The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0143-7739.htm

The effect of exploitative The effect of

exploitative
leadership on knowledge hiding: leadership

a conservation of
resources perspective
Limin Guo Received 6 March 2020
Revised 30 May 2020
School of Economics and Management, Tongji University, Shanghai, China 15 August 2020
Ken Cheng 14 September 2020
Accepted 8 October 2020
School of Management, Zhejiang University of Technology, Hangzhou, China, and
Jinlian Luo
School of Economics and Management, Tongji University, Shanghai, China

Abstract
Purpose – Drawing on conservation of resources (COR) theory, this study aims to explore the influencing
mechanism of exploitative leadership on knowledge hiding. Specifically, this study focuses on the mediating
role of psychological distress and the moderating role of hostile attribution bias in affecting the mediation.
Design/methodology/approach – Data were collected from 324 employees of a high-technology company in
China by a three-wave questionnaire survey. Hierarchical regression analysis and bootstrapping approach
were employed to test hypotheses.
Findings – This study found that exploitative leadership was positively related to knowledge hiding and that
psychological distress mediated this relationship. Moreover, the results revealed that the positive relationship
between exploitative leadership and psychological distress and the indirect effect of exploitative leadership on
knowledge hiding via psychological distress were stronger when hostile attribution was high rather than low.
Practical implications – The findings of this study offer guidance for managers to better undermine the
negative effects of exploitative leadership.
Originality/value – First, this study extends the literature on exploitative leadership by verifying the positive
effect of exploitative leadership on knowledge hiding. Second, this study enriches one’s understanding of the
“black box” underlying the link between exploitative leadership and its consequences by demonstrating the
mediating role of psychological distress. Third, by verifying the moderating role of hostile attribution bias, this
study provides insights into the boundary conditions of the impact of exploitative leadership.
Keywords Exploitative leadership, Psychological distress, Hostile attribution bias, Knowledge hiding,
Conservation of resources theory
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
In the last several decades, a tremendous amount of research has explored various types of
destructive leadership, such as abusive supervision (Tepper, 2000), despotic leadership
(De Hoogh and Den Hartog, 2008) and hubristic leadership (Sadler-Smith et al., 2018).
However, exploitative leadership, a more prevalent and exceedingly self-interested
leadership behavior that encompasses the most important features of destructive
leadership types, is fairly understudied (Schmid et al., 2019). Exploitative leadership refers
to “leadership with the primary intention to further the leader’s self-interest by exploiting
others” (Schmid et al., 2019, p. 1426). Prior research has demonstrated many negative effects
that exploitative leadership exerts on employees including decreased job satisfaction and
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
The authors would like to acknowledge funding from the National Natural Science Foundation of China © Emerald Publishing Limited
0143-7739
(No. 71772138) and the Shanghai Planning Office of Philosophy and Social Science (No. 2017BGL001). DOI 10.1108/LODJ-03-2020-0085
LODJ affective commitment, increased turnover intention, burnout, workplace deviance and
perceived imbalance in social exchange (Pircher Verdorfer et al., 2019; Schmid et al.,
2018, 2019).
Despite these, little research attention has been devoted to understanding how and when
exploitative leadership may influence knowledge hiding, an intentional concealing of certain
pieces of the requested knowledge (Connelly et al., 2012). It is of great importance to address
this research gap, since knowledge hiding is prevalent in organizations and has devastating
effects on organizational effectiveness in the era of the knowledge economy (Connelly et al.,
2019). This study is to explore the impact of exploitative leadership on knowledge hiding
through the lens of conservation of resources (COR) theory. According to COR theory,
individuals strive to maintain valued resources to protect themselves from further resource
loss when facing a threatening or actual loss of resources (Hobfoll, 1989). Given that an
exploitative leader, in essence, is a kind of salient stressor in the workplace (Schmid et al.,
2019; Pircher Verdorfer et al., 2019), victims who have a feeling of being exploited by their
leaders may try to reduce the loss of resources by engaging in knowledge hiding.
Apart from the direct effect of exploitative leadership on knowledge hiding, we propose
that psychological distress, a negative psychological state concerning negative thoughts and
feelings (e.g. anxiety, fear and depression; Restubog et al., 2011), may be a key mediating
mechanism. COR theory argues that when individuals encounter a threatening or actual loss
of resources, personal stress is activated because of their increased sensitivity to resource loss
and that individuals are motivated to protect their remaining resources (Hobfoll, 2001).
Supervisor exploitation consumes employees’ resources. In this vein, employees who are
exposed to exploitative leadership may experience detrimental psychological consequences
(e.g. psychological distress) and then may be inclined to adopt knowledge hiding as a
resource-protecting strategy (Feng and Wang, 2019). Therefore, psychological distress may
mediate the relationship between exploitative leadership and knowledge hiding.
Moreover, we should note that not all employees react in the same way when suffering
from exploitative leadership. According to COR theory, individuals’ response to resource loss
associated with workplace stressors is contingent on individual differences (Hobfoll and
Shirom, 2000). Previous research has demonstrated that hostile attribution bias, a relatively
stable personality trait describing that individuals attribute the worst motives to an action
(Milich and Dodge, 1984), functioned as an accelerator in resource depletion resulting from
leaders’ mistreatment (Lyu et al., 2016). Inspired by this, we expand our research model by
proposing the moderating effect of hostile attribution bias on the relationship between
exploitative leadership and psychological distress and the indirect effect of exploitative
leadership on knowledge hiding via psychological distress. Specifically, when confronted
with exploitative leadership, employees with high hostile attribution bias may interpret their
leaders’ exploitation as deliberate, hostile and inexcusable (Dodge and Crick, 1990). In this
situation, they are more likely to have the perceptions of further resource depletion and thus
experience higher levels of psychological distress and subsequently perform more resource
loss preventing behaviors such as knowledge hiding.
To summarize, this study is to investigate the influencing mechanism of exploitative
leadership on knowledge hiding. Specifically, from a COR perspective, we seek to examine the
mediating role of psychological distress and explore whether the effect of exploitative
leadership on psychological distress and the indirect effect of exploitative leadership on
knowledge hiding through psychological distress are moderated by hostile attribution bias.
The research model is shown in Figure 1. In so doing, this study contributes to the literature
on several fronts. First, this study enriches the research on outcomes of exploitative
leadership and extends the current understanding of antecedents of knowledge hiding by
verifying the influence of exploitative leadership on knowledge hiding. Second, this study
uncovers the “black box” of how exploitative leadership influences knowledge hiding by
demonstrating the mediating role of psychological distress through the lens of COR theory. The effect of
Third, by testing the moderating role of hostile attribution bias, this study provides new exploitative
insights into the boundary conditions under which exploitative leadership affects employees.
leadership
Theory and hypotheses
Exploitative leadership and knowledge hiding
Exploitative leadership is a highly self-centered leadership that focuses on the pursuit of
personal gains at the expense of others’ interests (Schmid et al., 2018). As the originators of
this concept, Schmid et al. (2019) pointed out that exploitative leadership incorporates five
dimensions, namely genuine egoistic behaviors, taking credit, exerting pressure,
undermining development and manipulating. Specifically, genuine egoistic behaviors refer
to using power for the sole purpose of achieving personal gains. Taking credit captures that
leaders take unjustified credit for their subordinates’ hard work or accomplishment and use it
to benefit themselves. Exerting pressure involves that leaders put unwarranted and
excessive pressure on employees to get tasks done. Undermining development reflects that
leaders continuously give employees tedious and boring tasks and hinder their career
advancement. Manipulating describes that leaders play others off against each other to
benefit themselves.
Knowledge hiding is defined as “an intentional attempt by an individual to withhold or
conceal knowledge that has been requested by another person” (Connelly et al., 2012, p. 65).
Knowledge hiding is a very widespread workplace phenomenon and can exert devastating
effects on both the organization and its members, such as harming interpersonal
relationships (Connelly and Zweig, 2015), damaging thriving (Jiang et al., 2019) and


