Hameed2019.equity Theorypdf

Personnel Review
Organizational justice and knowledge sharing behavior: The role of psychological

ownership and perceived organizational support
Zahid Hameed, Ikram Ullah Khan, Zaryab Sheikh, Tahir Islam, Muhammad Imran Rasheed, Rana
Muhammad Naeem,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Zahid Hameed, Ikram Ullah Khan, Zaryab Sheikh, Tahir Islam, Muhammad Imran Rasheed, Rana
Muhammad Naeem, (2019) "Organizational justice and knowledge sharing behavior: The role
of psychological ownership and perceived organizational support", Personnel Review, https://
doi.org/10.1108/PR-07-2017-0217
Permanent link to this document:
Downloaded by ECU Libraries At 08:28 11 March 2019 (PT)
https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-07-2017-0217
Downloaded on: 11 March 2019, At: 08:28 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 145 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:161304 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0048-3486.htm
Knowledge
Organizational justice and sharing
knowledge sharing behavior behavior
The role of psychological ownership and

perceived organizational support
Zahid Hameed Received 25 July 2017
Department of Management Sciences, Revised 31 January 2018
30 June 2018
Khwaja Fareed University of Engineering and Information Technology, Accepted 15 October 2018
Rahim Yar Khan, Pakistan
Ikram Ullah Khan
Institute of Management Sciences, University of Science and Technology Bannu,
Bannu, Pakistan
Zaryab Sheikh
School of Management, Hefei University of Technology, Hefei, China and
Department of Management Sciences, Beaconhouse National University,
Lahore, Pakistan
Tahir Islam
School of Economics and Management, Tongji University, Shanghai, China and
School of Management, Mohammad Ali Jinnah University,
Karachi, Pakistan
Muhammad Imran Rasheed
School of Management, University of Science and Technology of China,
Hefei, China and
Department of Management Science, The Islamia University of Bahawalpur,
Bahawalpur, Pakistan, and
Rana Muhammad Naeem
Department of Business Administration, Sukkur IBA University,
Sukkur, Pakistan
Abstract
Purpose – Knowledge sharing (KS) has been consistently acknowledged as a critical factor in the
organizational development and the betterment of employees. The purpose of this paper is to extend previous
empirical research on KS by testing psychological ownership as an underlying mechanism between the
relationship of organizational justice (OJ) and KS behavior in developing country context. The authors also
examine the moderating role of perceived organizational support (POS) between psychological ownership and
KS behavior.
Design/methodology/approach – Using a survey questionnaire, data from 348 employees of multinational
corporations in Pakistan were used to test the research hypotheses.
Findings – The results of this research reveal that dimensions of OJ (procedural, distributive and
interactional justice) positively influence psychological ownership. In addition, psychological ownership is
found as an underlying psychological mechanism between the relationship of OJ and KS behavior. The
results also indicate that a higher level of POS strengthens the relationship between psychological
ownership and KS behavior.
Practical implications – Organizations can enhance employees’ sense of psychological ownership by
providing them fairness in procedures and resources. Moreover, management can create a perception of Personnel Review
© Emerald Publishing Limited
equality among the employees which subsequently helps employees engage in sharing their valuable 0048-3486
knowledge with their team members and other workers in the organization. DOI 10.1108/PR-07-2017-0217
PR Originality/value – This research suggests that psychological ownership and POS are important factors
which influence the relationship between OJ and KS behavior and it empirically tests this model in a
developing country context.
Keywords Quantitative, Psychological ownership, Organizational justice,
Perceived organizational support, Knowledge sharing behaviour
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Knowledge sharing (KS) is considered as one of the foremost features in dealing with
intellectual capital and acquires a competitive advantage for both private and government
organizations in the prevailing cutthroat competition (Argote and Ingram, 2000; Li et al., 2015;
Liu and Liu, 2011; Spender and Mahoney, 2000). KS is significant for innovation, as evolution
of ideas or concepts rely on effective KS behavior among workers in organizations and that
helps the smooth development of new products, services and processes (Nonaka et al., 2006).
There are gaps in the literature about the implementation of knowledge management and the
mechanisms that turn knowledge into a competitive advantage. Previous research has
relatively overweighed the managerial systems, cultures and organizational structures which
contribute to knowledge management (Cohen, 1998; Hinds et al., 2001). According to Collins
and Smith (2006), organizational-level research has emphasized on the practices of human
resource management, organizational structure, culture and learning, all of which can boost the
capability of knowledge management. Research at team level has discussed innovativeness of
knowledge created, the speed of knowledge creation, and the speed of knowledge transfer
among teams, all of which have an impact on knowledge management efforts (Gibson et al.,
2007). At the individual level, most of the research has emphasized on organizational justice
(OJ) and trust, which have influence on KS (C.-P. Lin, 2007; H.-F. Lin, 2007). Among the
practices of knowledge management, KS is the most significant factor as the higher level of KS
within the firm represents the greater level of organizational effectiveness (Yang, 2004).
Research has examined personality, trust (Usoro et al., 2007) and affective commitment
(Li et al., 2015) as the antecedents of KS behavior. However, relatively little research has
examined the association between justice perceptions and KS behavior with a particular focus
to explore the underlying mechanism between this relationship. OJ is considered as one of the
factors that might provoke a feeling of ownership on the part of individuals. These feelings can
further lead to the altruistic spirit (Brown et al., 2014), and contribute toward organizational
effectiveness through practices such as KS (Wang and Noe, 2010).
Van den Hooff and De Ridder (2004, p. 119) defined KS as a “process where individuals
mutually exchange their implicit and explicit knowledge to create new knowledge.” KS is
considered to be a process where exchange and creation of knowledge among the employees
take place. Xinyan and Xin (2006) considered KS as an important source of knowledge creation
at the workplace. Organizations are constantly trying to develop tools and systems that can
overcome organizational and individual obstructions, permitting employees to share knowledge
effectively to enhance innovative performance (Schwaer et al., 2012). KS can be facilitated by
either knowledge donating or knowledge collecting (Van den Hooff and De Ridder, 2004). In KS,
the intellectual capital is transferred from employee to employee, thus it benefits the whole
organization. Sharing knowledge is an intentional process that not only boosts an individual’s
understanding but also helps to create an archive of accessible knowledge for others.
The modern developments in technologies have increasingly hoisted the value of intangible
assets (such as knowledge, skills and abilities of the employees) as compared to tangible assets
(Geisler and Wickramasinghe, 2015) and therefore multinational corporations emphasize on
impalpable assets (e.g. new ideas, new information and new knowledge) to produce a sequence
of innovations and, thereby contribute to the organizational performance (Teece, 2014). In fact,
the impalpable assets within the organizational members impel the firms that they should
adopt such kind of HR policies and practices which induce individuals to share knowledge and Knowledge
contribute toward organizational competencies. Thus, human capital has become the main sharing
strategic tool of the organization. Though human capital (such as strategic knowledge) behavior
is embedded within the employees, it is essential for the organizations to opt some practices
which make employees to share tacit knowledge automatically. Therefore, organizations need
to develop some proper artifacts (e.g. flexible organization design) that can align individuals’
interests with those of the organization’s. Furthermore, these artifacts make an organization
avoid agency problems (i.e. self-interest pursuits) and facilitate employees to produce extra-role
behavior that contributes to organizational performance.
Researchers have suggested that KS behavior is influenced by either some kind of
motivation or perception, for instance, rewards, trust and personality (Gagné, 2009;
C.-P. Lin, 2007; H.-F. Lin, 2007; Schwaer et al., 2012). Although the relationship among the
components of OJ perceptions (distributive, procedural and interactional justice) and
work-related outcomes has received a sizeable scholarly attention in western countries
(e.g. Gelens et al., 2013; Ohana, 2014), yet the research is insufficient in non-western countries,
especially in developing countries, such as Pakistan (De Clercq et al., 2018). There is a need of
clear understanding of the construct (i.e. perceived justice) which can lead employees toward
positive work outcomes, such as KS behavior. Researchers have extensively tried to explain
this mechanism by using social exchange theory (SET) (e.g. Aryee et al., 2002, 2015; Tekleab
et al., 2005; Khan et al., 2018). Previous scholars have pointed out that there is still very limited
research which highlights the underlying mechanism through which justice is related to KS
behavior (Wang and Noe, 2010; Yeşil and Dereli, 2013). We address this gap through
empirically examining the impact of justice perceptions of employees, explicitly focusing on the
underlying mechanism through which justice perceptions lead toward KS behavior. In this
study, we introduce PO as a mediating mechanism that links employees’ justice perceptions
with KS behavior. According to Pierce et al. (2003 p. 86), PO represents the conventional wisdom
where employees take care and strive to nurture their sense of owning the organization. It is
generally argued that feelings of ownership can exist without having formal ownership and can
have a similar impact as intended by formal ownership (Pierce et al., 2003; Cao et al., 2018).
PO is the psychological experience in which an individual develops possessive feelings of
target. Feelings of ownership can be developed toward both material and immaterial objects
and can shape self-identity of individuals and affect their behavior (Dittmar, 1992). Such feelings
can also exist in the absence of any formal or legal claim of ownership (Beggan, 1992).
Furthermore, feelings of ownership have behavioral, emotional and psychological consequences
(such as extra-role behaviors) (Mayhew et al., 2007). Past research has suggested that the sense
of ownership is an integral part of the employee’s relationship with the organization; for
example, it was found that extra-role behaviors (i.e. KSB) are linked to improvements in
organizational performance (Md-Sidin et al., 2009; Podsakoff and MacKenzie, 1997) and that
sense of ownership is positively related with KSB (Han et al., 2010). The link between justice
perceptions and KSB via PO can be explained through Adam’s theory of equity which provides
a relevant theoretical framework (Adams, 1965; Sieger et al., 2011). According to equity theory,
justice is a result of the proportionality of input/outcome ratio (i.e. efforts and rewards) and
individuals compare these efforts and rewards with their co-workers. When an individual
thinks he/she is being fairly treated in the organization (i.e. equal input/outcome ratios), he or
she is more likely to perceive PO which will subsequently lead toward positive work-related
outcomes, such as KSB. We argue on the basis of inferences made in the literature that PO
plays a key role in enhancing organizational competitiveness, and employees’ feelings of PO at
work allow them to experience greater levels of confidence, to work extra miles for their
organization and to feel greater responsibility to defend their organization (Bernstein, 1976).
Furthermore, PO seems to fit well into the context of justice perceptions and positive work
behaviors. This is because, recent findings demonstrate that there is a positive relationship
PR between justice perceptions and psychological ownership (Atalay and Özler, 2013;
Islam et al., 2018). Moreover, Li et al. (2015) found a positive connection between PO and
KSB while Peng and Pierce (2015) reported that PO is related to decreased knowledge holding.
Similarly, Van Dyne and Pierce (2004) described that employees with PO might display an
altruistic spirit, which has been considered as an important antecedent of extra-role behavior
(e.g. KS). However, to date, little is known about PO as an underlying mechanism between OJ
and KSB in the context of a developing countries. In addition, our theoretical framework
proposes a moderating relationship of perceived organizational support (POS) between
