International Journal of Information Management 49 (2019) 45–57

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Information Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijinfomgt

Research Note

Applying artificial intelligence technique to predict knowledge hiding T

behavior
⁎
A. Mohammed Abubakara, , Elaheh Behraveshb, Hamed Rezapouraghdamc, Selim Baha Yildizd
a
College of Business and Social Sciences, Antalya Bilim University, Turkey
b
Faculty of Business and Economics, Eastern Mediterranean University, Northern Cyprus, Via Mersin 10, Turkey
c
School of Tourism and Hotel Management, Bahçeşehir Cyprus University, Northern Cyprus Via Mersin 10, Turkey
d
Faculty of Business, Celal Bayar University, Turkey

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Drawing on psychological ownership and social exchange theories, this study suggests theoretical arguments and
Knowledge hiding behavior empirical evidence for understanding employee reactions to distributive, procedural, and interactional (in)jus-
Service employees tice — three crucial bases of employees’ feelings of social self-worth. Utilizing field data and artificial in-
Artificial intelligence telligence technique, this paper reveals that distributive, procedural, and interactional (in)justice contribute to
Organizational injustice
higher levels of knowledge hiding behavior among employees and that this impact is non-linear (asymmetric).
By reuniting the discourses of organizational justice and knowledge management, this study indicates that
feelings of psychological ownership of knowledge and the degree of social interaction are mechanisms that work
with organizational (in)justice to influence knowledge hiding behavior. The current research may inform con-
temporary theories of business research and provide normative guidance for managers.

1. Introduction example, employees may engage in hiding knowledge to undermine or

Knowledge management (KM) is a prominent resource for sustain-
able competitive advantage in organizations. Individual knowledge and
knowledge sharing are main aspects of knowledge management for
organizational achievement in the information age (Geofroy & Evans,
2017; Witherspoon, Bergner, Cockrell, & Stone, 2013). However, in-
dividuals’ obstruction of knowledge transfer and resistance to con-
tributing knowledge can influence organizational relationships,
creating organizational efficiencies (Huysman & Wulf, 2006) and ne-
gative consequences for employees (Guenter, van Emmerik, & Schreurs,
2014). Recently, scholars have expanded attention beyond knowledge
sharing to examine employees’ “knowledge withholding” (Peng, 2013)
and its motivations and consequences (Černe, Nerstad, Dysvik, &
Škerlavaj, 2014; Connelly & Zweig, 2015; De Geofroy and Evans, 2017;
Kumar and Varkkey, 2018).
Organizations may benefit from employees who feel ownership of
their workplace or other organizational facets. For instance, feelings of
ownership can evoke a sense of responsibility for organizational goals,
prompting protective and stewardship behaviors. However, feelings of
ownership may also have dysfunctional, negative, or unintended con-
sequences for organizations (Pierce, Kostova, & Dirks, 2001). For
retaliate against other employees or to protect their own interests
(Connelly, Zweig, Webster, & Trougakos, 2012). Knowledge hiding is
defined as the deliberate attempt by an individual to conceal or with-
hold knowledge that has been requested by another person, a practice
that threatens organizational outcomes (Connelly et al., 2012).
Knowledge hiding is problematic in the workplace because it pre-
vents organizations from realizing the benefits of knowledge sharing,
such as individual and team creativity and viability (Dong, Bartol,
Zhang, & Li, 2017; Wang, Han, Xiang, & Hampson, 2018a). Conse-
quently, management must develop strategies to reduce it. Employees
who are reluctant to share necessary knowledge with other employees,
however, pose a serious challenge (Connelly & Zweig, 2015). Scholars
investigating this issue have found that employees choose to hide their
knowledge from co-workers and peers for several reasons (Anaza &
Nowlin, 2017; Černe et al., 2014; Černe, Hernaus, Dysvik, & Škerlavaj,
2017; Connelly et al., 2012; Zhao, Xia, He, Sheard, & Wan, 2016; Zhao
& Xia, 2017). These reasons vary but are grounded in norms of secrecy
(Brodt & Sitkin, 2006), intensive competition (Wang et al., 2018a;
Wang, Sun, Shen, & Zhang, 2018b), job insecurity (Serenko & Bontis,
2016), territorial feelings (Brown, Lawrence, & Robinson, 2005), social
cognition (Lin & Huang, 2010), social identity, interpersonal dynamics

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: mohammed.abubakar@antalya.edu.tr (A.M. Abubakar), elaheh.behravesh@emu.edu.tr (E. Behravesh),
hamed.aqdam@cyprus.bau.edu.tr (H. Rezapouraghdam), baha.yildiz@cbu.edu.tr (S.B. Yildiz).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.02.006
Received 24 October 2018; Received in revised form 23 February 2019; Accepted 23 February 2019
Available online 22 March 2019
0268-4012/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A.M. Abubakar, et al.