diminishing creativity (Cerne et al., 2017). In view of this, an increasing number of studies
have devoted attention to investigating its formation mechanism and identified some
dispositional (e.g. performance-proven goal orientation; Zhu et al., 2019a), interpersonal
(e.g. leader–member exchange; Zhao et al., 2019), situational (e.g. organizational competitive
climate; Connelly et al., 2012) antecedents. Despite these findings, we do not know much about
how leadership might affect knowledge hiding (for exceptions, see Feng and Wang, 2019;
Khalid et al., 2018; Xia et al., 2019). Given that leaders play critical roles in regulating
employees’ attitudes and behaviors (Lee et al., 2018), we seek to examine the antecedents of
knowledge hiding from the perspective of leadership, especially exploitative leadership.
According to COR theory, individuals will endeavor to protect and obtain resources when
they are faced with a threatening or actual loss of resources (Hobfoll, 1989; Hobfoll et al., 2018).
Such resources broadly refer to “objects, personal characteristics, conditions, or energies that
are valued in their own rights, or that are valued because they act as conduits to the
achievement or protection of valued resources” (Hobfoll, 2001, p. 339). As a type of destructive
leadership, exploitative leadership constitutes a negative workplace stressor (Schmid et al.,
2019), which implies that exploitative leadership can serve as a resource-draining leadership.
Exploitative leaders are highly self-centered and take for granted that “others exist for me”
(Carnevale et al., 2018; Schmid et al., 2019). Thus, in a sense, exploitative leadership poses a
threat to “the sense of self-respect that people acquire through treatment with respect and

Hostile Attribution Bias

Figure 1.
Exploitative Leadership Psychological Distress Knowledge Hiding Research model
LODJ dignity” (Tyler, 1994, p. 852). Consistent with other forms of destructive leadership, such as
abusive supervision and narcissistic leadership (Carnevale et al., 2018; Harvey et al., 2007;
Zhao and Guo, 2019; Guo et al., 2020), exploitative leadership consumes employees’ valued
personal resources related to self-respect and self-esteem. Besides, it is well acknowledged
that leaders’ support is the most valuable social resources in the workplace (Hobfoll, 2001;
Lee et al., 2018). Exploitative leaders scarcely provide employees with any instructions and
learning opportunities, thereby hindering employees’ growth and development (Schmid et al.,
2019). Hence, exploitative leadership can be viewed as a kind of resource loss related to social
support. Moreover, sustained exposure to leaders’ exploitation may cause employees to
perceive a form of resource loss concerning job control and personal autonomy since
exploitative leaders often give tedious and boring tasks to employees, exert an exceeding
amount of work pressure and place inappropriately high job demands on employees
(Schmid et al., 2018).
In sum, perceived exploitation may lead to an actual or threatening resource loss
(Livne-Ofer et al., 2019; Schmid et al., 2019; Vohs et al., 2007). In this situation, from a COR
perspective, employees will become defensive and try to protect remaining resources
(Hobfoll, 2001). Recent studies pointed out that knowledge hiding may function as a coping
strategy to prevent resource loss since individuals need to give of extra time and energy (two
kinds of individual resources) to answer if they grant others’ requests. Based on this logic, we
posit that exploited employees may be reluctant to expend their own time and energy on
others’ requests and then engage in knowledge hiding. Besides, knowledge itself is an
important individual resource (Connelly et al., 2012; Hobfoll, 1989; Khalid et al., 2020).
Previous studies found that when some resources become inadequate, individuals will seek to


reduce the loss of other resources (Feng and Wang, 2019; Skerlavaj et al., 2018). Following this
logic, victims who experience exploitative leadership may try to decrease the giving of
knowledge by undertaking knowledge hiding. Therefore, we hypothesize that:
H1. Exploitative leadership is positively related to knowledge hiding.