psychological ownership and KS behavior. Previous studies have also justified that POS helps
strengthen the social exchange process which provides a basis for the exchange of knowledge
(Eisenberger et al., 2001).
This study contributes to the literature in several ways. First, the current study proposes
PO as a potential underlying mechanism between OJ and KSB. We base our argument on the
logic that employees would work selflessly when they have a sense of psychological
ownership (Pierce et al., 2001). Therefore, we propose that psychological ownership may lead
toward KS behavior, which can contribute to enhancing the effectiveness of the organization.
Second, the study uses POS as a moderator between PO and KSB. This will contribute to the
body of knowledge that explains POS as an important job resource (e.g. Panaccio and
Vandenberghe, 2009; Shantz et al., 2016; Islam et al., 2017). Consistent with SET, we propose
that employees who perceive support from their organizations feel an obligation to benefit
their organizations through KS and will be willing to exert more efforts to accomplish their
personal and organizational goals (Marler et al., 2009). Thus, the proposed moderator, POS,
can be used as a significant factor for strengthening the relationship between PO and KS.
Organizational context is important in the determination of job attitudes and behaviors
( Johns, 2006, 2018). Furthermore, Pierce and Jussila (2011) suggested that organizational
context should be considered in future PO research. We tested our model in the developing
country like Pakistan, which is an attractive place for business and investment because of
its huge manpower and diversified natural resources (Pervaiz and Khan, 2015). In 2015
“The Economist Magazine” estimated Pakistan’s GDP growth upto 5.7 percent, ranking
Pakistan fifth in the world and first in the muslim world. Pakistan’s “demographic dividend”
of a younger population is an opportunity for most of the organizations, especially
multinational corporations. Although the study does not investigate any particular cultural
aspect, yet it examines the effects of perceived OJ on employees’ KSB in multinational
organizations working in Pakistan. It is noted that KS has gained much interest of the
researchers in the context of multinational corporations (Michailova and Minbaeva, 2012).
Though, the previous research supports the argument that KS is an important element for
gaining competitive advantage, we still do not completely know about the antecedents of KS
(Zhang and Jiang, 2015). The last two decades have witnessed a growing importance given
to the research on the ability to create and transfer knowledge in multinational corporations
(MNCs) (Harzing et al., 2016). Furthermore, an increasing amount of research has been done
on human resource management issues in MNCs, including developing economies such as
Pakistan (e.g. Chaudhry, 2013). However, little work has been done so far on what fosters
KS, particularly in the context of MNCs in Pakistan.
Theoretical background
Knowledge sharing
An organization serves as a knowledge-integrating institution, integrating the knowledge of
individuals and groups in the process of making goods and delivering services. According
to Garud and Kumaraswamy (2005), knowledge processes occur at different levels
(e.g. individual, group and organizational level) in organizations and as there are forces that
can potentially lead to adverse outcomes, an organization must harness its knowledge to
transform “vicious cycles” into virtuous circles of enhancing returns. Gupta and Knowledge
Govindarajan (2000) considered KS to be the most significant aspect of knowledge sharing
management practice. Previous research noted that “organizations, both large and small can behavior
gain a competitive advantage only if they are capable of integrating the knowledge,
expertise and skills of their employees and making use of the most effective managerial
practices in their day-to-day operations. This entails the sharing of knowledge and the
transforming of KS into practice” (Ibragimova et al., 2012). Previous literature has discussed
five important contexts that influence the success of knowledge sharing: the relationship
between source and the receiver, the procedure and location of the knowledge, the recipient’s
learning inclination, the individuals’ capability of KS and the overall environment where KS
takes place (Cummings, 2003). Davenport and Prusak (1998) stated that KS often seems to
be unnatural because people think that their knowledge is more valuable and important for
them. Generally, individuals who have a great amount of knowledge are unwilling to share
knowledge (C.-P. Lin, 2007; H.-F. Lin, 2007). Research highlights that the biggest challenge
that an organization faces with regard to knowledge management is changing individual
behavior, especially in terms of KS (Ruggles, 1998), and many studies have highlighted
factors that influence knowledge sharing behavior (e.g. C.-P. Lin, 2007; H.-F. Lin, 2007). SET
is the most commonly used theoretical base to explain KS behavior. SET explains that
regulation of people’s interactions with other people/organizations is based on self-interests
and cost/benefit analysis. Previous research has analyzed KSB and highlighted some
benefits that are helpful in regulating individuals’ behavior; these benefits take shape as
congenial reciprocal relations in future, such as job security and promotional benefits. In this
regard, it is argued that the future benefits might have a positive influence on KS (Cabrera
and Cabrera, 2005). Past research has also highlighted that factors related to SET are
successful in explaining KSB among individuals. For instance, Kankanhalli et al. (2005)
described that each individual’s perceived benefit is one of the key factors that encourage
employees to contribute knowledge.
Organizational justice
According to Cropanzano et al. (2001) “OJ is concerned with employees’ subjective fairness
perceptions in their employment relationship.” Allocation of equitable rewards and
resources is reflected by the term justice within organizations (Notz and Starke, 1987). OJ is
generally considered to be composed of three dimensions, i.e., distributive, procedural and
interactional justice (Colquitt, 2001). Various researchers have highlighted that people
mainly react on procedural and distributive justice whenever they decide to respond to the
overall organizational polices, whereas the perceptions of interactional justice is seemingly
more relevant in reference to supervisors and other authority figures (Atalay and
Özler, 2013; Bies and Moag, 1986; Leventhal, 1980). Procedural justice is considered as
fairness in the allocation process and represents equitable decisions in terms of procedures,
processes and dispute settlements, for example, decisions that are ethical, correctable,
accurate, consistent, unbiased and representative, and whether the employees are provided
any opportunity to participate in the decision making (Colquitt et al., 2001). Distributive
justice refers to the perceived fairness of outcome distributions, and examples of outcomes
are salary, promotions or benefits (Colquitt, 2001; Colquitt et al., 2001).
According to equity theory (e.g. Adams, 1965; Colquitt et al., 2001), a resources distribution
is perceived to be just if it is consistent with chosen allocation norms. The term interactional
justice was initially coined by Bies and Moag (1986) and has emerged in two forms of
interpersonal treatments: interpersonal justice and informational justice (Greenberg, 1990).
Interpersonal justice is the first dimension of interactional justice and it refers to the level at
which employees are treated with courtesy and self-respect by the upper-level management of
the organization that implements procedures and determines outcomes. Informational justice
PR is the second dimension of interactional justice; it focuses on conveying information to
employees about different procedures and practices to explain why specific procedures were
followed or why rewards were distributed by following a specific procedure (Colquitt, 2001).
Previous studies have found that justice dimensions are related to work behaviors, such as job
satisfaction and affective commitment ( Jones and Martens, 2009), KS and innovation
capability (Yeşil and Dereli, 2013) and organizational citizenship behavior (Tepper and
Taylor, 2003). Atalay and Özler (2013) validated the relationship of justice perceptions to PO.
Similarly, other researchers have insightful conclusions that perceptions of justice positively
affect the commitment and job satisfaction of the employees (Sieger et al., 2011). Given the
need to improve our understanding of how justice perceptions weave their way into desirable
employees’ attitudes and behaviors, we introduce the concept of PO as a potential mediator
between justice dimensions and KSB.
Psychological ownership
Psychological ownership has a wide usage in the recent literature of organizational behavior.
It represents the sense that employees have ownership of the organization (Avey et al., 2009;
Li et al., 2015). Traditionally, it is proposed that employees will put forth better efforts to care
for, nurture and maintain things which they consider to be their own. When individuals have
a sense of ownership, they feel connected with each other in achieving several tangible and
intangible targets (Helga, 1992). PO comprises “ambition, goals, commitment, motivation,
responsibilities and other things in the mind of owner that relate him/her with the target of
owning” (Mattila and Ikävalko, 2003). The existence of ownership is psychologically present
in the mind as well as in real behavior (Mattila and Ikävalko, 2003). Druskat and Pescosolido
(2002) described PO as a cognitive and emotional connection between the object and people,
which affects their conduct and self-perception. Like other attitudes in the mental disposition
of any person, PO has behavioral, emotional and cognitive elements and it can exist all
organizational individual levels. Pierce et al. (2001) differentiated the concept of PO from
constructs, such as organizational identification, organizational commitment and job
satisfaction. Previous research proposed that a sense of psychological ownership is an
essential element of employee association with the organization. Several scholars have pointed
out three main motives that form the basis of PO, that is, self-efficacy, sense of belongingness
and attaining self-identity (Atalay and Özler, 2013). Furthermore, there are three basic
experiences related to finalizing the above-stated motives and amplifying the PO are the
opportunities to control, self-invest and to procure information (Ozler et al., 2008). The concept
of PO in business (such as the possessive sense that a certain object is “mine” or “ours”) has
received much consideration from researchers and managers as a potentially essential
forecaster of individual behaviors and attitudes.
Hypotheses development
Procedural justice and psychological ownership
According to De Cremer et al. (2008), procedural justice typically involves the
implementation of transparent and valid decision-making rules and the opportunity for
workers to be involved in the decision making processes. Procedural justice is considered
to be a critical OJ factor on employee cooperative behavior (Konovsky, 2000) and
employee–employer relationship, such as PO (Atalay and Özler, 2013; Sieger et al., 2011).
Reviewing the previous literature on PO, Atalay and Özler (2013) noted that the relationship
of justice-PO has gained little research attention. Cropanzana et al. (2007) have stated that OJ
helps to create considerable benefits such as organizational commitment, job satisfaction
and other helpful citizenship behaviors for both the employees and organizations. Previous
research argued that positive association could be found between justice perceptions
(Masterson et al., 2000) and accountability (Folger and Cropanzano, 1998). Colquitt et al. Knowledge
(2001) stated that the procedures for employee appraisal are prepared by organization/ sharing
supervisors, so they represent the firm’s justice or injustice and are accountable for it behavior
(Masterson et al., 2000). The relationship can also be elucidated by considering the
differences between event-based and entity-based judgment. Event-based judgment is a
fairness assessment of a particular event or experience, for example, an appraisal interview.
In the entity-based judgment, the social entity is supposed to be fair in event perception to
form a good judgment (Cropanzano et al., 2001). Based on these arguments, Cropanzano et al.
(2001) proposed an integrated model, concluding that fairness in procedures develops the
fairness perception of any organization. Masterson et al. (2000) stated that procedural justice
enhances the individual relationship with the organization. Following this line of argument,
we believe that if the procedures in an appraisal interview are considered as just, the
perception of the firm as a whole is just, which makes it a more desirable object to be
psychologically appropriated (Pierce et al., 2003). Therefore, based on these considerations,
we hypothesized the following relationship:
H1a. Procedural justice perceptions positively relate to the psychological ownership