(Wang, Noe, & Wang, 2014; Zhao & Xia, 2017), and individuals’ per-
ceptions of distrust, reciprocity, and unfairness (Connelly et al., 2012).
Notably, employees withhold knowledge from those they distrust
(Connelly, 2012), and willingness to contribute to teamwork decreases
as mistrust increases (Huo, Cai, Luo, Men, & Jia, 2016).
A vast amount of organizational knowledge is controlled at the in-
dividual level. Because organizations must ensure that employees are
willing to share knowledge, it is crucial for managers and policymakers
to seek strategies for mitigating and controlling employees’ knowledge
hiding behavior, especially in knowledge-intensive industries such as
banking and finance, information technology, and healthcare (Kumar
and Varkkey, 2018). Increased understanding of knowledge hiding
behavior will help organizations develop appropriate HRM practices
(Xiao & Cooke, 2018). Previous research has revealed that antecedents
of knowledge hiding include knowledge-related factors (Černe et al.,
2017), interpersonal factors (e.g., interpersonal distrust (Černe et al.,
2014)), situational factors (e.g., knowledge sharing climate (Connelly
et al., 2012)), and personality traits (Demirkasimoglu, 2015).
However, a consideration of how organizational factors (i.e., orga-
nizational (in)justice) can affect knowledge hiding provides us with a
more complete understanding of why and when this behavior occurs in
organizations. Given this untapped research area, the primary motiva-
tion for this study comes from the need to explore the underlying or-
ganizational (in)justice mechanisms associated with knowledge hiding.
To advance theory, research, and practice on how managers can miti-
gate the effects of knowledge hiding, it is critical to know understand
the nature or sources of knowledge hiding based on organizational
factors such as (in)justice. In the interim, multiple perspectives have
been used independently to suggest the use of social exchange theory
(Parker, Gerbasi, & Cullen-Lester, 2018) and psychological ownership
theory (Peng, 2013; Von der Trenck, 2015) to explore knowledge
hiding,
However, to the best of our knowledge no study has consider the
ability of the theories to work together in explaining knowledge hiding.
Thus, the second aim and contribution of the current investigation is to
address the possibility by which social exchange theory (SET) and
psychological ownership of knowledge (POK) theory interact together
to predict knowledge hiding. This possibility seems to have been ne-
glected so far. Recently a study by Pirkkalainen, Pawlowski, Bick, and
Tannhäuser (2018) highlighted the scarcity of investigations linking
POK with the intention to share knowledge. This article responds to this
call by linking (in)justice and knowledge hiding, by theorizing that
knowledge hiding simply makes employees feel better because it serves
as a mechanism to punish unfair operant in a social setting (Tepper,
Mitchell, & Almeda, 2011). This paper draws upon SET and POK to
explore the relationship between organizational (in)justice and
knowledge hiding behavior.
