Does abusive supervision always promote

employees to hide knowledge? From both

reactance and COR perspectives
Jiaojiao Feng and Changyu Wang

Abstract Jiaojiao Feng is based at

Purpose – Knowledge hiding as an important topic in knowledge management field might be triggered the School of Business
by abusive supervision, but few studies discussed how to alleviate the effect of abusive supervision on Administration, Zhongnan
knowledge hiding. Drawing on both reactance theory and conservation of resources (COR) theory, this University of Economics
study aims to build a moderated mediation framework to examine effects of abusive supervision on and Law, Wuhan, China
knowledge hiding via job insecurity and under moderation of motivational climate (including mastery
and School of Labor and
climate and performance climate).
Human Recourses, Renmin
Design/methodology/approach – The paper uses a two-wave survey study among 155 knowledge University of China, Beijing,
workers from educational and manufacturing industries.
China. Changyu Wang is
Findings – Results show that abusive supervision is not significantly related to knowledge hiding directly
based at the School of
but indirectly via job insecurity. Abusive supervision’s interaction with mastery climate is negatively
Business, Jiangnan
related to knowledge hiding, but its interaction with performance climate is positively related to
knowledge hiding. The indirect relation of abusive supervision to knowledge hiding via job insecurity is University, Wuxi, China.
significantly moderated by mastery climate but not by performance climate.
Research limitations/implications – Despite contributions, this study also has some limitations.
Variables rated from the same source (i.e. employees) may have common method bias although the two-
wave design does help alleviate this concern.
Practical implications – The paper highlights important reasons why people hide knowledge at work
(because of abusive supervision and job insecurity) and identifies a boundary condition (mastery
climate) which will reduce abusive supervision’s influence on knowledge hiding.
Originality/value – This paper contributes to knowledge hiding literature which is an important part of
knowledge management from the perspective of abusive supervision based on both reactance theory
and COR theory.
Keywords Job insecurity, Abusive supervision, Knowledge hiding,
Conservation of resources (COR) theory, Motivational climate, Reactance theory
Paper type Research paper

Introduction Received 11 December 2018

Revised 1 April 2019
Knowledge is a strategic asset for organizations, especially for knowledge intensive firms 19 May 2019
Accepted 2 June 2019
(Spender and Grant, 1996). Combining knowledge acquisition processes (exploration) with
knowledge transfer processes (exploitation) is benefit for the performance of organizations This work was supported in part
by The Ministry of Education of
(Ferraris et al., 2018; Ferraris et al., 2019). The mainstream knowledge management Humanities and Social Science
literature also suggests that knowledge can actually expand when it is shared and Project under Grant
18YJC630169, the
combined (Škerlavaj et al., 2018; Del Giudice and Della Peruta, 2016). Unfortunately, some Fundamental Research Funds
employees might perceive knowledge as a limited resource and intentionally hide for the Central universities and
the Research Funds of
knowledge that their peers have requested (Škerlavaj et al., 2018; Connelly and Zweig, Jiangnan University under
Grant JUSRP11884, National
2015), even if different knowledge managerial practices are used to encourage knowledge Natural Science Foundation of
sharing (e.g. Del Giudice, and Maggioni, 2014; Pee and Lee, 2015; Swift et al., 2010; Wang China under Grant 71273265.

DOI 10.1108/JKM-12-2018-0737 VOL. 23 NO. 7 2019, pp. 1455-1474, © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 1367-3270 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 1455
 et al., 2017). Different from a lack of knowledge sharing, 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). It is more harmful on the
performance of organizations (Evans et al., 2014). Therefore, as a type of individual-
targeting and negative knowledge-related behaviors, knowledge hiding becomes a critical
component of knowledge management and has aroused practical and academic interest


(Škerlavaj et al., 2018; Cerne et al., 2014; Connelly et al., 2012).
Identifying factors that trigger knowledge-hiding behaviors amongst employees can help
organizations devise effective strategies to discourage knowledge-hiding and encourage
knowledge sharing (Kumar and Varkkey, 2018). Abusive supervision as a form of
destructive leadership becomes a widespread phenomenon in today’s organization. While
a leader is an organizational agent, abusive supervision could be a significant factor in
employees’ knowledge-related behaviors (Srivastava et al., 2006). It will promote
knowledge hiding (Zweig and Scott, 2018; Khalid et al., 2018) and impede knowledge
sharing (Lee et al., 2018; Choi et al., 2019). Therefore, it is necessary to understand
the influencing mechanisms of abusive supervision on knowledge hiding and devise effective
strategies to weaken the effect of abusive supervision on knowledge hiding. As far as we
know, only two studies focused on explaining the relationship between abusive supervision
and knowledge hiding from the perspective of social exchange theory. For example, Zweig
and Scott (2018) demonstrated that the relationship between abusive supervision and
knowledge hiding is mediated by perceptions of distrust and paranoia; Khalid et al. (2018)
indicated that it was mediated by perceptions of interpersonal justice, but that Islamic work
ethics (IWE) weaken this relationship. Other possible psychological mechanisms (e.g. job
insecurity) and boundary conditions (e.g. motivational climate) haven’t been investigated from
different theoretical perspectives. Thus, we need to learn more about the relationship between
abusive supervision and knowledge hiding, and answer following questions:
䊏 Why do individuals hide knowledge from coworkers when they face an abusive
supervisor?
䊏 Do individuals always engage in knowledge hiding toward coworkers under abusive
supervision?
䊏 Under what conditions do abused subordinates engage in knowledge hiding toward
coworkers?

In fact, knowledge hiding is not only a knowledge resource protecting behavior, but also a
passive reaction to a given situation such as abusive supervision (Khalid et al., 2018).
Abusive supervision would make employees perceive a loss of freedom (Ashforth, 1997)
and a loss of resources (Aryee et al., 2008). Thus, reactance theory dealing with people’s
reactions to threatened or eliminated freedoms (Brehm, 1966) and conservation of
resources (COR) theory based on the tenet that individuals are motivated to protect their
current resources (conservation) and acquire new resources (acquisition) (Hobfoll, 2001;
Halbesleben et al., 2014), could give us more insights to understand knowledge hiding
towards coworkers under abusive supervision.
Reactance theory suggests that frustrated individuals may react to the source of threat
directly or indirectly by engaging in behaviors designed to restore their sense of control
under different conditions (Brehm and Brehm, 1981). However, it’s not easy for abused
subordinates to decide whether to displace their aggressions on leaders directly or towards
coworkers indirectly through knowledge hiding. Some specific reactions may only be
appropriate in certain conditions (Mawritz et al., 2014), and the extent to which a leader
influences followers may depend on given situations (Howell and Dorfman, 1981). Thus,
organizational factors may moderate the effect of abusive supervision on knowledge hiding.
One of important organizational factors is motivational climate, which refers to employees’
shared perceptions of the extant criteria for success and failure emphasized through the

PAGE 1456 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 23 NO. 7 2019

policies, practices, and procedures of their work environment (Nerstad et al., 2013). It can
help employees understand what behaviors are expected and rewarded (Schulte et al.,
2009), and then may play an essential role in their decisions to hide or share knowledge
(Connelly et al., 2012). Therefore, drawing on insights from reactance theory (Brehm, 1966),
this paper not only explores the direct impact of abusive supervision on knowledge hiding,
but also tries to examine the moderating effect of motivational climate on this direct impact.
COR theory suggests that, individuals with fewer resources will experience a loss spiral
(Hobfoll, 1998, p. 82). Employees under abusive supervision may suffer psychologically
due to internal resources loss (Hobfoll, 2001), which may lead to employees’ perceptions of
job tension (Harvey et al., 2007) and job insecurity. This experience of psychological
resources loss would promote abused subordinates hiding knowledge from coworkers to
preserve their current resources, power and position in organizations. Thus, drawing on
insights from COR theory, this study tries to examine the mediating role of job insecurity as
a key mechanism linking abusive supervision to employees’ knowledge hiding. When facing
potential or actual loss of resources in a situation involving supervisory abuse, employees
are motivated to evaluate whether their depleted resources can be adequately replenished
by their organizations (Janssen et al., 2010; Lee et al., 2018). Different motivational climates