of employees.
Distributive justice and psychological ownership

Folger and Cropanzano (1998) stated that people would perceive an organization based on
justice or injustice especially by accountability considerations which in turn would influence
their attitude toward that organization. Scholars argue that most organizations set the pay
policies and payment rates to promote distributive justice (Walumbwa et al., 2009).
Accordingly, when individuals perceive pay and promotions to be just, they are also likely
to perceive the organization itself to be just. This supports a more favorable association
among the employees and the organization (Walumbwa et al., 2009). Favorable judgments
are linked with possessive feelings. Pierce et al. (2003) argued that “attributes such as
attractiveness render the target subject to PO” (p. 94). Therefore, when employees perceive
pay and promotion systems to be just, the organization also tends to be perceived as just. As
a result, the firm appears more attractive to its workforce, which is conducive to the
employees’ sense of ownership (Pierce et al., 2003). Resource investment may also play an
important role, and scholars stated that individuals who perceive that resources are fairly
used and proper remuneration is given, will tend to invest their own resources in the
organization ( Janssen et al., 2010; Khan et al., 2019). These resources could be in the form of
individual’s experience, time, energy, skills, training, intelligence and cognitive and
emotional labor. Janssen et al. (2010) mentioned that when individuals perceive distributive
justice in an exchange association, they are encouraged to repay and increase their self-
investment in the organization. Therefore, we suggest that distributive justice can foster the
investment of personal resources, which will resultantly improve ownership sense toward
the organization. Hence, we propose the following hypothesis:
H1b. Distributive justice perceptions of employees have a positive relationship with the
psychological ownership.
Interactional justice and psychological ownership

The atmosphere of fairness in organizations has a key role in establishing a sense of
ownership in individuals. Therefore, OJ which is considered as a fundamental building
block of the conducive work environment helps the people feel PO (Atalay and Özler, 2013).
Although pay and promotions are important, in employee–organization association,
employees increasingly expect more than just wages as fair compensation. Relationships
PR between employees and organization play a major role in enhancing ownership feelings. For
instance, the psychological contract view (Rousseau and Shperling, 2003) holds that people
have certain beliefs regarding mutual obligations in association and, as a result, in
employment situations expect not only tangible but intangible rewards such as reputation.
Scholars reported that “if employees believe they are treated fairly, they have a feeling that
even without legal protection, their interests will still be there, at least generally, supported”
(Moorman and Byrne, 2005, p. 361). Further, as per the norm of reciprocity, individuals
repay when they feel that they are being treated fairly. As previous research noted, “because
of some other transactions linked to a supervisor, the interactional justice should be related
to responses directed toward one’s supervisor” (Cropanzano et al., 2001, p. 328). Therefore,
when individuals get fair treatment from their supervisors, they will more probably repay
the organization as an obligation. These inferences are supported by interactional justice. If
employees are treated with dignity and respect, a feeling of mutual trust promotes a sense of
ownership. Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis:
H1c. Interactional justice perceptions of employees are positively related to PO.
Psychological ownership and KS

Any activity which engages employees in receiving and sending knowledge to each other is
known as KS (Schwaer et al., 2012). The KSB of employees is helpful in creating and utilizing
knowledge, that is why its role is crucial in knowledge management (Han et al., 2010;
Ali et al., 2018; Tidd, 2000). When organizations adequately facilitate the KS through proper
measures, it can enhance the KS. Specifically, tacit knowledge is considered to be one of the
organizational resources (Tidd, 2000) and can become a primary source of competitive
advantage because of its difficulty to be imitated. Scholars argue that organizations have to
carefully negotiate with internal power associations in order to ensure that tacit knowledge
is shared and produces innovation (Anand et al., 2007). Previous research also testifies that
KS triggers organizational innovation (Darroch and McNaughton, 2002), core capability
(Tseng and Lee, 2014) and competitive advantage (Donate and Guadamillas, 2011).
PO involves recognition of organizational boundaries which indicate organizational
membership and enable individuals inside the boundaries to share information or
knowledge with each other (Masterson et al., 2000). That is, individuals who observe
organizational membership may have a sense of PO (Pierce et al., 2001) and so have mutual
accountability or duty toward the object. An altruistic spirit of organizational members is
most probably advocated in such situations, which can be more restorative to extra-role
behavior (Masterson and Stamper, 2003). Previous research supported the positive
relationship of PO with job performance and job satisfaction (Avey et al., 2009; Han et al.,
2010). Van Dyne and Pierce (2004) concluded that PO and organizational commitment are
positively related and that they can give rise to an altruistic spirit, contributing to extra-role
behavior such as KS. For instance, an employee’s PO can motivate a series of constructive
behaviors and psychological feelings. The literature also shows the positive influence of PO
on KSB (Han et al., 2010) and a recent study has indicated that PO positively influences
common KS (Li et al., 2015). As Van Dyne and Pierce (2004) argued, employees who have a
sense of PO may show altruistic spirit, which has been viewed as one of the crucial
antecedents for KSB. Therefore, it is theorized that:
H2. Psychological ownership has a positive relationship with KS behavior.
Mediating role of psychological ownership

Previous research supported the positive relationship between justice dimensions and KS
(e.g. Ibragimova et al., 2012; Yeşil and Dereli, 2013). Employees reciprocate prior friendly
actions (Fehr and Gächter, 2000), which they judge to be probably leading to their common Knowledge
advantages (Hsu and Lin, 2008) or beneficial to them in future knowledge improvement sharing
(Kankanhalli et al., 2005). Because of those actions, the employees are motivated to have behavior
intentions to share their knowledge with each other (H.-F. Lin, 2007). Bock et al. (2005)
proposed mutual association as the key factor of attitude toward KS. Fang and Chiu (2010)
investigated previous performance equity and random draw (equality) regulations and
concluded that more justice in these areas reduces intragroup conflicts as compared to other
justice standards (such as future performance, rank, and personal need). PO has been used
as a mediator in many past studies with different contexts. For example, dividing PO into
individual-oriented and collective-oriented dimensions, Henssen et al. (2014) investigated the
mediating role of PO between autonomy and stewardship behavior and found that the
individual-oriented PO mediates the relationship.
Based on the previous section, we believe that OJ, in fact, acts positively toward the
sharing of knowledge through other psychological factors. Employees who experience
greater feelings of ownership over a target on the job would likely to share more knowledge.
KS has been linked with increased effort and performance (Quigley et al., 2007). For instance,
when employees feel ownership, they tend to expect to be included in decision making and
to have information shared with them. Thus, they feel sense of meaningfulness and concern
about their work, which influence the associated target(s) of ownership. The feeling of
ownership places the employees (Porteous, 1976) in a position that they feel like their
organization as their own home (Helga, 1992; Pierce et al., 2001). It triggers the sense of
affinity and belongingness, which is the prerequisite of KS (Li et al., 2015). If an employee’s
contribution to the team (group, unit) performance is evaluated and rewarded fairly, this will
ultimately strengthen ownership feelings (Sieger et al., 2011) which lead to sharing
knowledge and expertise with other fellow members. Based on Sieger et al. (2011), OJ is
positively related to PO. Han et al. (2010) suggested that employees with high sense of PO
can evoke the individual’s behavior to share knowledge. Prior research shows that OJ has
positive indirect effect on KS through organizational commitment (C.-P. Lin, 2007). PO also
motivates employees to share knowledge, which is a key factor that enables KS. Previous
research regarding PO has concluded that it mediates the relationship between
organizational commitment and KSB (Han et al., 2010), and one previous study has also
found that PO performs mediating role between affective commitment and common KS
(Li et al., 2015). Viewing the above arguments, it seems reasonable to introduce PO as a
mediator among OJ and KSB. Literature on the job characteristics model supports this
notion and describes individuals’ feelings that they have ownership over a certain
component of the work environment as ‘autonomy” which is a strong predictor of KS (Lu
et al., 2012). In this way, psychological ownership carries over effects of OJ on KSB. When
organizations are able to induce perceptions of justice among employees, this will give rise
to ownership feelings which in turn will positively influence KSB. Thus, based on these
studies, the following hypothesis is proposed (Figure 1):
H3. PO plays a mediating role between OJ dimensions (procedural, distributive and
interactional justice) and employees’ KSB.
Moderating role of POS

Previous sections have established a relationship between OJ and KS behavior through
psychological ownership. We assume that this relationship is not free of a boundary condition
that is POS. POS includes the employees’ belief that organizations take care of them and think
about their well-being (Eisenberger et al., 2001). Some previous studies have also shown
moderating role of POS on positive workplace outcomes (e.g. Erdogan and Erdogan, 2007).
In addition, several studies conclude that there is a direct positive relationship between POS
PR Perceived
Organizational
Support
Procedural Justice
H1a
H4
Distributive Justice Psychological Knowledge Sharing

