European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology

ISSN: 1359-432X (Print) 1464-0643 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pewo20

The knowledge hiding link: a moderated mediation

model of how abusive supervision affects
employee creativity

Sadia Jahanzeb, Tasneem Fatima, Dave Bouckenooghe & Fatima Bashir

To cite this article: Sadia Jahanzeb, Tasneem Fatima, Dave Bouckenooghe & Fatima Bashir
(2019): The knowledge hiding link: a moderated mediation model of how abusive supervision
affects employee creativity, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, DOI:
10.1080/1359432X.2019.1659245

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2019.1659245

Published online: 27 Aug 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=pewo20
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WORK AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY
https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2019.1659245

The knowledge hiding link: a moderated mediation model of how abusive supervision
affects employee creativity
Sadia Jahanzeba, Tasneem Fatimab, Dave Bouckenooghec and Fatima Bashirb
a
Business (Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences), Memorial University of Newfoundland (Grenfell campus), Corner Brook, Canada; bFaculty of
Management Sciences, International Islamic University, Islamabad, Pakistan; cGoodman School of Business, Brock University, St. Catharines,
Ontario, Canada

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Drawing on social exchange and displaced aggression theories, this study investigates the mediating Received 23 May 2018
role of knowledge hiding in the relationship between employees’ exposure to abusive supervision and Accepted 19 August 2019
their creative performance, as well as the invigorating role of their negative reciprocity beliefs in this KEYWORDS
process. We collected time-lagged data from employees in a sample of Pakistani organizations and Abusive supervision;
found that an important reason abusive supervision decreases employees’ creativity is that employees knowledge hiding; creativity;
reciprocate through self-serving knowledge-hiding behaviour. This mechanism, in turn, is more promi- social exchange theory;
nent among employees who score high on negative reciprocity beliefs. This study reveals a key factor, displaced aggression theory
i.e., knowledge hiding, by which abusive supervision hinders employees’ creativity, but our findings
indicate that this process is more likely to escalate when employees have negative reciprocity beliefs,
which cause them to be more vulnerable to experiencing negative social exchanges.

Introduction research and practice have paid far less attention to

explaining why certain leadership styles can be detrimen-
In today’s competitive environment, firms are challenged
tal to creativity (Gu, Song, & Wu, 2016; Han, Harms, & Bai,
to develop capabilities for change and innovation to sus-
2017; Lee, Yun, & Srivastava, 2013; Liu, Liao, & Loi, 2012;
tain and survive in the rapidly changing business environ-
Liu, Zhang, Liao, Hao, & Mao, 2016; Zhang, Kwan, Zhang, &
ment (Agnihotri, Rapp, Andzulis, & Gabler, 2014; Coelho,
Wu, 2014). By focusing on abusive leadership and its
Augusto, & Lages, 2011). Accordingly, firms recognize the
association with creative performance, we extend the pre-
significance of employee creativity, defined as their pro-
vious literature by exploring how abusive supervision can
pensity to generate new, useful and novel ideas regarding
hinder the emergence of creativity.
products, practices, services or procedures in the work-
Multiple studies have offered empirical support for the link
place and to help secure competitive advantage
between abusive supervision and the retaliatory behaviour of
(Amabile, 1983; Reiter-Palmon, 2011). Multiple factors
subordinates against their abusive bosses (Hackney & Perrewé,
have been identified that affect the creative performance
2018; Hershcovis & Barling, 2010). Because of this emphasis on
of employees, ranging from individual difference variables
overt- and target-oriented forms of retribution, this same litera-
(openness to experience, core self-evaluations and innova-
ture has ignored the fact that many victims of abusive leadership
tive cognitive style) (Anderson & Gasteiger, 2008; Chiang,
can also reorient their retaliation from the source of frustration
Hsu, & Hung, 2014) to contextual forces, such as rewards
towards the organization that employed and tolerated this abu-
(Eisenberger & Rhoades, 2001), co-workers, team composi-
sive supervision (Dollard, Miller, Doob, Mowrer, & Sears, 1939;
tion and leadership (Liao, Liu, & Loi, 2010; Zhang & Bartol,
Shoss, Eisenberger, Restubog, & Zagenczyk, 2013). In fact, victims
2010). In general, creativity literature has mainly focused
of abusive supervision are likely to refrain from retaliating against
on mapping resources that contribute to creative
their supervisors because of fear of counterretaliation (Aquino,
performance.
Tripp, & Bies, 2006; Dollard, Miller, Doob, Mowrer, & Sears, 1939).
In this contribution, we adopt a slightly different per-
Most of the research has been concerned with supervisor tar-
spective by focusing on a force that may hamper instead
geted retaliation, yet reality indicates that displaced and thus
of foster employee creativity that is abusive supervision.
covert forms of retaliation as a response to abusive supervision
Abusive supervision involves a sustained pattern of hosti-
are ubiquitous because of their less risky nature for counter-
lity and a purposeful nature of mistreatment from those in
retaliation (Tepper & Almeda, 2012). To address this discrepancy
power and may include berating, lying, undermining,
between the research and reality, this enquiry will propose how
invading privacy, blaming employees for others’ mistakes,
displaced retaliation is a core mechanism that explains the detri-
and using sarcasm (Tepper, 2007). Whereas the majority of
mental impact that abusive supervision can have on employee
previous studies have focused on the positive side of
creativity (Dollard et al., 1939).
leadership and its encouraging effects on creativity,