Third, the focal point of the current study is justice as a key pre-
dictor of knowledge hiding, more specifically, this paper examines how
the three dimensions of organizational (in)justice explains knowledge
hiding behavior in Turkish banks. Fourth, artificial intelligence tech-
niques such as artificial neural networks (ANN) have been used for data
analysis in various fields e.g., economics and finance – for stock pre-
diction (Göçken, Özçalıcı, Boru, & Dosdoğru, 2016), medicine – disease
prediction (Li, Chen, Sun, & Tao, 2015; Weng, Huang, & Han, 2016),
cloud computing adoption (Priyadarshinee, Raut, Jha, & Gardas, 2017),
mobile/social commerce (Hew, Leong, Tan, Ooi, & Lee, 2017; Liébana-
Cabanillas, Marinković, & Kalinić, 2017; Liébana-Cabanillas,
Marinkovic, de Luna, & Kalinic, 2018), workplace withdrawal
(Abubakar, Namin, Harazneh, Arasli, & Tunç, 2017), decision-making
(Duan, Edwards, & Dwivedi, 2019) and supervisor turnover (Quinn,
Rycraft, & Schoech, 2002). Despite its robustness, the knowledge hiding
research stream is devoid of artificial intelligence data analysis tech-
nique. The present research contributes to the literature methodologi-
cally by providing a stringent examination of the causal relationship
between organizational (in)justice and knowledge hiding behavior with
46
International Journal of Information Management 49 (2019) 45–57
artificial intelligence technique.
2. Theory and hypotheses
2.1. Social exchange and psychological ownership of knowledge
Knowledge ownership is a disputed zone for employers and em-
ployees in knowledge-intensive industries. According to Pierce,
Kostova, and Dirks (2001), psychological ownership is a state in which
individuals feel as though the target of ownership or some piece of that
target is theirs. Ownership can be conceptualized as both an objective
and a psychological state (Pierce & Jussila, 2011). Ownership di-
minishes extra-role behavior by motivating counterproductive beha-
viors among incumbent employees (Pierce, Kostova, & Dirks, 2003). In
the context of knowledge, the psychological ownership of knowledge
(POK) among incumbent workers, a feeling of knowledge ownership
(i.e., knowledge, skills, and know-how) and its actual possession (Han,
Chiang, & Chang, 2010; Pierce, Jussila, & Li, 2017), has the tendency to
predict greater knowledge sharing or hiding. Ownership-driven
knowledge hiding occurs through either (1) the overvaluing of knowl-
edge or (2) an anticipated loss of control (Von der Trenck, 2015). Given
this premise, this study theorizes that top management's failure to en-
sure justice across an organization may backfire in the form of knowl-
edge-hiding behavior.
According to Blau (1964), social exchange theory (SET) is an at-
tempt to explain the dynamics involved in the relationships and
transactions between two or more parties. Any intervention into the
reciprocal process of exchanging resources between organizations and
their members can affect employees’ attitudes and behaviors (Cro-
panzano et al., 2016). Thus, positive treatment on the part of employing
organizations in the form of fairness/justice would be reciprocated by
positive employee behaviors, such as knowledge sharing (Cropanzano,
Anthony, Daniels, & Hall, 2017), and vice versa. Employees will tend to
withhold discretionary positive behaviors (i.e., knowledge exchange)
when their organizations or colleagues do not treat them fairly (Khalid,
Bashir, Khan, & Abbas, 2018). Drawing on POK and SET, this study
offers theoretical arguments and empirical evidence in an attempt to
understand employees’ reactions to distributive, procedural, and in-
teractional (in)justice, which are parts of a broader construct, that of
perceived justice (Alexander & Ruderman, 1987; Bies & Shapiro, 1987).
The background regarding the assumptions and the development of the
hypotheses will be discussed in detail in the following section.
2.2. Organizational (In)Justice
Organizational justice is defined as a group's or individual's per-
ception of the fairness of the treatment received from an organization
and the behavioral reaction in response to that perception (James,
1993). Perceived organizational justice represents a cognitive appraisal
concept, which is subject to positive, negative, or non-responsive re-
actions on the part of the appraiser. Organizational justice is oper-
ationalized using three dimensions. Namely, distributive justice refers to
the fairness of the outcomes employees receive. It involves correlating
organizational reactions with specific evaluations and a resulting in-
crease in pay, e.g., performance appraisal. Procedural justice refers to the
fairness of the process used to make decisions and determine which
outcomes employees receive. Lastly, interactional justice involves the
interpersonal and informational interactions among employees (Bies,
1987; Greenberg, 1990; Thibault and Walker, 1975; Konovsky, 2000).
