1 PB PDF

Information and Knowledge Management www.iiste.
org
ISSN 2224-5758 (Paper) ISSN 2224-896X (Online) DOI: 10.7176/IKM
Vol.9, No.3, 2019
Impact of Human Resources Management Practices on

Workplace Knowledge Hiding Behaviour
Ardam Dodokh
School of Business, University of Plymouth, Drake Circus, PL4 8AA, Plymouth, UK
Abstract
Knowledge can be a strategic asset for the organisations, particularly for knowledge-intensive organisations.
Drawing from the social exchange theory this paper examines the direct relationship between human resources
management (HRM) practices and workplace knowledge hiding behaviour. The paper analyses data obtained
from 270 organisational employees in the telecommunication and information technology sector in Jordan using
a quantitative approach. The findings suggest that HRM practices reduce knowledge hiding behaviour in terms
of recognition, fair rewards, competence development, fair rewards, and information-sharing practices. In
addition, this study found that employee’s education is positively related to workplace knowledge hiding
behaviour. This study offers a better understanding of the relationship between HRM practices and workplace
knowledge hiding behaviour in a developing country perspective and also discusses the theoretical and practical
implications of the findings.
Keywords: knowledge hiding, HRM practices, rewards, empowerment, competence development, recognition,
information sharing, knowledge management, Jordan.
DOI: 10.7176/IKM/9-3-04
Publication date:March 31st 2019
1. Introduction
Knowledge, being profitable, uncommon, difficult to mimic and non-substitutable, is a vital strategic competitive
resource for any company to pick up and sustain competitive advantage (Nanda, 1996; Perry-Smith, 2006).
Knowledge assets could be created by sharing information at work, as an individual’s knowledge all alone is
inadequate to form a competitive advantage (Swart, 2007). Organisations gain hugely once knowledge is shared
at the collective level; particularly in knowledge-intensive industries, like IT, Banking and finance (Jha and
Varkkey, 2018). Scholars and practitioners have recognised the importance of understanding workplace
knowledge hiding process and antecedents (Huo et al., 2016). Consequently, knowledge hiding is not an
uncommon phenomenon in the organisation. A survey of 1,700 workers by The Globe and Mail revealed that
76% concealed knowledge from their coworkers, and the majority concurred that knowledge belongs to privacy,
should not be shared (The Globe and Mail, 2006).
Knowledge hiding could hinder mutually individual and organisational performance. For instance, Černe et
al. (2014) found that knowledge hiding cultivated doubt and distrust among workers and kept them from
producing innovative thoughts. Also, an investigation led by Babcock (2004) found that the knowledge hiding
behaviour cost Fortune 500 companies about 31.5 Billion dollars per year. Consequently, it is imperative to
distinguish which HRM practices that affect knowledge hiding behaviour among employees in order for
organisations to develop compelling HRM policies to debilitate this attribute and urge information sharing to
amplify their performance.
Compared with the extended quantity of research on knowledge and information sharing (Wang and Noe,
2010), there has been a comparatively restricted focus on the socially unwanted knowledge behaviours like
knowledge hiding (Connelly et al., 2012; Serenko and Bontis, 2016). Knowledge hiding as a new organisational
phenomenon has begun to draw in research attention just in the most recent years, in spite of the fact that it
might be typical behaviour in the work environment (Xiao and Cooke, 2018).
Although a developing body of literature uncovers that extensive interest in human capital and human
resources management (HRM) practices employment can improve corporate financial performance (Huselid,
1995; Huselid et al., 1997; Vandenberg et al., 1999), nevertheless, the processes or mechanisms through which
HRM practices can impact knowledge hiding behaviour are as yet not clear (Bogilović et al., 2017; Xiao and
Cooke, 2018), and there is a necessity for additional research to inspect the effect of various HRM practices on
knowledge hiding behaviour (Jha and Varkkey, 2018). Consequently, it is critical to fill this noteworthy research
gap so as to boost the organisational climate, employee well-being and organisational performance (Xiao and
Cooke, 2018).
Most of the research conducted on workplace knowledge hiding did not reflect on related factors on the far
side of the organisational level (Xiao and Cooke, 2018). Indeed, just a couple of concentrates thought about
national culture (Bogilović et al., 2017; Michailova and Husted, 2004). Consequently, there are extensive
contrasts between the eastern and western culture, for example, collectivism and individualism (Zhao et al.,
2016). Therefore, it is important to be extra thoughtful to the variations in national cultures and traditions in
27
Information and Knowledge Management www.iiste.org
Vol.9, No.3, 2019
knowledge hiding research, which can advise international HRM practices on this issue. In addition, employees
may act diversely in high power distance contexts and collectivist societies, as they are ruled by totally various
arrangements of standards and customs from those found in the West where the most of the knowledge hiding
research has been placed (Xiao and Cooke, 2018). For instance, employees in collectivism cultures might have
additional resilience for his/her manager's abuse (Lian et al., 2012), and during this state of circumstance, they
are bound to clarify manager's knowledge hiding practices as genuine. Moreover, in countries and industrial
sectors where professional stability is low, employees may be more likely to cover their knowledge and
information to safeguard their own job (Xiao and Cooke, 2018).
Employees within the collectivist cultures tend to possess a high degree of commitment toward their
organisations and are less doubtless to act in ways that may harm the organisation like concealing and holding
their knowledge (Davison et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2017). Despite the fact that research evidence demonstrates
that dyadic relational cooperation altogether considerably influences individuals’ knowledge behaviours (Wu et
al., 2007), in various cultural settings, the mechanism of relational association regarding information and
knowledge management may work in a different way (Zhang et al., 2017). Hence, investing knowledge hiding
behaviour in relation to the cultural context makes a particularly interesting and appreciated domain for future
research (Xiao and Cooke, 2018).
Consequently, in an attempt to fill the above knowledge gaps, by using social exchange theory (Blau, 1964)
as the underlying framework, the present research provides additional and incremental evidence for workplace
knowledge hiding behaviour by examining the impact of HRM practices on knowledge hiding behaviour in
telecommunication and information technology sector in Jordan. This paper is structured as follows. First, the
paper provides a review of the associated literature. Then offer the research hypotheses and research model. The
following section gives details on the research methodology for collecting research data. Then presenting the
statistical analyses and provide discussions regarding the results. Lastly, the paper concludes with the study
limitations, potential future directions, and a summary of the study contributions.
2.Literature Review
To examine the relations between HRM practices and workplace knowledge hiding behaviour, this study focused
on three research literature themes: (1) workplace knowledge hiding behaviour; (2) social exchange theory; (3)
HRM practices, the three topics will be reviewed respectively.
2.1. Workplace Knowledge Hiding Behaviour

Knowledge refers to job-related information, thoughts and experience within the organisation (Bartol and
Srivastava, 2002). Knowledge hiding and knowledge sharing are not inverse boundaries of a continuum (Ford
and Staples, 2010; Kang, 2016). An absence of knowledge sharing does not essentially mean the existence of
knowledge hiding (Xiao and Cooke, 2018). In view of that, Connelly et al. (2006) suggested knowledge hiding is
disconnected from knowledge withholding. Accordingly, Connelly et al. (2012) formally formed the idea of
knowledge hiding and built up its substantial measure, making knowledge hiding an independent research theme
in the field of knowledge management. Knowledge hiding can be characterised as a deliberate endeavour to
retain or disguise knowledge from others (Connelly et al., 2012). Knowledge hiding not solely includes the lack
of knowledge sharing; however it conjointly includes intentionally keeping asked knowledge from co-workers
(Kang, 2016). The conditions of knowledge hiding are; a deliberate endeavour and knowledge clearly asked for
by another co-worker.
Knowledge hiding behaviour can be a negative phenomenon within the organisation (Černe et al., 2014;
Zhang and Zhang, 2017). For instance, knowledge hiding can decrease individual and group ability to produce
creative ideas (Bogilović et al., 2017), lessens employees inventive work behaviour (Černe et al., 2017), weakens
social connections (Connelly and Zweig, 2015) and builds intentional turnover (Serenko and Bontis, 2016).
Nevertheless, Connelly et al. (2012) stated that knowledge hiding is not essentially always a damaging behaviour
for the reason that it can also be motivated by prosocial incentive; for instance, rationalised knowledge hiding
can fortify relational connections among hiders and targets (Connelly and Zweig, 2015).
Knowledge and information sharing management is seen as a vital piece of strategic HRM to reinforce
individual, team and organisational performance (Minbaeva, 2013). Nonetheless, the idea that everyone in the
organisational staffs is eager to share their knowledge could also be unrealistic (Cabrera and Cabrera, 2002;
Michailova and Husted, 2003). Rather, staff could withhold information for numerous reasons, not least to
safeguard their self-interest, like to avoid work intensification (Cooke, 2002). At times, staff create the choice to
consciously hoard their information even with the arrangement of a motivation plan to share information within
the organisation (Cabrera and Cabrera, 2002; Webster et al., 2008).
In order to eliminate barriers to effectively exchange information inside the organisation, it is essential to
recognise unwanted workplace knowledge behaviours like knowledge hiding (Connelly et al., 2012).
Consequently, three concepts associated with knowledge hiding that is; knowledge withholding, knowledge
28
Vol.9, No.3, 2019
hoarding, and employee silence that need differentiation so as to improve the understanding of different concepts
and its consequences for the organisation and employees as shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Comparison of Knowledge Hiding With Other Potential Related Concepts
Organisational
Definition Comparison
Behaviour
Behaviours that individuals make less
Knowledge Knowledge hiding is one type of knowledge
knowledge contribution to other
withholding withholding.
organisational members than they could.
Behaviours that accumulate or remain Knowledge that has not been necessarily
Knowledge
knowledge that may or may not be shared requested by special others in knowledge
hoarding
in the future. hoarding.
Employee silence does not require a clear
Employee Intentionally withholding work-related
request from special others and involves the
silence ideas, information and opinions.
lack of expression.
Source: [Xiao and Cooke, (2018), p.7].
There are three different ways individuals can participate in knowledge hiding, playing dumb, rational
hiding, and evasive hiding (Connelly et al., 2012). Playing dumb is one procedure of knowledge hiding; where
workers pretend that they are unmindful of the information that others asked. Rational hiding is telling the
information inquirer that he or she cannot tell the asked information in view of its secrecy or group standards,
that may contain deception or not (Pan et al., 2016). Evasive hiding is providing another information as an
alternative to the information seeker genuinely needs, or giving a deceptive guarantee to tell later on (Connelly et
al., 2012). In view of that, these three concepts of knowledge hiding will be used in this study to measure
workplace knowledge hiding behaviour and its relationship with HRM practices.
2.2. Social Exchange Theory