focusing on cooperation or competition (Cerne et al., 2014) may help employees perceive
positive or negative reciprocal relationships they can build with colleagues in organizations,
lead employees to perceiving different levels of organizational support they can receive
under abusive supervision, and then make them perceive different levels of job insecurity.
As a result, the actions employees take to respond to resource losses may be different.
Accordingly, this study also tries to examine how motivational climate moderates the
indirect effect of abusive supervision on knowledge hiding through job insecurity.
As a result, this study tries to achieve the following main contributions. First, the study
enriches knowledge management literature and supplements prior positive knowledge-
related behaviors (e.g. knowledge sharing) research by furthering our understanding of
knowledge hiding. Second, this study advances our understandings on the causes of intra-
organizational knowledge hiding behaviors from the perspective of abusive supervision.
Third, this study extends previous research on opening the black box among the
relationship between abusive supervision and knowledge hiding (Zweig and Scott, 2018;
Khalid et al., 2018) through examining the mediating effect of job insecurity. Fourth, this
paper enriches the research on remedies for mitigating the impact of abusive supervision
on knowledge hiding (Khalid et al., 2018) by examining the moderating role of motivational
climate. Fifth, this paper furthers our theoretical understanding of knowledge hiding through
combining reactance theory and COR theory. Finally, the findings of the study could have
significant practical implications. Organizations can apply our results to devise effective
strategies to weaken the impact of abusive supervision on knowledge hiding.

Literature review
Antecedents of knowledge hiding
Knowledge hiding comprises three different forms: playing dumb, which means the
knowledge hider pretends to be ignorant of the requested knowledge; evasive hiding which
refers to providing incorrect information or a misleading promise of a complete answer in
the future; and rationalized hiding which refers to offering a justification for failing to provide
the knowledge requested or blaming another party (Connelly and Zweig, 2015, p. 480).
Though knowledge hiding overlaps with other types of negative knowledge-related
behaviors, it is different because the definition of knowledge hiding emphasizes the fact that
the required knowledge was clearly requested by someone, but the knowledge holder


made an intentional attempt not to share it (Cerne et al., 2014). For example, knowledge
hiding intentionally captures the hidden knowledge must be requested by another person,
whereas a lack of knowledge sharing which is likely only driven by an absence of the

VOL. 23 NO. 7 2019 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 1457

 knowledge itself (Connelly et al., 2012). However, knowledge hoarding emphasizes the
accumulated knowledge may not necessarily be requested by another (Connelly et al.,
2012) and knowledge withholding emphasizes counterproductive knowledge behavior of
giving less than full effort to contributing knowledge (Tsay et al., 2014), which may also be
unintentional because employees may not know whether some knowledge is useful or not
(Wang et al., 2014). This paper will try to further our understanding of intra-organizational
knowledge hiding and specifically individually-targeted hiding of the requested knowledge,
to supplement prior positive knowledge-related behaviors research.
Past research has examined many antecedents of knowledge hiding because it will bring
devastating consequences, such as harmful influences on knowledge seeker’s work
performance and creativity (Evans et al., 2014), the relationship between knowledge hider
and seeker (Connelly and Zweig, 2015), trust among coworkers (Connelly et al., 2012), the


creativity of knowledge hider (Cerne et al., 2014; Malik et al., 2018), team creativity (Fong
et al., 2018) and organizational performance and creativity (Evans et al., 2014). The
antecedents of knowledge hiding can be classified into four types:

1. characteristics of the knowledge, such as knowledge complexity and task-relatedness

of the knowledge being requested (Connelly et al., 2012);
2. individual differences, such as the personal traits of the hider (Pan et al., 2016; Pan
et al., 2018; Demirkasimoglu, 2015), age of the hider (Pan et al., 2016), prosocial
motivation and perspective taking (Škerlavaj et al., 2018), professional commitment
(Malik et al., 2018), moral disengagement (Zhao et al., 2016), psychological
engagement, transactional psychological contract (Tang et al., 2015), psychological
ownership (Huo et al., 2016), territoriality (Peng, 2013), fear of knowledge sharing, guilt
of knowledge hiding, promotion focus and prevention focus (Fang, 2017) and
perception of job insecurity (Serenko and Bontis, 2016);

3. interpersonal relationship, such as distrust (Holten et al., 2016), workplace ostracism,

and negative reciprocity beliefs (Zhao et al., 2016); and
4. organizational context, such as organizational politics (Malik et al., 2018),
organizational justice (Huo et al., 2016), positive organizational culture (Serenko and
Bontis, 2016), knowledge sharing climate (Connelly et al., 2012), knowledge
management systems and knowledge policies (Serenko and Bontis, 2016), time
pressure (Škerlavaj et al., 2018), ethical leadership (Tang et al., 2015), supervisor
knowledge hiding (Arain et al., 2018), leader-signal knowledge hiding (Offergelt et al.,
2018) and abusive supervision (Zweig and Scott, 2018; Khalid et al., 2018).
Through the systematic review of the research on antecedents of knowledge hiding, this
paper finds that there are several studies focused on the important role of the leader in
subordinates’ knowledge hiding behaviors, but only two studies examined the relationship
between abusive supervision and knowledge hiding behaviors among subordinates (Zweig
and Scott, 2018; Khalid et al., 2018).

Abusive supervision and knowledge-related behaviors

Abusive supervision, as a form of destructive leadership, refers to “subordinates’
perceptions of the extent to which their supervisors engage in the sustained display of
hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors, excluding physical contact” (Tepper, 2000, p. 178).
Owing to higher organizational positions, stronger decisional power (Tepper et al., 2009),
and critical roles in organizational goal achievement and in employee engagement, leaders
are inclined to exhibit abusive supervisory behaviors such as ridiculing, yelling at, and
intimidating subordinates; taking credit for subordinates’ achievements; and attributing
undesirable outcomes to subordinates’ personal factors.

PAGE 1458 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 23 NO. 7 2019

Abusive supervision as a form of destructive leadership has been demonstrated to have
positive impact on individual behaviors which will undermine organizational performance
effectively (Kiewitz et al., 2016). Considering leaders’ significant roles in employees’
behaviors, researchers in the field of knowledge management have begun to examine the
relationship between abusive supervision and knowledge-related behaviors (including
knowledge hiding and knowledge sharing), current findings have been listed in Table I.
As shown in Table I, abusive supervision is positively related to knowledge hiding (Zweig
and Scott, 2018; Khalid et al., 2018), and negatively related to knowledge sharing (Lee
et al., 2018; Choi et al., 2019; Wu and Lee, 2016; Kim et al., 2015). There are many studies
about influencing mechanisms of abusive supervision on knowledge sharing, but few
studies on knowledge hiding. Previous studies have found that abusive supervision impacts
knowledge hiding through perceptions of distrust, paranoia (Zweig and Scott, 2018) and
interpersonal justice (Khalid et al., 2018); abusive supervision impacts knowledge sharing
through emotional exhaustion (Lee et al., 2018), leader-member exchange (Choi et al.,
2019), and psychological capital (Wu and Lee, 2016). However, other possible
psychological mechanisms, such as job insecurity which indicates a lack of important job
resources and may predict employees’ knowledge hiding (Serenko and Bontis, 2016;
Kumar and Varkkey, 2018) and be induced by abusive supervision (Hobfoll, 2001), haven’t
been examined.
To weaken the destructive consequences of abusive supervision, previous studies have
examined some boundary conditions of the relationship between abusive supervision and
knowledge-related behaviors. For example, Islamic work ethics can weaken the direct
effect of abusive supervision on knowledge hiding (Khalid et al., 2018); support from
organization (Kim et al., 2015) can buffer the direct effect of abusive supervision on
knowledge sharing. Organizational justice can weaken the indirect effect of abusive
supervision on knowledge sharing through emotional exhaustion (Lee et al., 2018);
psychological contract fulfillment and self-enhance motive can weaken the indirect effect of
abusive supervision on knowledge sharing through leader-member exchange (Choi et al.,
2019); group trust can weaken the indirect effect of abusive supervision on knowledge
sharing through psychological capital (Wu and Lee, 2016). However, the role of other
important organizational factors such as motivational climate which may influence


knowledge hiding (Cerne et al., 2014) in the direct and indirect relationship between
abusive supervision and knowledge hiding have not been examined.
To explain the influencing mechanisms of abusive supervision on knowledge hiding, most of
previous studies followed knowledge sharing literature (Choi et al., 2019; Kim et al., 2015)
and focused on the binary exchange relationship between leader and subordinates based

