;39(8):1022–1039. doi:10.1002/job.2280

124. Van Houwelingen G, Van Dijke M, De Cremer D. Fairness enactment as response to higher level unfairness: the roles of self-construal and spatial distance. J Manage. 2017;43(2):319–347. doi:10.1177/0149206314530166

125. Aquino K, Tripp TM, Bies RJ. Getting even or moving on? Power, procedural justice, and types of offense as predictors of revenge, forgiveness, reconciliation, and avoidance in organizations. J Appl Psycho. 2006;91(3):653. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.653

126. Van Hootegem A, Van Hootegem A, Selenko E, De Witte H. Work is political: distributive injustice as a mediating mechanism in the relationship between job insecurity and political cynicism. Polit Psychol. 2022;43(2):375–396. doi:10.1111/pops.12766

127. Khoreva V, Wechtler H. Exploring the consequences of knowledge hiding: an agency theory perspective. J Manage Psychol. 2020;35(2):71–84. doi:10.1108/JMP-11-2018-0514

128. Shah SI, Afsar B, Shahjehan A. Unique contextual conditions affecting coworker knowledge sharing and employee innovative work behaviors. J Work Organ Psychol. 2020;36(2):125–134.

129. Wang C, Wang Z, Chen K, Feng J. Double-edged sword of perceived mastery climate on evasive knowledge hiding: the mediating roles of perceived status and perceived social support. J Manage Psychol. 2022;37(8):729–745. doi:10.1108/JMP-09-2021-0490

130. Burmeister A, Fasbender U, Gerpott FH. Consequences of knowledge hiding: the differential compensatory effects of guilt and shame. J Occup Organ Psychol. 2019;92(2):281–304. doi:10.1111/joop.12249

Creative Commons License © 2022 The Author(s). This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.