The social exchange theory was derived from the economic exchange theory, and it predicts social interactions
(Molm, 1994), its chief principle is that behaviours are persuaded by the desire to maximise positive experiences
and minimise negative experiences through social interactions (Weiss and Stevens, 1993). Accordingly,
employees build and keep up connections as long as the rewards from the relationship surpass its losses (Semerci,
2018). Social exchange depends on the order of value and standard of exchange that highlights individual give
and take in the long-term (Blau, 1964). First, as information hiding includes the knowledge holder’s reaction to a
knowledge requestor, the nature of the social relationship decides how the standard of information exchange
functions (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998). Similarly, good relationships develop shared trust and respect that
makes individuals utilise constructive exchange for supporting information trade in the dyads. In opposition,
poor connections are bound to trigger negative correspondence as a reaction to past disagreeable encounters,
which builds the likelihood of knowledge hiding (Zhao et al., 2016). Second, information exchange frequently
takes place in a calculative way. For instance, Konstantinou and Fincham (2010) showed how the employee
estimation of perceived costs and gains influences employees’ knowledge-withholding behaviour. Besides, in
some circumstances wherever common trust is absent, employees are inclined to hide their information, in light
of the fact that higher opportunistic risks make them more vulnerable (Williamson, 1995).
Scholars have concentrated on factors that could escalate information sharing, like how sharing knowledge
could improve employee’s status and reputation (Wasko and Faraj, 2005), how creating and sustaining
connections that could result in reciprocal practices like information sharing (Ko et al., 2005). As a result, the
absence of future reciprocation of information is another issue that prompts workplace knowledge hiding
behaviour. Accordingly, the social exchange theory suggests that employees are willing to share information
with their coworkers, as they expect something of significant worth consequently, which could likewise be
sharing of knowledge in response (Xiao and Cooke, 2018). Similarly, it is suggested that employees will in
general offer to share information with coworkers depending on the prerequisite that they also would share
information with them later on, once required (Jha and Varkkey, 2018). The social trade hypothesis recognises
the presence of both positive and negative exchange, with the previous suggestion to returning “positive
treatment for positive treatment” and the latter referring to individuals’ “tendency to return negative treatment
for negative treatment” [Cropanzano and Mitchell, (2005), p.878]. Accordingly, building on social exchange
theory, this study proposes that the benefits received from effective HRM practices may affect workplace
knowledge hiding behaviour.
2.3. Human Resources Management Practices

Organisational HRM is the foundation of maintainable competitive advantage and success, on condition that
HRM policies and practices are coordinated with and additionally derived from the general organisational
strategies and objectives (Altarawneh, 2016). Consequently, a number of researchers suggested that HRM
29
Vol.9, No.3, 2019
practices play a critical part in organizational success by improving the commitment towards the organization
(Meyer and Smith, 2000; Whitener, 2001) and perspectives of practical equality or justice (Meyer and Allen,
1997), rising organizational citizenship behaviours (Podsakoff et al., 2000), and decreasing turnover intentions
(Vandenberg et al., 1999). Despite these outcomes, the part HRM practices play in such attitude-behaviour
relationships is still unclear (Jha and Varkkey, 2018; Xiao and Cooke, 2018). Organisations can execute various
HRM practices to enhance worker aptitudes and skills. Accordingly, efforts can concentrate on enhancing the
quality of skills of new employees, or current employees, or on each (Delaney and Huselid, 1996). Employees
can be procured through complex selection methods proposed to screen out all but the very best potential
employees which can be positively associated with organisational performance (Becker and Huselid, 1992). Also,
organisations can improve the quality of current employees by delivering wide-ranging training and development
activities (Delaney and Huselid, 1996). Consequently, investments in staff training can cause an increase in
organisational outcomes (Knoke and Kalleberg, 1994).
Two complementary conceptual frameworks that have gotten much consideration within the HR literature,
the high-involvement model proposed by Lawler (1986) is viewed as the essential instrument behind the
evolution of latest strategic HRM (McMahan et al., 1998), and the high-performance work system model
proposed by Bailey (Appelbaum et al., 2000) suggests that five distinctive, assisting HRM practices could
impact employees’ work-related and performance behaviours, specifically, recognition, empowerment,
competence development, fair rewards, and information-sharing practices. Accordingly, this study posits that
HRM practices that enhance these five components are likely to decrease workplace knowledge hiding
behaviour among organisational employees since individuals tend to respond positively to top management
commitment and support (Eisenberger et al., 1990).
3. Research Hypotheses and Model

3.1. Recognition Practices and Workplace Knowledge Hiding Behaviour
The need for recognition is a major driver of human performance and behaviour (Paré and Tremblay, 2007). For
many exceedingly skilled professionals, a lot of their motivation results from the acknowledgement they receive
from managers for a work well done and therefore the sense that they are an essential part of the organisation
(Gomolski, 2000). Recognition practices refer to nonmonetary rewards through that a company tangibly signals
its gratitude of excellent work and accomplishments; it likewise incorporates endeavours made by the
organisation to carefully think about employees recommendations and supply them with positive feedback (Paré
and Tremblay, 2007). Also, high-performance organisations persistently sought-after to acknowledge and
strengthen valued contributions created by employees (Agarwal and Ferratt, 1999).
The absence of remunerations and acknowledgement has risen as a key factor impacting workplace
knowledge hiding behaviour. Employees do not locate any motivating force in imparting tacit knowledge with
co-workers, particularly in a dynamic work culture. For example, Stenius et al. (2016) proposed that when
external motivation is absent (rewards, reciprocals, and reputational benefits), it can influence the knowledge-
withholding behaviours of team members positively. Consequently, the manner an organisation deal with its
HRM sets the tone and conditions of the working relationship (Paré and Tremblay, 2007). If an organisation’s
values certainly express that employees are momentary expendable assets, economic instead of social exchange
relationships are likely to form (Witt, 1991). In contrast, high-involvement work environment could send signals
to employees that their organisation encourages humanistic qualities, thinks about their prosperity, well-being,
and is keen to trust them (Paré and Tremblay, 2007). In accordance with social exchange theory and on the basis
of reciprocity norms, employees will be motivated to build their own commitment and endeavours and at last
display additional job behaviours (Tsui et al., 1997) which will embrace sharing knowledge among different
colleagues in the organisation. In accordance with previous findings, the study posits that recognition practices
applied in the organisation have a positive association with workplace knowledge hiding behaviour.
H1: Recognition practices decreases workplace knowledge hiding behaviour.
3.2. Empowerment Practices and Workplace Knowledge Hiding Behaviour