Table I Literature about abusive supervision and knowledge-related behaviors

Dependent Boundary
variables Direct effect conditions Meditating factors Boundary conditions Theory Sources

Knowledge positive distrust and paranoia SET Zweig and Scott

hiding (2018)
positive Islamic work interpersonal justice DAT Khalid et al. (2018)
ethics SET
Knowledge negative emotional exhaustion organizational justice COR Lee et al. (2018)
sharing negative leader-member psychological SET Choi et al. (2019)
exchange contract fulfillment
self-enhance motive
negative psychological capital group trust COR Wu and Lee (2016)
negative Support from SET Kim et al. (2015)
organization
Notes: DAT refers to displaced aggression theory; SET refers to social exchange theory; COR refers to conservation of resource theory

VOL. 23 NO. 7 2019 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 1459

 on social exchange theory (Zweig and Scott, 2018; Khalid et al., 2018), but overlooked
insights from COR theory and reactance theory which may suggest that knowledge hiding
is actually a resource protecting behavior and indirect passive reaction under abusive
supervision.
This study tries to take knowledge hiding as both resource protecting behavior and indirect
passive reaction under certain conditions, and examine the mediating role of job insecurity
and moderating role of motivational climate in the relationship between abusive supervision
and knowledge hiding based on both reactance theory and COR theory.

Hypotheses development
Abusive supervision as a predictor of knowledge hiding
Knowledge hiding is not necessarily intended to directly harm other organizational
members; usually it is a passive reaction to a given situation such as abusive supervision
(Khalid et al., 2018). According to reactance theory (Brehm, 1966; Brehm and Brehm,
1981), employees are likely to “react (directly or indirectly) against perceived causes of
frustration to restore the situation to what was expected”. Under abusive supervision,
subordinates often experience frustration along with a diminished sense of personal control
(Ashforth, 1997). They may react against the abuser directly, or redirect their aggressive
behaviors on less powerful or more available targets (e.g. coworkers) when they fear that
direct retaliation might evoke further retaliation (Mitchell and Ambrose, 2007).
Supervisors have higher organizational positions and stronger decisional power (Tepper
et al., 2009) and play critical roles in organizational efficiency, goal achievement and
employee engagement. Therefore, employees may think direct reactions toward the
supervisor are not only unlikely to halt the abuse but also may trigger more intense hostility
on the instigator’s part. Hence, a subordinate is unlikely to attempt to directly react against
the abuser to restore the situation (Zellars et al., 2002) and may express their hostility
against their organization rather than their supervisor (Mitchell and Ambrose, 2007). As
such, abused subordinates may seek to react to supervisors indirectly by withholding
actions, which benefit the organization and its representatives. Knowledge hiding as a type
of individual-targeting and negative knowledge behaviors toward coworkers can be harmful
on the organization and its representatives. Abused subordinates may respond to abusive
supervisors indirectly through hiding knowledge from their coworkers and to demonstrate
their value and freedom.
Accordingly, this study assumes that:
H1. Abusive supervision is positively related to the focal subordinate’s knowledge hiding
behaviors toward coworkers.

Mediating effects of job insecurity

Knowledge hiding can also be considered as a kind of resource loss preventing behaviors
while knowledge sharing can be taken as a kind of new resource investing behaviors. COR
theory suggests that, individuals with fewer resources are more vulnerable to loss of
resources and less likely to invest more resources that can lead to further resource losses,
creating a loss spiral (Hobfoll, 1998, p. 82). It indicates that when employees lose some
resources they are more likely to lose other resources, and try to protect current knowledge
resource through knowledge hiding behaviors and be less likely to win new knowledge and
social capital through knowledge sharing behaviors.
According to COR theory, leadership is the source of condition resources. Leaders have
desirable resources such as continued employment and advancement opportunities (Xu
et al., 2015). Employees working under abusive supervision may have to endure hostility,
thus their internal resources will be reduced. A long-term shortage of internal resources

PAGE 1460 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 23 NO. 7 2019

might cause employees to suffer psychologically (Hobfoll, 2001). For example, abused
employees may perceive a high level of job insecurity which would facilitate intra-
organizational knowledge hiding (Serenko and Bontis, 2016). Besides, with an abusive
team leader, members may perceive that their leader does not value their contribution,
treats them in a punitive and arbitrary manner, reduces employees’ compensation, and
initiates workforce reduction. Abused employees may perceive a lack of external resources
such as social support and desirable resources from their leader which are important for
their job security. These negative results would make them perceive their job environment to
be insecure (Mawritz et al., 2014; Restubog et al., 2011), increase their fear of losing their
position and fear others’ growth in the organization, and then perceive a high level of job
insecurity. Employees will in return start to conceal knowledge from their colleagues to
protect their expert power and demonstrate their value to the employer (Kumar and
Varkkey, 2018). Thus, abusive supervision may impact knowledge hiding positively via job
insecurity.
Accordingly, the following hypothesis is supposed:
H2. Job insecurity mediates the positive relationship between abusive supervision and
the focal subordinate’s knowledge hiding behaviors toward coworkers.

Moderating effects of perceived motivational climate

The perception of motivational climate can make employees understand what behaviors are
expected and rewarded (Schulte et al., 2009), and perceive an environment is collaborative


(Cerne et al., 2014) or competitive (Ames, 1984). It is important for understanding
individuals’ experiences under stressful situations, because it can affect employees’ actions
and reactions to organizational stressors such as abusive supervision. Mastery climate and
performance climate are the two dimensions of motivational climate.

Perceived mastery climate

A mastery climate supports effort and cooperation, and it emphasizes learning, mastery,


and skill development (Cerne et al., 2014). In environments characterized by a high level of


mastery climate, reciprocity norm exists (Cerne et al., 2014). It can promote supportive
behaviors whereby each group member looks out for the interests of coworkers in addition
to his or her own. Hence, the members can obtain social support from their work
environment with a high mastery climate. A previous study has demonstrated that
perceived support from the organization and coworkers can attenuate the negative effects
of abusive supervision on knowledge sharing (Kim et al., 2015). We, therefore, argue that a
high mastery climate can reduce the effect of abusive supervision on knowledge hiding.
In line with reactance theory, abused employees who perceive a high mastery climate have
great confidence in the ability to decrease further abuse from the leader or retaliate against
the abuser directly. Because they can anticipate that in a climate encouraging cooperation
the organization and coworkers will weigh against the unfavorable supervisory abuse, they
can receive the necessary support from their organization and coworkers (Cerne
et al.,
2014). Sharing knowledge to coworkers rewarded in a mastery climate can help develop
good relationships among coworkers, so it’s possible for abused subordinates to attempt to
restore a sense of personal autonomy by engaging in aggressive behaviors directed at the
supervisor as a group (e.g. gossip about leaders with coworkers, Decoster et al., 2013).
Thus, employees perceiving a higher mastery climate are more likely to use pro-social
behaviors (e.g. knowledge sharing) to connect with coworkers to react to the abuser
directly, rather than adopt anti-social behaviors (e.g. knowledge hiding) to retaliate toward
coworkers in return.
Therefore, this study proposes that:

VOL. 23 NO. 7 2019 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 1461

 H3. Perceived mastery climate moderates the positive relationship between abusive
supervision and the focal subordinate’s knowledge hiding behaviors. The higher the
perceived mastery climate, the less positive the relationship is.
Based on the COR perspective, obtaining resources mitigates the negative effect of the loss
of resources for employees (Hobfoll, 2001). Mastery climate builds social support relations.
These relations provide group members with positive external resources (Hobfoll, 2001)
such as social support and knowledge sharing from their coworkers, and enable employees
to cope with increased work demands and other work stressors (Dutton, 2006). While
abusive supervision causes subordinates to lose internal resources (Aryee et al., 2008),
external resources from the environment characterized by mastery climate may attenuate
abused subordinates’ feeling of losing resources, and then attenuate their perceptions of
job insecurity which may lead to knowledge hiding from their colleagues.
Moreover, a mastery climate will create a social context which will promote and encourage
cooperation behaviors such as knowledge sharing. Employees including supervisors in this
context would look out for the interests of coworkers in addition to their own. Abused
employees may believe abusive behaviors from the leader are not normal in an organization
with a high mastery climate and leader’s abusive behaviors will be inhibited and punished
by the organization. Besides, in a high mastery climate, success requires cooperation with
coworkers (Ames, 1984). Owning more/less support from their leader compared with
coworkers is not that important for being better achievers. Thus, employees will be less
likely to think that their job position and security will be influenced by this abusive leader
and then less likely to hide knowledge.
Accordingly, the following hypothesis is supposed:
H4. Perceived mastery climate moderates the strength of the relationship between
abusive supervision and the focal subordinate’s knowledge hiding behaviors
mediated by job insecurity, such that the mediated relationship will be weaker under
high-perceived mastery climate than under low perceived mastery climate.