CONTACT Sadia Jahanzeb sjahanzeb@grenfell.mun.ca

© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 S. JAHANZEB ET AL.
By focusing on displaced retaliation as a mechanism mediat-
ing the effect of abusive supervision on employee creativity, we
opened the black box of mechanisms that describe the negative
influence of negative supervisory behaviour on creativity (Liu
et al., 2012). Although we acknowledge former studies that
have explored how psychological mechanisms explicate the
negative association between abusive supervisory behaviour
and employee creativity (Han et al., 2017; Lee et al., 2013), past
research has failed to account for the social exchange and reci-
procity dimensions that characterize the underlying nature of
followers’ retaliatory actions (e.g., diminished creative perfor-
mance) as a response to abusive leadership (e.g., Gu et al.,
2016; Liu et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2014). Therefore, we examine
how knowledge-hiding behaviour, as a form of displaced retalia-
tion, helps to explain how exposure to abusive supervision
unfolds in diminished employee creativity. Knowledge-hiding
behaviour here is defined as “an intentional concealment of
knowledge requested by another individual” (Connelly, Zweig,
Webster, & Trougakos, 2012, p. 67).
Taken together, our findings make multiple contributions
to the leadership and creativity literature. First, combining the
perspectives of social exchange (Blau, 1964) and displaced
aggression (Dollard et al., 1939), we elucidate that abusive
supervision may reduce employees’ creativity due to employ-
ees’ negatively reciprocating and self-serving tendencies to
hide knowledge in adverse work situations. Despite the fact
that most of the research has emphasized direct forms of
adverse reciprocation of followers against their abusive super-
visors, employees are unlikely to aggress overtly against their
source of harm out of fear for reprisal (Dollard et al., 1939;
Shoss et al., 2013). Nevertheless, we reason that employees
who suffer mistreatment by their supervisor still require emo-
tional catharsis by retaliating against targets who are either
less vindictive or less able to strike back (Mitchell & Ambrose,
2012). Hence, knowledge hiding allows for indirect retribution
(Connelly et al., 2012), which, in turn, may hamper mutual
intellectual stimulation and ultimately decrease creativity
(Baas, De Dreu, & Nijstad, 2008).
Negative Reciprocity
Belief
H3 & 4
Abusive
Supervision
H1
H2: Mediation effect of knowledge hiding
H4: Moderated mediation effect
Figure 1. Theoretical framework.
H2: Mediation effect of knowledge hidingH4: Moderated mediation effect
Second, we investigate the boundary conditions that
exacerbate the negative impact of abusive supervision on
reduced creative performance. We propose that negative reci-
procity beliefs might aggravate the harmful indirect effect of
abusive supervision on employees’ creativity through knowl-
edge concealment (Cotterell, Eisenberger, & Speicher, 1992;
Tepper et al., 2009). Earlier research has demonstrated that
negative reciprocity orientation exacerbates the association
between abusive supervision and supervisor-targeted
deviance (Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007). Other studies have high-
lighted that hostile attribution bias and negative reciprocity
beliefs strengthen the positive connection between workplace
incivility and interpersonal deviance (Wu, Zhang, Chiu, Kwan,
& He, 2014). Formally, when employees are equipped with
negative reciprocity beliefs, the negative effect of abusive
supervision on their creativity through knowledge hiding
should be intensified (Wei & Si, 2013). In brief, by considering
the reinforcing role of negative reciprocity beliefs, we comple-
ment the previous studies that have observed the moderating
role of contextual resources on the negative effects of abusive
supervision (Mackey, Frieder, Perrewé, Gallagher, & Brymer,
2015; Rousseau & Aubé, 2018).
Third, there has been a growing demand for research on
abusive supervision in non-Western contexts (Han et al., 2017;
Jiang & Gu, 2016; Lee et al., 2013). In response, our data were
collected in Pakistan, a country characterized by high power
distance, which makes our research pertinent and timely.
A high-power distance culture, or the degree to which indivi-
duals accept and believe that organizational, institutional, or
societal powers should be distributed unequally (Carl, Gupta,
& Javidan, 2004), may result in less pronounced retributive
reactions, considering the fact that abusive supervision repre-
sents a situation of unequal power distribution. More specifi-
cally, in a high-power distance culture, employees are more
likely to respect, defer to, and trust supervisors and hold the
belief that they should not go against their superiors’ deci-
sions (Sully De Luque & Sommer, 2000). In this sense, the
question of the usefulness of negative reciprocity beliefs as
Creativity
Knowledge Hiding
H2
 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WORK AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY
a moderator that reinforces the harmful effect of negative
supervisory behaviour on employees’ knowledge hiding and
subsequent creative performance should be particularly sali-
ent in this study context. In what follows, we elaborate on the
rationale for each of the hypotheses, as indicated in Figure 1.
Mediating role of knowledge hiding
Knowledge hiding consists of a negative set of behaviours with
the purpose of withholding information from others. It is com-
prised of three interrelated dimensions: evasive hiding, playing
dumb and rationalized hiding (Connelly et al., 2012). Employees
use evasive hiding when they provide a confusing promise of
a comprehensive response in the future, even though they
never intend to follow through with this promise (e.g., “I’ll get
you that information later”). They may even play dumb and
profess that they do not have the ability to provide aid, even
though this is a false claim (e.g., “I just don’t know”). However,
the rationalized knowledge hider may offer an explanation “by
either suggesting he/she is unable to provide the requested
knowledge or blaming another party” (e.g., “My boss will not let
me share this information”) (Connelly & Zweig, 2015, p. 480).
From a social exchange perspective, abusive supervisors
constantly violate and disregard the norm of reciprocity that
is supposed to govern a positive employee–supervisor
exchange. In response to this negative experience, employ-
ees may feel compelled to respond to the destructive beha-
viour exhibited by their supervisors. However, because of
fear of reprisal, victims of abusive supervision may refrain
from requiting against their high-status offenders (Aquino
et al., 2006; Tepper et al., 2009). Despite the urge to
respond to their mistreatment and mitigate the risk of
further escalating counter-retaliatory actions, victims are
likely to engage in displaced retaliation rather than seek
retribution against the direct source of their abuse.
Maltreated employees may choose concealed rather than
overt forms of retaliation. In light of this, we propose that
employees who hold their organizations responsible for
abusive supervision are likely to opt for the less risky and
thus covert forms of negative reciprocity such as knowl-
edge-hiding behaviour. Thus, because they often blame
their organizations for abusive supervision, employees can
reciprocate indirectly through knowledge hiding (Shoss
et al., 2013). Based on the above, we formulate the follow-
ing hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: Employees’ perceptions of abusive supervision
relate positively to knowledge hiding.
The presence of knowledge hiding implies that employ-
ees make an intentional attempt to withhold or conceal
knowledge that has been requested by other organizational
members. According to social exchange theory (Blau, 1964),
knowledge hiding results in a low-quality social exchange
relationship (Brandts & Solà, 2001). More specifically, exclu-
sion from the knowledge exchange network locks employ-
ees into their own perspectives, which hinders their access
to the collective knowledge network (Perry-Smith, 2006).
Knowledge exclusion thus isolates employees from the
3
social network of mutual idea exchange (Connelly et al.,
2012). With this degenerated social exchange, employees
may spend numerous hours attaining knowledge that has
already been acquired by other organizational associates
who have purposely concealed it (Mudambi & Navarra,
2004). Hence, employees may become ignorant of the cur-
rent directions in their organization and suffer from
a limited individual capacity to produce creative outcomes
(Haas, Criscuolo, & George, 2015). In other words, knowl-
edge hiding may prevent employees from collecting the