Through empowerment, organisations enable employees to accept many roles and obligations and consequently
apply a more noteworthy impact at work while appreciating magnified autonomy (Paré and Tremblay, 2007).
Employee attentiveness and impact through job involvement encourages a more noteworthy feeling of help, trust,
and characteristic inspiration and offers positive job attitudes (Eby et al., 1999). Expanded awareness of other's
expectations likewise invigorates activity and exertion progressively with respect to everybody concerned
(Appelbaum et al., 2000). Accordingly, Agarwal and Ferratt (1999) found that successful IT organisations are
empowering IT professionals to acquire additional accountability for his or her work and decision making.
Besides, at the group level, group setting has been viewed as essential for team members’ knowledge hiding
(Bogilović et al., 2017). Utilising field and experimental techniques, Černe et al. (2014) introduced team
motivational climate as a moderator and found that mastery climate that empowers learning and collaboration
30
Vol.9, No.3, 2019
can buffer the negative impact of knowledge hiding on employee creative thinking. Additionally, applying
motivational drivers can help the employee’s positive outlooks regarding their organisation which invigorates
their views, commitment, motivation and dependability, which can cause good working attitudes (Bhuvanaiah
and Raya, 2015).
In addition, the leader-member exchange theory (LMX) proposes that leaders may not treat their
subordinates within the same approach. Moreover, some are treated as ‘in-group members’ who appreciate the
common trust and increased the quality of the leader-member relationship, whereas others are treated as ‘out-
group members’ who have a low quality of leader-member relationship (Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995). Once LMX
disparity is to a great degree high, employees with low-quality LMX (out-group members) will in general build
up a feeling of injustice through sense-making activities; negative impact on the supervisor and in-group
members could motivate them to take part in revenge behaviours like knowledge hiding (Cropanzano et al.,
2017). Similarly, out-group members could give careful consideration to short-term, discrete payback to what
they offer (Kuvaas et al., 2012); therefore, they attempt to hide their information in conditions once suitable
motivators are missing (Xiao and Cooke, 2018). Consequently, managers can keep satisfactory organisational
justice by clearly showing to employees that their information and knowledge contribution will be linked with
suitable rewards, through showing suitable equality of respect, ethical leadership and enhancing trust between
employees (Brown et al., 2005). Therefore, it is hypothesised that:
H2: Empowerment practices decreases workplace knowledge hiding behaviour.
3.3. Competence Development Practices and Workplace Knowledge Hiding Behaviour

High-performing organisations use competency development practices like work rotation programs, coaching,
and training for enhancing the efficiency of existing employees and sending workers the sign that managers are
keen to put resources into them past momentary returns (Agarwal and Ferratt, 1999). Besides, training and
different competence development practices can be significant foundations of competitive advantage and
performance since organisations depend on frontline employee talent and initiative to acknowledge and resolve
problems, to start modifications in work strategies, and to take accountability for quality (Pfeffer and Veiga,
1999).
In accordance with social exchange theory, in certain conditions where common trust is absent, employees
are inclined to hide their information, on the grounds that expanded opportunistic risks make them increasingly
defenceless (Williamson, 1995). Consequently, mastery organisational climate has been found to raise trust by
empowering co-task and learning and moderate the negative impact of knowledge hiding on creativity (Černe et
al., 2014). Therefore, organisations can think about creating an organisational learning environment by giving a
wide scope of coaching programs, presenting emotionally supportive networks and setting up successful
correspondence channels. Research findings suggested that a performance climate raises the quantity of
knowledge hiding (Anaza and Nowlin, 2017) and fortifies the negative impact of knowledge hiding on creativity
(Černe et al., 2014). Consequently, organisations could assess the inside competition mechanism between
employees, because the unevenness of perceived cost and benefit of knowledge hiding are bound to be higher in
an individualistic and competitive work environment (Zhang et al., 2017). Therefore, HR managers can give
additional training of occupation-related knowledge and skills, so as to decrease the impression of “my”
knowledge and frame the view of “our” knowledge through the improvement of employee’s organizational
commitment and interpersonal relationships, with the goal that workers won't see others as opponents and shield
their territoriality from other coworkers (Huo et al., 2016). Therefore, it is hypothesised that:
H3: Competence development practices decreases workplace knowledge hiding behaviour.
3.4. Fair Rewards Practices and Workplace Knowledge Hiding Behaviour

Fair organisational rewards are the observed justice of different job outcomes, as well as pay conditions,
performance assessments, and employment assignments (Paré and Tremblay, 2007). A high level of perceived
justice sends indicators to employees that the organisation supported them and worried regarding their well-
being (Eisenberger et al., 1986). For example, Meyer and Smith (2000) found that the relations between some
HRM practices and both effective and normative commitment were either completely or partially mediated by
employees’ observations of procedural justice and organisational support. In this manner, employees are
searching for acknowledgement that coordinates their endeavours to feel justice (Coff and Kryscynski, 2011); a
vital piece of this fair is the exposure and the declaration from the organization of their reasons and techniques
behind the internal decision of performance evaluation, promotions, bounces, reward and salaries raising
(Thunnissen, 2016).
The social exchange theory highlights mutual interdependence where action by one party ends up in a
reaction by another, in this way, to positive motivation; a negative relationship can result to negative behaviours
among employees (Semerci, 2018). In accordance with social exchange theory, rewards, organisational support
and different collaborative activities are positively related to knowledge sharing behaviour (Serenko and Bontis,
31
Vol.9, No.3, 2019
2016). Employees who notice solid organisational justice will eventually be certain of that they are important,
worthy, and treated equally by the organisation, and along these activates frame superb organisation-employee
relationships. In this case, they are more likely to view the organisation as their own extension, which could
make them contribute more towards the organisation success (Olkkonen and Lipponen, 2006; Walumbwa and
Schaubroeck, 2009).
Scholars have suggested that employees who observe higher organisational justice can build more grounded
commitment towards their organisations and are extra likely to take on with citizenship behaviours (Ang et al.,
2003; Moorman, 1991; Paré and Tremblay, 2007). In addition, organisational justice can add to the positive
organisational climate, stimulating information sharing intentions between colleagues (Bock et al., 2005; Gagne,
2009). In contrast, when employees observe injustice in the organisational environment, they tend to turn to
knowledge hiding behaviours in fear of getting an unfair return if they shared their information (Burgess, 2005)
and losing control of that information. Thus, organisational justice can encourage employee’s citizenship
motives by conducive to the organisation and sharing information with coworkers (Huo et al., 2016). In addition,
a rewarding injustice system within the organisations can prompt distrust (Bogilović et al., 2017). As indicated
by social exchange theory, distrust weakens the proficiency of social exchange that is directed by inexplicit
reciprocal norms (Blau, 1964). Consequently, distrust not solely result in initial hiding however it can likewise
spread rapidly from the hider to seeker, triggering the target’s future withholding behaviour through shared
distrust circle (Černe et al., 2014; Connelly and Zweig, 2015). Accordingly, organisational distrust can be a solid
indicator of knowledge hiding (Bogilović et al., 2017; Černe et al., 2014; Connelly et al., 2012). As a result,
initiatives can be enforced to extend task interdependence and decision independence throughout job design
(Černe et al., 2017) and to develop agreeable and trustful workforce relationships. Therefore, it is hypothesised
that:
H4: Fair rewards practices decreases workplace knowledge hiding behaviour.
3.5. Information-Sharing Practices and Workplace Knowledge Hiding Behaviour

Past research demonstrates that information sharing practices favour the internalisation of organisational
objectives and values by employees, increment sentiments of common trust, and make employees since they are
essential to the organisation (Meyer and Allen, 1997; Rodwell et al., 1998). As indicated by Lawler (1986),
information sharing is one of the least demanding and best approaches to encourage employee’s contribution
within organisations. Similarly, information sharing considers a key segment of high-performance organisations,
mainly since “the sharing of information on such things as financial performance, strategy, and operational
measures convey to the organisation’s people that they are trusted” [Pfeffer and Veiga, (1999), p.44].
Researchers have proposed that the social exchange relationship among colleagues can be a valued
foundation for creativeness since it activates information sharing between employees (Wang and Noe, 2010).
Once colleagues share their information, it is expected to improve the creative problem-solving ability of
employees (Carmeli et al., 2013), which can support the generation of employee’s own idea (Paulus et al., 2001).
Nevertheless, employees’ knowledge hiding behaviours can diminish their creativity while a reduction of
information flow throughout the organisation (Gong et al., 2012) which will decrease employees’ capacities to
produce creative thinking (Bartol and Srivastava, 2002). In addition, knowledge characteristics can likewise play
a significant role in foreseeing. For example, the level of information complexity, task-relatedness, and
perceived knowledge value have been demonstrated a positive linked with knowledge hiding (Huo et al., 2016;
Steinel et al., 2010). Empirical evidence demonstrates that organisational culture and climate contributes to
workplace knowledge hiding behaviour (Connelly et al., 2012; Husted and Michailova, 2002; Husted et al., 2012;
Lam, 2005). For instance, in an organisation with a culture that is very hostile to information sharing, hoarding
knowledge is viewed as a methodology to manage uncertainty, respect hierarchical status and contribute in
power politics (Michailova and Husted, 2004). Similarly, Parke and Seo (2017) stated that the impact of climate
could alter individual mood state to reduce the target’s negative knowledge hiding.
Employees in organisations with stronger information sharing climates are unlikely to involve in evasive
knowledge hiding behaviour as they are taken into account that this type of behaviour is not socially accepted
(Connelly et al., 2012). Also, employees could be less willing to hide asked information when they also require
information from other coworkers to accomplish their job (Huo et al., 2016). In the event that employee declines
to share information with other coworkers, her/she will be considered as a distrusted individual, and in return,
other coworkers will not be willing to share knowledge with him/her anymore (Černe et al., 2014). Consequently,
organisations can decrease territoriality and information hiding by reinforcing in-group task interdependence
through structuring a high task interdependence work process by means of generating high result
interdependence and providing team feedback, so that employees will concentrate more towards the shared goal
(Huo et al., 2016). As a result, it is vital for organisations to build up a work culture that inspires and
compensates information sharing among colleagues (Jha and Varkkey, 2018). Therefore, it is hypothesised that:
H5: Information-sharing practices decreases workplace knowledge hiding behaviour.
32
Vol.9, No.3, 2019
3.6. Research Model