Contemporary organizations expect their employees to share their
knowledge with peers (Cabrera & Cabrera, 2002; Gagné, 2009). Scho-
lars believe that the obstacles complicating the knowledge transfer
process in organizations can be attributed to the characteristics of the
organizational systems at work (Michailova & Husted, 2003; Wolfe &
Loraas, 2008). Some scholars have cited distrust, HRM practices, per-
ceived support, and organizational identification as factors hindering
A.M. Abubakar, et al.
knowledge transfer (Connelly & Zweig, 2015; Koriat & Gelbard, 2014;
Wang et al., 2018a; Wang et al., 2018b). Despite this, empirical evi-
dence is lacking in the literature. Knowledge hiding is not simply the
absence of knowledge sharing. Rather, it is an intentional attempt by an
individual to conceal or withhold requested knowledge from another
person (Connelly et al., 2012; Pan, Zhang, Teo, & Lim, 2018). For ex-
ample, a situation in which an employee provides false information or
pretends not to have the requested information would constitute
knowledge hiding.
2.3. Distributive (in)justice and knowledge-hiding behavior
Distributive (in)justice refers to the fairness of the outcomes re-
ceived (e.g., pay, promotion, and compensation), and it is more strongly
related to reactions to specific outcomes than to reactions to an entire
organization (Folger & Konovsky, 1989; Sweeney & McFarlin, 1993).
According to Connelly and Zweig (2015), knowledge hiding is triplex in
nature, being comprised of (1) evasive hiding, i.e., “where an individual
gives incorrect information or a confounding promise of a complete
answer in the future;” (2) playing dumb, i.e., “where an individual
pretends not to have the requested information;” and (3) rationalized
hiding, i.e., “where an individual provides a justification, saying that
he/she is not allowed to share information or blaming another party.”
Existing scholarly works have consistently shown that trust for an or-
ganization facilitates organizational identity, organizational commit-
ment, and participative and knowledge-sharing behaviors (Cox,
Zagelmeyer, & Marchington, 2006; Han et al., 2010; Meyer, Allen, &
Allen, 1997).
Interestingly, POK is associated with the strength of workers’ claims
about the knowledge they possess. Specifically, distributive in(justice)
impairs organizational social relationships and balance. Under such
circumstances, individuals will be less likely to share knowledge with
their peers to avoid losing control because this knowledge was gained
and is controlled by them (Pierce et al., 2003). This paper advances the
theory that employees may engage in knowledge-hiding behaviors to
restore balance after experiencing distributive injustice. The primary
drivers of such behavior seem to be knowledge ownership and a lack of
trust in the employing organization. This conception centers on the
value of knowledge, ideas, and know-how for the organizations; thus,
knowledge-hiding behaviors impair both peers’ productiveness and
organizational productivity.
Drawing on the tenets of SET, dyadic interactions within organiza-
tions, i.e., employer-employee and employee-employee, are generally
governed by an implicit and unspoken social exchange (Blau, 1964).
Thus, organizations are setting for transactions (Cropanzano, Howes,
Grandey, & Toth, 1997) in which individuals recognize at least two
imperative exchange partners, the organization and peers. Unfair work
outcomes resulting from distributive injustice trigger the development
of a mindset of distrust. Just as trust and distrust are opposites, so are
the positive and negative reciprocity present in organizational settings.
Unfair treatment is associated with unfavorable work attitudes and
behaviors (Konovsky, 2000). Employees often engage in reciprocating
counterproductive behaviors in their work settings because this enables
them to penalize unfair partners in a social setting and makes them feel
better (Kahneman, Knetsch, & Thaler, 1986). This suggests the essential
need to restore justice when rules and norms are violated (Lerner,
1980), for instance, when workers hide their knowledge. Based on the
norm of reciprocity and related outcomes, distributive injustice can
impair reciprocal norms, thus encouraging knowledge-hiding behavior.
Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis:
H1 (:). Distributive (in)justice has an impact on employee knowledge-
hiding behavior.
47
International Journal of Information Management 49 (2019) 45–57
2.4. Procedural (in)justice and knowledge-hiding behavior
In the literature of organizational justice, procedural justice refers to
the fairness of the process, formal policies, or procedures via which
decisions are made (Konovsky, 2000) and outcomes are allocated.
Procedural fairness concentrates on the relationship between em-
ployees and their organization (Cropanzano, Prehar, & Chen, 2002)
and, accordingly, tends to be a good predictor of reactions to an entire
organization (Folger & Konovsky, 1989) and human resource systems
(Sapienza & Korsgaard, 1996). Organizations are forums for transac-
tions; individuals form perceptions about the fairness of the transac-
tions with their exchange partners, such as their company. A formal
procedure is established by organizations, and procedural justice is
associated with an organization as whole. Therefore, a social exchange
perspective can help in establishing that procedural justice should be
associated with responses to an organization as a whole.
As stated earlier, POK theory indicates that the situational and in-
dividual factors that foster psychological ownership are context driven
(Pierce et al., 2003). The strength of employees’ claims regarding the
possession of knowledge may vary in the workplace based on the justice
or injustice of an organization's procedures. In other words, procedural
justice refers to the perceived fairness of the allocation process that
leads to outcomes (e.g., promotion), and it can enhance perceived
fairness, even if the outcomes themselves cannot be influenced (Thibaut
& Walker, 1975); it may even affect the knowledge-hiding behaviors of
employees. Specifically, employees may engage in knowledge-hiding
behavior as a strategy with which to cope with the unfairness they
encounter in their organization's procedures.
According to SET, the feeling of being treated fairly by an organi-
zation will make subordinates more occupied with their work because
reasonable authoritative systems can improve the level of trust and
certainty within an organization. This encourages positive attitudes and
behaviors in the workplace (He, Zhu, & Zheng, 2014). As suggested by
Konovsky and Pugh (1994), the use of fair procedures exhibits an or-
ganization's respect for the dignity and rights of its employees. Orga-
nizational procedural justice can increase employees’ knowledge-
sharing behavior because employees’ discretionary behaviors, such as
sharing knowledge according to the rules of reciprocation, will be en-
hanced when employees are treated genuinely by an organization
(Schepers & Van den Berg, 2007; Wang & Noe, 2010). According to the
above discussion, it is reasonable to assume that the fairness of an or-
ganization's procedures and process in terms of allocating outcomes
leads to reciprocal employee organizational behaviors, such as the
avoidance of knowledge-hiding behavior. Thus, the following hypoth-
esis is proposed:
H2 (:). Procedural (in)justice has an impact on employee knowledge-
hiding behavior.
2.5. Interactional (in)justice and knowledge-hiding behavior
Interactional (in)justice is the third dimension of justice that is
perceived by employees. Bies and Moag (1986) advanced the justice
literature by introducing the concept of “Interactional Justice,” which
includes the quality of the interpersonal interactions between in-
dividuals. It shapes employees’ reactions to their immediate work en-
vironment, their supervisors, and their peers (Masterson, Lewis,
Goldman, & Taylor, 2000). Interactional justice is most likely to occur
when superiors or group members treat employees with interpersonal
dignity, provide justifications or explanations for all actions, discuss
implications, and engage in honest transactions with employees
(Cropanzano et al., 2002). This explains why Connelly et al. (2012)
stress the importance of social relationships at work. Surprisingly, the
nature of the association between interactional (in)justice and knowl-
edge-hiding behavior is still unknown.
One encouraging aspect of the present study that extends beyond
A.M. Abubakar, et al.
the previous research is that the relationship between interactional (in)
justice and knowledge-hiding behavior is explored using POK theory
and SET. Knowledge is acquired and controlled by individuals.