existing data and knowledge they require to create new
concepts (Reiter-Palmon & Illies, 2004).
In summary, based on the anticipated positive relationship
between abusive supervision and knowledge hiding (Khalid,
Bashir, Khan, & Abbas, 2018), as well as the deleterious impact
of such knowledge hiding on employee creativity (Bogilović,
Černe, & Škerlavaj, 2017; Černe, Nerstad, Dysvik, & Škerlavaj,
2014; Malik et al., 2019), we assume a pivotal mediating role of
knowledge-hiding behaviour, such that the employee’s self-
serving motive associated with perceived abusive supervision
reduces his or her creative performance because of his or her
knowledge hiding. Employees who perceive that they have
been mistreated by organizational authorities may underper-
form because they are reciprocating their leaders’ mistreat-
ment by withholding valuable knowledge resources from
other organizational members. Previous studies similarly
reveal a mediating role of knowledge hiding in the relation-
ship between perceptions of organizational politics (Malik
et al., 2019), goal orientation (Rhee & Choi, 2017) and
employee creativity. We extend this research by proposing
that knowledge hiding mediates the relationship between
abusive supervision and employee creativity. In short, the
experience of abusive supervision is dysfunctional because it
encourages employees to hide knowledge from their collea-
gues, which, in turn, prevents them from being creative in
their work. Hence, we formulate the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2: Employees’ knowledge hiding mediates the rela-
tionship between employees’ perceptions of abusive supervision
and creativity.
Moderating effect of negative reciprocity beliefs
We further expect a moderating effect of employees’ nega-
tive reciprocity beliefs on the relationship between abusive
supervision and knowledge hiding. According to social
exchange theory (Blau, 1964), abusive supervision begets
retaliatory behaviour, but the extent of negative reciprocity
is still a subjective experience. We may, therefore, expect
variation in employees’ negative reciprocity beliefs even
when multiple employees are exposed to the same level of
abusive supervision. Hence, the negative effect of abusive
supervision is strengthened when employees try to maintain
reciprocal relationships with their exchange partners
(Eisenberger, Lynch, Aselage, & Rohdieck, 2004). Notably,
employees with highly negative reciprocity beliefs may seek
vengeance by reciprocating with negative social exchanges
(Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). In contrast, those with a weak
norm of negative reciprocity may choose reconciliation,
4 S. JAHANZEB ET AL.
ingratiation, forgiveness or avoidance (Aquino et al., 2006;
Wu & Wang, 2012).
Because negative reciprocity is a quid pro quo belief, the focus
of retaliation should be the source of the mistreatment (the abu-
sive supervisor). Therefore, some scholars have suggested that
negative reciprocity does not affect the relationship between
abusive leadership and knowledge hiding towards others
(Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007). However, we juxtapose this view
because people still seek retaliation for their mistreatment.
Hence, displaced retaliation (i.e., knowledge hiding) could be an
excellent substitute for supervisor-targeted retribution for two
main reasons. First, employees fear supervisors, as the latter hold
authority and exercise control over rewards and promotions
(Wang & Noe, 2010). Second, employees believe that knowledge
hiding is not noticeable, so its malicious intent can be easily
obscured. Thus, we suggest that the relationship between per-
ceived abusive supervision and knowledge hiding will be stronger
for those who endorse negative reciprocity because they believe it
is an appropriate, concealed and less risky way to respond to the
perceived mistreatment by abusive supervisors (Connelly et al.,
2012). Based on the above, we hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 3: The positive relationship between employees’ percep-
tion of abusive supervision and knowledge hiding is moderated by
their negative reciprocity beliefs, such that the relationship is
stronger at higher levels of negative reciprocity beliefs.
These arguments also reflect the presence of moder-
ated mediation (Preacher, Rucker, & Hayes, 2007), such
that employees’ negative reciprocity beliefs serve as
a contingent factor of the indirect effect of the employees’
perception of abusive supervision on their creative perfor-
mance through their knowledge-hiding behaviour. For
employees who demonstrate a negative exchange norm,
which is informed by their negative reciprocity belief,
intentional attempts to conceal knowledge will result in
a broader hindering of categories as well as the genera-
tion of more divergent solutions (Kanter, 1988). It may
eventually diminish the creative problem-solving capacity
of individuals (Carmeli, Gelbard, & Reiter-Palmon, 2013).
Consistent with social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) and
displaced aggression theory (Dollard et al., 1939), the
motivation to benefit self-interest through the conceal-
ment of knowledge resources as a response to percep-
tions of abusive supervision becomes a more important
explanatory factor for reduced employee creative perfor-
mance if employees have negative reciprocity beliefs that
enable them to respond to this adverse work situation. In
contrast, to the extent that employees hold less-negative
reciprocity beliefs, the desire to hide valuable knowledge
becomes a less important factor that explains how abusive
supervision contributes to lower creative performance.
Hypothesis 4: The indirect relationship between employees’
perception of abusive supervision and their creative perfor-
mance through their knowledge hiding is moderated by their
negative reciprocity beliefs, such that this indirect relationship
is stronger among employees with a higher negative recipro-
city belief.
Method
Sample and procedure
We collected time-lagged and multisource (i.e., self-reports
and peer reports) data from full-time and contractual employ-
ees working in telecommunication organizations and banks
based in Islamabad, Pakistan. Our data collection incorporated
a time lag of eight weeks between each wave. Organizations
were selected based on personal and professional links,
whereby the contacts of the first and second author assisted
with the data collection procedure after obtaining ethics clear-
ance. A cover letter described the significance of the study
and assured participants about the confidentiality of data.
At Time 1, 550 employees were contacted to collect
their responses on abusive supervision and negative reci-
procity beliefs. A total of 400 completed questionnaires
with names and a key generated by each respondent
according to the given instructions were returned. After
two months since Time 1, those 400 employees were
contacted again to gather their responses on knowledge-
hiding behaviour. A total of 380 questionnaires were
received at the end of this second wave of data collection,
of which 364 were matched with the original responses.
Furthermore, we relied on peer-reported responses for
employee creativity to avoid common method bias. Every
respondent was requested to produce a primary key of
his/her choices (one’s initials followed by one’s birth
month), so that responses collected at Time 1 and Time
2 could be paired with the peer reports. Next, a key was
generated to verify the paired responses and peer reports.
We also ensured that peers assessing the creativity in each
participating employee had worked together for at least
six months. Finally, to avoid data nesting, we ensured that
only one peer reported for every employee (i.e., one-to-
one peer-employee matching).
Ultimately, our analysis is based on 364 matched
responses, reflecting a final response rate of 66%. We
found that approximately 53% of the respondents were
male, with an average age of 31 years (SD = 5.08). The
majority of respondents were employed in the public
sector (60%), and mainly represented middle-level man-
agement (53%), followed by lower-level management
(24%), and top-level management (23%). Furthermore,
the participants in this study worked for a diverse range
of departments, including information technology, custo-
mer service, human resource management, finance, busi-
ness intelligence and auditing. Also, 8% of the employees
had been working for their current organization for 6–-
12 months, 24% for 1–5 years, 26% for 5–8 years, 18% for
8–13 years and 24% for more than 14 years. Finally, all
participants had either an undergraduate qualification
(35%) or a graduate degree (65%).
 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WORK AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 5