As discussed in the literature review, HRM practices can have an impact on workplace knowledge hiding
behaviour. In summary, this study proposes a conceptual framework to reflect these relations as illustrated in
Figure 1.
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework and Hypotheses
4. Methodology
4.1. Participants
This research is conducted in the city of Amman (the capital of Jordan). The three telecommunication operators;
Zain, Umnieh and Orange represent the research population, and they are targeted. The population of this
research consists of all the employees working in the three leading companies in the telecommunication and
information technology sector in Jordan; Zain, Orange and Umniah. A random sample that represents the three
organisations’ employees is targeted, since targeting the whole population is not an easy task and has difficulties
on the researchers of time, cost and other human resources issues. Therefore, the data are collected through
random sampling from the population within the three telecommunication operators and the unit of analysis is all
levels of employees. The three companies approached by the researcher to obtain the consensus to participate in
the study and highlighting that participation is completely voluntarily, anonymity, and confidential. In total, 400
sets of questionnaires were distributed. Of this amount, 270 surveys were completely filled, yielding a 67%
response rate.
4.2. Measures
Knowledge hiding was measured with a 12-item scale developed by Connelly et al. (2012). Each dimension was
measured by four-items using a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1= strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree. A
sample item for playing dumb “pretended that I did not know the information”. A sample item for evasive hiding
“Agreed to help him/her but never really intended to”. A sample item for rationalised hiding “Explained that I
would like to tell him/her, but was not permitted by some other people”.
All of the HRM practices scales but one were developed by Paré and Tremblay (2007). Recognition was
measured by a six-item scale. A sample item “In my work, employees’ suggestions are followed up regularly”.
Empowerment was measured using a three-item scale. A sample item “Employees in my work have much
autonomy in project management”. Fair rewards were measured using a five-item scale. A sample item “I
estimate my salary as being fair internally. Competence development practices were measured using a six-item
scale. A sample item “proficiency courses such as specialised technical courses and professional certification are
encouraged by management”. Last, information-sharing practices were measured using a nine-item scale adapted
from the survey of Lawler et al. (1992). A sample item “Employees’ suggestions are followed up”. Using a five-
point Likert scale ranging from 1= strongly disagree to 5= strongly. In addition, participants were asked to report
their gender, age, marital status, education, whether they hold a part-time or a full-time position, job level, and
job experience were included as control variables since the literature has suggested their impact on workplace
knowledge hiding behaviour (Connelly et al., 2012).
Of the study sample, 55.6% were male, 44.4% were female, regarding age in years; 11.9% were (18-24),
33
Vol.9, No.3, 2019
54.4% were (25-34), 19.3% were (35-44), 9.3% were (45-54), 4.8% were (55-64), 0.4% were aged 65 and above.
Also, 44.8% were single, 49.3% were married, 5.9% were divorced or widowed, 0.4% holds less than a high
school degree, 15.2% holds a high school degree, 10% holds a diploma, 53.3% holds a bachelor’s degree, 20%
holds a master’s degree, and 1.1% holds a PhD. Also, 79.3% were working full-time, 26.3% were junior staff,
31.3% were senior staff, 11.9% were junior managers, 23% were middle-level managers, and 7.8% were senior-
level managers. Also, regarding work experience in years; 23% had less than three years, 29.3% have (4-6),
11.1% have (7-9), and 36.7% have more than ten years.
5. Data Analysis
The hypothesised research model was tested by using PLS-SEM (Hair et al., 2016) with the statistical software
SmartPLS 3 (Ringle et al., 2015). PLS is a statistical method that offers greater flexibility comparing to
covariance-based structural equation modelling (SEM) since it is not required for the data to be normally
distributed, also PLS allows smaller sample sizes in the analysis (Hair et al., 2017). The hypothesised model was
tested using a two-step data analysis method. First, perform a series of analysis to ensure the validation and
validity of measurements and to calculate the common method bias. Second, assess the structural model to test
the hypothesised relationships.
5.1. Measurement Validation

Validity refers to whether the research findings are really about what they appear to be about (Saunders et al.,
2016). One of the most useful tests for internal reliability is Cronbach’s alpha, which measures to what extent the
items of a construct are correlated and therefore measure the same aspect (Bryman, 2012). The threshold for
Cronbach’s alpha test is 0.70; therefore, the higher the value, the more reliable the measure is (Hair et al., 2017;
Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994). Accordingly, it was found that all the constructs are above the recommended
threshold of 0.70. In addition, Average Variance Extracted (AVE) analysis was conducted, in order to have good
discriminant validity, the square root of the AVE of each construct should be greater than the correlation of that
construct with other constructs, and should further exceed 0.50 (Gefen and Straub, 2005) which was met (see
Appendix A). Therefore, all items of the constructs are retained. The results are given in Table 2.
Table 2. Measurement Validation
Item/Factor Mean SD Cronbach Alpha Composite Reliability AVE
Competence Development 2.500 1.092 0.876 0.904 0.611
Empowerment 2.440 1.221 0.905 0.940 0.840
Evasive Hiding 2.930 1.290 0.931 0.951 0.829
Fair Rewards 3.130 1.175 0.906 0.930 0.728
Information-Sharing 2.510 1.057 0.944 0.953 0.693
Playing Dumb 2.920 1.158 0.887 0.922 0.746
Rationalized Hiding 3.400 1.105 0.867 0.910 0.716
Recognition 2.560 1.109 0.933 0.947 0.749
N= 270.
5.2. Discriminant Validity

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted to assess the construct validity of the scales further. The result
of a principal component analysis with Varimax rotation generated eight factors for the eight constructs. All the
items loaded strongly on their respective factors, indicating a general unidimensional structure of the instrument
(Hair et al., 2017). In the second stage of measurement validation, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was
conducted to assess the discriminant validity of all construct measures further. Hair et al. (2017) suggested a
minimum of 0.5 for good convergent validity. The analysis indicated that the factor loadings of all constructs
meet this minimum requirement and satisfactory discriminant validity of all constructs as shown in Table 3.
34
Vol.9, No.3, 2019
Table 3. Construct Correlations

Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
CD .782
EM .404*** .916
EH -.067 -.133* .910
FR .218*** .321*** -.504*** .853
IS .440*** .707*** -.099 .375*** .832
PD -.208*** -.328*** .490*** -.990*** -.378*** .864
RH -.530*** -.712*** .078 -.336*** -.784*** .338*** .846
RE .431*** .839*** -.128 .381*** .820*** -.385*** -.815*** .866
N= 270. *** P < 0.001, ** P < 0.01, * P < 0.05. CD= competence development, EM= empowerment, EH=
evasive hiding, FR= fair rewards, IS= information-sharing, PD= playing dumb, RH= rationalized hiding, RE=
recognition.
5.3. Common Method Bias

Harman’s single-factor test was conducted and generated eleven un-rotated factors. Results should be less than
50% (Podsakoff et al., 2003). The largest amount of covariance explained by a single factor was 40%; this result
suggested that common method bias was unlikely to contaminate the results. Based on the above tests, it was
concluded that the scales were reliable and valid and were suitable for hypotheses testing.
6. Results
By using a bootstrap resampling technique to test the hypotheses, the structural model of the PLS regression
analysis including the standardised coefficient and t values were calculated (Efron, 1979). This study used a
resampling procedure with 1000 subsamples to assess the significance of the hypothesised relationships and the
amount of variance in the dependent variables attributed to explanatory variables (Chin, 1998). The study
assessed workplace knowledge hiding behavior, which has been conceptualized as a combination of evasive
hiding, playing dumb, and rationalized hiding (Connelly et al., 2012), using one factor higher-order formative
construct, whereas the rest of the unidimensional latent constructs, i.e., HRM practices, assessed using first-order
reflective measurement models. Figure 2 presents the results of the proposed model estimates which includes the
standardised path coefficients associated with each proposed hypothesis, the significance of the path coefficients,
and the variance explained by the independent variables. The majority of the model paths have significant
coefficients, except for H2 as shown in Table 4.
Figure 2. Hypothesised Measurement and Structural Model

Note. N= 270. * P < .05. ** P < .01. *** P < .001.
Solid lines represent significant paths.
All control variables are pointed to knowledge hiding behaviour include gender, age, marital status, education,
employment status, job level, and work experience.
35
Vol.9, No.3, 2019
Table 4. Path Coefficients and Hypotheses Testing