Perceived performance climate

In contrast, a performance climate emphasizes normative ability, social comparison, and
intra-team competition (Ames, 1984), and normative criteria for success which requires an
inherent focus on “outperforming” coworkers (Nicholls, 1984). While performing better than
coworkers is their goal, a negative interdependence among employees may then develop
(Ames, 1984).
According to reactance theory, in a high performance climate it is impossible for abused
employees to perform reciprocate identical actions of a powerful abuser as a group through
pro-social behaviors to connect with coworkers. Because in this type of environment,
coworkers will compete and compare with each other to verify their successes, and the
organization and coworkers may consider abusive supervision as normal. Then, employees
who perceive a high performance climate may know that they lack the ability to develop
social networks and influence others’ responses (Ferris et al., 2005). Accordingly, abused
employees perceiving higher performance climate will be less motivated and less likely to
use knowledge sharing as a tactic to connect with coworkers to respond to abusive
supervision directly as a group, but be more motivated and more likely to use knowledge
hiding as a tactic to react to the abusive supervision indirectly.
Based on the above discussion, this study proposes that:
H5. Perceived performance climate moderates the positive relationship between abusive
supervision and the focal subordinate’s knowledge hiding behaviors. The higher the
perceived mastery climate, the more positive the relationship is.

PAGE 1462 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 23 NO. 7 2019

Abused subordinates perceive a high performance climate may think that they have negative
interdependence with coworkers built by performance climate (Ames, 1984) and lack ability to
develop social networks and to influence others’ responses (Ferris et al., 2005). Thus, it’s
impossible for them to achieve positive external resources (Hobfoll, 2001) which are important
for employees to alleviate internal resource loss caused by abusive supervision (Aryee et al.,
2008) in line with COR theory. Instead, it may strengthen the impact of abusive supervision on
job insecurity which will further stimulate knowledge hiding. For instance, in a group with a high
performance climate, abused subordinates cannot seek help from coworkers. They would feel
helpless and lacking in work resources, and then perceive a high level of job insecurity.
Besides, they may think that their coworkers would utilize the support from the supervisor for
progressing in their career in a competitive environment, resulting in feeling more insecure and
threatened (Kumar and Varkkey, 2018). Then a competitive environment caused by
performance climate can be considered as an important factor that triggers knowledge hiding
caused by abusive supervision via job insecurity.
Furthermore, in an environment characterized by a high performance climate, success
requires an inherent focus on “outperforming” coworkers (Ames, 1984). Then, if employees
own more support from their leader compared with coworkers, they are more likely to be better
achievers. In contrast, abused subordinates may feel worse because they lose support from
supervisors which may be achieved by their coworkers. Besides, a performance climate
emphasizing competition will provide validation that abusive supervisory behaviors are normal
events, which will not be prohibited and punished by the organization. Thus, due to
perceptions of losing support from supervisors which is a type of important resource in the
workplace, abused employees in a high performance climate will perceive a higher level of job
insecurity, which will lead to a higher level of knowledge hiding.
Accordingly, the following hypothesis is supposed:
H6. Perceived performance climate moderates the strength of the relationship between
abusive supervision and the focal subordinate’s knowledge hiding behaviors
mediated by job insecurity, such that the mediated relationship will be stronger under
high-perceived performance climate than under low perceived performance climate.
The theoretical model is presented in Figure 1.

Method
Participants and procedure
This study collected data in China in two surveys administered two months apart with the
help of the Human Recourse Management Department of the enterprises. We got into

Figure 1 Research model

Mastery climate H2

H4 Job insecurity
H3

Abusive H1 Knowledge
supervision hiding
H6 H5

Performance
climate

VOL. 23 NO. 7 2019 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 1463

 contact with these enterprises by social relationship networks and snowballing. These
included state-owned enterprises, private enterprises and foreign-owned enterprises. The
samples were from the educational industry and the manufacturing industry. We chose the
educational industry because it is a knowledge-intensive industry. In the manufacturing
industry, the Human Resource Management Department was asked to select positions
requiring higher skills and knowledge, so they are suitable to analyze knowledge hiding
behaviors. Abusive supervision, perceived motivational climate and other demographic
variables were assessed in the first survey and the other variables (job insecurity and
knowledge hiding) were assessed in the second survey. In both survey administrations,
participants confirmed that the study was conducted purely for research purpose and that
participation was voluntary. All surveys were in Chinese, and a translation–back translation
procedure was used to translate the scales from English to Chinese by two PhD students
and then back to English by an associate professor and a professor. Prior to administering
the surveys, we asked three employees to pretest them and check if they were clear and
concise. There were 155 full-time Chinese employees which were valid matched samples
according to the code. The age of participants ranged from 21 to 45 years (M = 31.87, SD =
5.199), and most were between 26 and 35. 43.9 per cent of samples were male and 56.1
per cent were female. Over 89.7 per cent of respondents had a Bachelor Degree or above.
More than half samples were employees at the ground level, which was 54.2 per cent, and
basic-level or middle-level managers were 43.2 per cent. Most of samples were from large
departments and 73.5 per cent of departments were over ten employees or even twenty
employees.

Measures

Abusive supervision (Time 1). Abusive supervision was adapted from Peng et al. (2014)
and consisted of 5 items. Sample items included, “My leader tells me my thoughts and
feelings are stupid” and “My leader makes negative comments about me to others”. Each
item was assessed using a five-point scale that ranged from 1 (never) to 5 (always). The
internal consistency was acceptable (a = 0.89).
Knowledge hiding (Time 2). Knowledge hiding was self-reported and assessed with a
12-item scale developed by Connelly et al. (2012). The scale opened with the following
stem: “When coworkers requested knowledge from you and you declined [. . .]” and a
sample item is: “Agreed to help him/her but never really intended to.” The internal
consistency was acceptable (a = 0.93).
Perceived motivational climate (Time 1). The motivational climate consisted of two
dimensions: mastery climate and performance climate. We adopted the scale of nine items
which were the items with loads of 0.65 and above, according to questionnaire used by


Cerne et al. (2014). The items were about how employees perceive success to be defined
in their work situations. The respondents were asked to evaluate the extent to which a
mastery climate is present (e.g. “In my department/work group, cooperation and mutual
exchange of knowledge are encouraged”) and a performance climate (e.g. “In my
department/work group, an individual’s accomplishments are compared with those of other
colleagues”). The internal consistency of a mastery climate (a = 0.89) and a performance
climate (a = 0.74) was acceptable.
Job insecurity (Time 2). Our survey measure of job insecurity was developed by Mauno
et al. (2001) and consisted of 5 items. Employees rated their personal job insecurity with
questions such as “I am worried about the possibility of being fired”. The internal
consistency was acceptable (a = 0.76).
Control variables (Time 1). We added certain control variables for knowledge hiding and job
insecurity. At the individual level, following the prior studies (Wu and Lee, 2016; Murtaza
et al., 2016; Sveiby and Simons, 2002), the personal demographic characteristics were

PAGE 1464 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 23 NO. 7 2019

included. This study used employee age, gender and education level as control variables.
According to the study of Sveiby and Simons (2002), the organizational size was taken as a
control variable.