Measures order model generated a good fit (confirmatory fit index = .96;

We chose scales with excellent psychometric properties to
measure the study’s variables. Our questionnaire was adminis-
tered in English because it is one of the official languages of
organizations in Pakistan. Unless otherwise specified, the
scales used seven-point Likert response anchors that ranged
from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 7 (“strongly agree”).
Abusive supervision
We measured the employees’ perception of abusive super-
vision with Tepper’s (2000) 15-item scale. Example items are
“My boss ridicules me” and “My boss tells me that my
thoughts or feelings are stupid” (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.91).
Negative reciprocity belief
We measured the negative reciprocity belief using a 14-item
measure (Eisenberger et al., 2004), including items such as “If
a person despises you, you should despise them” and “If
someone says something nasty to you, you should say some-
thing nasty back” (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.71).
Knowledge hiding
We assessed knowledge hiding using a 12-item scale developed by
Connelly et al. (2012). Respondents were asked to indicate their
level of agreement with several statements about how they
respond to their colleagues when information is requested.
Sample items were preceded with “When co-workers ask for infor-
mation . . . ” and included statements such as “I sometimes offer
them some other information instead of what they really want”
and “I said I did not know even though I did,” and “I sometimes
explain that I would like to tell them, but I am not supposed to.”
A second-order confirmatory factor analysis was used to verify
whether the three dimensions were loaded on a second-order
factor representing knowledge-hiding behaviour. The second-
Tucker-Lewis index = .93; incremental fit index = .96; root mean
square error of approximation = .07), and all three dimensions had
statistically significant paths with the second-order factor. Further,
the 12-item measure had high internal consistency (Cronbach’s
alpha = .85). Finally, our treatment of knowledge-hiding behaviour
as an overarching construct is consistent with previous empirical
studies (e.g., Fong, Men, Luo, & Jia, 2018; Peng, Wang, & Chen,
2018).
Creativity
We utilized a 3-item scale to assess employees’ creativity levels
through peer assessment to avoid concerns about common
method bias (Oldham & Cummings, 1996). Sample items
included “This person’s work is creative”, “This person’s work
is original and practical” and “This person’s work is adaptive
and practical” (Cronbach’s alpha = .86).
Control variables
Based on previous research, we decided to statistically control
for organizations (Public = 1; Private = 2) and job positions
(1 = Entry level; 2 = Middle management; 3 = Top manage-
ment) (Becker, 2005).
Results
The descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations are shown in
Table 1; the results from the regression analysis are reported in
Table 2. Models 1–3 have knowledge hiding as the outcome
variable, whereas Models 4–6 have employee creativity as the
outcome variable. Prior to conducting our analyses, we checked
the variance inflation factor values of the regression coefficients
in each of the models. All values were below 10, suggesting that
multicollinearity was not a problem (Aiken & West, 1991).

Table 1. Correlation matrix and descriptive statistics.

1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Abusive Supervision (T1) (0.91)
2. Negative Reciprocity Belief (T1) 0.01 (0.71)
3. Knowledge Hiding (T2) 0.57** 0.35** (0.85)
4. Creativity (T3) −0.32** −0.07 −0.37** (0.86)
5. Public Organization (Private) −0.42** −0.12* −0.20** −0.03
6. Job Position −0.09 0.22** 0.13* −0.16** −0.01
Mean 3.79 4.01 3.54 3.56 2.09 2.37
Standard Deviation 0.79 0.56 0.95 1.31 0.99 0.62
n = 364, * p < .05; ** p < .01.
T1 = time 1; T2 = time 2; T3 = time 3

Table 2. Regression results.