Path from Path to Coefficient P Values Supported?
H1 Recognition Knowledge hiding -0.216 0.000 Yes
H2 Empowerment Knowledge hiding -0.060 0.216 No
H3 Competence development Knowledge hiding -0.086 0.000 Yes
H4 Fair rewards Knowledge hiding -0.698 0.000 Yes
H5 Information-sharing Knowledge hiding -0.092 0.035 Yes
N= 270.
Several control variables were collected in this study to rule out rival hypotheses and potentially aid in the
interpretation of the results. In particular, the results only show that education has a positive relationship with
knowledge hiding behaviour (β= .055, p < .05). The implication of the study finding is discussed in the next
section.
7. Discussion
This study aims to investigate the effect of HRM practices on workplace knowledge hiding behaviour among
organisational employees in the telecommunication and information technology sector in Jordan, with the focus
on recognition, empowerment, competence development, fair rewards, and information sharing practices. The
findings indicate that implementing efficient HRM practices within the organisation matters a great deal in
dealing with workplace knowledge hiding behaviour.
Regarding the effect of recognition practices on knowledge hiding, evidence strongly suggests that
recognition practices reduce knowledge hiding. These findings are consistent with previous studies that suggest
the importance of recognition as it can be a fundamental driver of human behavior (Agarwal and Ferratt, 1999;
Gomolski, 2000; Paré and Tremblay, 2007) by signaling the appreciation of quality work and achievements and
to cautiously think through employee recommendations and offer them with encouraging response, which will be
an incentive for social exchange relationships to be developed (Witt, 1991). Also, on the basis of reciprocity
norms, employees will be inclined to increase their personal contribution and efforts and ultimately exhibit extra-
role behaviours (Tsui et al., 1997) which will include sharing information with other co-workers in the
organisation.
Regarding the effect of competence development practices on knowledge hiding, evidence strongly
suggests that competence development practices reduce knowledge hiding, this finding is in line with previous
studies finding on mastery organizational climate which can increase trust through boosting co-operation,
knowledge, and moderate the negative impact of workplace knowledge hiding behavior on creativeness (Černe
et al., 2014; Connelly et al., 2012). Similarly, HRM competence development practices can help reducing
knowledge hiding by creating an organisational learning environment through giving an extensive variety of
coaching programs, creating supporting systems, and forming effective communication channels. In addition,
organisations could assess the inside competition mechanism between employees, because the unevenness of
perceived cost and benefit of knowledge hiding are bound to be higher in an individualistic and competitive
work environment (Zhang et al., 2017). Therefore, HR managers can give additional training of occupation-
related knowledge and skills, so as to decrease the impression of “my” knowledge and frame the view of “our”
knowledge through the improvement of employee’s organizational commitment and interpersonal relationships,
with the goal that workers won't see others as opponents and shield their territoriality from other coworkers (Huo
et al., 2016).
Results indicate strong evidence that fair rewards practices reduce knowledge hiding behaviour, this finding
is consistent with the previous study suggest that the links between some HRM practices and both effective and
normative commitment were either completely or partially mediated by employees’ observations of procedural
justice and organisational support (Meyer and Smith, 2000). Accordingly, employees are looking for recognition
that matches their efforts to feel fairness (Coff and Kryscynski, 2011); therefore, rewards, organisational support
and other collaborative actions are positively associated with knowledge sharing (Serenko and Bontis, 2016).
Employees who notice solid organisational justice will eventually be certain of that they are important, worthy,
and treated equally by the organisation, and along these activates frame superb organisation-employee
relationships. Moreover, organisational justice can add to the positive organisational climate, stimulating
information sharing intentions between colleagues (Bock et al., 2005; Gagné, 2009). When employees observe
injustice in the organisational atmosphere, they tend to turn to knowledge hiding behaviours in fear of getting an
unfair return if they shared their information (Burgess, 2005) and losing control of that information. Therefore,
the unfair rewarding system in the organisations will lead to distrust which does not solely result in initial hiding
however it can likewise spread rapidly from the hider to seeker, triggering the target’s future withholding
behaviour through shared distrust circle (Černe et al., 2014; Connelly and Zweig, 2015). Therefore, initiatives
could be implemented to raise job interdependence and decision independence through job design (Černe et al.,
2017) and to promote harmonious and trustful workplace environment.
36
Vol.9, No.3, 2019
This study found that there is a strong negative relationship between information-sharing practices and
workplace knowledge hiding behaviour, this is in line with previous studies suggesting that organizational
culture and climate contribute to knowledge hiding (Connelly et al., 2012; Husted and Michailova, 2002; Husted
et al., 2012; Lam, 2005) by adjusting personal mood state to reduce the object’s negative workplace knowledge
hiding behaviour (Parke and Seo, 2017). Accordingly, in a company with a culture that is very hostile to
information sharing, hoarding knowledge is viewed as a methodology to manage uncertainty, respect
hierarchical status and contribute in power politics (Michailova and Husted, 2004). Information sharing is one of
the least demanding and best approaches to encourage employee’s contribution within organisations (Lawler,
1986). Once colleagues share their information, it is expected to improve the creative problem-solving ability of
employees (Carmeli et al., 2013), which can support employees to generate their own ideas more creatively.
Therefore, employees in organisations with robust information sharing climates are unlikely to participate in
evasive knowledge hiding since it is considered not socially accepted (Connelly et al., 2012). Consequently,
organisations can decrease territoriality and information hiding by reinforcing in-group task interdependence
through structuring a high task interdependence work process by means of generating high result
interdependence and providing team feedback, so that employees will concentrate more towards the shared goal
(Huo et al., 2016). Therefore, it is necessary for organisations to develop a work culture that encourages and
rewards information sharing between coworkers.
In addition, this study found that employee’s education is positively related to workplace knowledge hiding
behaviour, this is in line with previous studies that found individual demographics (i.e., gender, age, and
education), firm characteristics (i.e., firm age, and size), and organizational climate (i.e., individuals’ perceptions
of their work environment) can influence employees’ knowledge-based behaviours (Bock et al., 2005; Connelly
et al., 2012; Peng, 2013). More specifically, Zhai and Xia (2018) study found a positive relationship between
nurses education and knowledge hiding (β= 0.12, p < 0.05). Also, Pan and Zhang (2016) study suggested
motivations of graduate students’ knowledge hiding comes from an organisational level, including team norms,
ideas unprotected, and organisational competitive climate; to obey team norms, or confidential norms, graduate
students choose to conceal knowledge. Accordingly, employees usually possess relevant knowledge behaviours
prior to joining their current job because of prior work experience or education (Serenko and Bontis, 2016),
therefore, this behaviour from college can also be transformed into the workplace as a competitive organizational
climate is another consideration for workplace knowledge hiding (Swift et al., 2010). Accordingly, employees
who perceive competition abstain from sharing their experiences, knowledge and resources (Semerci, 2018).
Therefore, this result could be explained that the higher education employees have, the higher competitive they
become.
7.1. Theoretical Implications

To the best of the author knowledge, this is the first study to investigate the relationship between HRM practices
and workplace knowledge hiding behaviour in the relatively unexplored and highly competitive work context of
Jordan. This study provides an important contribution to current knowledge behaviour literature by identifying
which HRM practices impact workplace knowledge hiding behaviour. This study investigated workplace
knowledge hiding behaviour in a non-Western context, to better understand which HRM practices affecting
knowledge hiding behaviour in a collectivistic culture. Scholars have examined the role of organisational justice
in workplace knowledge hiding behaviour (Connelly et al., 2012; Colquitt et al., 2002). Accordingly, several
have suggested that the nature of the effect could be different in terms of the role of employees and background
characteristics. For instance, Leung and Michael (1984) stated that individuals within individualistic cultures are
more likely to use different norms of justice and fairness than individuals within collectivistic cultures. As a
result, results from collectivistic cultures add to the literature by offering more evidence of the role of HRM
practices in workplace knowledge hiding behaviours (Huo et al., 2016). Overall, the study results provide
important contributions to the current knowledge behaviour literature. By using a research sample from a
developing country and collectivistic culture, this study comprehensively addressed the research calls of Xiao
and Cooke (2018) and Zhang et al. (2017), to examine the (1) relationship between HRM practices on workplace
knowledge hiding behavior and (2) investigating workplace knowledge hiding behavior in different cultural
context. Additionally, employing rigorous data analysis in PLS-SEM, and a number of newly developed
advanced analytical techniques such as multigroup analysis (MGA) which can be an important methodological
contribution of this paper to the knowledge-behaviour literature (Arain et al., 2018).
7.2. Practical Implications