The mediating role of psychological distress

Psychological distress is conceptualized as a negative mental state characterized by negative
thoughts and feelings related to anxiety, fear and depression (Restubog et al., 2011).
According to COR theory, individuals will experience psychological strains and strive to
protect and retain their limited resources when facing a threatening or actual loss of resources
(Hobfoll, 1989; Hobfoll et al., 2018). Following this logic, we argue that exploitative leadership
can deplete employees’ valued resources and result in detrimental psychological
consequences in the form of psychological distress, which will then prompt victims to take
knowledge hiding as a form of resource loss preventing actions.
Specifically, employees experiencing exploitative leadership are more likely to suffer
psychological distress. COR theory posits that strain occurs when individuals are threatened
by potential resource loss or experience depletion of actual resources (Hobfoll, 1989; Hobfoll
et al., 2018). As previously discussed, being exploited is a threatening situation or negative
stimulus that exceedingly consumes employees’ important resources including self-esteem,
social support and job control. Over time, leaders’ exploitative behaviors could cause
exploited employees to perceive prolonged negative feelings and a loss (or the threat of a loss)
of psychosocial resource (Schmid et al., 2019). Besides, such a leadership style may lead
employees to fear for their prospects in the organization, implying significant psychological
distress (De Clercq et al., 2019). Indeed, it has been suggested that exploitation will undermine
employees’ well-being and facilitate psychological strains (Livne-Ofer et al., 2019; Schmid
et al., 2019). For example, Schmid et al. (2019) provided evidence that exploitative leadership
led to job dissatisfaction and burnout. Similarly, Livne-Ofer et al. (2019) found that employees’
perception of an exploitative employee–organization relationship was positively associated The effect of
with a series of negative emotions including depression and anger that could serve as exploitative
important indicators of psychological distress. Accordingly, we argue that employees tend to
develop a negative mental state, which may manifest as psychological distress when
leadership
encountering exploitative behaviors from their leaders.
Furthermore, we expect that psychologically distressed employees may engage in
knowledge hiding to conserve their remaining resources. COR theory postulates that
psychologically stressed individuals are motivated to adopt a defensive coping mechanism to
help them prevent further spiraling loss of resources (Hobfoll, 1989). In the context of
knowledge requests, knowledge hiding may function as the defensive means aiming at
psychological distress. High levels of psychological distress mean that individuals have more
aversive psychological reactions such as tension and anxiety; thus, they have few emotional
and physical resources left (Garcia et al., 2017, 2018; Park et al., 2018). In such a situation, it is
less likely that psychologically distressed individuals would have the will, time and energy to
deal with knowledge requests. Previous research provides indirect support for this argument.
For instance, Park et al. (2018) suggested that employees under psychological distress tended
to be silent. Lee et al. (2018) showed that employees who experience psychological strain in the
form of emotional exhaustion were reluctant to share knowledge to minimize resource loss.
Besides, given that knowledge is a kind of important resource in the current society,
individuals may also tend to withhold knowledge to maintain their advantages during


ordinary times (Evans et al., 2014), let alone when other resources are depleted (Skerlavaj et al.,
2018). Based on this logic, psychologically distressed employees would hide knowledge to
protect the resources necessary for their success.
Overall, drawing on COR theory, we argue that psychological distress is an important
mediator linking exploitative leadership and knowledge hiding. Specifically, the experience
of being exploited from leaders will increase employees’ psychological distress, which
reduces employees’ valued resources. All this, in turn, may enhance employees’ knowledge
hiding to guard against further resource loss. Thus, we hypothesize that:
H2. Psychological distress mediates the relationship between exploitative leadership and
knowledge hiding.

The moderating role of hostile attribution bias

COR theory posits that there are individual differences among people’s reactions to the
depletion of resources (Hobfoll and Shirom, 2000). In line with this, we argue that not every
person will experience strong psychological distress when confronting exploitative
leadership. Recently, hostile attribution bias has emerged as an important factor in
understanding employees’ reactions to resource loss resulting from stressful situations
(Lyu et al., 2016; Zhu et al., 2019b). We expect that hostile attribution bias may act as one
boundary condition of the link between exploitative leadership and psychological distress.
Hostile attribution bias is defined as an overstated antagonistic intent to the actions of
others (Milich and Dodge, 1984; Dodge and Crick, 1990). Research shows that the expectation
of intentional wrongdoing in a hostile attribution bias can strongly affect employees’
judgment and determine the resulting behavioral reactions (Hoobler and Bras, 2006;
Lyu et al., 2016). Individuals with high levels of hostile attribution bias tend to distort
thinking, blame others for negative workplace events and interpret others’ unfavorable
actions as hostile, even when there are no clear cues to demonstrate the intention (Matthews
and Norris, 2002; Milich and Dodge, 1984; Wu et al., 2014). Furthermore, Lyu et al. (2016)
suggested that as a negative personality trait, hostile attribution bias can serve as an
accelerator in resource depletion. Following this logic, employees’ hostile attribution bias may
exacerbate the resource depletion resulting from exploitative leadership and lead to a high
LODJ level of psychological distress. In other words, individuals who are characterized by high
hostile attribution bias are more vulnerable to exploitative leadership and react more strongly
in terms of strain reactions such as psychological distress.
Specifically, when faced with exploitative leadership, employees with high hostile
attribution bias are more likely to interpret such mistreatment as intentionally hostile,
inimical and harmful. In this situation, they tend to generate a stronger perception that they
are deliberately exploited by leaders without considering their basic psychological needs and
career development; thus they will experience more substantial resource drain and
subsequent psychological distress (Lyu et al., 2016). Besides, individuals high in hostile
attribution bias are more prone to believe that they will continue to be entangled in
exploitative leadership for a long time, implying a higher degree of perceived resource
depletion; thus, they will experience more psychological distress. On the contrary, employees
who are low in hostile attribution bias are inclined to attribute misbehaviors to external
elements and interpret them as unintentional (Lyu et al., 2016; Zhu et al., 2019b). Hence, when
faced with exploitative leadership, they may attribute their leaders’ mistreatment as
unintentional, justifiable and excusable. With a decreased level of perceived resource loss, the
effects of exploitative leadership on psychological distress might be alleviated. Hence, we
hypothesize that:
H3. Hostile attribution bias moderates the positive relationship between exploitative
leadership and psychological distress such that the positive relationship is stronger
when employees have high hostile attribution bias rather than low.
Based on the earlier arguments, we propose a comprehensive theoretical model in which
psychological distress mediates the impact of exploitative leadership on knowledge hiding,
and hostile attribution bias moderates the relationship between exploitative leadership and
psychological distress. According to the suggestion of Edwards and Lambert (2007),
we further propose a moderated mediation hypothesis that hostile attribution bias moderates
the indirect effect of exploitative leadership on knowledge hiding via psychological distress
and that this indirect effect is stronger when hostile attribution bias is higher.
Specifically, employees with high levels of hostile attribution bias are more likely to
interpret exploitative leadership as intentionally hostile and hurtful and get negatively
impacted. For example, they may perceive exploitation as an intentional means for leaders to
undermine their basic psychological needs and destroy their development potential in the
organization. Therefore, they are more likely to react to exploitative leadership by generating
a stronger perception that their valued resources (e.g. time, energy, mood and status) are
depleted, leading to a deeper sense of psychological distress; subsequently, these employees
may endeavor harder to adopt a defensive mode (e.g. knowledge hiding) to protect their
remaining resources. Conversely, employees with low levels of hostile attribution bias are
prone to perceive exploitative leadership as unintentional and blame their leaders less. In this
case, they are less likely to feel that they have few resources left, and thus their psychological
distress and subsequent resource-protecting reactions in the form of knowledge hiding will
be less likely to occur. Accordingly, we propose the following hypothesis.
H4. Hostile attribution bias moderates the indirect effect of exploitative leadership on
knowledge hiding via psychological distress such that the indirect effect is stronger
when employees have high hostile attribution bias rather than low.