H1b Ownership H2 Behavior
H1c
Interactional Justice
Figure 1.
Proposed
Hypothesized causal relationships
research model
Un-Hypothesized relationships
and KSB (Castaneda et al., 2016; King and Marks, 2008). Allen and Shanock (2013) identified
POS as a binding mechanism that relates employees to their organization. If POS is translated
in a true sense of possession (reciprocity), the employees are likely to share their knowledge.
For instance, Zhou and George (2001) have presented an evidence that creativity in satisfied
individuals was higher when continuance commitment and POS for creativity were both high.
Bartol et al. (2009) pointed out that POS and KSB are strongly related for those employees who
have work security. Nielsen et al. (2011) examined how POS plays a mediating role in high
commitment, human resource management, and KSB. Lee et al. (2006) and Anand et al. (2007)
asserted that POS is a strong predictor of KSB. The association is not surprising since KSB is
conceptualized as a response to positive work experiences perceived by employees of the
organization (Connelly and Kevin Kelloway, 2003). Indeed via mechanisms of social exchange
(Blau, 1964) and reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960), employees feel compelled to reciprocate when
offered valuable resources. Support, as it constitutes a socio-emotional resource, leads
individuals to share knowledge.
The SET supports the hypothesis that employment can be regarded as a trade-off
between employees’ efforts and their loyalty (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005).
POS stimulates employees’ sense of obligation which leads them to help reciprocally
with their organization. Their performance will be increased if the organization
appreciates and rewards their efforts properly. Accordingly, individuals with a higher
level of POS would be more likely to engage themselves in work-associated efforts to
enhance both in-role job behavior and extra-role behavior such as KSB (Kurtessis et al.,
2017). When POS is strong, it creates a sense of reciprocity in the individual which leads to
taking care of the organization.
Zhou and George (2001) considered POS as a non-financial reward which has a positive
connection with creativity because perceived support by the organization may help to
satisfy individual needs in the same way as monetary benefits do. POS plays an active role
when employees perceive that organizational benefits are planned by the organization for
their welfare, not as a duty. We, therefore, propose POS as a possible moderator of the
relationship of psychological ownership and KS behavior such that the relationship between
PO and KSB will be higher at the higher levels of POS and vice versa. Based on the above
discussion, we hypothesized that:
H4. POS moderates the relationship between PO and KS behavior, such that the higher
the POS is, the stronger the relationship is, and vice versa.
Methods Knowledge
Sample and procedures sharing
The data were collected using the survey method from eight multinational companies that behavior
deal with food, beverages, grocery and personal care products in Pakistan. In line with
previous research, we collected data from only the lower management workforce because
they typically are not involved in the process of formulating organizational strategies and
policies (Rupp et al., 2006). This research examined the association between employees’
perceptions of OJ and their PO and KS. Since top and middle management develop
policies, they were excluded from this research. All the selected enterprises had more than
500 employees across the country. The researchers rephrased some words and statements
to ensure the clarity of the items. Five doctoral students in management sciences were
involved in making sure that the wording of questions made their intended meaning clear.
The initial survey was then piloted for usability with 35 respondents including managers
and employees, who were subsequently excluded from the main study. A convenience
sampling was used to invite the employees to participate in research. We contacted
sources in our targeted organizations and sought permission to obtain data. An
appointment was fixed with each source and the researchers asked him/her to help ensure
the availability of colleagues. A cover letter with an explanation of the purpose of the
study and a self-report questionnaire was then distributed to the employees of different
departments who were knowledgeable and specialized in their activities (e.g. design,
purchasing and production). To overcome the issue of social desirability (Tsai and
Ghoshal, 1998), the respondents were informed that their responses would be carefully
handled with full confidentially. We distributed 600 surveys and obtained 373 responses,
thus the response rate was 62 percent. In the final stage of analysis, some responses
needed to be removed because of missing data. After this, the net valid responses were
348, a 58 percent response rate. Survey results show that 67 percent of the participants
were male. Most of the respondents, 65 percent, have a bachelor’s degree or above
education. The results show that respondents’ average age was 34 years and their average
working experience in the organization was more than five years.
Measures
Organizational justice. To assess the employee procedural, distributive and interactional
justice perceptions concerning their salary increments and job promotions, participants
were asked to rate each question on a seven-point scale (1 ¼ not at all to 7 ¼ to a great
extent). The study measured procedural justice with the help of seven items and distributive
justice with four items adapted from the previous study of Colquitt (2001). A sample item
includes “Have those procedures been free of bias?” A sample item for distributive justice is
“Does your salary raise to reflect the effort you have put into your work?” Interactional
justice was measured with a nine-item scale adapted from Niehoff and Moorman (1993). The
sample items include “When decisions are made about my job, my supervisor treats me with
kindness and consideration” and “When decisions are made about my job, my supervisor
treats me with respect and dignity.”
Psychological ownership. We measured PO with a seven-item scale adapted from Pierce
et al. (1992), with further validation provided by numerous researchers (e.g. Mayhew et al.,
2007; Pierce et al., 2004). A sample item is “I feel a very high degree of personal ownership
for this organization” and “This is MY organization.” All items of this scale were measured
on a seven-point scale (1 ¼ strongly disagree, 7 ¼ strongly agree).
Perceived organizational support. We assessed POS through adopting a four-item scale
developed by Eisenberger et al. (1986). This construct was measured by asking
participants to specify the level of response available to them in their job, for example,
PR “My organization really cares about my well-being.” Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002) said
that “because the original scale is unidimensional and has high internal reliability, the use
of shorter version does not appear problematic.” Shantz et al. (2016) found that this
four-item scale was reliable (α ¼ 0.95).
KS behavior. We assessed KSB through the four-item scale validated by Faraj and
Sproull (2000). The items included “I always exchange information, knowledge, and skills
with my colleagues at work.”
Control variables. For this research, the authors controlled for the effects of education
level, age, gender, tenure and ownership of the organization in which the participant
worked. This was tested because previous research recommended that female employees
are expected to be more emotionally attached to their organizations (Chiu and Ng, 1999),
while knowledgeable and highly qualified employees are supposed to be more protective of
their knowledge (Thompson et al., 2001; Ali et al., 2019). In addition, some researchers
concluded that multinational companies which have foreign ownership usually offer
conducive and innovative environments (Cheung and Ping, 2004). Therefore, the authors
proposed to control for such effects on KS with the addition of ownership as a control
variable in the given analysis. Moreover, we also control organization type, there might be a
significant difference in KSB depending on the organization because some organizations
may have a culture and formal knowledge management systems that promote KSB.
Data analysis
Common method bias (CMB)
According to Podsakoff et al. (2003), when the data were self-reported and obtained through
the same scale during the same period, this might affect the validity of results. Following the
previous research, we used the several remedies to minimize the CMB (Podsakoff et al.,
2003). First, each survey was escorted with a cover letter explaining the purpose of the study
and ensuring about confidentiality of their responses. Second, the CMB was analyzed
through Harman’s single factor test. After categorizing all the items into six factors, the
results illustrate that the first factor explains only 18.2 percent of the variance. Thus, CMB is
not a serious problem for the current study. Third, to find out common variance among the
hypothesized relationship we created a common latent factor (CLF). We have observed
standardized regression weights with and without CLF and the difference was less than 0.20
which showed that CMB was not a major threat for this study (Podsakoff et al., 2003).
Multicollinearity
The amount of multicollinearity was examined through both the tolerance and the variance
inflation factors (VIF). The tolerance values for all the independent constructs (three
dimensions of OJ) were above the recommended level of 0.10 (Cohen et al., 2003) and VIF
values between 1.14 and 1.70, which demonstrate that multicollinearity is not a serious
concern in this research.
Non-response bias
The chance of any potential non-response bias was assessed using the Mann-Whitney U test
among early and late participants (Weiss and Heide, 1993). Based on proportions and
approximating the actual way in which surveys were returned, first 50 observations were
taken as the early participants, and the last 50 were considered as the late participants. The
findings demonstrate that the significance probability value of all variables was at least 0.05
(i.e. insignificant), thus there was no statistically significant difference among early and late
participants. Therefore, non-response bias is not an issue.
Results Knowledge
To test our measurement model, we used structural equation modeling in AMOS 21. Construct sharing
validity was analyzed using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). To evaluate the goodness of behavior
model fit of the data, we used the following indices (Byrne, 2013): χ2/df, the root-mean-square
error of approximation (RMSEA), the comparative fit index (CFI), and the Tucker-Lewis index
(TLI). Previous research suggests an acceptable model should have CFI and TLI scores greater
than 0.90 and a RMSEA value below 0.08 (Hair et al., 2010). Our results of the first model (using
all items of six factors) demonstrate a poor model fit (χ2/df ¼ 3.10, CFI ¼ 0.88, TLI ¼ 0.87,
RMSEA ¼ 0.07). The second model was examined after deleting three low-factor loading items
(one for procedural justice and two for interactional justice). Our results show that the model fit
indices improve significantly, reaching acceptable levels (χ2/df ¼ 1.64, CFI ¼ 0.96, TLI ¼ 0.95,
RMSEA ¼ 0.04). We have also analyzed two additional models to evaluate the appropriateness
of the proposed measurement model (Bentler and Bonett, 1980). The first alternative model was
evaluated through loading all the items on a single factor. The findings show a poor fit (χ2/
df ¼ 7.12, CFI ¼ 0.74, TLI ¼ 0.66, RMSEA ¼ 0.20). In the second alternative model, we introduce
a four-factor solution in which the three dimensions of OJ were combined into one. The findings
for this model also demonstrate poor fit statistics (χ2/df ¼ 5.84, CFI ¼ 0.84, TLI ¼ 0.78,
RMSEA ¼ 0.13), so the findings of the six-factor model illustrate the best fit among our models.
In this study, we tested the structural model by examining the content, convergent and
discriminant validities. Through assessing the relevant literature and pilot testing the scale, we
examined the content validity. Throughout this process, some items were eliminated because of
their low-factor loadings. Convergent validity was examined by testing the values of factor
loadings, composite reliability (CR), average variance extracted (AVE), and Cronbach’s α.
The findings of CFA reveal that factor loadings of all items are above 0.60 except PJ7, IJ6, and
IJ9. The standard values for CR, AVE and Cronbach’s α are 0.7, 0.5 and 0.7, respectively
(Fornell and Larcker, 1981; Hair et al., 2010). Table I demonstrates that the factor loadings are
above 0.6, the CR and Cronbach’s α values are above 0.7, and the AVE of all variables are
greater than 0.5. Thus, the findings show an acceptable convergent validity.
Discriminant validity (DV ) suggests whether a variable is distinct from other variables.
To examine the DV, we used an approach based on a study of (Fornell and Larcker, 1981) to
assess the DV by comparing the association among the correlations between variables and
the square root of the AVE of all variables. As Table II shows, the square root values of the
AVE are greater than the correlations between variables, thereby proving good DV. Table II
gives descriptive statistics and correlations among the variables.
Structural model
After examining the validity of the structural model, the hypothesized relationships were
analyzed; Figure 2 depicts the results of the structural regression model with the full data
set. The findings of structural regression model indicate acceptable fit statistics ( χ2/df ¼
1.54, CFI ¼ 0.94, TLI ¼ 0.93, RMSEA ¼ 0.05). The results reveal that procedural justice
( β ¼ 0.29, SE ¼ 0.04, p o0.001), distributive justice ( β ¼ 0.51, SE ¼ 0.03, p o0.001), and
interactional justice ( β ¼ 0.20, SE ¼ 0.04, p o0.001) have positive effects on PO, confirming
H1a–H1c. The model demonstrates that 57.10 percent of the variance exists in PO. PO has a
positive significant impact on KSB ( β ¼ 0.27, SE ¼ 0.05, p o0.01), therefore supports H2.
The model shows that a variance of 19.0 percent exists in KSB. Our results demonstrate that
none of the control variables has a significant effect on KSB.
The results partially support H3. The results in Table III show that the OJ dimensions have
exerted indirect, positive effects on KSB. For instance, interactional justice has a strong
positive indirect effect equal to (0.12, p o0.01), followed by distributive justice (0.07, p o0.05)
and procedural justice (0.08, p o0.05). The significant indirect effects, therefore, show the
mediation of PO among OJ dimensions and KSB. In addition, interactional justice
PR Scale Items no. Factor loadings C’α CR AVE
Procedural justice 0.77 0.83 0.55

