Cyber incivility and knowledge hoarding: Does interactional justice matter?

Abstract

Purpose The current explanations in the cyber incivility and knowledge hoarding literature suffer from two problems. The first is a lack of cogent explanation of cyber incivility and knowledge hoarding from social exchange theory (SET) perspective. The second is the unexplained attenuating propensity of justice on the connection between cyber incivility and knowledge hoarding, more specifically, interactional justice. Design/methodology/approach This paper uses a simple random sampling method to obtain cross-sectional data from 223 employees working in IT and telecommunication service companies in Jordan. The obtained data were analyzed using partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) technique also known as variance-based structural equation modeling. Findings By applying SET theoretical lens and PLS-SEM, the authors show that cyber incivility exerts strong impact on knowledge hoarding, and interactional justice may not always function as a buffer. That is, the association between cyber incivility and knowledge hoarding is not impacted by interactional justice levels. Originality/value The contribution of this paper builds on the lack of practical comprehension on the association between cyber incivility and knowledge hoarding and the role played by interactional justice. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.

Antecedents and consequences of knowledge sabotage in the Turkish telecommunication and retail sectors

“…This study showed that interactional justice suppresses workers’ engagement in knowledge sabotage, and it is possible that it may also minimize or eliminate other types of counterproductive knowledge behavior. In fact, this proposition is in line with prior research that identified the effects of interactional justice on knowledge hiding (Abubakar et al , 2019) and hoarding (Aljawarneh et al , 2022). In addition, increasing interactional justice may facilitate productive knowledge behavior such as knowledge sharing.…”

“…This study theorizes that targets of co-worker incivility are motivated to restore justice and fight back by means of knowledge sabotage to damage perpetrators' work performance, humiliate them and make them leave the workplace. Previous research has already found that co-worker incivility is associated with counterproductive knowledge behavior, namely, with knowledge hiding and hoarding (Aljawarneh and Atan, 2018;Arshad and Ismail, 2018;Irum et al, 2020;Aljawarneh et al, 2022). Knowledge sabotage behavior can be viewed as a form of "tit for tat" strategy to resolve tension and negative emotions caused by co-worker incivility.…”

The role of overqualification, decision, and mindfulness on knowledge outcomes

“…III. Knowledge hoarding is comprised of facets of the knowledge that are not necessarily explicit or known to others, thereby limiting the seekers' ability to know or make requests, yet this is essential for organizational success and performance (Evans, Hendron, The reasons for knowledge hiding and hoarding by members of an organization include safeguarding personal competence, an unwillingness to invest time, fear of knowledge parasites, the avoidance of exposure and power control, injustices, mistreatment in the workplace, and poorquality work relationships (Abubakar, Behravesh, Rezapouraghdam, & Yildiz, 2019;Aljawarneh, Alomari, Alomari, & Taha, 2020;Connelly, Černe, Dysvik, & Škerlavaj, 2019;Connelly & Zweig, 2015;Holten et al, 2016). In the context of this study, overqualified nurses are likely to develop negative feelings toward their peers and distance themselves in an elitist manner.…”

Adaptation and Validation of Cyber Incivility Scale in Indonesian Language and Culture with Confirmatory Factor Analysis

“…Pre-conditioning step At this stage, the researcher reviewed several frequently used instruments, namely, the cyber incivility scale compiled by Lim and Teo (2009), the workplace incivility scale developed by Cortina et al, (2001), and the email incivility scale compiled by McCarthy et al (2019). In this study, the cyber incivility scale developed by Lim and Teo (2009) was chosen as the most appropriate measuring instrument to be studied and adapted because, first, it is the most commonly used to measure cyber incivility (Aljawarneh et al, 2020;Daniels & Thornton, 2020;Febriana & Fajrianthi, 2019;Krishnan, 2016;Lim & Teo, 2009;Park et al, 2015); second, the workplace incivility scale is an instrument to measure incivility behavior that is carried out face-to-face, while the e-mail incivility measurement instrument is developed only in the context of e-mail, and; third, in a number of studies, the cyber incivility scale was proven to be a reliable and valid measuring instrument. For example, in the study of Lim and Teo (2009), this measuring instrument has an alpha coefficient of active cyber incivility of .95, and that of passive cyber incivility of .94, meaning that this measuring instrument has good internal consistency because the Cronbach's alpha is acceptable when > .7.…”