Method
Sample and procedures
We collected data from full-time staff of a high-technology company in Shanghai, China.
Before carrying out the survey, we first introduced our research project in detail to the
human resource manager as well as the general manager and received generous support. The effect of
Then, we asked the human resource manager to randomly select our potential exploitative
participants with a random number generator that matches with the employees’ work ID
and got a list of 500 potential participants. Later, we contacted the selected employees to
leadership
solicit their participation and explained our research purpose through phone calls or
e-mails. Finally, 448 employees were voluntary to cooperate with our research. To
alleviate the threat of common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003), we adopted a three-
wave design with a four-week lag. In each wave, we visited the company and conducted
the survey. In the first stage (Time 1), we invited 448 employees to report exploitative
leadership, hostile attribution bias and demographic variables and received
421 responses. Four weeks later (Time 2), of the 421 participants who attended the
Time-1 survey, 377 completed the second survey in which they were required to assess
psychological distress. In the third stage (Time 3), we invited 377 employees who
completed Time 1 and Time 2 surveys to evaluate knowledge hiding and obtained 330
responses. After ruling out invalid questionnaires, 324 useable responses were obtained
for a response rate of 72.32%. Among them, 54% were male; the average age was 29.87
years (SD 5 4.74); the mean tenure in the organization was 4.54 years (SD 5 3.93); the
mean tenure with the supervisor was 2.97 years (SD 5 2.58); 76.85% had a bachelor
degree or above.

Measures
Following the back-translation procedure (Brislin, 1980), all of the English questionnaire
items were translated into Chinese.
Exploitative leadership. We used the 15-item scale developed by Schmid et al. (2019) to
assess exploitative leadership. Sample items include “My immediate supervisor does not give
me opportunities to further develop myself professionally because his or her own goals have
priority” and “My immediate supervisor uses my work for his or her personal gain.”
Respondents completed the measures using a fivee-point Likert scale (ranging from
1 5 strongly disagree, to 5 5 strongly agree).
Psychological distress. Following the previous study (Restubog et al., 2011), we asked
employees to evaluate psychological distress using a short four-item version of Derogatis’s
(1993) scale. Items were prefaced with the following lead-in statement: “In the past month,
how often have you been. . .” and ended with the statements such as “feeling fearful,”
“feeling restless,” “feeling worthless” and “feeling in panic.” Respondents completed the
measures using a five-point Likert scale (ranging from 1 5 not at all, to 5 5 extremely).
Knowledge hiding. Knowledge hiding was assessed using Connelly et al.’s (2012) 12-item
scale. Sample items include “Agreed to help him/her but never really intended to” and
“Said that I did not know, even though I did.” Respondents completed the measures using a
five-point Likert scale (ranging from 1 5 strongly disagree, to 5 5 strongly agree).
Hostile attribution bias. In line with Zhu et al. (2019b), we adopted a six-item scale
developed by Adams and John (1997) to measure hostile attribution bias. Sample items
include “Most people are honest chiefly through fear of being caught” and “A person is better
off if he/she does not trust anyone.” Respondents completed the measures using a five-point
Likert scale (ranging from 1 5 strongly disagree, to 5 5 strongly agree).
Control variables. Following previous studies (Bogilovic et al., 2017; Zhao et al., 2016, 2019;
Zhu et al., 2019a), we included employees’ age, gender, education, organizational tenure and
tenure with the supervisor as control variables. Specifically, age, organizational tenure and
tenure with the supervisor were measured in years; gender was coded as a binary variable
(0 5 male, 1 5 female); education was divided into four levels (1 5 high school or under,
2 5 vocational school, 3 5 university, 4 5 graduate school).
LODJ Analytical strategy
MPLUS 7.4 software was adopted for all analyses. As a preliminary step, we conducted a
series of confirmatory factor analyses to examine whether the self-report measures captured
distinctive constructs. Then, means, standard deviations, correlations and reliabilities of all
variables were reported. To test research hypotheses, hierarchical regression analysis, simple
slope test and bootstrapping approach were employed.

Results
Confirmatory factor analyses
Confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to test the discriminant validity of the four
constructs, namely exploitative leadership, psychological distress, hostile attribution bias
and knowledge hiding. The results (see Table 1) showed that the four-factor model provided a
better fit to the data (χ 2(129) 5 346.61, CFI 5 0.93, TLI 5 0.91, RMSEA 5 0.07) than
alternative models and passed the model fit indices thresholds suggested by Hu and Bentler
(1998), thereby verifying the distinctiveness of our measures. Besides, the one-factor model
provided a poor fit (χ 2(135) 5 1691.80, CFI 5 0.48, TLI 5 0.41, RMSEA 5 0.19), indicating
that the common method bias was not a serious threat in this study (Cheng et al., 2019).