Projust1 0.78
Projust2 0.76
Projust3 0.74
Projust4 0.79
Projust5 0.71
Projust6 0.68
Distributive justice 0.78 0.84 0.57
Disjust1 0.81
Disjust2 0.76
Disjust3 0.74
Disjust4 0.72
Interactional Justice 0.82 0.90 0.57
Intjust1 0.82
Intjust2 0.74
Intjust3 0.82
Intjust4 0.78
Intjust5 0.73
Intjust6 0.71
Intjust7 0.68
Psychological ownership 0.84 0.88 0.60
PO1 0.78
PO2 0.85
PO3 0.75
PO4 0.79
PO5 0.68
PO6 0.67
Perceived organizational support 0.73 0.87 0.53
POS1 0.68
POS2 0.78
POS3 0.76
POS4 0.75
Table I. Knowledge sharing intention (KSB) 0.71 0.83 0.56
Factor loadings KSB1 0.68
Cronbach’s α, KSB2 0.67
composite reliability KSB3 0.80
and AVE KSB3 0.83
(0.31, p o0.001) has a significant direct effect on KSB, but the direct effects of procedural and
distributive justice on KSB are not significant. These findings reveal full mediation for
procedural and distributive justice and partial mediation for interactional justice.
Moderation of POS
H4 states that POS moderates the effect of PO on KSB, such that the higher the POS, the
stronger will be the association and vice versa. Table III demonstrates that the interaction
term (PO×POS) has a significant effect on KSB. This shows that the effect of PO on KSB
increases in tandem with POS, which confirms H4.
Figure 3 demonstrates that experiencing a higher level of PO was related with increased
KSB among employees with a high perception of POS. As shown in Table IV, the findings of
a simple slope test illustrate that the effect of PO on KSB varies significantly at lower and
higher levels of POS. At a lower POS, the effect is 0.08 with p W0.05, whereas at a higher
POS the effect is 0.23 with p o0.01.
Variables M S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1. Gender 1.30 0.46 –

2. Age 2.65 1.18 −0.04 –
3. Education 4.81 1.01 0.07 0.10 –
4. Ownership 1.31 0.46 0.00 −0.05 −0.07 –
5. Organizational type 1.46 0.49 0.04 −0.05 0.03 0.09 –
6. Tenure 3.46 1.31 0.11* 0.03 −0.10* −0.01 0.09 –
7. Procedural justice 3.69 0.75 0.04 0.08 −0.03 0.03 0.00 0.12* 0.74
8. Distributive justice 2.93 0.41 −0.02 0.12* −0.05 −0.05 −0.05 0.08 0.48** 0.75
9. Interactional justice 3.58 0.60 −0.02 0.09 0.05 0.06 −0.06 0.03 0.55** 0.47** 0.75
10. Psychological based ownership 3.56 0.78 −0.03 0.06 −0.07 −0.01 0.01 0.11* 0.64** 0.67** 0.60** 0.77
11. POS 3.48 0.76 −0.05 0.11* −0.02 0.09 −0.08 0.07 0.58** 0.48** 0.52** 0.54** 0.72
12. knowledge sharing Behavior 3.35 0.43 −0.05 0.09 −0.01 0.04 −0.09 −0.03 0.19** 0.26** 0.44** 0.27** 0.36** 0.75
Notes: n ¼ 348. Diagonal elements are the square root of average variance of each variable. Pearson correlation is mentioned below diagonal. *po 0.05; **p o0.01
behavior
Knowledge
sharing
Table II.
Descriptive statistics
among constructs
and correlation
PR Perceived
Organizational
Procedural Justice Support
0.29*** 0.15***
Distributive Justice 0.51***

Psychological 0.27*** Knowledge Sharing
Ownership Behavior
R 2 =0.57 R 2 = 0.19
0.20***
0.31***
Interactional Justice
Figure 2.
The research model,
Hypothesized effects
showing standardized
Un-hypothesized significant effects
regression weights
obtained through Notes: The numbers on the paths represent standardized regression weights. Co-variances among
structural equation
modeling independent variables, item-level structure of the constructs and error terms of dependent
variables are not shown, for simplicity and clarity. ***p < 0.001
Dependent variables
Indirect effect of OJ
Independent variable OPO KSB on KSB through PO Remarks
Gender −0.10 0.01

Age 0.12* 0.03
Education −0.05 −0.03
Experience 0.02 0.06
Ownership 0.09 −0.04
Type of organization 0.04 −0.05
Procedural justice 0.29*** 0.05 0.08* Full mediation
Distributive justice 0.51*** 0.09 0.07* Full mediation
Interactional justice 0.20*** 0.31*** 0.12** Partial mediation
Psychological ownership 0.27***
Perceived organizational support 0.24*** Positive
PO×POS 0.15** moderation
Table III. R2 0.57 0.19
Direct, indirect and Notes: n ¼ 348. PO, psychological ownership; KSB, knowledge sharing behavior. *po 0.05; **p o0.01;
moderating effects ***p o0.001
Discussion
This research tried to judge, on one hand, the mediating role of PO between KS and three
forms of OJ (i.e. procedural, distributive and interactional justice), and on the other hand, the
moderating effect of POS on the relationship of PO and KSB. Our findings indicate that OJ
dimensions are positively linked to PO. Also, distributive justice has a high impact on PO as
compared to other sub-dimensions (procedural and interactional justice) of OJ. These results
are consistent with previous research done in organizational settings (Atalay and Özler,
2013). Therefore, the current study confirms that employee perceptions of distributive
justice are effective ingredients in the creation of PO. This study has also found that the
employees attach more importance to the fairness of outcome distributions like salary and
promotion than to procedural and interactional justice. In these conclusions, our results are
5 Knowledge
4.5 sharing
Knowledge sharing behavior
4
behavior
3.5
Low POS
3
High POS
2.5
2 Figure 3.
Interaction of
1.5 psychological
ownership and
1 POS on knowledge
Low Psychological High Psychological sharing behavior
ownership ownership
Effect
Independent variable Dependent variable At lower POS At higher POS
Psychological ownership Knowledge sharing behavior 0.08 0.23** Table IV.

Notes: n ¼ 348. **p o 0.01 Simple slope test
consistent and coherent with past research. For example, Loi et al. (2006) stated that when
employees perceive distributive justice in their organizations they are encouraged to repay
and enhance their self-investment. At the same time, the investment of “ideas, skills and
physical and psychological intellectual energies” can influence the level of PO (Loi et al.,
2006; Pierce et al., 2001, 2003).
The propositions that PO mediates the relationship between OJ dimensions and KSB
were also supported. Our findings suggest that employees who are treated fairly will
develop their selfless essence through their PO with the organization, which ultimately
affects KSB. This result also extends previous literature that places OJ as a direct antecedent
of KSB (Castaneda et al., 2016). Thus, it is argued that the association between OJ and KSB is
much more complex than has been understood in past studies and that the PO is an
important mediator which transfers the positive effect of OJ toward positive work-related
outcomes, such as KSB.
The empirical analysis showed the moderating role of POS between PO and KSB. Our
results indicate that higher levels of POS strengthen the relationship between PO and KSB.
Employees who perceive a low level of ownership are likely to report intentions to leave the
organization (Olckers and Enslin, 2016) and behave defiantly, which might be harmful to the
organization, and the individuals will feel more PO if they perceive that their work
environment was supportive. This study also supports the SET where employees are
supposed to show a cooperative behavior with their organization provided that they perceive
POS (Eisenberger et al., 2001). The theory elucidates that individuals will strive hard for their
personal and organizational goals (Marler et al., 2009). Based on the study of Rhoades and
Eisenberger (2002), an organization’s conditions and benefits contribute more to extra-role
behaviors if an individual perceives that it is a voluntary organizational action, and not
due to the norm or a right – a gift rather than an obligation. If employees’ perceptions
regarding organizational support are high, their intention toward KS will be increased.
In sum, the connection between PO and KSB is strengthened when POS grows higher.
PR Our results also explains that individuals who perceive competitively low level of ownership
are lacking in work-related energy resources (Mayhew et al., 2007), the findings of this research
further suggest that they are capable of recovering any losses with the support which they
receive from their organization. Theoretically speaking, the current study provides the first
evidence that there is a direct effect of POS on KSB, especially in the context of Pakistan. The
POS result justifies the view that if organizations value the contributions of employees and
care about their welfare, the employees will be more willing to develop KSB. The results
support the significance of POS in creating positive work behavior and enhanced performance
(Lavelle et al., 2009; Tremblay et al., 2010). Therefore, an environment that encourages
individuals to share past experiences, expertise, ideas or even routine life-related stories will
eventually encourage KSB.
Implications for practitioners and researchers