Results
Reliability, validity and descriptive statistics
Before testing the hypothesis, this study first conducted a confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA) on the above five measures to examine the proposed model to examine the
discriminant validity of the measures. The proposed five-factor model fit shows good fit
( x 2/df = 1.79, CFI = 0.91, TLI= 0.90, RMSEA = 0.07, SRMR = 0.087). All items load
significantly on their measured latent constructs. The factor loadings range from 0.61 to
0.98 for knowledge hiding items, from 0.73 to 0.86 for abusive supervision items, from 0.57
to 0.73 for job insecurity items, from 0.58 to 0.77 for performance climate items, from 0.70 to
0.87 for mastery climate items. In addition, alternative confirmatory factor analysis of four-
factor, three-factor or even two-factor models were conducted by combining different
dimensions of perceived motivational climate or variables in the same time survey as a
single factor. The model fit of all these alternative models shows less desirable model fit (all
CFI < 0.90 and TLI < 0.90).
Table II provides the means, standard deviations, scale reliabilities and correlation
coefficients among the demographics, knowledge hiding, abusive supervision, job
insecurity, mastery climate and performance climate in this study. As shown in Table II,
knowledge hiding is significantly and positively related to abusive supervision (r = 0.17,
p < 0.05) and job insecurity (r = 0.26, p < 0.01). All variables were checked for
multicollinearity using the variance inflation factor (VIF). Since all the VIF values are
significantly below 2.0, multicollinearity is not an issue in this study.

Hypotheses test results

To test the hypotheses the ordinary least squares (OLS) regression with the conditional
process modeling (PROCESS) program for SPSS (Hayes, 2013) was used. The PROCESS
Macro can conduct bootstrapping tests for mediation to assess the indirect effect of
abusive supervision on knowledge hiding through the mediating mechanism of job
insecurity and moderated mediation effects of perceived motivational climate. All variables
were z-standardized to reduce problems associated with multicollinerarity in the moderated
regression.
As recommended by Preacher and Hayes (2008), 5 000 bootstrap samples were specified
to test the indirect effects using 95 percent bias corrected confidence intervals (CIs). We
used a simple mediation (PROCESS model 4) and moderated mediation (PROCESS

Table II Means, standard deviations and correlations

Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Knowledge hiding 2.19 0.72 (0.93)

2. Abusive supervision 1.67 0.69 0.17 (0.89)
3. Job insecurity 2.44 0.68 0.26 0.15 (0.76)
4. Mastery climate 3.85 0.80 0.06 0.31 0.08 (0.89)
5. Performance climate 3.14 0.74 0.03 0.07 0.07 0.44 (0.74)
6. Gender 1.56 0.50 0.26 0.28 0.04 0.05 0.09 –
7. Age 31.87 5.20 0.04 0.03 0.15 0.004 0.06 0.09 –
8. Education level 2.92 0.56 0.17 0.08 0.12 0.25 0.02 0.1 0.09 –
9. Organizational size 3.16 0.99 0.17 0.05 0.21 0.14 0.11 0.02 0.08 0.07 –
Notes: n = 155. Coefficient alphas are on the diagonal in parentheses;  p < 0.05;  p < 0.01

VOL. 23 NO. 7 2019 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 1465

 model 10). As can be seen in Table III, the model 1 shows that abusive supervision (B =
0.2078, p < 0.01) significantly predicts job insecurity. When abusive supervision and job
insecurity are simultaneously included in the model, job insecurity (B = 0.2158, p < 0.05)
significantly predicts knowledge hiding, whereas abusive supervision (B = 0.0990, p =
0.2565) is not significant. Analysis from a bias-corrected bootstrap (Hayes, 2013) reveals a
significant indirect effect [B = 0.0448, Boot SE= 0.0268, 95 per cent CI= (0.0053, 0.1100)]
of abusive supervision on knowledge hiding via job insecurity, as zero is not contained in
the 95 per cent confidence interval for the indirect effect. Hence, H2 is supported, but H1 is
not supported.
As shown in the Table III, the results in model 2 demonstrate that both interactions are
significant for knowledge hiding. The interaction between abusive supervision and mastery
climate is negatively related to knowledge hiding (B = 0.3157, p < 0.05), whereas the
interaction between abusive supervision and performance climate is positively related to
knowledge hiding (B = 0.3775, p < 0.05). Table IV shows conditional direct effects of
abusive supervision on knowledge hiding at the lower, average and higher levels of mastery
climate and performance climate. The higher and lower levels of moderators are plus and
minus one SD from mean. Significance exists if the range of CIs (95 per cent) does not
include the value of zero. As shown in Table IV, the direct effects are different at different
conditional level, further confirming the results. Therefore, H3 and H5 are supported.
However, the results in model 2 of Table III indicates that the two-way interaction between
abusive supervision and mastery climate is significant for job insecurity (B = 0.2514,
p < 0.05), while the interaction between abusive supervision and performance climate is not
significant for job insecurity (B = 0.2111, p = 0.1240). Table V shows the results of the

Table III Mediation and moderated mediation models

Model 1 Model 2
Variable B SE t p B SE t p

Job insecurity as the dependent variable

Constant 1.5099 0.5567 2.7124 0.0075 1.7099 0.5326 3.2103 0.0016
Gender 0.1995 0.1079 1.8482 0.0666 0.2005 0.1074 1.8673 0.0639
Age 0.0177 0.0099 1.7861 0.0762 0.0182 0.0099 1.8368 0.0683
Education 0.0011 0.0968 0.0116 0.9908 0.0037 0.1012 0.0364 0.9710
Organizational size 0.0990 0.0526 1.8828 0.0617 0.0791 0.0539 1.4693 0.1440
Abusive supervision 0.2078 0.0789 2.6335 0.0094 0.1226 0.0888 1.3811 0.1694
Mastery climate 0.0875 0.0809 1.0813 0.2814
Abusive supervision  Mastery climate 0.2514 0.1136 2.2138 0.0284
Performance climate 0.0804 0.0851 0.9455 0.3460
Abusive supervision  Performance climate 0.2111 0.1364 1.5475 0.1240
R2 0.0992 0.1340
F-value 3.2167 2.4414
Knowledge hiding as the dependent variable
constant 2.6553 0.6139 4.3256 0.0000 2.9044 0.5830 4.9814 0.0000
Gender 0.3257 0.1175 2.7724 0.0063 0.3163 0.1149 2.7535 0.0067
Age 0.0036 0.0108 0.3352 0.7379 0.0025 0.0106 0.2364 0.8134
Education 0.0857 0.1042 0.8229 0.4119 0.1413 0.1070 1.3207 0.1887
Organizational size 0.0872 0.0573 1.5237 0.1298 0.0693 0.0574 1.2088 0.2288
Abusive supervision 0.0990 0.0869 1.1393 0.2565 0.0700 0.0945 0.7405 0.4602
Job insecurity 0.2158 0.0890 2.4235 0.0166 0.1752 0.0887 1.9756 0.0502
Mastery climate 0.0471 0.0859 0.5481 0.5845
Abusive supervision  Mastery climate 0.3157 0.1221 2.5860 0.0107
Performance climate 0.0389 0.0902 0.4313 0.6669
Abusive supervision  Performance climate 0.3775 0.1454 2.5963 0.0104
R2 0.1408 0.2030
F-value 3.9594 3.5908
Notes:  p < 0.05;  p < 0.01

PAGE 1466 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 23 NO. 7 2019

 Table IV Conditional direct effects of abusive supervision on knowledge hiding
Level of mastery climate Level of performance climate Effect SE t p LLCI ULCI

0.7975 0.7307 0.0459 0.1270 0.3615 0.7182 0.2051 0.2969

0.7975 0.0000 0.3217 0.1142 2.8165 0.0056 0.0959 0.5476
0.7975 0.7307 0.5976 0.1804 3.3119 0.0012 0.2409 0.9543
0.0000 0.7307 0.2059 0.1515 1.3588 0.1764 0.5054 0.0936
0.0000 0.0000 0.0700 0.0945 0.7405 0.4602 0.1168 0.2568
0.0000 0.7307 0.3458 0.1322 2.6157 0.0099 0.0844 0.6072
0.7975 0.7307 0.4576 0.2208 2.0727 0.0400 0.8941 0.0211
0.7975 0.0000 0.1818 0.1542 1.1793 0.2403 0.4866 0.1230
0.7975 0.7307 0.0940 0.1461 0.6435 0.5210 0.1949 0.3829
Note: Values for quantitative moderators are the mean and plus/minus one SD from mean

Table V Conditional indirect effects of abusive supervision on knowledge hiding via job
insecurity (mediator)
Level of Mastery climate Level of Performance climate Effect Boot SE Boot LLCI Boot ULCI

0.7975 0.7307 0.0296 0.0268 0.0036 0.1052

0.7975 0.0000 0.0566 0.0370 0.0011 0.1388
0.7975 0.7307 0.0837 0.0578 0.0057 0.2130
0.0000 0.7307 0.0055 0.0257 0.0642 0.0453
0.0000 0.0000 0.0215 0.0208 0.0029 0.0792
0.0000 0.7307 0.0485 0.0389 0.0026 0.1443
0.7975 0.7307 0.0407 0.0433 0.1618 0.0114
0.7975 0.0000 0.0136 0.0276 0.0807 0.0290
0.7975 0.7307 0.0134 0.0309 0.0242 0.1060
Note: Values for quantitative moderators are the mean and plus/minus one SD from mean

moderated mediation effects at the lower, average and higher levels of mastery climate and
performance climate. To further test the moderated mediation effects, we did the index of
moderated mediation separately. The results shows that the mediation effect moderated by
mastery climate is significant [Index = 0.0479, Boot SE= 0.0342, 95 per cent CI =
(0.1378, 0.0012)], while the mediation effect moderated by performance climate is not
significant [Index = -0.0120, Boot SE= 0.0439, 95 per cent CI = (0.1240, 0.0589)]. Hence,
H4 is supported, but H6 is not supported.