Descriptive statistics
Table 2 presents the means, standard deviations, correlations and reliabilities. In line with our
expectation, exploitative leadership was positively associated with psychological distress
(r 5 0.35, p < 0.01) and knowledge hiding (r 5 0.17, p < 0.01); psychological distress had a
positive relationship with knowledge hiding (r 5 0.27, p < 0.01).

Hypotheses testing
We tested hypotheses using hierarchical regression analysis. The results are shown in
Table 3. H1 predicted a positive relationship between exploitative leadership and knowledge
hiding. As indicated in Model 2 of Table 3, after controlling age, gender, education,
organizational tenure and tenure with the supervisor, exploitative leadership had a
significant and positive effect on knowledge hiding (β 5 0.17, p < 0.01). Thus, H1 was
supported.
H2 predicted that psychological distress would mediate the relationship between
exploitative leadership and knowledge hiding. The results of Table 3 revealed that
exploitative leadership had significant positive effects on knowledge hiding (β 5 0.17,
p < 0.01, Model 2) and psychological distress (β 5 0.34, p < 0.01, Model 6); psychological
distress had significant positive effects on knowledge hiding (β 5 0.27, p < 0.01, Model 4).
Further, when regressing knowledge hiding on exploitative leadership, psychological

Models χ2 df χ 2/df RMSEA CFI TLI

Four-factor model 346.61 129 2.69 0.07 0.93 0.91

Three-factor model 855.89 132 6.48 0.13 0.76 0.72
Two-factor model 1419.73 134 10.60 0.17 0.57 0.51
One-factor model 1691.80 135 12.53 0.19 0.48 0.41
Note(s): Three-factor model emerged exploitative leadership and psychological distress into one factor. Two-
Table 1. factor model emerged exploitative leadership, psychological distress and hostile attribution bias into one
Confirmatory factor factor. One-factor model emerged exploitative leadership, psychological distress, hostile attribution bias and
analysis results knowledge hiding into one factor
Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Age 29.87 4.74

2. Gender 0.46 0.50
0.17**
3. Education 2.91 0.75
0.08 0.08
4. Organizational tenure 4.54 3.93
0.08 0.68**
0.09
5. Tenure with the supervisor 2.97 2.58
0.02 0.43**
0.02 0.70**
6. Exploitative leadership 2.66 0.86
0.02 0.06
0.09 0.02 0.04 0.93 (0.94)
7. Psychological distress 2.60 0.99
0.01 0.05 0.01
0.04
0.05 0.35** 0.87 (0.87)
8. Hostile attribution bias 2.46 0.79
0.07 0.03 0.01
0.06
0.01 0.37** 0.38** 0.85 (0.85)
9. Knowledge hiding 2.55 0.73
0.09
0.04 0.05
0.05
0.09 0.17** 0.27** 0.28** 0.88 (0.88)
Note(s): n 5 324; **p < 0.01. The first entry on the diagonal is the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, whereas the second entry in parentheses is the composite reliability
leadership
exploitative

and reliabilities of
The effect of

Means, standard
Table 2.

study variables
deviations, correlations
LODJ Knowledge hiding Psychological distress
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7

Control variables
Age
0.06
0.08
0.11
0.10 0.14 0.11 0.06
Gender
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09 0.01 0.02 0.43
Education 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
0.01
0.01
0.01
Organizational tenure 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.10
0.12
0.09
0.01
Tenure with the supervisor
0.10
0.11
0.10
0.10
0.02
0.04
0.06
Independent variable
Exploitative leadership 0.17** 0.09 0.34** 0.24**
Mediator
Psychological distress 0.24** 0.27**
Moderator
Hostile attribution bias 0.27**
Interaction
Exploitative leadership 3 0.11*
Hostile attribution bias
R2 0.02 0.05 0.10 0.09 0.01 0.13 0.21
ΔR2 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.01 0.12 0.08
Table 3. F 1.19 2.65* 4.98** 5.39** 0.77 7.88** 10.65**
Results of hypotheses ΔF 1.19 9.81** 18.09** 25.91** 0.77 42.85** 16.67**
testing Note(s): n 5 324; *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01

distress and control variables (Model 3), we found that the effect of exploitative leadership on
knowledge hiding was not significant (β 5 0.09, n.s.) and that psychological distress was
significantly related to knowledge hiding (β 5 0.24, p < 0.01), indicating that psychological
distress mediated the influence of exploitative leadership on knowledge hiding (Baron and
Kenny, 1986). Besides, we used bootstrapping procedures to construct confidence interval
(CI) in estimating the mediating effect. The results revealed that the indirect effect of
exploitative leadership on knowledge hiding via psychological distress was also significant
(indirect effect 5 0.071, 95% CI 5 [0.031, 0.122], excluding 0). Thus, H2 was supported.
H3 predicted that hostile attribution bias would moderate the link between exploitative
leadership and psychological distress. As shown in Model 7, the interactive effect of hostile
attribution bias and exploitative leadership on knowledge hiding was significant (β 5 0.11,
p < 0.05). Figure 2 and simple slope tests revealed that the impact of exploitative
leadership on psychological distress was significant when hostile attribution bias was
high (simple slope 5 0.33, p < 0.01) rather than low (simple slope 5 0.15, n.s.). Thus, H3 was
supported.
H4 predicted that hostile attribution bias would moderate the indirect effect of exploitative
leadership on knowledge hiding via psychological distress such that the indirect effect was
stronger when employees have high hostile attribution bias rather than low. We applied
Edwards and Lambert’s (2007) moderated path analysis approach to test the indirect effects
of exploitative leadership on knowledge hiding at two levels of hostile attribution bias (i.e.
1
SD and þ1 SD). Based on 10,000 resamples, the results showed that the indirect effect of
exploitative leadership on knowledge hiding via psychological distress was significant when
hostile attribution bias was high (indirect effect 5 0.065, 95% CI 5 [0.027, 0.114], excluding 0),
while the indirect effect was not significant when hostile attribution bias was low (indirect
effect 5 0.029, 95% CI 5 [–0.004, 0.071], including 0). Taken together, hostile attribution bias
 Low Hostile Attribution Bias The effect of
High Hostile Attribution Bias
exploitative
Psychological Distress 3.5 leadership

2.5
Figure 2.
The moderating effect
of hostile attribution
2
bias on the relationship
between exploitative
leadership and
1.5 psychological distress
Low Eexploitative Leadership High Eexploitative Leadership

moderated the indirect effect of exploitative leadership on knowledge hiding. Thus, H4 was
supported.