The results of the current research provide a foundation stone that relates employee
cognition and behavior. Practitioners and researchers can use these findings in various
aspects. First, the study encourages practitioners to give attention to the fair distribution of
perks, salaries, and employee promotions. Perceptions regarding injustice can hinder the
feeling of ownership and employee involvement that ultimately influence employees’ KS
behavior. Second, HRM practices should enhance the employees’ sense of ownership and
encourage them to share knowledge with co-workers and team members. However, HR
managers must pay special attention to designing suitable incentives to motivate
individuals to share their core-interest-associated knowledge (Li et al., 2015; Whicker and
Andrews, 2004). Third, through providing fairness in procedures and compensation to
employees, management can create the perception of equality which will help to encourage
the organization’s workers to share knowledge. Promoting a sense of fairness means that
apart from building employee emotional attachments to the firm through establishing
comprehensive compensation mechanisms that improve employee well-being and
performance, management should also establish rules and programs to inspire employee
participation in decision making.
Fourth, because our research states that there is a positive influence of PO on KSB,
management should encourage to assist individuals to develop a long-term career
development path that corresponds to the objective of organizational future development.
This approach aims to encourage employees to share their knowledge with team members
and co-workers. Last, this study provides an empirical examination of the moderating role of
POS between PO and KSB. The findings advance the understanding that POS strengthens the
effect of PO such that a high level of POS increases KS for those individuals who are subject to
low feelings of ownership. Moreover, the results suggest that management and supervisors
should value employees’ contributions, take care of workforce welfare and create an
innovative climate that can help to resolve employees’ routine job-related issues. Such an
environment will definitely help employees to willfully share their knowledge in the
organization. The HR department might consider certain programs, such as a flexible
organizational design that motivates individuals to collaborate with co-workers and helps
share their knowledge with each other in the organization (Han et al., 2010).
Limitation and future research

This research has limitations that future research might be able to overcome. First, most of
the valid responses in our sample were from relatively young respondents. This may
influence the findings, as younger employees might have strong intentions to share
knowledge but they truly have insufficient knowledge accumulation. However, the
researchers took this concern into account by controlling for both age and tenure of workers
in the calculations. Future researchers should collect data from a sample with more balanced
age structure and analyze the impact of these factors on KS. Second, the researchers Knowledge
recognize that this study was done in the Pakistani national context, which might not offer sharing
an appropriate foundation for generalizing the results of this research in other contexts. behavior
Though we considered organizations of varied sizes from different industries and locations
in Pakistan, doing the survey in other countries would provide a greater validity through a
generalization of the results.
Third, the sample that was used in this study meant a single-source self-reported nature of
the data, which impedes us from exploring causal associations among constructs. Future
researchers should measure individual KS behavior using other’s evaluations (i.e. supervisor
ratings). Future researchers could also validate the findings through longitudinal analysis,
since longitudinal frameworks of analysis are considered more appropriate for empirical data
(Li et al., 2015). The study used a quantitative design where future work can focus on
qualitative aspects. This approach provides an opportunity for a more in-depth and richer
explanation of how OJ and PO affect KS over time.
The results of our study suggest several directions and opportunities for future research
in the area of justice perception and KS. Among these, the authors recommend two
interesting possibilities. First, we suggest future research should explore antecedents that
influence psychological territoriality, like key PO (KPO), and which constructs
(e.g. organizational culture) might moderate the association between KPO and KS.
Second, the study primarily investigates the influence of OJ on KS at an individual level, and
so we recommend that future studies should re-test the propositions anticipated in this
study at the team level.
References
Adams, J.S. (1965), “Inequity in social exchange”, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 2,
Academic Press, New York, NY, pp. 267-299.
Ali, A., Wang, H. and Khan, A.N. (2019), “Mechanism to enhance team creative performance through
social media: a transactive memory system approach”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 91,
pp. 115-126.
Ali, A., Wang, H., Khan, A.N., Pitafi, A.H. and Amin, M.W. (2018), “Exploring the knowledge-focused
role of interdependent members on team creative performance”, Asian Business & Management,
pp. 1-24.
Allen, D.G. and Shanock, L.R. (2013), “Perceived organizational support and embeddedness as key
mechanisms connecting socialization tactics to commitment and turnover among new
employees”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 350-369, doi: 10.1002/job.1805.
Anand, N., Gardner, H.K. and Morris, T. (2007), “Knowledge-based innovation: emergence and
embedding of new practice areas in management consulting firms”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 406-428.
Argote, L. and Ingram, P. (2000), “Knowledge transfer: a basis for competitive advantage in firms”,
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 82 No. 1, pp. 150-169.
Aryee, S., Budhwar, P.S. and Chen, Z.X. (2002), “Trust as a mediator of the relationship between
organizational justice and work outcomes: test of a social exchange model”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 267-285.
Aryee, S., Walumbwa, F.O., Mondejar, R. and Chu, C.W. (2015), “Accounting for the influence of overall
justice on job performance: integrating self-determination and social exchange theories”, Journal
of Management Studies, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 231-252.
Atalay, C.G. and Özler, D.E. (2013), “A research to determine the relationship between organizational
justice and psychological ownership among non-family employees in a family business”,
Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 99, Riga, pp. 247-256.
PR Avey, J.B., Avolio, B.J., Crossley, C.D. and Luthans, F. (2009), “Psychological ownership: theoretical
extensions, measurement and relation to work outcomes”, Journal of Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 173-191.
Bartol, K.M., Liu, W., Zeng, X. and Wu, K. (2009), “Social exchange and knowledge sharing among
knowledge workers: the moderating role of perceived job security”, Management and
Organization Review, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 223-240.
Beggan, J.K. (1992), “On the social nature of nonsocial perception: the mere ownership effect”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 229-237.
Bentler, P.M. and Bonett, D.G. (1980), “Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of
covariance structures”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 88 No. 3, pp. 588-606.
Bernstein, P. (1976), Workplace Democratization: Its Internal Dynamics, Comparative Administration
Research Institute, Kent State University Press, OH.
Bies, R.J. and Moag, J.S. (1986), “Interactional justice: communication criteria of fairness”, Research on
Negotiation in Organizations, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 43-55.
Blau, P.M. (1964), Power and Exchange in Social Life, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, p. 352.
Bock, G.-W., Zmud, R.W., Kim, Y.-G. and Lee, J.-N. (2005), “Behavioral intention formation in knowledge
sharing: examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces, and
organizational climate”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 87-111.
Brown, G., Pierce, J.L. and Crossley, C. (2014), “Toward an understanding of the development of
ownership feelings”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 318-338.
Byrne, B.M. (2013), Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and
Programming, Routledge, New York, NY.
Cabrera, E.F. and Cabrera, A. (2005), “Fostering knowledge sharing through people management
practices”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 16 No. 5,
pp. 720-735.
Cao, X., Khan, A.N., Zaigham, G.H. and Khan, N.A. (2018), “The stimulators of social media fatigue
among students: role of moral disengagement”, Journal of Educational Computing Research.
Castaneda, D.I., Ríos, M.F. and Durán, W.F. (2016), “Determinants of knowledge-sharing intention and
knowledge-sharing behavior in a public organization”, Knowledge Management & E-Learnin,
Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 372-386.
Chaudhry, S. (2013), “Managerial career development in a developing host-country context: a study of
American multinationals in Pakistan”, The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 558-578.
Cheung, K.-y. and Ping, L. (2004), “Spillover effects of FDI on innovation in China: evidence from the
provincial data”, China Economic Review, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 25-44.
Chiu, W.C. and Ng, C.W. (1999), “Women-friendly HRM and organizational commitment: a study
among women and men of organizations in Hong Kong”, Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 72 No. 4, pp. 485-502.
Cohen, D. (1998), “Toward a knowledge context: report on the first annual UC Berkeley forum on
knowledge and the firm”, California Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 22-39.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S.G. and Aiken, L.S. (2003), “Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis
for the behavioral sciences”, 3rd ed., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, Mahwah, NJ.
Collins, C.J. and Smith, K.G. (2006), “Knowledge exchange and combination: the role of human resource
practices in the performance of high-technology firms”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 544-560.
Colquitt, J.A. (2001), “On the dimensionality of organizational justice: a construct validation of a
measure”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 3, pp. 386-400.
Colquitt, J.A., Conlon, D.E., Wesson, M.J., Porter, C.O. and Ng, K.Y. (2001), “Justice at the millennium: a meta-
analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86
No. 3, pp. 425-445.
Connelly, C.E. and Kevin Kelloway, E. (2003), “Predictors of employees’ perceptions of knowledge Knowledge
sharing cultures”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 294-301. sharing
Cropanzano, R. and Mitchell, M.S. (2005), “Social exchange theory: an interdisciplinary review”, Journal behavior
of Management, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 874-900.
Cropanzana, R., Bowen, D.E. and Gilliland, S.W. (2007), “The management of organizational justice”,
The Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 34-48.
Cropanzano, R., Byrne, Z.S., Bobocel, D.R. and Rupp, D.E. (2001), “Moral virtues, fairness heuristics,
social entities, and other denizens of organizational justice”, Journal of Vocational Behavior,
Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 164-209.
Cummings, J. (2003), Knowledge Sharing: A Literature Review, The World Bank, Washington, DC,
available at: http://lnweb90.worldbank.org/oed/oeddoclib.nsf/docunidviewforjavasearch/
d9e389e7414be9dd85256dc600572ca0/$file/knowledge_eval_literature_review.pdf/ (accessed
April 15, 2012).
Darroch, J. and McNaughton, R. (2002), “Examining the link between knowledge management practices
and types of innovation”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 210-222.
Davenport, T.H. and Prusak, L. (1998), Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They
KNOW, Harvard Business Press, Boston, MA.
De Clercq, D., Haq, I.U. and Azeem, M.U. (2018), “The roles of informational unfairness and political
climate in the relationship between dispositional envy and job performance in Pakistani
organizations”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 82 No. C, pp. 117-126.
De Cremer, D., Brebels, L. and Sedikides, C. (2008), “Being uncertain about what? Procedural fairness
effects as a function of general uncertainty and belongingness uncertainty”, Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 44 No. 6, pp. 1520-1525.
Dittmar, H. (1992), The Social Psychology of Material Possessions: To have is to be, Harvester
Wheatsheaf and St. Martin’s Press, New York, NY.
Donate, M.J. and Guadamillas, F. (2011), “Organizational factors to support knowledge management
and innovation”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 890-914.
Druskat, V.U. and Pescosolido, A.T. (2002), “The content of effective teamwork mental models in self-
managing teams: ownership, learning and heedful interrelating”, Human Relations, Vol. 55 No. 3,
pp. 283-314.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S. and Sowa, D. (1986), “Perceived orga-nizational support”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71 No. 3, pp. 500-507.
Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P.D. and Rhoades, L. (2001), “Reciprocation of
perceived organizational support”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 1, pp. 42-51.
Erdogan, B. and Enders, J. (2007), “Support from the top: supervisors’ perceived organizational support
as a moderator of leader-member exchange to satisfaction and performance relationships”,
Fang, Y.-H. and Chiu, C.-M. (2010), “In justice we trust: exploring knowledge-sharing continuance
intentions in virtual communities of practice”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 2,
pp. 235-246.
Faraj, S. and Sproull, L. (2000), “Coordinating expertise in software development teams”, Management
Science, Vol. 46 No. 12, pp. 1554-1568.
Fehr, E. and Gächter, S. (2000), “Fairness and retaliation: the economics of reciprocity”, The Journal of
Economic Perspectives, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 159-181.
Folger, R. and Cropanzano, R. (1998), “Organizational justice and staffing decisions: on the horns of the
justice dilemma”, Organizational Justice and Human Resource Management, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 81-107.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Gagné, M. (2009), “A model of knowledge-sharing motivation”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 48
No. 4, pp. 571-589.
PR Garud, R. and Kumaraswamy, A. (2005), “Vicious and virtuous circles in the management of
knowledge: the case of Infosys technologies”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 9-33.
Geisler, E. and Wickramasinghe, N. (2015), Principles of Knowledge Management: Theory, Practice,
and Cases, Taylor & Francis, New York, NY.
Gelens, J., Dries, N., Hofmans, J. and Pepermans, R. (2013), “The role of perceived organizational justice
in shaping the outcomes of talent management: a research agenda”, Human Resource
Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 341-353.
Gibson, C.B., Waller, M.J., Carpenter, M.A. and Conte, J.M. (2007), “Antecedents, consequences, and
moderators of time perspective heterogeneity for knowledge management in MNO teams”,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 28 No. 8, pp. 1005-1034.
Gouldner, A.W. (1960), “The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement”, American Sociological
Review, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 161-178.
Greenberg, J. (1990), “Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity: the hidden cost of pay
cuts”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75 No. 5, pp. 561-568.
Gupta, A.K. and Govindarajan, V. (2000), “Knowledge flows within multinational corporations”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 473-496.

Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B. and Anderson, R. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed., Prentice Hall,
Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Han, T.-S., Chiang, H.-H. and Chang, A. (2010), “Employee participation in decision making,
psychological ownership and knowledge sharing: mediating role of organizational commitment
in Taiwanese high-tech organizations”, The International Journal of Human Resource
Harzing, A.W. et al. (2016), “The bridging role of expatriates and inpatriates in knowledge transfer in
multinational corporations”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 55 No. 4, pp. 679-695.
Helga, D. (1992), The Social Psychology of Material Possessions: To have is to be, Harvester Wheatsheaf,
Hemel Hempstead.
Henssen, B., Voordeckers, W., Lambrechts, F. and Koiranen, M. (2014), “The CEO autonomy–stewardship
behavior relationship in family firms: the mediating role of psychological ownership”, Journal of
Family Business Strategy, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 312-322.
Hinds, P.J., Patterson, M. and Pfeffer, J. (2001), “Bothered by abstraction: the effect of expertise on
knowledge transfer and subsequent novice performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86
No. 6, pp. 1232-1243.
Hsu, C.-L. and Lin, J.C.-C. (2008), “Acceptance of blog usage: the roles of technology acceptance, social
influence and knowledge sharing motivation”, Information & Management, Vol. 45 No. 1,
pp. 65-74.
Ibragimova, B., Ryan, S.D., Windsor, J.C. and Prybutok, V.R. (2012), “Understanding the antecedents of
knowledge sharing: an organizational justice perspective”, Informing Science: The International
Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 183-206.
Islam, T., Attiq, S., Hameed, Z., Khokhar, M.N. and Sheikh, Z. (2018), “The impact of self-congruity
(symbolic and functional) on the brand hate: a study based on self-congruity theory”, British
Food Journal.
Islam, T., Wei, J., Sheikh, Z., Hameed, Z. and Azam, R.I. (2017), “Determinants of compulsive buying
behavior among young adults: the mediating role of materialism”, Journal of Adolescence,
Vol. 61, pp. 117-130, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2017.10.004
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.
Johns, G. (2006), “The essential impact of context on organizational behavior”, Academy of
Johns, G. (2018), “Advances in the treatment of context in organizational research”, Annual Review of Knowledge
Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 21-46. sharing
Jones, D.A. and Martens, M.L. (2009), “The mediating role of overall fairness and the moderating role of behavior
trust certainty in justice–criteria relationships: the formation and use of fairness heuristics in the
workplace”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 30 No. 8, pp. 1025-1051.
Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B.C. and Wei, K.-K. (2005), “Contributing knowledge to electronic knowledge
repositories: an empirical investigation”, MIS Quarterly, pp. 113-143.
King, W.R. and Marks, P.V. (2008), “Motivating knowledge sharing through a knowledge management
system”, Omega, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 131-146.
Khan, I.U., Hameed, Z., Yu, Y., Islam, T., Sheikh, Z. and Khan, S.U. (2018), “Predicting the acceptance of
MOOCs in a developing country: application of task-technology fit model, social motivation, and
self-determination theory”, Telematics and Informatics, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 964-978.
Khan, N.A., Khan, A.N. and Gul, S. (2019), “Relationship between perception of organizational politics
and organizational citizenship behavior: testing a moderated mediation model”, Asian Business
& Management, pp. 1-20.
Konovsky, M.A. (2000), “Understanding procedural justice and its impact on business organizations”,
Journal of Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 489-511.
Kurtessis, J.N., Eisenberger, R., Ford, M.T., Buffardi, L.C., Stewart, K.A. and Adis, C.S. (2017),
“Perceived organizational support: a meta-analytic evaluation of organizational support theory”,
Journal of Management, Vol. 43 No. 6, pp. 1854-1884.
Lavelle, J.J., McMahan, G.C. and Harris, C.M. (2009), “Fairness in human resource management, social
exchange relationships, and citizenship behavior: testing linkages of the target similarity model
among nurses in the United States”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
Vol. 20 No. 12, pp. 2419-2434.
Lee, J.-H., Kim, Y.-G. and Kim, M.-Y. (2006), “Effects of managerial drivers and climate maturity on
knowledge management performance: empirical validation”, Innovative Technologies for
Information Resources Management, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 48-60.
Leventhal, G.S. (1980), “What should be done with equity theory?”, in Gergen, K.J., Greenberg, M.S. and
Willis, R.H. (Eds), Social Exchange, Springer, Boston, MA.
Li, J., Yuan, L., Ning, L. and Li-Ying, J. (2015), “Knowledge sharing and affective commitment: the mediating
role of psychological ownership”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 1146-1166.
Lin, C.-P. (2007), “To share or not to share: modeling tacit knowledge sharing, its mediators and
antecedents”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 70 No. 4, pp. 411-428.
Lin, H.-F. (2007), “Effects of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation on employee knowledge sharing
intentions”, Journal of Information Science, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 135-149.
Liu, N.-C. and Liu, M.-S. (2011), “Human resource practices and individual knowledge-sharing behavior:
an empirical study for Taiwanese R&D professionals”, The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, Vol. 22 No. 04, pp. 981-997.
Loi, R., Hang-Yue, N. and Foley, S. (2006), “Linking employees’ justice perceptions to organizational
commitment and intention to leave: the mediating role of perceived organizational support”,
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 79 No. 1, pp. 101-120.
Lu, L., Lin, X. and Leung, K. (2012), “Goal orientation and innovative performance: the mediating roles
of knowledge sharing and perceived autonomy”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 180-197.
Marler, J.H., Fisher, S.L. and Ke, W. (2009), “Employee self-service technology acceptance: a comparison
of pre-implementation and post-implementation relationships”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 62
No. 2, pp. 327-358.
Masterson, S.S. and Stamper, C.L. (2003), “Perceived organizational membership: an aggregate
framework representing the employee–organization relationship”, Journal of Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 473-490.
PR Masterson, S.S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B.M. and Taylor, M.S. (2000), “Integrating justice and social
exchange: the differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 738-748.
Mattila, J. and Ikävalko, M. (2003), “Participative strategy process in a professional organization and
the concept of psychological ownership”, Proceedings of the 17th Nordic Conference on Business
Studies, Reykjavik.
Mayhew, M.G., Ashkanasy, N.M., Bramble, T. and Gardner, J. (2007), “A study of the antecedents and
consequences of psychological ownership in organizational settings”, The Journal of Social
Psychology, Vol. 147 No. 5, pp. 477-500.
Md-Sidin, S., Sambasivan, M. and Muniandy, N. (2009), “Impact of psychological ownership on the
performance of business school lecturers”, Journal of Education for Business, Vol. 85 No. 1, pp. 50-56.
Michailova, S. and Minbaeva, D.B. (2012), “Organizational values and knowledge sharing in multinational
corporations: the Danisco case”, International Business Review, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 59-70.
Moorman, R.H. and Byrne, Z.S. (2005), “How does organizational justice affect organizational
citizenship behavior?”, in Greenberg, J. and Colquitt, J.A. (Eds), Handbook of Organizational
Justice, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 355-380.