The findings of this study offer a number of key implications for practitioners, by examining the mechanism by
which HRM practices affect workplace knowledge hiding behaviour, which is important from an organisational
and individual perspective. Also, this study is considered one of the first studies to examine knowledge hiding
behaviour in HRM perspective. Owing to the above-mentioned main characteristic of workplace information-
37
Vol.9, No.3, 2019
sharing behaviours this study results offer a number of recommendations for practice for HR managers.
First, the present study has found that recognition practices can reduce workplace knowledge hiding
behaviour. Therefore, managers can keep satisfactory organisational justice by clearly showing to employees that
their information and knowledge contribution will be linked with suitable rewards, through showing suitable
equality of respect, ethical leadership and enhancing trust between employees (Brown et al., 2005). Also,
managers should improve the emotional intelligence of workers to guarantee that they are extra confident and
less self-doubting themselves. Also, issues like the anxiety of losing job status and job insecurity are vital to be
addressed which can produce a healthy organisational social exchange climate (Jha and Varkkey, 2018).
Second, the present study has found that competence development practices can reduce workplace
knowledge hiding behaviour. Therefore, managers could think through providing more training on knowledge
and information management. Also, by improving employee’s organisational commitment and interpersonal
relationships to increase knowledge sharing to direct the overall efforts towards organisational goals. In addition,
it was suggested that efforts to increase team cognition could increase workplace information sharing (Grand et
al., 2016). Simultaneously, team cognition can also be improved through team training (Salas et al., 2008).
Therefore, HR managers can increase team cognition through training to reduce information hiding behaviour
(Fong et al., 2018). For instance, HR managers can encourage team members to share more work-related
information by training to increase their feelings of accountability, responsibility, and duty.
Third, results indicate that fair rewards practices can reduce workplace knowledge hiding behaviour.
Therefore, organisations should act in a transparency and fairness way in the rewards system and career
movements to discourage knowledge hiding in the workplace. Chen et al. (2012) suggested that managers can
implement some rewarding incentives for effective use of knowledge sharing systems, and this way they can
overcome employees’ resistance to knowledge sharing. Managers should consider not only in improving
motivation and reward system but encourage teamwork and increase team cohesion. Accordingly, teamwork and
promoting collective knowledge ownership might decrease an individual’s perception of possessed knowledge,
thus encouraging knowledge sharing.
Fourth, the present study has found that information-sharing practices can reduce workplace knowledge
hiding behaviour. Therefore, managers can decrease workplace knowledge hiding behaviour through the
reinforcement of in-group task interdependence. Similarly, managers may form a high task interdependence
workflow by producing high outcome interdependence and providing group feedback so that employees will
focus more on the shared organisational goals (Huo et al., 2016). As a result, it is necessary for organisations to
create an organisational culture that encourages and rewards information sharing between team members by
forming well-designed and dynamic information sharing systems which can support organisations to enhance
knowledge exchange behaviours such as enterprise social networking sites. Accordingly, managers could control
workplace knowledge hiding behaviour by means of adopting a culture of mutual trust, collaboration and
increasing organisational citizen behaviour.
7.3. Limitations and Future Research Direction