Discussion
Despite growing research focusing on exploitative leadership and knowledge hiding,
scholars to date have explored the two fields separately and placed less attention on the
possible link between them. To narrow this gap, the present study investigated how, when
and why exploitative leadership leads to knowledge hiding through the lens of COR theory.
In line with our expectation, the empirical results showed that exploitative leadership was
positively related to knowledge hiding. Exploitative leadership is a negative stressor in the
workplace, which can deplete employees’ valued resources. To maintain their remaining
resources, knowledge hiding may be seen as one of coping strategies for exploitative
leadership. Besides, the results showed that psychological distress mediated the relationship
between exploitative leadership and knowledge hiding. This finding is not surprising
because it is in line with the core logic of COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989). That is, when confronted
with a threatening or actual loss of resources (e.g. exploitative leadership), individuals will
experience psychological strains (e.g. psychological distress), which subsequently motivate
individuals to engage in resource-protecting behavior (e.g. knowledge hiding). Moreover, we
found that hostile attribution bias strengthened the positive relationship between
exploitative leadership and psychological distress as well as the indirect effect of
exploitative leadership on knowledge hiding through psychological distress. Employees
with high hostile attribution bias are prone to perceive exploitative leadership as intentional
and antagonistic, which accelerates employees’ resource depletion and thus intensifies the
impacts of exploitative leadership on psychological distress and subsequent knowledge
hiding.

Theoretical implications
Our findings make a threefold contribution. First, this study contributes to the emerging but
limited exploitative leadership literature by identifying a new employee outcome, namely
knowledge hiding. An increased scholarly attention has been paid to the consequences of
exploitative leadership by linking exploitative leadership to employees’ attitudinal and
behavioral outcomes (Schmid et al., 2018, 2019; Pircher Verdorfer et al., 2019). For instance,
LODJ Schmid et al. (2019) revealed that exploitative leadership led to reduced job satisfaction and
affective commitment, as well as increased burnout and work deviance. Schmid et al. (2018)
found that exploitative leadership exerted positive effects on turnover intention. However, to
our knowledge, the influence of exploitative leadership on knowledge hiding has been largely
overlooked. Hence, by linking exploitative leadership to knowledge hiding, our study
broadens the range of the existing exploitative leadership literature and answers the call of
Schmid et al. (2019) for more empirical research to shed new light on the exploitative
leadership field. Besides, our study contributes to the current body of knowledge hiding
literature by exploring its antecedents from the negative leadership perspective.
Second, this study advances our understanding of the underlying mechanisms between
exploitative leadership and employee outcomes by demonstrating the mediating role of
psychological distress. Previous research has explored the direct effect of exploitative
leadership (e.g. Schmid et al., 2018, 2019). Surprisingly, however, less attention has been
devoted to the underlying influencing mechanism of exploitative leadership
(Pircher Verdorfer et al., 2019). Drawing on COR theory, we introduced psychological
distress as a key mediating role in the relationship between exploitative leadership and
knowledge hiding. The results showed that exploitative leadership, as a typical form of
resource-draining leadership, increased employee psychological distress and thus led to
knowledge hiding. This finding is consistent with prior research conducted by Park et al.
(2018), which found that psychological distress mediated the impact of abusive supervision
(reflecting a typical form of resource-depleting leadership) on salience (reflecting a resource-
protecting mechanism). Besides, our study suggested that COR theory was a useful
framework to explain the influencing process of exploitative leadership, thereby shedding
light on the psychological mechanism through which exploitative leadership relates to
employee outcomes.
Third, by verifying the moderating role of hostile attribution bias, this study provides
insights into the boundary conditions under which exploitative leadership is more or less
detrimental to employees’ psychological well-being and behavior. Although recent years
have witnessed an increasing interest in studying the impact of exploitative leadership (e.g.
Schmid et al., 2018, 2019), the boundary conditions of the impact of exploitative leadership are
not well developed theoretically nor rigorously tested empirically. Lyu et al. (2016) and
Zhu et al. (2019b) pointed out that hostile attribution bias could serve as an accelerator in
resource depletion when employees encounter unfavorable stressors. In line with this view,
our findings demonstrated that a high level of hostile attribution bias is an amplifier of the
effect of exploitative leadership on psychological distress and subsequent knowledge hiding.
Thus, we shed light on when exploitative leadership can affect employees’ reactions.

Practical implications
The findings of this study have several practical implications. First, our study showed that
exploitative leadership could prompt knowledge hiding. Hence, organizations need to spend
more time and efforts to minimize the occurrence of exploitative leadership. For instance,
when selecting and promoting managers, organizations should give preference to the
leadership candidates with low selfish intendancies and dark side personality traits
(e.g. narcissism and Machiavellianism). In addition, to prevent leaders’ highly self-interested
behavior, leader training programs that focus on cultivating a more accurate understanding
of one’s interdependence with other people should be strongly recommended.
Second, we found that psychological distress was also an inducer of knowledge hiding.
Thus, managers should be concerned about employees’ psychological well-being in the
workplace. For instance, organizations should build a supportive working environment and
provide resource-based interventions to help their members better cope with work stress.
Specifically, organizations may consider providing employees with employee health The effect of
programs and psychological consultation services to help them release negative emotions, exploitative
replenish personal valued resources and enhance coping skills when confronting negative
events.
leadership
Third, our study revealed that hostile attribution bias would strengthen the negative
influence of exploitative leadership. Hence, with the help of personality evaluation tools,
managers should pay close attention to the recruitment process so as to select those who are
low in hostile attribution bias. Besides, managers are advised to provide training and special
mentoring for employees high in hostile attribution bias so as to help them develop empathy
on others and understand that not all misbehaviors are deliberate.