Niehoff, B.P. and Moorman, R.H. (1993), “Justice as a mediator of the relationship between methods of
monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 36
No. 3, pp. 527-556.
Nielsen, P., Rasmussen, P., Chiang, H.-H., Han, T.-S. and Chuang, J.-S. (2011), “The relationship between
high-commitment HRM and knowledge-sharing behavior and its mediators”, International
Journal of Manpower, Vol. 32 Nos 5/6, pp. 604-622.
Nonaka, I., Von Krogh, G. and Voelpel, S. (2006), “Organizational knowledge creation theory:
evolutionary paths and future advances”, Organization Studies, Vol. 27 No. 8, pp. 1179-1208.
Notz, W.W. and Starke, F.A. (1987), “Arbitration and distributive justice: equity or equality?”,
Ohana, M. (2014), “A multilevel study of the relationship between organizational justice and affective
commitment: the moderating role of organizational size and tenure”, Personnel Review, Vol. 43
No. 5, pp. 654-671.
Olckers, C. and Enslin, C. (2016), “Psychological ownership in relation to workplace trust and turnover
intent”, Journal of Psychology in Africa, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 119-126.
Ozler, H., Yilmaz, A. and Ozler, D. (2008), “Psychological ownership: an empirical study on its
antecedents and impacts upon organizational behaviors”, Problems and Perspectives in
Panaccio, A. and Vandenberghe, C. (2009), “Perceived organizational support, organizational
commitment and psychological well-being: a longitudinal study”, Journal of Vocational
Behavior, Vol. 75 No. 2, pp. 224-236.
Peng, H. and Pierce, J. (2015), “Job-and organization-based psychological ownership: relationship and
outcomes”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 151-168.
Pervaiz, A. and Khan, M.S. (2015), “Entrepreneurial relations of Pakistani entrepreneurs: a macroeconomic
and cultural perspective”, SAGE Open, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 1-13.
Pierce, J.L. and Jussila, I. (2011), Psychological Ownership and the Organizational Context: Theory,
Research Evidence, and Application, Edward Elgar Publishing, Northampton, MA.
Pierce, J.L., Kostova, T. and Dirks, K.T. (2001), “Toward a theory of psychological ownership in
organizations”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 298-310.
Pierce, J.L., Kostova, T. and Dirks, K.T. (2003), “The state of psychological ownership: integrating and
extending a century of research”, Review of General Psychology, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 84-107.
Pierce, J.L., O’driscoll, M.P. and Coghlan, A.-M. (2004), “Work environment structure and psychological
ownership: the mediating effects of control”, The Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 144 No. 5,
pp. 507-534.
Pierce, J.L., Van Dyne, L. and Cummings, L. (1992), “Psychological ownership: a conceptual and operational Knowledge
exploration”, paper presented at the Southern Management Association Proceedings, New Orleans, sharing
LA, pp. 203-211.
behavior
Podsakoff, P.M. and MacKenzie, S.B. (1997), “Impact of organizational citizenship behavior on
organizational performance: a review and suggestion for future research”, Human Performance,
Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 133-151.
Podsakoff, P.M. et al. (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.
Porteous, J.D. (1976), “Home: the territorial core”, Geographical Review, Vol. 66 No. 4, pp. 383-390.
Quigley, N.R., Tesluk, P.E., Locke, E.A. and Bartol, K.M. (2007), “A multilevel investigation of the
motivational mechanisms underlying knowledge sharing and performance”, Organization
Science, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 71-88.
Rhoades, L. and Eisenberger, R. (2002), “Perceived organizational support: a review of the literature”,
Rousseau, D.M. and Shperling, Z. (2003), “Pieces of the action: ownership and the changing
employment relationship”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 553-570.

Ruggles, R. (1998), “The state of the notion: knowledge management in practice”, California
Rupp, D.E., Ganapathi, J., Aguilera, R.V. and Williams, C.A. (2006), “Employee reactions to corporate
social responsibility: an organizational justice framework”, Journal of Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 537-543.
Schwaer, C., Biemann, T. and Voelpel, S. (2012), “Antecedents of employee’s preference for knowledge-
sharing tools”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 23 No. 17,
pp. 3613-3635.
Shantz, A., Alfes, K. and Latham, G.P. (2016), “The buffering effect of perceived organizational support
on the relationship between work engagement and behavioral outcomes”, Human Resource
Sieger, P., Bernhard, F. and Frey, U. (2011), “Affective commitment and job satisfaction among non-
family employees: Investigating the roles of justice perceptions and psychological ownership”,
Journal of Family Business Strategy, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 78-89.
Spender, J.-C. and Mahoney, J.T. (2000), “Tacit knowledge in organizations”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 443-446.
Teece, D.J. (2014), “The foundations of enterprise performance: dynamic and ordinary capabilities in an
(economic) theory of firms”, The Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 328-352.
Tekleab, A.G., Takeuchi, R. and Taylor, M.S. (2005), “Extending the chain of relationships among
organizational justice, social exchange, and employee reactions: the role of contract violations”,
Tepper, B.J. and Taylor, E.C. (2003), “Relationships among supervisors’ and subordinates’ procedural
justice perceptions and organizational citizenship behaviors”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 97-105.
Thompson, P., Warhurst, C. and Callaghan, G. (2001), “Ignorant theory and knowledgeable workers:
interrogating the connections between knowledge, skills and services”, Journal of Management
Studies, Vol. 38 No. 7, pp. 923-942.
Tidd, J. (2000), From Knowledge Management to Strategic Competence: Measuring Technological,
Market and Organizational Innovation, Vol. 3, World Scientific Publishing Co Pte Ltd.
Tremblay, M., Cloutier, J., Simard, G., Chênevert, D. and Vandenberghe, C. (2010), “The role of HRM
practices, procedural justice, organizational support and trust in organizational commitment
and in-role and extra-role performance”, The International Journal of Human Resource
PR Tsai, W. and Ghoshal, S. (1998), “Social capital and value creation: the role of intrafirm networks”,
Tseng, S.-M. and Lee, P.-S. (2014), “The effect of knowledge management capability and dynamic
capability on organizational performance”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management,
Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 158-179.
Usoro, A., Sharratt, M.W., Tsui, E. and Shekhar, S. (2007), “Trust as an antecedent to knowledge
sharing in virtual communities of practice”, Knowledge Management Research & Practice, Vol. 5
No. 3, pp. 199-212.
Van den Hooff, B. and De Ridder, J.A. (2004), “Knowledge sharing in context: the influence of
organizational commitment, communication climate and CMC use on knowledge sharing”,
Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 8 No. 6, pp. 117-130.
Van Dyne, L. and Pierce, J.L. (2004), “Psychological ownership and feelings of possession: three field
studies predicting employee attitudes and organizational citizenship behavior”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 439-459.
Walumbwa, F.O., Cropanzano, R. and Hartnell, C.A. (2009), “Organizational justice, voluntary learning
behavior, and job performance: a test of the mediating effects of identification
and leader-member exchange”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 30 No. 8, pp. 1103-1126.
Wang, S. and Noe, R.A. (2010), “Knowledge sharing: a review and directions for future research”,
Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 115-131.
Weiss, A.M. and Heide, J.B. (1993), “The nature of organizational search in high technology markets”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 220-233.
Whicker, L.M. and Andrews, K.M. (2004), “HRM in the knowledge economy: realising the potential”,
Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 156-165.
Xinyan, Z. and Xin, Z. (2006), “Moderating effects of organizational justice to knowledge-based
psychological ownership and knowledge sharing”, Proceedings of the 8th International
Conference on Innovation & Management, pp. 875-879.
Yang, J.-T. (2004), “Job-related knowledge sharing: comparative case studies”, Journal of Knowledge
Yeşil, S. and Dereli, S.F. (2013), “An empirical investigation of the organisational justice, knowledge
sharing and innovation capability”, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 75,
Istanbul, pp. 199-208.
Zhang, X. and Jiang, J.Y. (2015), “With whom shall I share my knowledge? A recipient perspective of
knowledge sharing”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 277-295.
Zhou, J. and George, J.M. (2001), “When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: encouraging the
expression of voice”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 682-696.
Further reading
Cohen, W.M. and Levinthal, D.A. (1990), “Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and
innovation”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 128-152.
Dirks, K.T., Cummings, L.L. and Pierce, J.L. (1996), “Psychological ownership in organizations:
conditions under which individuals promote and resist change”, Greenwich, CT.
Wagner, S.H., Parker, C.P. and Christiansen, N.D. (2003), “Employees that think and act like owners:
effects of ownership beliefs and behaviors on organizational effectiveness”, Personnel
Psychology, Vol. 56 No. 4, pp. 847-871.
Corresponding author
Tahir Islam can be contacted at: kktahir@hotmail.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

Hameed2019.equity Theorypdf

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hameed2019.equity Theorypdf

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Personnel Review

Organizational justice and knowledge sharing behavior: The role of psychological

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The role of psychological ownership and

H1a. Procedural justice perceptions positively relate to the psychological ownership

Distributive justice and psychological ownership

Interactional justice and psychological ownership

Psychological ownership and KS

Mediating role of psychological ownership

Moderating role of POS

Distributive Justice Psychological Knowledge Sharing

Procedural justice 0.77 0.83 0.55

1. Gender 1.30 0.46 –

Distributive Justice 0.51***

Gender −0.10 0.01

Psychological ownership Knowledge sharing behavior 0.08 0.23** Table IV.

Implications for practitioners and researchers

Limitation and future research

Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 473-496.

Justice, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 355-380.

employment relationship”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 553-570.

You might also like