Discussion
Main findings
The present study drew on the reactance theory and COR theory to argue that when
employees perceived abusive supervision, they may not only have a direct response to the
supervisor, but also indirectly give poor interaction with the coworkers in the group, such as
knowledge hiding. However, our results shows that the direct effect of abusive supervision
on knowledge hiding is not significant but the interactions with motivational climates are
significant. The possible explanation is that, employees do anticipate harmful outcomes of
knowledge hiding (Connelly and Zweig, 2015), and then abused subordinates may not
easily decide to hide knowledge to redirect their aggression to coworkers. The way abused
subordinates react directly or indirectly depends on certain conditions.
Different from previous studies related to destructive outcomes of abusive supervisor, our
research obtains some different findings. While Choi et al. (2019) found that abusive
supervision has a direct negative effect on knowledge sharing; our finding shows that the
effect of abusive supervision on knowledge hiding is not always positive, but depends on

VOL. 23 NO. 7 2019 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 1467

 conditions. This finding provides evidence to previous studies that knowledge sharing and
knowledge hiding are two distinct phenomena (Tsay et al., 2014; Connelly and Zweig,
2015), and aligns well with existing studies which argued that abused subordinates may
express their hostility against their organization and coworker (rather than their supervisor)
under certain conditions (Mitchell and Ambrose, 2007).
Drawing on COR theory, we argue that job insecurity resulting from abusive supervision
positively affects employees’ knowledge hiding behaviors toward coworkers. Our findings
support this prediction. Existing research revealed that the relationship between abusive
supervision and knowledge hiding was mediated by interpersonal justice (Khalid et al.,
2018), distrust and paranoia (Zweig and Scott, 2018). Different from these two studies about
the relationship between abusive supervision and knowledge hiding from the perspective of
social exchange, our research confirms the influence of abusive supervision on knowledge
hiding from the mediating effect of job insecurity. In this regard, one advantage of our study
is that it broadens previous studies.
Our study shows that motivational climate moderates both the direct and indirect effects of
abusive supervision on knowledge hiding. These results are consistent with the prediction


of Cerne et al. (2014) that motivational climate has an impact on knowledge hiding. Our
study finds that the positive association between abusive supervision and knowledge hiding
is reduced in a high mastery climate and deteriorated in a high performance climate. These
findings can extend the research about the role of motivational climate in the field of
knowledge hiding, which was discussed in the study of Cerne
(2014). The results also
demonstrate that a mastery climate buffers the indirect detrimental effect of abusive
supervision on knowledge hiding via job insecurity. However, in a performance climate, the
association is not moderated. This might be because the adverse impact of abusive
supervision is enough to make subordinate perceive a loss of control and internal
resources, the performance climate would not worsen the situation. Interestingly, our study
demonstrates that the harmful influence of abusive supervision can be attenuated by a
mastery climate. Therefore, lack of support of supervision can be filled by resources from
the environment, e.g. a mastery climate.

Theoretical implications
This study has several theoretical implications. Our first contribution to knowledge
management literature is from negative knowledge behaviors, i.e. knowledge hiding. Most
of existing studies focused on knowledge sharing which is positive knowledge-related
behavior, and neglected knowledge hiding (Pan et al., 2018). Even though different KM
systems were used in organizations, they can hardly work well if we do not understand the
motivation and reason why employees hide knowledge from their coworkers. Therefore,
knowledge hiding studies are important to further advance KM theory and practice. This
study tries to explore it and enriches knowledge management literature by furthering our
understanding of negative intra-organizational knowledge-related behavior.
Our second contribution to knowledge hiding literature is from the detriments of abusive


supervision. Given the harmful consequences of knowledge hiding (Cerne et al., 2014), it is
important to identify the factors that may lead employees to engage in knowledge hiding.
Though knowledge hiding is interpersonal interaction between two specific coworkers,
whether this behavior is influenced by powerful supervision is also an interesting question.
Thus, our study contributes to individually targeted knowledge hiding from the destructive
leadership perspective using reactance theory.
Third, this study contributes to the evolving research on opening the black box underlying
the supervision–knowledge-hiding behaviors relationship through the mediation of job
insecurity. Our findings strongly demonstrate that job insecurity among abused employees,
as a significant psychological mechanism mediates the relationship between abusive

PAGE 1468 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 23 NO. 7 2019

supervision and employees’ knowledge hiding. This process is mainly based on COR
theory (Hobfoll, 2001; Halbesleben et al., 2014). Despite two studies examined supervisors’
destructive behaviors as predictors of employee knowledge hiding from the interpersonal
relationship perspective, this study is trying to examine knowledge hiding from the
psychology reactance and resource reservation perspectives, and then contributes to KM
theory and practice.
Fourth, this study examines the boundary conditions of abusive supervision on knowledge
hiding by introducing the moderating role of motivational climates. Our study finds that
motivational climate overrides freedom restoration norms in the abusive supervision-
knowledge hiding relationship. By introducing two dimensions of motivational climate as
moderators, we facilitate the possibility of not simply considering individuals’ personal
reactions and instead considering them in context. Further, this research demonstrates that
the mediating effect of job insecurity varies depending on the level of mastery climate by
using a moderated mediation framework. Although organizational environment influences
the harmful consequences of abusive supervision, only a few studies have investigated the
moderating role of organizational context in abusive supervision-outcome relationships (Lee
et al., 2018), such as hostile work environment (Mawritz et al., 2012) and organizational
justice (Lee et al., 2018). This study uncovers the psychological mechanism and contexts,
and fills a gap in the literature by introducing mastery climate as moderating factor that
buffers the effect of abusive supervision on knowledge hiding via job insecurity.
Last but not least, this study expands the application of reactance theory in organizational
behavior. Our study indicates that instead of direct reaction to the supervisor, abused
subordinates are more likely to hide knowledge towards coworkers, which was tested to


harm the creativity of the seeker (Cerne et al., 2014) and the hider (Malik et al., 2018). Due
to the powerful status of supervisors, employees under stress (e.g. abusive supervision)
may restore perceptions of control by displacing their aggressive behaviors (such as
knowledge hiding) on less powerful or more available targets such as coworkers in a
performance climate. It further enriches reactance theory through illustrating that people
maybe restore perceptions of control not only from aggression toward the source of the
threat but also toward related sources in certain conditions.

Practical implications
From a practical viewpoint, our study also has important implications for organizations. First,
a supervisor’s behavior could be an important factor influencing employees’ emotions and
behaviors. Although many companies have invested heavily in knowledge management
systems, the practices may not work effectively when their supervisors are abusive. The
present study reveals that abusive supervision can cause knowledge hiding of employees.
Understanding the negative consequences of abusive supervision, organizations should
pay more attention to preventing abusive supervision in the workplace by management
practices and policies. For example, organization can emphasize the destructive and
negative effects of abusive supervision, to improve managers’ sensitivity and awareness of
the negative consequences, and to advocate a positive and equal climate.
Second, one feasible strategy to decrease the occurrence of knowledge hiding affected by
abusive supervision is through the view of reducing employees’ perceived job insecurity. Our
result shows that job insecurity mediates the relationship between abusive supervision and
knowledge hiding. More efforts are also needed to increase employees’ job security, such as
organizational supports and resources. Some policies to ensure that employees feel a sense of
support and belongingness can be a practical solution to prevent knowledge hiding behaviors,
such as making specific and clear job descriptions, standardizing responsibility and job
performance appraisal standards to reduce degree of role ambiguity which is related to job
insecurity.