Limitations and future directions

Our study has some limitations that need to be considered in future research. The first
limitation is the generalizability of our findings to another context. Our sample is the full-time
employees from the high-technology industry in China. The single industry and social
context limit the generalizations of our results. Hence, we encourage future research to
replicate this study in different cultural contexts with samples from various industries.
The second limitation is related to the research design. Although we collected data in three
waves in an effort to establish the causality of variables, the proposed causal relationships
may not be totally ensured since the data were correlational in nature. For this reason,
longitudinal or experimental designs would be desirable for future research to retest the
causality of our findings. Besides, although we collected data at three time points to minimize
the common method bias, there is still room for improvement. For instance, future research
can collect data from other resources (e.g. supervisor–subordinate dyads).
Third, the present study merely explored the mediating role of psychological distress in
the relationship between exploitative leadership and knowledge hiding from the COR
perspective. However, there may exist other possible mediating paths (e.g. moral
disengagement). To draw a more complete picture of how exploitative leadership
indirectly influences knowledge hiding, a series of studies regarding the influencing
mechanism of exploitative leadership on knowledge hiding are highly needed.
Fourth, when exploring the boundary conditions of the relationship between exploitative
leadership and psychological distress, we merely examined the moderating role of
personality traits (i.e. hostile attribution bias). Further research may consider other
individual (e.g. political skill) and situational (e.g. perceived human resource support climate)
moderators as alternative boundary conditions concerning the influence of exploitative
leadership.

References
Adams, S.H. and John, O.P. (1997), “A hostility scale for the California psychological inventory: MMPI,
observer Q-sort, and big-five correlates”, Journal of Personality Assessment, Vol. 69 No. 2,
pp. 408-424.
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-1182.


Bogilovic, S., Cerne,

M. and Skerlavaj, M. (2017), “Hiding behind a mask? Cultural intelligence,
knowledge hiding, and individual and team creativity”, European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 710-723.
Brislin, R.W. (1980), “Translation and content analysis of oral and written material”, in Triandis, H.C.
and Berry, J.W. (Eds), Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Allyn and Bacon, Boston,
pp. 349-444.
LODJ Carnevale, J., Huang, L. and Harms, P. (2018), “Speaking up to the “emotional vampire”: a conservation
of resources perspective”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 91, pp. 48-59.


Cerne,

M., Hernaus, T., Dysvik, A. and Skerlavaj, M. (2017), “The role of multilevel synergistic
interplay among team mastery climate, knowledge hiding, and job characteristics in
stimulating innovative work behavior”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 27 No. 2,
pp. 281-299.
Cheng, K., Wei, F. and Lin, Y. (2019), “The trickle-down effect of responsible leadership on unethical
pro-organizational behavior: the moderating role of leader-follower value congruence”, Journal
of Business Research, Vol. 102, pp. 34-43.
Connelly, C.E. and Zweig, D. (2015), “How perpetrators and targets construe knowledge hiding in
organizations”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 24 No. 3,
pp. 479-489.
Connelly, C.E., Zweig, D., Webster, J. and Trougakos, J.P. (2012), “Knowledge hiding in organizations”,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 64-88.