Knowledge hiding Employee creativity
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6
Public organization .18*** .09* .08* −.04 −.29*** −.25***
Job position .19* .16** .06** −.33** −.38*** −.33**
Abusive supervision .74*** -.89* -.72*** -.46***
Negative reciprocity belief (NRB) .58*** −.92* −.14 .07
Abusive supervision × NRB .39***
Knowledge hiding −.35***
R2 .03 .47 .49 .03 .18 .22
ΔR2 .42*** .02*** .16*** .03***
n = 364 (unstandardized regression coefficients).
+
p < .10; * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001 (two-tailed tests).
6 S. JAHANZEB ET AL.
Hypothesis 1 stated that employees who believe that their
supervisors have failed them are more likely to conceal valuable
knowledge from other organizational members. We found sup-
port for this hypothesis in the positive relationship between
abusive supervision and knowledge hiding in Model 2 (b = .74,
p < .001). We also found that higher levels of knowledge hiding
prevent employees from delivering creative input, as shown in
the negative relationship between knowledge hiding and
employee creativity in Model 6 (b = −.35, p < .001).
To assess the presence of mediation by knowledge hiding
(i.e., Hypothesis 2), we relied on multiple methods, including
Baron and Kenny (1986) and Preacher and Hayes’ bootstrapping
method (Hayes, 2013; Preacher & Hayes, 2004). First, as noted
earlier, we observed significant relationships between the inde-
pendent variable (i.e., abusive supervision) and the mediator (i.e.,
knowledge hiding) and between the mediator and the depen-
dent variable (i.e., creativity). Second, the negative relationship
between abusive supervision and employee creative perfor-
mance (see model 5; b = −.72, p < .001) became less strong
when knowledge hiding was added to the equation (model 6;
b = −.35, p < .001). Hence, based on these observations, knowl-
edge hiding partially mediates the relationship between nega-
tive supervisory behaviour and employee creativity. To further
verify the presence of a mediation effect, we relied on Preacher
and Hayes’ bootstrapping method (Hayes, 2013; Preacher &
Hayes, 2004). This method generates confidence intervals for
indirect effects, so it minimizes the potential statistical power
problems that might result from asymmetric and other non-
normal sampling distributions (MacKinnon, Lockwood, &
Williams, 2004). In support of our second hypothesis, the con-
fidence interval for the indirect effect of abusive supervision on
employee creative performance through knowledge hiding did
not include zero [−.40, −.13], suggesting that knowledge hiding
mediates the negative relationship between abusive supervision
and creativity.
Next, we tested Hypothesis 3 by assessing the abusive
supervision × negative reciprocity belief interaction term for
knowledge hiding. This interaction term was significant
(model 3; b = .39, p < .001). The effect of dysfunctional
supervisory behaviour on employee creativity at high (+
1SD) and low levels (- 1SD) of negative reciprocity belief
indicates that the harmful effect of this adverse work
Figure 2. Moderating effect of negative reciprocity belief on the relationship between abusive supervision and knowledge hiding.
condition is strengthened among employees with high
levels of negative reciprocity belief (see Figure 2). Thus, in
support of Hypothesis 3, we found that the positive effect
of abusive supervision on knowledge hiding is accentuated
by negative reciprocity beliefs.
Finally, to test Hypothesis 4, that is, the moderated mediation
effect, we relied on Hayes’s (2013) “process” macro. Similar to the
bootstrapping method used to test for mediation, this procedure
generates confidence intervals for conditional indirect effects
(MacKinnon et al., 2004). The results indicate that the 95% boot-
strap confidence intervals for the conditional indirect effect of
abusive supervision on employee creativity at the low (−1SD),
medium (Mean) and high levels (+1SD) of the moderator did not
contain zero ([−.29, −.05], [−.38, −.13], and [−.52, −.17], respec-
tively). In addition, the index of moderated mediation (−.16) and
its corresponding confidence interval did not include zero ([−.32;
−.05]), indicating that the negative reciprocity belief strengthens
the negative indirect effect of abusive supervision on employee
creativity through knowledge hiding, which supports
Hypothesis 4.
Discussion
The main goal of this research was to investigate how employ-
ees’ perception of abusive supervision affects their creativity,
with particular attention paid to the unspecified factors that
influence this process. Despite some attention to how beliefs
about negative supervisory behaviour might hamper employ-
ees’ ability to deliver creative performance (Han et al., 2017;
Liu et al., 2012, 2016), relatively little research has investigated
why employees’ perceived abusive supervision might hinder
their creative performance, let alone examined the critical role
of knowledge-hiding behaviour therein. To fill these gaps, we
have drawn from social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) and
displaced aggression theory (Dollard et al., 1939) to highlight
that (1) the likelihood of lower employee creativity in response
to perceived supervisory abuse might arise because employ-
ees tend to conceal knowledge and (2) their negative recipro-
city beliefs strengthen this process. Our empirical results
largely confirm these theoretical predictions.
With this study, we offer a novel insight by illustrating that
concealment of knowledge in response to negative
 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WORK AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY
supervisory behaviour is a pivotal mechanism that explains
why employees who are victims of abusive supervision are
less likely to be creative. Abusive supervision involves the
employee’s subjective assessment of their supervisor’s con-
duct, namely, the persistent evidence of aggression and the
conscious nature of such behaviour (Tepper, 2007). It disre-
gards the norm of reciprocity that governs the employee–
employer exchange association. Such negative supervisory
behaviour may compel employees to ignore organizational
interest and engage in potential variations of displaced reta-
liation. Of these, we focus on knowledge hiding as one of the
main forms of displaced retaliation for three main reasons
(Aquino et al., 2006; Vardi & Weitz, 2004). First, employees
may fear supervisors, as the latter hold authority and exercise
control over rewards and promotions (Wang & Noe, 2010-
). Second, employees may believe that knowledge hiding is
not noticeable, so its malicious intent can be easily obscured.
Third, knowledge hiding as displaced retaliation specifically
relates to our outcome variable (reduced creativity).
In addition, employees’ engagement in knowledge-hiding
behaviour in response to abusive supervision is accentuated
by their negative reciprocity beliefs, that is, the degree to
which employees favour retribution as a response to mistreat-
ment (Eisenberger et al., 2004; Gouldner, 1960). According to
social exchange theory (Blau, 1964; Cropanzano & Mitchell,
2005), reciprocity is an important component in supervisor–
subordinate interactions; that is, subordinates tend to react to
the supervisors’ negative treatment by enacting unfavourable
returns, but the extent of negative reciprocity is still
a subjective experience. Hence, when employees experience
strong negative reciprocity beliefs, the adverse effect of dys-
functional supervisory behaviour on their capacity to develop
original or useful ideas for their organization, exhibited
through knowledge hiding, is pronounced (Eisenberger et al.,
2004). Further, in the case of negative reciprocity beliefs,
research has highlighted that employees may feel motivated
to act in ways that harm the organization through becoming
involved in supervisor-directed deviance (i.e., acting rudely
towards or gossiping about the supervisor) (Schaubhut,
Adams, & Jex, 2004), seeking retribution (McLean Parks,
1997), becoming angry (Eisenberger et al., 2004) or pursuing
direct revenge for experiences of ill-treatment (Hastings,
2011). Thus, a negative reciprocity belief may reinforce the
impact of abusive leadership not only on direct but also dis-
placed forms of retaliation (i.e., knowledge hiding).
Finally, our analysis revealed the presence of moderated
mediation (Preacher et al., 2007). Our results indicated that the