VOL. 23 NO. 7 2019 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 1469

 Furthermore, it is necessary to find a way to mitigate the influence of abusive supervision
on employees’ knowledge hiding. Different kinds of organizational environments could
have different influences on abusive subordinates’ decision on displacing the hostility
from abusive supervisor to coworkers and organization. As our research shows, a
mastery climate can effectively attenuate the influence of abusive supervision on
knowledge hiding, while a performance climate will effectively strengthen that. A mastery
climate, as organizational system and organizational culture, is a valuable tool to
attenuate the negative personal behaviors of supervisor. Hence, organizations can build
a mastery climate focusing on task and skills instead of a performance climate to prevent
employees’ knowledge hiding and job insecurity via HRM practices. HRM practices
develop a trustful and powerful organizational climate and flexibility, which can influence
employees to share ideas (Papa et al., 2018).

Limitations and future research

The results from our study should be interpreted in light of several potential limitations. First,
we use self-reported measures to evaluate knowledge hiding. Connelly et al. (2012) stated
that knowledge hiding may be a relatively underreported, low-base-rate event. It might also
be obvious to respondents that knowledge hiding is not a desirable behavior, and thus they
may underreport it in questionnaire surveys. However, any other-reported survey would not
be accurate, as it is difficult to ask supervisors or coworkers to assess an employee’s
knowledge-hiding behaviors.
Second, abusive supervision, job insecurity, knowledge hiding and motivational climate
were rated from the same source (i.e. employees). Thus, we cannot entirely avoid common
method bias. However, we tried to minimize this potential problem by measuring them at
multiple points in time. Nevertheless, it would be better to measure abusive supervision and
perceived motivational climate from diverse sources, including employees, their
supervisors, and coworkers to increase the validity of measures. Besides, further research
can take consideration of measuring the perceived motivational climate on the
organizational level or team level.
A third limitation is that we did not control other factors that could plausibly be related to
knowledge hiding behaviors. For example, some studies suggested knowledge hiding
behaviors were influenced by characteristics of knowledge (Del Giudice and Della
Peruta, 2016) and interpersonal dynamics between hider and seeker (Tsay et al., 2014).
Situational factors of abusive subordinate’s knowledge hiding are complicated and need
further studies. Two useful directions for future research would be to explore what kind of
knowledge abusive subordinates are more likely to intend to hide toward coworkers, and
whether employees’ knowledge hiding depends on the close relations between the
coworker and supervisor.

Conclusions
Despite some limitations, this study provides unique contributions to the literature on
the relationship between abusive supervision and knowledge hiding. Although
companies have made considerable efforts in knowledge management, supervisors’
abusive behaviors can induce employees’ knowledge hiding by creating job insecurity.
Fortunately, a mastery climate can be a valuable tool for mitigating the deleterious
effects of abusive supervision. On the other hand, the situation would be worsened by
solely inducing a performance climate. Further studies on potential ways to reduce
detrimental effects of abusive supervision on knowledge hiding will be beneficial for
researchers and practitioners.

PAGE 1470 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 23 NO. 7 2019

References
Ames, C. (1984), “Competitive, cooperative, and individualistic goal structures: a cognitive-motivational
analysis”, Research on Motivation in Education, Vol. 1, pp. 177-207.
Arain, G.A. Bhatti, Z.A. Ashraf, N. and Fang, Y.H. (2018), “Top-Down knowledge hiding in organizations: an
empirical study of the consequences of supervisor knowledge hiding among local and foreign workers in the
Middle East”, Journal of Business Ethics, available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551-018-4056-2
Aryee, S., Sun, L.Y., Chen, Z.X.G. and Debrah, Y.A. (2008), “Abusive supervision and contextual
performance: the mediating role of emotional exhaustion and the moderating role of work unit structure”,
Management and Organization Review, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 393-411.
Ashforth, B. (1997), “Petty tyranny in organizations: a preliminary examination of antecedents and
consequences”, Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne Des Sciences de
L’administration, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 126-140.
Brehm, J. (1966), A Theory of Psychological Reactance, Academic Press, New York, NY.
Brehm, J. and Brehm, S. (1981), Psychological Reactance: A Theory of Freedom and Control, Academic
Press, New York, NY.


Cerne, M., Nerstad, C.G., Dysvik, A. and Škerlavaj, M. (2014), “What goes around comes around:
knowledge hiding, perceived motivational climate, and creativity”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 172-192.
Choi, W., Kim, S.L. and Yun, S. (2019), “A social exchange perspective of abusive supervision and
knowledge sharing: investigating the moderating effects of psychological contract fulfillment and self-
enhancement motive”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 305-319.
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.

Decoster, S., Camps, J., Stouten, J., Vandevyvere, L. and Tripp, T.M. (2013), “Standing by your
organization: the impact of organizational identification and abusive supervision on followers’ perceived
cohesion and tendency to gossip”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 118 No. 3, pp. 623-634.

Del Giudice, M. and Della Peruta, M.R. (2016), “The impact of IT-based knowledge management systems
on internal venturing and innovation: a structural equation modeling approach to corporate
performance”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 484-498.
Del Giudice, M. and Maggioni, V. (2014), “Managerial practices and operative directions of knowledge
management within inter-firm networks: a global view”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 18 No. 5,
pp. 841-846.
Demirkasimoglu, N. (2015), “Knowledge hiding in academia: is personality a key factor?”, International
Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 5 No. 1, p. 128.

Dutton, J.E. (2006), Energize Your Workplace: How to Create and Sustain High-Quality Connections at
Work, John Wiley & Sons.

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.

Fang, Y.H. (2017), “Coping with fear and guilt using mobile social networking applications: knowledge
hiding, loafing, and sharing”, Telematics and Informatics, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 779-797.

Ferraris, A., Erhardt, N. and Bresciani, S. (2019), “Ambidextrous work in smart city project alliances:
unpacking the role of human resource management systems”, The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 680-701.

Ferraris, A., Santoro, G., Bresciani, S. and Carayannis, E.G. (2018), “HR practices for explorative and
exploitative alliances in smart cities: evidences from smart city managers’ perspective”, Management
Decision, Vol. 56 No. 6, pp. 1183-1197.

Ferris, G.R., Treadway, D.C., Kolodinsky, R.W., Hochwarter, W.A., Kacmar, C.J., Douglas, C. and Frink, D.
D. (2005), “Development and validation of the political skill inventory”, Journal of Management, Vol. 31
No. 1, pp. 126-152.

VOL. 23 NO. 7 2019 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 1471

 Fong, P.S., Men, C., Luo, J. and Jia, R. (2018), “Knowledge hiding and team creativity: the contingent role
of task interdependence”, Management Decision, Vol. 56 No. 2, pp. 329-343.
Halbesleben, J.R., Neveu, J.P., Paustian-Underdahl, S.C. and Westman, M. (2014), “Getting to the
“COR” understanding the role of resources in conservation of resources theory”, Journal of Management,
Vol. 40 No. 5, pp. 1334-1364.
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.

Hayes, A.F. (2013), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A
Regression-Based Approach, The Guilford Press, New York, NY.

Hobfoll, S.E. (2001), “The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the stress process:
advancing conservation of resources theory”, Applied Psychology, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 337-421.
Hobfoll, S.E. (1998), Stress, Culture, and Community: The Psychology and Philosophy of Stress, Plenum
Press, New York, NY.
Holten, A., Hancock, G.R., Persson, R., Hansen, Å.M. and Høgh, A. (2016), “Knowledge hoarding:
antecedent or consequent of negative acts? The mediating role of trust and justice”, Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 215-229.

Howell, J.P. and Dorfman, P.W. (1981), “Substitutes for leadership: test of a construct”, Academy of
Management Journal. Academy of Management, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 714-728.

Huo, W., Cai, Z., Luo, J., Men, C. and Jia, R. (2016), “Antecedents and intervention mechanisms: a multi-
level study of R&D team’s knowledge hiding behavior”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 20
No. 5, pp. 880-897.

