Leader‐signaled knowledge hiding: Effects on employees' job attitudes and empowerment

Abstract

Summary The authors introduce the concept of leader‐signaled knowledge hiding (LSKH) and conduct two studies observing what happens when leaders signal employees that knowledge hiding (KH) is practiced, tolerated, and expected. Social learning theory provides the basis for predicting that LSKH encourages subordinates to hide knowledge, even though they suffer from negative job attitudes in reaction. In Study 1, data measured at two time points (N = 1,162) shows that LSKH positively predicts KH among subordinates. The KH dimensions of evasive hiding and playing dumb (but not rationalized hiding) negatively relate to job satisfaction and positively affect turnover intentions. Study 2 (N = 1,169) replicates these results with cross‐sectional data. Moreover, Study 2 demonstrates that evasive hiding and playing dumb negatively affect empowerment, whereas rationalized hiding has a positive effect. Both studies reveal that subordinates will show less KH when they work under leaders who avoid LSKH and in turn have more job satisfaction, feel more empowered, and harbor fewer turnover intentions. The results in this study provide important practical implications for knowledge management activities.

Be smart, play dumb? A transactional perspective on day-specific knowledge hiding, interpersonal conflict, and psychological strain

“…When playing dumb, the hider pretends not to have the requested knowledge. Evasive hiding and playing dumb involve deception, while rationalized hiding rather does not (e.g., Offergelt et al, 2019;Zhao et al, 2016). Hence, one can conclude that rationalized hiding shows less overlap with CWBs and is, thus, less likely to play a role in negative social interactions at work.…”

Understanding knowledge hiding in organizations

“…Offergelt, Spörrle, Moser, and Shaw () explain subordinate knowledge hiding by introducing and measuring the concept of leader‐signaled knowledge hiding. On the basis of social learning theory and role modeling, they define leader‐signaled knowledge hiding as the extent to which subordinates perceive their leader to practice, tolerate, and expect knowledge hiding.…”

“…For example, some studies (e.g., Jiang et al, ) examine knowledge hiding as a holistic construct, whereas others consider the roles of each facet separately (e.g., Zhu et al, ). Likewise, two studies (i.e., Offergelt et al, ; Zhao et al, ) explore the role of leaders and leadership in predicting knowledge hiding, whereas the other articles focus primarily on interemployee dyadic interactions. Whereas one study examines knowledge sharing as well as knowledge hiding (i.e., Gagné et al, ), the other studies consider knowledge hiding exclusively.…”

Antecedents of Knowledge Withholding: A Systematic Review & Integrative Framework

“…Such reciprocity loops were also found among 336 students and employees in Slovenia (Cerne, Nerstad, Dysvik, & Skerlavaj, 2014). As a final set of examples of negative behaviors, various supervisory behaviors were found influential: abusive supervision predicted knowledge hiding in a sample of 364 Pakistani telecommunications employees (Jahanzeb, Fatima, Bouckenooghe, & Bashir, 2019), despotic leadership was associated with knowledge hoarding in a sample of 334 Pakistani telecom employees (Sarwar, Khan, & Mujtaba, 2017), and in a range of Austrian and German companies, it was found that leaders’ actively tolerating or even showing hiding behavior prompted employee knowledge withholding among 2331 respondents (Offergelt, Spörrle, Moser, & Shaw, 2018).…”