indirect effect of perceived abusive supervision on employee
creativity through knowledge concealment is contingent on
employees’ negative reciprocity beliefs. More specifically, the
negative exchange that stems from hostile supervisor treat-
ment translates more powerfully into reduced creative perfor-
mance, through knowledge concealment, to the extent that
employees are equipped with a tendency to seek revenge for
negative treatment (Eisenberger et al., 2004).
In summary, this study contributes to the creativity litera-
ture and provides a more comprehensive understanding of
the factors that inform the connection between abusive super-
vision and reduced creative performance. Mainstream research
7
has focused on how certain leadership styles (e.g., transforma-
tional, authentic leadership) tend to foster positive organiza-
tional behaviour. However, this same literature has remained
silent on how certain forms of leadership can have detrimental
effects. With this study, we hope to raise awareness of the fact
that abusive supervision or any other form of malevolent
leadership can trigger harmful consequences for organizations
because it may stifle creativity or other forms of highly valued
positive organizational behaviours (e.g., OCB, innovation, etc.).
Raising such awareness and backing it with sound empirical
evidence provides a platform to start the conversation and
promote research on ways to help mitigate the negative con-
sequences of such leadership.
We broaden the current research by revealing how (1) knowl-
edge hiding functions as a critical mechanism that links abusive
supervision with lower creativity and (2) employees’ negative
reciprocity beliefs help reinforce this process. In so doing, the
findings expand previous investigations of the direct effects of
negative reciprocity beliefs on work outcomes, such as work-
place aggression (Garcia, Restubog, & Denson, 2010) and orga-
nizational deviance (Restubog, Garcia, Wang, & Cheng, 2010). In
particular, the effect of negative reciprocity beliefs, as shown in
this study, might also be more indirect in that employees who
have a negative reciprocity orientation are better positioned to
perceive a negative exchange in an unfavourable work situation,
such as one with abusive supervision. Overall, we offer the
insight that the detrimental role of abusive supervision in redu-
cing employee creative performance can be better directed
through negative reciprocity beliefs that focus on the adversity
that results from beliefs about hostile supervisory behaviour.
Limitations and future research
We acknowledge that this study is not without limitations,
which suggests opportunities for further research. First, we
deliberated on the role of knowledge hiding as an important
explanatory mechanism that underpins the harmful effect of
abusive supervision on employee creative performance,
informed by calls for explicit investigations of why this type of
unfavourable work situation might generate negative beha-
viour in employees (Peng, 2013). It would be interesting to
study other unexplored mediating variables, such as psycholo-
gical safety and organizational identification (Liu et al., 2016),
departmental identification (Gu et al., 2016), intrinsic motiva-
tion (Zhang et al., 2014), sleep deprivation and emotional
exhaustion (Han et al., 2017). Further, we relied on a self-
report measure of knowledge hiding, which has been validated
and used in diverse disciplines (Černe et al., 2014; Connelly
et al., 2012). Nevertheless, individuals may or may not report
their true levels of knowledge hiding. Thus, future research
should consider relying on more objective measures of knowl-
edge hiding (e.g., colleagues’ assessments, leaders’ assess-
ments, or direct observations) to validate the findings.
Additionally, our investigation of negative reciprocity belief
as the focal contingency factor that reinforces the indirect
relationship between perceived abusive supervision and
employee creativity might be extended by consideration of
other personality characteristics. For example, individual fac-
tors, such as core self-evaluations (Zhang et al., 2014),
8 S. JAHANZEB ET AL.
conscientiousness (Goldberg, 1999) and positive affectivity
(Watson & Clark, 1992), may serve as a buffer against the
conversion of perceived abusive supervision into knowledge-
hiding behaviour and subsequent creative performance.
Positive organizational context factors, such as Islamic work
ethics (IWE) (Khalid et al., 2018) and an ethical organizational
climate (Ning & Zhaoyi, 2017), might also prevent the frustra-
tion experienced by the perception of hostile supervisory
behaviour from hurting employees’ creativity.
Another potential criticism is the nontraditional composition
and choice of the sample of respondents for a study on creativity.
For example, one could question the relevance of collecting data
from employees in the service sector, a sector that is not neces-
sarily known for or associated with creative performance. One
could argue that this study would have made more sense if data
were collected from a typically more “creative” population, such
as R&D employees. However, a counterargument is that new
technologies, specifically social media, have enriched and trans-
formed the creativity process in organizations, making creative
competences no longer solely concentrated and in high demand
in R&D employees but pivotal competences and crucial compe-
titive factors required in every single employee to boost and
foster an organization’s survival and outstanding performance
(e.g., Agarwal, Krishna Erramilli, & Dev, 2003). In a world where
cocreation, crowdsourcing, and open innovation are challenging
the future of the service sector more than ever before, it has been
recognized that understanding the context and processes that
boost or hinder creativity in all employees is timely and relevant
(Sigala & Chalkiti, 2015). In summary, we believe that studying
creative performance in the proposed population is salient and
something that should not be limited to a particular group (e.g.,
R&D), especially given the rapidly changing environment in
which organizations have to operate.
Finally, our results are based on data collected in organiza-
tions that operate in one specific country, i.e., Pakistan. The
country’s cultural context is marked by power distance, mak-
ing it highly relevant for testing the negative impact of
unequal power distribution on abusive supervision (Merkin,
2018). However, it would be useful to undertake cross-
country comparisons that assess the prominence of abusive
supervision in effecting knowledge hiding and the subsequent
negative impact on employee creative performance, as well as
the effectiveness of underlying moderators in this process, in
cultural situations that are different from Pakistan. Such com-
parisons could explain how cultural factors influence the rela-
tive importance of this study’s focal variables.
Practical implications
This study offers several important practical implications. The
perception of abusive supervision – characterized by employees’
subjective evaluation of their supervisors’ behaviours, i.e., the
deliberate nature and continued demonstration of hostility
(Tepper, 2007) – creates harmful energy in employees and under-
mines their creative performance; hence, organizations must
monitor the potential sources of the employees’ misunderstand-
ing of their supervisors’ treatment. These may, for instance,
include adopting appropriate tactics to discourage abusive
supervision. For example, organizations should aim to establish
a selection system (e.g., psychological tests) to identify employ-
ees who are prone to giving or perceiving hierarchical mistreat-
ment. Organizations may also offer timely and appropriate
psychological guidance to ease abused employees’ tensions
(Liu et al., 2012). Moreover, companies may encourage managers
to receive training in leadership development programmes,
interpersonal relationship skills and anger management (Xu,
Huang, Lam, & Miao, 2012). Such measures may not only help
mitigate employees’ sense of negative exchanges but may also
contribute to an evaluation of their work situation that is less
adverse.
In addition to this general recommendation that organiza-
tions seek to reduce the perception of abusive supervision,
this study is perhaps most insightful for organizations that
cannot disregard the perception of abusive supervision
(Namie & Namie, 2000). In these circumstances, organizations