Janssen, O., Lam, C.K. and Huang, X. (2010), “Emotional exhaustion and job performance: the
moderating roles of distributive justice and positive affect”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 31
No. 6, pp. 787-809.
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 & Organization
Development Journal, Vol. 39 No. 6, pp. 794-806.
Kiewitz, C., Restubog, S.L.D., Shoss, M.K., Garcia, P.R.J.M. and Tang, R.L. (2016), “Suffering in silence:
investigating the role of fear in the relationship between abusive supervision and defensive silence”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 101 No. 5, p. 731.
Kim, S.L., Kim, M. and Yun, S. (2015), “Knowledge sharing, abusive supervision, and support: a social
exchange perspective”, Group & Organization Management, Vol. 40 No. 5, pp. 599-624.
Kumar, J. and Varkkey, B. (2018), “Are you a cistern or a channel? Exploring factors triggering
knowledge-hiding behavior at the workplace: evidence from the Indian R&D professionals”, Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 824-849.
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.
Malik, O.F., Shahzad, A., Raziq, M.M., Khan, M.M., Yusaf, S. and Khan, A. (2018), “Perceptions of
organizational politics, knowledge hiding, and employee creativity: the moderating role of professional
commitment”, Personality and Individual Differences, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
paid.2018.05.005

Mauno, S., Leskinen, E. and Kinnunen, U. (2001), “Multi-wave, multi-variable models of job insecurity:
applying different scales in studying the stability of job insecurity”, Journal of Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 22 No. 8, pp. 919-937.

Mawritz, M.B., Dust, S.B. and Resick, C.J. (2014), “Hostile climate, abusive supervision, and employee
coping: does conscientiousness matter?”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 99 No. 4, pp. 737-747.

Mawritz, M.B., Mayer, D.M., Hoobler, J.M., Wayne, S.J. and Marinova, S.V. (2012), “A trickle-down model
of abusive supervision”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 65 No. 2, pp. 325-357.

Mitchell, M.S. and Ambrose, M.L. (2007), “Abusive supervision and workplace deviance and the moderating
effects of negative reciprocity beliefs”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 4, pp. 1159-1168.

PAGE 1472 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 23 NO. 7 2019

Murtaza, G., Abbas, M., Raja, U., Roques, O., Khalid, A. and Mushtaq, R. (2016), “Impact of Islamic work
ethics on organizational citizenship behaviors and knowledge-sharing behaviors”, Journal of Business
Ethics, Vol. 133 No. 2, pp. 325-333.

Nerstad, C.G., Roberts, G.C. and Richardsen, A.M. (2013), “Achieving success at work: development
and validation of the motivational climate at work questionnaire (MCWQ)”, Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, Vol. 43 No. 11, pp. 2231-2250.
Nicholls, J.G. (1984), “Achievement motivation: conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task
choice, and performance”, Psychological Review, Vol. 91 No. 3, p. 328.
Offergelt, F., Spörrle, M., Moser, K. and Shaw, J.D. (2018), “Leader-signaled knowledge hiding: effects
on employees’ job attitudes and empowerment”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, available at: https://
doi.org/10.1002/job.2343

Pan, W., Zhou, Y. and Zhang, Q. (2016), “Does darker hide more knowledge? The relationship between
machiavellianism and knowledge hiding”, International Journal of Security and Its Applications, Vol. 10
No. 11, pp. 281-292.
Pan, W., Zhang, Q., Teo, T.S. and Lim, V.K. (2018), “The dark triad and knowledge hiding”, International
Journal of Information Management, Vol. 42, pp. 36-48.
Papa, A., Dezi, L., Gregori, G.L., Mueller, J. and Miglietta, N. (2018), “Improving innovation performance
through knowledge acquisition: the moderating role of employee retention and human resource
management practices”, Journal of Knowledge Management, available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-
09-2017-0391

Pee, L.G. and Lee, J. (2015), “Intrinsically motivating employees’ online knowledge sharing: understanding
the effects of job design”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 35 No. 6, pp. 679-690.
Peng, A.C., Schaubroeck, J.M. and Li, Y. (2014), “Social exchange implications of own and coworkers’
experiences of supervisory abuse”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 57 No. 5, pp. 1385-1405.

Peng, H. (2013), “Why and when do people hide knowledge?”, Journal of Knowledge Management,
Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 398-415.
Preacher, K.J. and Hayes, A.F. (2008), “Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and
comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models”, Behavior Research Methods, Vol. 40 No. 3,
pp. 879-891.
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.

Schulte, M., Ostroff, C., Shmulyian, S. and Kinicki, A. (2009), “Organizational climate configurations:
relationships to collective attitudes, customer satisfaction, and financial performance”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 94 No. 3, p. 618.
Serenko, A. and Bontis, N. (2016), “Understanding counterproductive knowledge behavior: antecedents
and consequences of intra-organizational knowledge hiding”, Journal of Knowledge Management,
Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 1199-1224.
Škerlavaj, 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.
Spender, J.C. and Grant, R.M. (1996), “Knowledge and the firm: overview”, Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 17 No. S2, pp. 5-9.
Srivastava, A., Bartol, K.M. and Locke, E.A. (2006), “Empowering leadership in management teams:
effects on knowledge sharing, efficacy, and performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 49
No. 6, pp. 1239-1251.
Sveiby, K.E. and Simons, R. (2002), “Collaborative climate and effectiveness of knowledge work–an
empirical study”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 6 No. 5, pp. 420-433.
Swift, M., Balkin, D.B. and Matusik, S.F. (2010), “Goal orientations and the motivation to share
knowledge”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 378-393.
Tang, P.M., Bavik, Y.L., Chen, Y. and Tjosvold, D. (2015), “Linking ethical leadership to knowledge
sharing and knowledge hiding: the mediating role of psychological engagement”, International
Proceedings of Economics Development and Research, Vol. 84, pp. 71-76.

VOL. 23 NO. 7 2019 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 1473

 Tepper, B.J., Carr, J.C., Breaux, D.M., Geider, S., Hu, C. and Hua, W. (2009), “Abusive supervision,
intentions to quit, and employees’ workplace deviance: a power/dependence analysis”, Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 109 No. 2, pp. 156-167.
Tepper, B.J. (2000), “Consequences of abusive supervision”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43,
pp. 178-190.

Tsay, C.H.H., Lin, T.C., Yoon, J. and Huang, C.C. (2014), “Knowledge withholding intentions in teams: the
roles of normative conformity, affective bonding, rational choice and social cognition”, Decision Support
Systems, Vol. 67, pp. 53-65.

Wang, C., Zuo, M. and An, X. (2017), “Differential influences of perceived organizational factors on
younger employees’ participation in offline and online intergenerational knowledge transfer”, International
Journal of Information Management, Vol. 37 No. 6, pp. 650-663.

Wang, Y.S., Lin, H.H., Li, C.R. and Lin, S.J. (2014), “What drives students’ knowledge withholding
intention in management education? an empirical study ”, Academy of Management Learning &
Education, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 547-568.

Wu, W.L. and Lee, Y.C. (2016), “Do employees share knowledge when encountering abusive
supervision?”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 154-168.
Xu, A.J., Loi, R. and Lam, L.W. (2015), “The bad boss takes it all: how abusive supervision and
leader–member exchange interact to influence employee silence”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 26
No. 5, pp. 763-774.
Zellars, K.L., Tepper, B.J. and Duffy, M.K. (2002), “Abusive supervision and subordinates’ organizational
citizenship behavior”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 6, p. 1068.
Zhao, H., He, P., Sheard, G. and Wan, P. (2016), “Workplace ostracism and knowledge hiding in service
organizations”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 59, pp. 84-94.
Zweig, D. and Scott, K.A. (2018), “Exploring distrust, paranoia, knowledge hiding and abusive
supervision over time”, Academy of Management Proceedings, Vol. 2018 No. 1, p. 10312.

Further reading
Wang, Y., Han, M.S., Xiang, D. and Hampson, D.P. (2018), “The double-edged effects of perceived
knowledge hiding: empirical evidence from the sales context”, Journal of Knowledge Management, doi:
10.1108/JKM-04-2018-0245.

Corresponding author
Changyu Wang can be contacted at: changyu@jiangnan.edu.cn

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

PAGE 1474 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 23 NO. 7 2019