This study has several limitations that lead to avenues for future research. First, this research is a cross-sectional
study which makes it difficult to justify the direction of causality between the constructs (Maxwell and Cole,
2007). Therefore, future researchers may conduct a longitudinal study. Second, data has been collected from the
telecommunication and information technology sector in Jordan which limits the generalizability of the findings
to other countries and cultures. Therefore, future studies may investigate the effect of HRM practices in other
countries to explore if the results are consistent across different cultures. Third, regardless of several advantages
of using PLS-SEM, such as implementing a rigorous 3-step method to guarantee measurement invariance of the
hypothesised model, it does have some restrictions. For instance, it does not deliver standard goodness-of-fit
statistics, and the assessment of model is grounded on its capability to predict the endogenous variable. Also, it is
preferable to be used when implementing formative indicators (Hair et al., 2016). Therefore, this study finding
should be taken in light of these limitations in mind. Fourth, as the focus of the present study is limited to
investigate the relationship between HRM practices and knowledge hiding, future researchers may examine the
effect of other factors that could reduce knowledge hiding behavior such as other HRM practices or using
enterprise and public social networking sites at work through the lens of social information processing theory
(Salancik and Pfeffer, 1978). Finally, this study did not include other plausible moderators in the relationship
between HRM practices and knowledge hiding, such as a perceived mastery motivational climate and cultural
value orientations.
8. Conclusion
This study offers empirical evidence of the connection between HRM practices and knowledge hiding behaviour
among organisational employees in the telecommunication and information technology sector in Jordan.
Drawing from the social exchange theory the findings suggested that HRM practices reduce knowledge hiding
38
Vol.9, No.3, 2019
behaviour in terms of recognition, fair rewards, competence development, fair rewards, and information-sharing
practices. In addition, this study found that employee’s education is positively related to workplace knowledge
hiding behaviour. The present study offers a better understanding of the relationship between HRM practices and
workplace knowledge hiding behaviour in a developing country perspective and also discusses the theoretical
and practical implications of the findings.
Acknowledgements
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-
profit sectors. Being a first and corresponding author of this article, I declare that there is no conflict of interest
related to this article. All the procedures performed in this research/article involving human participants were in
accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964
Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This article does not contain any
studies with animals performed by any of the authors. Accordingly, informed consent was obtained from all the
individual participants included in the study.
References
Agarwal, R., & Thomas W. F. (1999). Coping with labor scarcity in information technology: Strategies and
practices for effective recruitment and retention. Pinnaflex Educational Resources.
Altarawneh, I. I. (2016). Strategic human resources management and its impact on performance: The case from
Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Business Management & Economic Research, 7(1).
Anaza, N. A., & Nowlin, E. L. (2017). What's mine is mine: A study of salesperson knowledge withholding &
hoarding behavior. Industrial Marketing Management, 64, 14 - 24.
Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., & Begley, T. M. (2003). The employment relationships of foreign workers versus local
employees: A field study of organizational justice, job satisfaction, performance, and OCB. Journal of
Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational
Psychology and Behavior, 24(5), 561 - 583.
Appelbaum, E., Bailey, T., Berg, P. B., Kalleberg, A. L., & Bailey, T. A. (2000). Manufacturing advantage: Why
high-performance work systems pay off. Cornell University Press.
Arain, G. A., Bhatti, Z. A., Ashraf, N., & Fang, Y. H. (2018). 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. Journal of Business Ethics, 1 - 15.
Babcock, P. (2004). Shedding light on knowledge management. HR Magazine, 49(5), 46 - 51.
Bartol, K. & Srivastava, A. (2002) Encouraging knowledge sharing: the role of organizational rewards. Journal
of Leadership & Organisational Studies, 9(1), 64 - 76.
Becker, B. E. & Huselid, M. A. (1992). The incentive effects of tournament compensation
systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 336 - 350.
Bhuvanaiah, T. & Raya, R. P. (2015). Mechanism of improved performance: Intrinsic motivation and employee
engagement. SCMS Journal of Indian Management, 12(4), 92.
Blau, P. M. (1964) Exchange and power in social life. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Bock, G. W., Zmud, R. W., Kim, Y. G., & Lee, J. N. (2005). Behavioral intention formation in knowledge
sharing: Examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces, and organizational
climate. MIS Quarterly, 87 - 111.
Bogilović, S., Černe, M., & Škerlavaj, M. (2017). Hiding behind a mask? Cultural intelligence, knowledge
hiding, and individual and team creativity. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 26(5), 710 - 723.
Brown G, Lawrence, T. B., & Robinson, S. L. (2005) Territoriality in organisations. Academy of Management
Review, 30(3), 577 - 594.
Bryman, A. (2012). Sampling in qualitative research. In Social Research Methods, 415 - 429. New York: Oxford
University Inc.
Burgess, D. (2005). What motivates employees to transfer knowledge outside their work unit?. The Journal of
Business Communication (1973), 42(4), 324 - 348.
Cabrera, A. & Cabrera, E. F. (2002) Knowledge-sharing dilemmas. Organisation Studies, 23(5), 687 - 710.
Carmeli, A., Gelbard, R., & Reiter‐Palmon, R. (2013). Leadership, creative problem‐solving capacity, and
creative performance: The importance of knowledge sharing. Human Resource Management, 52(1), 95 -
121.
Černe, M., Hernaus, T., Dysvik, A., & Skerlavaj, M. (2017). The role of multilevel synergistic interplay among
team mastery climate, knowledge hiding, and job characteristics in stimulating innovative work behaviour.
Human Resource Management Journal, 27(2), 281 - 299.
Černe, M., Nerstad, C. G., Dysvik, A., & Skerlavaj, M. (2014). What goes around comes around: Knowledge
39
Vol.9, No.3, 2019
hiding, perceived motivational climate, and creativity. Social Science Electronic Publishing, 57(1), 172 -
192.
Chen, C. W., Chang, M. L., & Tseng, C. P. (2012). Retracted: Human factors of knowledge‐sharing intention
among Taiwanese enterprises: A model of hypotheses. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing
& Service Industries, 22(4), 362 - 371.
Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Modern methods for
business research, 295(2), 295 - 336.
Coff, R., & Kryscynski, D. (2011). Invited editorial: Drilling for micro-foundations of human capital–based
competitive advantages. Journal of Management, 37(5), 1429 - 1443.
Colquitt, J. A., Noe, R. A., & Jackson, C. L. (2002). Justice in teams: Antecedents and consequences of
procedural justice climate. Personnel Psychology, 55(1), 83 - 109.
Connelly, C. E. & Zweig, D. (2015). How perpetrators and targets construe knowledge hiding in organisations.
European Journal of Work & Organisational Psychology, 24(3), 479 - 489.
Connelly, C. E., Zweig, D., & Webster, J. (2006). Knowledge hiding in organisations. Paper presented in the
symposium ‘Don’t say a word: explaining employees’ withholding of knowledge from coworkers’. The
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology Conference. Dallas, TX.
Connelly, C. E., Zweig, D., Webster, J., & Trougakos, J. P. (2012). Knowledge hiding in organisations. Journal
of Organisational Behaviour, 33(1), 64 - 88.
Cooke, F. L. (2002). The important role of maintenance workforce in technological change: a much neglected
aspect. Human Relations, 55(8), 963 - 988.
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of
Management, 31(6), 874 - 900.
Cropanzano, R., Dasborough, M. T., & Weiss, H. M. (2017). Affective events and the development of leader-
member exchange. Academy of Management Review, 42(2), 233 - 258.
Davison R., M., Ou, C., X., & Martinsons, M., G. (2018). Interpersonal knowledge exchange in China: The
impact of guanxi and social media. Information & Management, 55(2), 224 - 234.
Delaney, J. T., & Huselid, M. A. (1996). The impact of human resource management practices on perceptions of
organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal, 39(4), 949 - 969.
Eby, L. T., Freeman, D. M., Rush, M. C., & Lance, C. E. (1999). Motivational bases of affective organizational
commitment: A partial test of an integrative theoretical model. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 72(4), 463 - 483.
Efron, B. (1979). Computers and the theory of statistics: thinking the unthinkable. SIAM Review, 21(4), 460 -
480.
Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990). Perceived organizational support and employee
diligence, commitment, and innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(1), 51.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of
Applied psychology, 71(3), 500.
Fong, P. S., Men, C., Luo, J., & Jia, R. (2018). Knowledge hiding and team creativity: the contingent role of task
interdependence. Management Decision, 56(2), 329 - 343.
Gagné, M. (2009). A model of knowledge‐sharing motivation. Human Resource Management: Published in
Cooperation with the School of Business Administration, The University of Michigan and in alliance with
the Society of Human Resources Management, 48(4), 571 - 589.
Gefen, D., & Straub, D. (2005). A practical guide to factorial validity using PLS-Graph: Tutorial and annotated
example. Communications of the Association for Information systems, 16(1), 5.
Gomolski, B. (2000). Management update: Tips to identify successful candidates for telecommuting. InSide
Gartner Group, 1 - 12.
Gong, Y., Cheung, S. Y., Wang, M., & Huang, J. C. (2012). Unfolding the proactive process for creativity:
Integration of the employee proactivity, information exchange, and psychological safety
perspectives. Journal of Management, 38(5), 1611 - 1633.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-
member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain
perspective. The leadership quarterly, 6(2), 219 - 247.
Grand, J.A., Braun, M.T., Kuljanin, G., Kozlowski, S.W.J., & Chao, G.T. (2016). The dynamics of team
cognition: a process-oriented theory of knowledge emergence in teams, Journal of Applied Psychology,
101(10), 1353 - 1385.
Hair Jr, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). A primer on partial least squares structural
equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage Publications.
Huo, W., Cai, Z., Luo, J., Men, C., & Jia, R. (2016). Antecedents and intervention mechanisms: a multi-level
study of R&D team’s knowledge hiding behavior. Journal of Knowledge Management, 20(5), 880 - 897.
40
Vol.9, No.3, 2019
Huselid, M. A. (1995). The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity, and
corporate financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 38(3), 635 - 672.
Huselid, M. A., Jackson, S. E., & Schuler, R. S. (1997). Technical and strategic human resources management
effectiveness as determinants of firm performance. Academy of Management Journal, 40(1), 171 - 188.
Husted K & S Michailova (2002) Diagnosing and fighting knowledge-sharing hostility. Organisational
Dynamics, 31(1), 60 - 73.
Husted, K. S., Michailova, Minbaeva, D. B., & Pedersen, T. (2012). Knowledge-sharing hostility and
governance mechanisms: an empirical test. Journal of Knowledge Management, 16(5), 754 - 773.
Jha, K., J., & Varkkey, B. (2018). Are you a cistern or a channel? Exploring factors triggering knowledge-hiding
behavior at the workplace: evidence from the Indian R&D professionals. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 22(4), 824 - 849.
Kang, S. W. (2016). Knowledge withholding: psychological hindrance to the innovation diffusion within an
organisation. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 14(1), 144 - 149.
Https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2014.24
Knoke, D., & Kalleberg, A. L. (1994). Job training in US organizations. American Sociological Review, 537 -
546.
Ko, D. G., Kirsch, L. J., & King, W. R. (2005). Antecedents of knowledge transfer from consultants to clients in
enterprise system implementations. MIS Quarterly, 59 - 85.
Konstantinou, E. & Fincham, R. (2010). Not sharing but trading: applying a Maussian exchange framework to
knowledge management. Human Relations, 64(6), 823 - 842.
Kuvaas B, R Buch, A Dysvik, & T Haerem (2012) Economic and social leader-member exchange relationships
and follower performance. Leadership Quarterly, 23(5), 756 - 765.
Lam, W. (2005). Successful knowledge management requires a knowledge culture: a case study. Knowledge
Management Research & Practice, 3(4), 206 - 217.
Lawler III, E. E. (1986). High-Involvement Management. Participative Strategies for Improving Organizational
Performance. Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers, 350 Sansome Street, San Francisco, CA 94104.
Lawler, E. E., Mohrman, S. A., & Ledford, G. E. (1992). Employee involvement and total quality management:
Practices and results in Fortune 1000 companies. Jossey-Bass Inc Pub.
Leung, M. K., & Stefano, G. B. (1984). Isolation and identification of enkephalins in pedal ganglia of Mytilus
edulis (Mollusca). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 81(3), 955 - 958.
Lian, H., Ferris, L., & Brown, D. J. (2012). Does power distance exacerbate or mitigate the effects of abusive
supervision? It depends on the outcome. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1), 107 - 123.
Maxwell, S. E., & Cole, D. A. (2007). Bias in cross-sectional analyses of longitudinal mediation. Psychological
Methods, 12(1), 23.
McMahan, G. C., Bell, M. P., & Virick, M. (1998). Strategic human resource management: Employee
involvement, diversity, and international issues. Human Resource Management Review, 8(3), 193 - 214.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Advanced topics in organization behavior series. Commitment in the
workplace: Theory, research, and application. Thousand Oaks, CA, US.
Meyer, J. P., & Smith, C. A. (2000). HRM practices and organizational commitment: Test of a mediation
model. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 17(4), 319 - 331.
Michailova, S. & Husted, K. (2003). Knowledge-sharing hostility in Russian firms. California Management
Review, 45(3), 59 - 77.
Michailova, S. & Husted, K. (2004). Decision making in organisations hostile to knowledge sharing. Journal for
East European Management Studies, 9(1), 7 - 19.
Minbaeva, D. (2013). Strategic HRM in building micro-foundations of organisational knowledge based
performance. Human Resource Management Review, 23(4), 378 - 3907.
Molm, L. D. (1994). Dependence and risk: Transforming the structure of social exchange. Social Psychology
Quarterly, 163 - 176.
Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors:
Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship?. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(6), 845.
Nahapiet, J. & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organisational advantage. Academy
of Management Review, 23(2), 242 - 266.
Nanda, A. (1996), “Resources, capabilities and competencies”, in Moingeon, B. and Edmondson, A. (Eds),
Organizational Learning and Competitive Advantage, Sage, London.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric Theory (McGraw-Hill Series in Psychology), 3. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Olkkonen, M. E., & Lipponen, J. (2006). Relationships between organizational justice, identification with
organization and work unit, and group-related outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 100(2), 202 - 215.
41
Vol.9, No.3, 2019
Pan, W. & Zhang, Q. P. (2016). Research on the effect mechanism of perceived knowledge ownership on
knowledge hiding: perspective of knowledge power. R&DManagement, 28(3), 25 - 46.
Pan, W., Zhou, Y., & Zhang, Q. P. (2016). Does darker hide more knowledge? The relationship between
Machiavellianism and knowledge hiding. International Journal of Security and Its Applications, 10 (11),
281 - 292.
Paré, G., & Tremblay, M. (2007). The influence of high-involvement human resources practices, procedural
justice, organizational commitment, and citizenship behaviors on information technology professionals'
turnover intentions. Group & Organization Management, 32(3), 326 - 357.
Parke, M. & Seo, M. G. (2017). The role of affect climate in organisational effectiveness. Academy of
Management Review, 42(2), 334 - 360.
Paulus, P. B., Larey, T. S., & Dzindolet, M. T. (2001). Creativity in groups and teams. Groups at work: Theory
and research, 319 - 338.
Peng, H. (2013). Why and when do people hide knowledge? Journal of Knowledge Management, 17(3), 398 -
415.
Perry-Smith, J. E. (2006). Social yet creative: The role of social relationships in facilitating individual
creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 85 - 101.
Pfeffer, J., & Veiga, J. F. (1999). Putting people first for organizational success. Academy of Management
Perspectives, 13(2), 37 - 48.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship
behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future
research. Journal of Management, 26(3), 513 - 563.
Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Becker, J. M. (2015). SmartPLS 3. Boenningstedt: SmartPLS GmbH,
http://www.smartpls.com.
Rodwell, J. J., Kienzle, R., & Shadur, M. A. (1998). The relationship among work‐related perceptions, employee
attitudes, and employee performance: The integral role of communications. Human Resource Management:
Published in Cooperation with the School of Business Administration, The University of Michigan and in
alliance with the Society of Human Resources Management, 37(3‐4), 277 - 293.
Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task
design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 224 - 253.
Salas, E., Cooke, N.J., & Rosen, M. A. (2008). On teams, teamwork, and team performance: discoveries and
developments, Human Factors, 50(3), 540 - 547.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. (2016). Research Methods for Business Students. Harlow: Pearson
Education Limited.
Semerci, A. B. (2018). Examination of knowledge hiding with conflict, competition and personal
values. International Journal of Conflict Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCMA-03-2018-0044
Serenko, A. & Bontis, N. (2016). Understanding counterproductive knowledge behaviour: antecedents and
consequences of intra-organisational knowledge hiding. Journal of Knowledge Management, 20(6), 1199 -
1224.
Steinel, W., Utz, S., & Koning, L. (2010). The good, the bad and the ugly thing to do when sharing information:
Revealing, concealing and lying depend on social motivation, distribution and importance of
information. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 113(2), 85 - 96.
Stenius, M., Hankonen, N., Ravaja, N., & Haukkala, A. (2016). Why share expertise? A closer look at the
quality of motivation to share or withhold knowledge. Journal of Knowledge Management, 20(2), 181 - 198.
Swart, J. (2007), HRM and knowledge workers, in Peter, B., John, P. and Patrick, W. (Eds), Oxford Handbook of
Human Resource Management, Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York, 450 - 468.
Swift, M., Balkin, D. B., & Matusik, S. F. (2010). Goal orientations and the motivation to share
knowledge. Journal of Knowledge Management, 14(3), 378 - 393.
The Globe and Mail. (2006). The Weekly Web Poll, Friday, 12 May, 6(1).
Thunnissen, M. (2016). Talent management: For what, how and how well? An empirical exploration of talent
management in practice. Employee Relations, 38(1), 57 - 72.
Tsui, A. S., Pearce, J. L., Porter, L. W., & Tripoli, A. M. (1997). Alternative approaches to the employee-
organization relationship: Does investment in employees pay off?. Academy of Management Journal, 40(5),
1089 - 1121.
Vandenberg, R. J., Richardson, H. A., & Eastman, L. J. (1999). The impact of high involvement work processes
on organizational effectiveness: A second-order latent variable approach. Group & Organization
Management, 24(3), 300 - 339.
Walumbwa, F. O., & Schaubroeck, J. (2009). Leader personality traits and employee voice behavior: mediating
roles of ethical leadership and work group psychological safety. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 12 -
75.
42
Vol.9, No.3, 2019
Wang, S. & Noe, R. A. (2010). Knowledge sharing: a review and directions for future research. Human
Resource Management Review, 20(2), 115 - 131.
Wasko, M. M., & Faraj, S. (2005). Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge contribution in
electronic networks of practice. MIS Quarterly, 35 - 57.
Webster, J., Brown, G., Zweig, D., Connelly, C. E., Brodt, S., & Sitkin, S. (2008). Beyond knowledge sharing:
withholding knowledge at work. In JJ Martocchio (ed) Research in Personnel and Human Resources
Management, 1 - 37. Emerald Group Publishing, Bradford, UK.
Weiss, M. R., & Stevens, C. (1993). Motivation and attrition of female coaches: An application of social
exchange theory. The Sport Psychologist, 7(3), 244 - 261.
Whitener, E. M. (2001). Do “high commitment” human resource practices affect employee commitment? A
cross-level analysis using hierarchical linear modeling. Journal of Management, 27(5), 515 - 535.
Williamson, O. E. (1995). Transaction cost economics. SSRN Electronic Journal, 1(1), 41 - 65.
Witt, L. A. (1991). Exchange ideology as a moderator of job attitudes‐organizational citizenship behaviors
relationships 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21(18), 1490 - 1501.
Wu, W. L., Hsu, B. F., & Yeh, R. S. (2007). Fostering the determinants of knowledge transfer: a team-level
analysis. Journal of Information Science, 33(3), 326 - 339.
Xiao, M., & Cooke, F. L. (2018). 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 Journal of Human
Resources. https://doi.org/10.1111/1744-7941.12198
Zhang B., S. & Q., P., Zhang. (2017). Research on the antecedents of members’ knowledge hiding behavior in
knowledge-based organisation based on grounded theory. Science & Technology Progress and Policy,
34(10), 105 - 110.
Zhang, M., Luo, M. F., & Nie, R. (2017). An analysis of individuals’ hiding intention of tacit knowledge in
university research team. Information Studies: Theory & Application, 40(7), 74 - 79.
Zhao, H. Q., Xia, P., He, G., Sheard, & Wan, P. (2016). Workplace ostracism and knowledge hiding in service
organisations. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 59, 84 - 94.
Zhao, H., & Xia, Q. (2018). Nurses’ negative affective states, moral disengagement, and knowledge hiding: The
moderating role of ethical leadership. Journal of Nursing Management. https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.12675
43
Vol.9, No.3, 2019
Appendix A. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