could at the very least advise employees about the harmful
effects of the “tit-for-tat” spiral and encourage them to use
other behavioural strategies, such as negotiation, mediation,
clarity seeking, and forgiveness (Aquino et al., 2006).
Beyond the need to check the employees’ negative reci-
procity beliefs through some specific approaches, such as
questionnaires and scenario simulation, organizations marked
by supervisors that are perceived to be abusive can also
benefit from investigating ways to manage the negative reci-
procity belief in employees. For example, employees are less
likely to experience negative reciprocity beliefs in an exchange
relationship if their organizations offer ethics education, men-
toring and training opportunities (Williams & Zadro, 2005).
Conclusion
With this enquiry, we have sought to extend the previous
research on perceived abusive supervision by investigating the
effect of the employees’ exposure to this adverse work condi-
tion on their creative performance, as well as the role that their
knowledge-hiding behaviour and negative reciprocity beliefs
play in this process. The intentional concealment of knowledge
from co-workers represents an important reason that beliefs
about negative supervisory behaviour escalate into reduced
creative performance. However, the strength of this explanatory
mechanism is higher when employees have negative reciprocity
beliefs. In brief, we hope that this study will serve as a catalyst
for further research on how organizations can manage the
negative consequences of different hostile work conditions.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
References
Agarwal, S., Krishna Erramilli, M., & Dev, C. S. (2003). Market orientation
and performance in service firms: role of innovation. Journal of Services
Marketing, 17, 68–82.
Agnihotri, R., Rapp, A. A., Andzulis, J. M., & Gabler, C. B. (2014). Examining
the drivers and performance implications of boundary spanner
creativity. Journal of Service Research, 17, 164–181.
 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WORK AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting
interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential
conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 357.
Anderson, N. R., & Gasteiger, R. M. (2008). Innovation and creativity in
organisations: Individual and work team research findings and implica-
tions for government policy. In Nooteboom & E. Stam (Eds.), Innovation
and creativity in organisations (pp. 249–272). Amsterdam: Amsterdam
University Press.
Aquino, K., Tripp, T. M., & Bies, R. J. (2006). Getting even or moving on?
Power, procedural justice, and types of offense as predictors of
revenge, forgiveness, reconciliation, and avoidance in organizations.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 653.
Baas, M., De Dreu, C. K., & Nijstad, B. A. (2008). A meta-analysis of 25 years
of mood-creativity research: Hedonic tone, activation, or regulatory
focus? Psychological Bulletin, 134(6), 779–806.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable
distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and
statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
51, 1173–1182.
Becker, T. E. (2005). Potential problems in the statistical control of variables
in organizational research: A qualitative analysis with
recommendations. Organizational Research Methods, 8(3), 274–289.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: Wiley.
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,
710–723.
Brandts, J., & Solà, C. (2001). Reference points and negative reciprocity in
simple sequential games. Games and Economic Behavior, 36, 138–157.
Carl, D., Gupta, V., & Javidan, M. (2004). Power distance. In R. J. House,
P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W. Dorfman, & V. Gupta (Eds.), Culture,
leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies (pp.
513–563). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
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., Nerstad, C. G., Dysvik, A., & Škerlavaj, M. (2014). What goes
around comes around: Knowledge hiding, perceived motivational cli-
mate, and creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 57, 172–192.
Chiang, Y. H., Hsu, C. C., & Hung, K. P. (2014). Core self-evaluation and
workplace creativity. Journal of Business Research, 67, 1405–1413.
Coelho, F., Augusto, M., & Lages, L. F. (2011). Contextual factors and the
creativity of frontline employees: The mediating effects of role stress
and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Retailing, 87, 31–45.
Connelly, C. E., & Zweig, D. (2015). How perpetrators and targets construe
knowledge hiding in organizations. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 24, 479–489.
Connelly, C. E., Zweig, D., Webster, J., & Trougakos, J. P. (2012). Knowledge
hiding in organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 64–88.
Cotterell, N., Eisenberger, R., & Speicher, H. (1992). Inhibiting effects of
reciprocation wariness on interpersonal relationships. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 658.
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An inter-
disciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31, 874–900.
Dollard, J., Miller, N. E., Doob, L. W., Mowrer, O. H., & Sears, R. R. (1939).
Frustration and aggression. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Eisenberger, R., Lynch, P., Aselage, J., & Rohdieck, S. (2004). Who takes
the most revenge? Individual differences in negative reciprocity
norm endorsement. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30,
787–799.
Eisenberger, R., & Rhoades, L. (2001). Incremental effects of reward on
creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 728–741.
Fong, P. S., Men, C., Luo, J., & Jia, R. (2018). Knowledge hiding and team
creativity: the contingent role of task interdependence. Management
Decision, 56, 329–343.
Garcia, P. R. J. M., Restubog, S. L. D., & Denson, T. F. (2010). The moderating
role of prior exposure to aggressive home culture in the relationship
between negative reciprocity beliefs and aggression. Journal of
Research in Personality, 44, 380–385.
9
Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality
inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor mod-
els. In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality
psychology in Europe (Vol. 7, pp. 7–28). Tilburg, The Netherlands: Tilburg
University Press.
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement.
American Sociological Review, 25, 161–178.
Gu, J., Song, J., & Wu, J. (2016). Abusive supervision and employee crea-
tivity in china: Departmental identification as mediator and face as
moderator. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 37,
1187–1204.
Haas, M. R., Criscuolo, P., & George, G. (2015). Which problems to solve?
Online knowledge sharing and attention allocation in organizations.
Academy of Management Journal, 58, 680–711.
Hackney, K. J., & Perrewé, P. L. (2018). A review of abusive behaviors at
work: The development of a process model for studying abuse.
Organizational Psychology Review, 8, 70–92.
Han, G. H., Harms, P. D., & Bai, Y. (2017). Nightmare bosses: The impact of
abusive supervision on employees’ sleep, emotions, and creativity.
Journal of Business Ethics, 145, 21–31.
Hastings, S. (2011). The moderating effect of reciprocity beliefs on work
outcomes (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Western
Ontario, Canada.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional
process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford
Press.
Hershcovis, M. S., & Barling, J. (2010). Comparing victim attributions and
outcomes for workplace aggression and sexual harassment. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 95, 874.
Jiang, W., & Gu, Q. (2016). How abusive supervision and abusive super-
visory climate influence salesperson creativity and sales team effective-
ness in China. Management Decision, 54, 455–475.
Kanter, R. M. (1988). When a thousand flowers bloom: structural, collective
and social conditions for innovation in organizations. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 10, 169–211.
Khalid, M., Bashir, S., Khan, A. K., & Abbas, N. (2018). When and how
abusive supervision leads to knowledge hiding behaviors: An Islamic
work ethics perspective. Leadership & Organization Development
Journal, 39, 794–806.