Connelly, C.E., Cerne,

M., Dysvik, A. and Skerlavaj, M. (2019), “Understanding knowledge hiding in
organizations”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 40 No. 7, pp. 779-782.
De Clercq, D., Fatima, T. and Jahanzeb, S. (2019), “Ingratiating with despotic leaders to gain status:
the role of power distance orientation and self-enhancement motive”, Journal of Business
Ethics. doi: 10.1007/s10551-019-04368-5.
De Hoogh, A.H. and Den Hartog, D.N. (2008), “Ethical and despotic leadership, relationships with
leader’s social responsibility, top management team effectiveness and subordinates’ optimism: a
multi-method study”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 297-311.
Derogatis, L.R. (1993), BSI Brief Symptom Inventory: Administration, Scoring, and Procedures
Manual, 4th ed., National Computer Systems, Minneapolis, MN.
Dodge, K.A. and Crick, N.R. (1990), “Social information-processing bases of aggressive behavior in
children”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 8-22.
Edwards, J.R. and Lambert, L.S. (2007), “Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: a general
analytical framework using moderated path analysis”, Psychological Methods, Vol. 12
No. 1, pp. 1-22.
Evans, J.M., Hendron, M.G. and Oldroyd, J.B. (2014), “Withholding the ace: the individual-and unit-
level performance effects of self-reported and perceived knowledge hoarding”, Organization
Science, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 494-510.
Feng, J. and Wang, C. (2019), “Does abusive supervision always promote employees to hide
knowledge? From both reactance and COR perspectives”, Journal of Knowledge Management,
Vol. 23 No. 7, pp. 1455-1474.
Garcia, P.R.J.M., Ng, C.S., Capezio, A., Restubog, S.L.D. and Tang, R.L. (2017), “Distressed and drained:
consequences of intimate partner aggression and the buffering role of supervisor support”,
Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 103, pp. 106-116.
Garcia, P.R.J.M., Bordia, P., Restubog, S.L.D. and Caines, V. (2018), “Sleeping with a broken promise:
the moderating role of generativity concerns in the relationship between psychological contract
breach and insomnia among older workers”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 39 No. 3,
pp. 326-338.
Guo, L., Zhao, H., Cheng, K. and Luo, J. (2020), “The relationship between abusive supervision and
unethical pro-organizational behavior: linear or curvilinear?”, Leadership and Organization
Development Journal, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 369-381.
Harvey, P., Stoner, J., Hochwarter, W. and Kacmar, C. (2007), “Coping with abusive supervision: the
neutralizing effects of ingratiation and positive affect on negative employee outcomes”, The
Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 264-280.
Hobfoll, S.E. (1989), “Conservation of resources: a new attempt at conceptualizing stress”, American
Psychologist, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 513-524.
Hobfoll, S.E. (2001), “The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the stress process: The effect of
advancing conservation of resources theory”, Applied Psychology: International Review, Vol. 50
No. 3, pp. 337-421. exploitative
Hobfoll, S.E. and Shirom, A. (2000), “Conservation of resources theory: applications to stress and
leadership
management the workplace”, in Golembiewski, R.T. (Ed.), Handbook of Organizational
Behavior, Marcel Dekker, New York, NY, pp. 57-81.
Hobfoll, S.E., Halbesleben, J.R.B., Neveu, J.P. and Westman, M. (2018), “Conservation of resources in
the organizational context: the reality of resources and their consequences”, Annual Review of
Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, Vol. 5, pp. 103-128.
Hoobler, J.M. and Brass, D.J. (2006), “Abusive supervision and family undermining as displaced
aggression”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 5, pp. 1125-1133.
Hu, L.T. and Bentler, P.M. (1998), “Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: sensitivity to
underparameterized model misspecification”, Psychological Methods, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 424-453.
Jiang, Z., Hu, X., Wang, Z. and Jiang, X. (2019), “Knowledge hiding as a barrier to thriving: the
mediating role of psychological safety and moderating role of organizational cynicism”, Journal
of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 47 No. 7, pp. 800-818.
Khalid, M., Bashir, S., Khan, A.K. and Abbas, N. (2018), “When and how abusive supervision leads to
knowledge hiding behaviors: an Islamic work ethics perspective”, Leadership and Organization
Development Journal, Vol. 39 No. 6, pp. 794-806.
Khalid, M., Gulzar, A. and Khan, A.K. (2020), “When and how the psychologically entitled employees
hide more knowledge?”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 89, p. 102413.
Lee, S., Kim, S.L. and Yun, S. (2018), “A moderated mediation model of the relationship between
abusive supervision and knowledge sharing”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 3,
pp. 403-413.
Livne-Ofer, E., Coyle-Shapiro, J.A. and Pearce, J.L. (2019), “Eyes wide open: perceived exploitation and
its consequences”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 62 No. 6, pp. 1989-2018.
Lyu, Y., Zhu, H., Zhong, H.J. and Hu, L. (2016), “Abusive supervision and customer-oriented
organizational citizenship behavior: the roles of hostile attribution bias and work engagement”,
International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 53, pp. 69-80.
Matthews, B.A. and Norris, F.H. (2002), “When is believing “seeing”? Hostile attribution bias as a
function of self-reported aggression”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 32
No. 1, pp. 1-32.
Milich, R. and Dodge, K.A. (1984), “Social information processing in child psychiatric populations”,
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 471-489.
Park, J.H., Carter, M.Z., DeFrank, R.S. and Deng, Q. (2018), “Abusive supervision, psychological
distress, and silence: the effects of gender dissimilarity between supervisors and subordinates”,
Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 153 No. 3, pp. 775-792.
Pircher Verdorfer, A., Belschak, F.D. and Bobbio, A. (2019), “Felt or thought? Examining distinct
mechanisms of exploitative leadership and abusive supervision”, in Atinc, G. (Ed.), Academy of
Management Proceedings, Boston, MA.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Restubog, S.L.D., Scott, K.L. and Zagenczyk, T.J. (2011), “When distress hits home: the role of
contextual factors and psychological distress in predicting employees’ responses to abusive
supervision”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 96 No. 4, pp. 713-729.
Sadler-Smith, E., Robinson, G., Akstinaite, V. and Wray, T. (2018), “Hubristic leadership:
understanding the hazard and mitigating the risks”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 48
No. 2, pp. 8-18.
LODJ Schmid, E.A., Pircher Verdorfer, A. and Peus, C.V. (2018), “Different shades-different effects?
Consequences of different types of destructive leadership”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 9,
p. 1289.
Schmid, E.A., Pircher Verdorfer, A. and Peus, C. (2019), “Shedding light on leaders’ self-interest: theory
and measurement of exploitative leadership”, Journal of Management, Vol. 45 No. 4,
pp. 1401-1433.


Skerlavaj, M., Connelly, C.E., Cerne, M. and Dysvik, A. (2018), “Tell me if you can: time pressure,
prosocial motivation, perspective taking, and knowledge hiding”, Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 22 No. 7, pp. 1489-1509.
Tepper, B.J. (2000), “Consequences of abusive supervision”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43
No. 2, pp. 178-190.
Tyler, T.R. (1994), “Psychological models of the justice motive: antecedents of distributive and
procedural justice”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 67 No. 5, pp. 850-863.
Vohs, K.D., Baumeister, R.F. and Chin, J. (2007), “Feeling duped: emotional, motivational, and cognitive
aspects of being exploited by others”, Review of General Psychology, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 127-141.
Wu, L.Z., Zhang, H., Chiu, R.K., Kwan, H.K. and He, X. (2014), “Hostile attribution bias and negative
reciprocity beliefs exacerbate incivility’s effects on interpersonal deviance”, Journal of Business
Ethics, Vol. 120 No. 2, pp. 189-199.
Xia, Q., Yan, S., Zhang, Y. and Chen, B. (2019), “The curvilinear relationship between knowledge
leadership and knowledge hiding: the moderating role of psychological ownership”, Leadership
and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 40 No. 6, pp. 669-683.
Zhao, H. and Guo, L. (2019), “Abusive supervision and hospitality employees’ helping behaviors”,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 1977-1994.
Zhao, H., Xia, Q., He, P., Sheard, G. and Wan, P. (2016), “Workplace ostracism and knowledge hiding in
service organizations”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 69, pp. 84-94.
Zhao, H., Liu, W., Li, J. and Yu, X. (2019), “Leader-member exchange, organizational identification, and
knowledge hiding: the moderating role of relative leader-member exchange”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 40 No. 7, pp. 834-848.
Zhu, Y., Chen, T., Wang, M., Jin, Y. and Wang, Y. (2019a), “Rivals or allies: how performance-prove
goal orientation influences knowledge hiding”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 40
No. 7, pp. 849-868.
Zhu, H., Lyu, Y. and Ye, Y. (2019b), “The impact of customer incivility on employees’ family
undermining: a conservation of resources perspective”, Asia Pacific Journal of Management.
doi: 10.1007/s10490-019-09688-8.

Corresponding author
Jinlian Luo can be contacted at: luojl@tjhrd.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com