Item CD EM EH FR IS PD RH RE
CD1 .757 .272 -.063 .132 .264 -.123 -.417 .272
CD2 .780 .269 .016 .048 .269 -.044 -.418 .301
CD3 .770 .198 .028 .062 .193 -.065 -.382 .235
CD4 .812 .333 -.083 .247 .362 -.227 -.385 .366
CD5 .800 .243 -.033 .146 .255 -.136 -.353 .277
CD6 .771 .462 -.110 .272 .557 -.267 -.488 .466
EH1 -.066 -.134 .929 -.469 -.085 .458 .095 -.112
EH2 -.025 -.128 .925 -.447 -.089 .443 .052 -.119
EH3 -.107 -.122 .886 -.447 -.110 .421 .091 -.138
EH4 -.046 -.099 .901 -.471 -.077 .463 .044 -.100
EM1 .349 .914 -.128 .281 .671 -.295 -.653 .784
EM2 .368 .907 -.114 .281 .623 -.284 -.624 .749
EM3 .393 .928 -.123 .319 .650 -.322 -.680 .773
FR1 .227 .299 -.466 .857 .325 -.864 -.306 .336
FR2 .127 .238 -.426 .857 .309 -.853 -.243 .283
FR3 .185 .291 -.429 .867 .337 -.883 -.302 .359
FR4 .175 .305 -.372 .838 .336 -.854 -.313 .349
FR5 .216 .231 -.457 .845 .290 -.760 -.265 .295
IS1 .294 .568 -.106 .340 .852 -.355 -.626 .653
IS2 .367 .629 -.063 .329 .866 -.328 -.619 .690
IS3 .334 .515 -.117 .304 .755 -.304 -.583 .603
IS4 .351 .556 -.100 .327 .805 -.320 -.648 .637
IS5 .356 .540 -.084 .307 .832 -.311 -.639 .677
IS6 .430 .540 -.058 .254 .818 -.254 -.644 .636
IS7 .340 .570 -.089 .339 .869 -.335 -.621 .684
IS8 .437 .687 -.099 .317 .843 -.322 -.745 .777
IS9 .388 .673 -.024 .285 .845 -.298 -.734 .766
PD1 -.227 -.299 .466 -.857 -.325 .864 .306 -.336
PD2 -.127 -.238 .426 -.857 -.309 .853 .243 -.283
PD3 -.185 -.291 .429 -.867 -.337 .883 .302 -.359
PD4 -.175 -.305 .372 -.838 -.336 .854 .313 -.349
RE1 .391 .742 -.131 .346 .713 -.349 -.715 .850
RE2 .360 .717 -.096 .360 .762 -.370 -.719 .847
RE3 .346 .744 -.123 .318 .719 -.322 -.693 .875
RE4 .359 .721 -.102 .315 .697 -.319 -.698 .869
RE5 .347 .702 -.158 .336 .645 -.332 -.694 .870
RE6 .438 .729 -.053 .299 .719 -.299 -.712 .881
RH1 -.451 -.546 .132 -.341 -.639 .344 .802 -.631
RH2 -.482 -.623 .025 -.236 -.675 .236 .858 -.714
RH3 -.455 -.616 .015 -.259 -.666 .258 .868 -.704
RH4 -.406 -.626 .084 -.293 -.673 .296 .855 -.711
N= 270. CD= competence development, EM= empowerment, EH= evasive hiding, FR= fair rewards, IS=
information-sharing, PD= playing dumb, RH= rationalized hiding, RE= recognition.
44

1 PB PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 PB PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Information and Knowledge Management www.iiste.

Impact of Human Resources Management Practices on

2.1. Workplace Knowledge Hiding Behaviour

2.2. Social Exchange Theory

2.3. Human Resources Management Practices

3. Research Hypotheses and Model

3.2. Empowerment Practices and Workplace Knowledge Hiding Behaviour

3.3. Competence Development Practices and Workplace Knowledge Hiding Behaviour

3.4. Fair Rewards Practices and Workplace Knowledge Hiding Behaviour

3.5. Information-Sharing Practices and Workplace Knowledge Hiding Behaviour

3.6. Research Model

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework and Hypotheses

5.1. Measurement Validation

5.2. Discriminant Validity

Table 3. Construct Correlations

5.3. Common Method Bias

Figure 2. Hypothesised Measurement and Structural Model

Table 4. Path Coefficients and Hypotheses Testing

7.1. Theoretical Implications

7.2. Practical Implications

7.3. Limitations and Future Research Direction

Appendix A. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

You might also like