Lee, S., Yun, S., & Srivastava, A. (2013). Evidence for a curvilinear relation-
ship between abusive supervision and creativity in South Korea. The
Leadership Quarterly, 24, 724–731.
Liao, H., Liu, D., & Loi, R. (2010). Looking at both sides of the social
exchange coin: A social cognitive perspective on the joint effects of
relationship quality and differentiation on creativity. Academy of
Management Journal, 53, 1090–1109.
Liu, D., Liao, H., & Loi, R. (2012). The dark side of leadership: A
three-level investigation of the cascading effect of abusive super-
vision on employee creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 55,
1187–1212.
Liu, W., Zhang, P., Liao, J., Hao, P., & Mao, J. (2016). Abusive super-
vision and employee creativity: The mediating role of psychologi-
cal safety and organizational identification. Management Decision,
54, 130–147.
Mackey, J. D., Frieder, R. E., Perrewé, P. L., Gallagher, V. C., & Brymer, R. A.
(2015). Empowered employees as social deviants: The role of abusive
supervision. Journal of Business and Psychology, 30, 149–162.
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limits
for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling
methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 99–128.
Malik, O. F., Shahzad, A., Raziq, M. M., Khan, M. M., Yusaf, S., & Khan, A.
(2019). Perceptions of organizational politics, knowledge hiding, and
employee creativity: The moderating role of professional commitment.
Personality and Individual Differences, 142, 232–237.
McLean Parks, J. (1997). The fourth arm of justice: The art and science of
revenge. In R. J. Lewicki, R. J. Bies, & B. H. Sheppard (Eds.), Research on
negotiation in organizations (Vol. 6, pp. 113–144). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Merkin, R. S. (2018). Cross-cultural communication theory and research,
overview. In Y. Y. Kim (Ed.), The International Encyclopedia of
Intercultural Communication. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
10 S. JAHANZEB ET AL.
Mitchell, M. S., & Ambrose, M. L. (2007). Abusive supervision and work-
place deviance and the moderating effects of negative reciprocity
beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1159–1168.
Mitchell, M. S., & Ambrose, M. L. (2012). Employees’ behavioral reactions to
supervisor aggression: An examination of individual and situational
factors. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 1148–1170.
Mudambi, R., & Navarra, P. (2004). Is knowledge power? Knowledge flows,
subsidiary power and rent-seeking within MNCs. Journal of
International Business Studies, 35, 385–406.
Namie, G., & Namie, R. (2000). Workplace bullying: The silent epidemic.
Employee Rights Quarterly, 1, 1–12.
Ning, N., & Zhaoyi, L. (2017). Psychological contract breach, organizational
disidentification, and employees’ unethical behavior: Organizational
ethical climate as moderator. Social Behavior and Personality: an
International Journal, 45, 1409–1424.
Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and
contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39,
607–634.
Peng, H. (2013). Why and when do people hide knowledge? Journal of
Knowledge Management, 17, 398–415.
Peng, J., Wang, Z., & Chen, X. (2018). Does self-serving leadership hinder
team creativity? A moderated dual-path model. Journal of Business
Ethics, 1–15.
Perry-Smith, J. E. (2006). Social yet creative: The role of social relationships in
facilitating individual creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 49,
85–101.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating
indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods,
Instruments, & Computers, 36, 717–731.
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated
mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate
Behavioral Research, 42, 185–227.
Reiter-Palmon, R. (2011). Introduction to special issue: The psychology of
creativity and innovation in the workplace. Psychology of Aesthetics,
Creativity, and the Arts, 5, 1–2.
Reiter-Palmon, R., & Illies, J. J. (2004). Leadership and creativity:
Understanding leadership from a creative problem-solving
perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 55–77.
Restubog, S. L. D., Garcia, P. R. J. M., Wang, L., & Cheng, D. (2010). It’s all
about control: The role of self-control in buffering the effects of nega-
tive reciprocity beliefs and trait anger on workplace deviance. Journal
of Research in Personality, 44, 655–660.
Rhee, Y. W., & Choi, J. N. (2017). Knowledge management behavior and
individual creativity: Goal orientations as antecedents and in-group
social status as moderating contingency. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 38, 813–832.
Rousseau, V., & Aubé, C. (2018). When leaders stifle innovation in work teams:
The role of abusive supervision. Journal of Business Ethics, 151, 651–664.
Schaubhut, N., Adams, G. A., & Jex, S. M. (2004). Self-esteem as a moderator
of the relationships between abusive supervision and two forms of
workplace deviance. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Chicago, IL.
Shoss, M. K., Eisenberger, R., Restubog, S. L. D., & Zagenczyk, T. J. (2013).
Blaming the organization for abusive supervision: The roles of
perceived organizational support and supervisor’s organizational
embodiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 158.
Sigala, M., & Chalkiti, K. (2015). Knowledge management, social media and
employee creativity. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 45,
44–58.
Sully De Luque, M. F., & Sommer, S. M. (2000). The impact of culture on
feedback-seeking behavior: An integrated model and propositions.
Academy of Management Review, 25, 829–849.
Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of
Management Journal, 43, 178–190.
Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synth-
esis, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 33, 261–289.
Tepper, B. J., & Almeda, M. (2012). Negative exchanges with supervisors. In
Personal Relationships at Work: the Effect of Supervisory, Co-Worker,
Team, and Customer and Non-work Exchanges on Employee Attitudes,
Behavior, and Well-Being, ed. L Eby, T Allen, pp. 67–93. New York:
Routledge Press.
Tepper, B. J., Carr, J. C., Breaux, D. M., Geider, S., Hu, C., & Hua, W.
(2009). Abusive supervision, intentions to quit, and employees’ work-
place deviance: A power/dependence analysis. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109, 156–167.
Vardi, Y., & Weitz, E. (2004). Misbehavior in organizations. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Wang, S., & Noe, R. A. (2010). Knowledge sharing: A review and directions
for future research. Human Resource Management Review, 20, 115–131.
Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1992). Affects separable and inseparable: on the
hierarchical arrangement of the negative affects. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 62, 489.
Wei, F., & Si, S. (2013). Tit for tat? Abusive supervision and counter-
productive work behaviors: The moderating effects of locus of
control and perceived mobility. Asia Pacific Journal of
Management, 30, 281–296.
Williams, K. D., & Zadro, L. (2005). Ostracism: The indiscriminate early
detection system. In K. D. Williams, J. P. Forgas, & W. von Hippel
(Eds.), Sydney symposium of social psychology series. The social outcast:
Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, and bullying (pp. 19–34). New York,
NY: Psychology Press.
Wu, L. Z., Zhang, H., Chiu, R. K., Kwan, H. K., & He, X. (2014). Hostile attribution
bias and negative reciprocity beliefs exacerbate incivility’s effects on inter-
personal deviance. Journal of Business Ethics, 120, 189–199.
Wu, M., & Wang, J. (2012). Developing a charismatic leadership model
for Chinese organizations: The mediating role of loyalty to
supervisors. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 23, 4069–4084.
Xu, E., Huang, X., Lam, C. K., & Miao, Q. (2012). Abusive supervision and
work behaviors: The mediating role of LMX. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 33, 531–543.
Zhang, H., Kwan, H. K., Zhang, X., & Wu, L. Z. (2014). High core
self-evaluators maintain creativity: A motivational model of abusive
supervision. Journal of Management, 40, 1151–1174.
Zhang, X., & Bartol, K. M. (2010). Linking empowering leadership and
employee creativity: The influence of psychological empowerment,
intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement. Academy of
Management Journal, 53, 107–128.