Individuals tend to treat knowledge as their personal property (Peng,
2013). According to POK theory, individuals can create feelings of
ownership over anything they have acquired by spending time and
energy or have within their control. The fairness of interpersonal
treatment (Martínez-Tur, Peiró, Ramos, & Moliner, 2006) may de-
termine whether employees tend to hide knowledge from their orga-
nizations and/or peers. Thus, if employees perceive interactional (in)
justice, they will be reluctant to share their property with others.
Drawing from SET, the interpersonal mechanisms involved in
dyadic interaction and dyadic social exchange are an imperative part of
the current study and have been considered a prominent factor in
knowledge hiding. According to SET, social interaction and treatment
are the lifelines of quality workplace relationships, which may spill into
other important organizational domains. Thus, employee perceptions of
interpersonal treatment and interactions are important because they
shape several employee and organizational outcomes. For instance,
employees may engage in hiding or withholding knowledge from those
with whom they interact, e.g., supervisors and/peers. In the current
study, we propose that this reciprocal justice loop applies to situations
in which an employee requires information and knowledge. Individuals
who have feelings of injustice and distrust are more likely to reciprocate
and hide knowledge in return. Based on the above reasoning, the fol-
lowing hypothesis was proposed:
H3 (:). Interactional (in)justice has an impact on employee knowledge-
hiding behavior.
The research model and hypotheses are presented in Fig. 1.
3. Methods
3.1. Data collection and sampling procedure
One of the cutting edge human technological and scientific inven-
tions was the Internet technology, with various contribution to man
ranging from economic, social, technology to cultural facets. The fur-
ious competition on price and service to attract the consumers has in-
tensified the nature of competition in the sector. The competitive,
labor-intensive and information-intensive nature of the banking in-
dustry makes it suitable to investigate knowledge hiding behavior. The
research instruments were developed in English and back-translated to
Turkish by two bilingual Academics. Utilizing simple random sampling
technique, 152 valid responses were retrieved from bank employees in
the Aegean region of Turkey. Confidentiality of the respondents were
Fig. 1. Conceptual model.
48
International Journal of Information Management 49 (2019) 45–57
assured to abate the potential effects of common method bias. In ad-
dition, a self-reported design was adopted in this study because per-
ceived organizational (in)justice and knowledge hiding behavior are
private and sensitive issues, which are best known by the employee
alone (Chan, 2009; Conway & Lance, 2010).
3.2. Instruments
Knowledge Hiding Behavior has 3 dimensions namely: evasive
hiding, rationalized hiding and playing dumb, each of these dimensions
were measured with 4 items each adopted from (Connelly et al., 2012)
work. Employees were asked to respond using a 7-point scale (1
strongly disagree to 7 strongly agree) the value that reflects their be-
haviors in a specific situation and interaction with co-workers. Items
are presented in Table 1.
Organizational (In)Justice encompasses three dimensions: dis-
tributive, procedural, and interactive justice. Distributive justice (DJ)
was measured with five items, procedural justice (PJ) with six items
and interactive justice (IJ) was measured with nine items adopted from
(Niehoff & Moorman, 1993). These items have been validated in Turkey
by (Gürbüz & Mert, 2009). Participants were asked to rate (in) justice
scale based on to their perception using a 7-response point that spans
from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. Items are presented
in Table 1.
3.3. Demographic variables
Of the 152 responses, 59.2% are male and the rest are female em-
ployees. Age wise, 36.8% are between 31 and 40, 34.9% are between 21
and 30, 15.1% are between 41 and 50, 9.2% are above 50 and the rest
less than 20 years old. In terms of marital, 64.5% are either married or
divorced and the rest are single. Approximately, 30.3% are earning less
than 3,000TL monthly; 27% are earning between 3000 and 4,999TL
monthly; 22.4% are earning between 5000 and 6999 TL; 9.9% are
earning between 7000 and 8999 TL; and the rest more than 9000 TL.
About 53.3% of the respondents have bachelor's degrees, 33.6% have
higher degrees, 4.6% are high school graduates and the rest have some
college degrees. Approximately, 30.9% of the respondents have more
than 9 years organizational tenure; 27% have between 1 and 4 years;
23.7% have between 5 and 8 years; and the rest less than a year.
3.4. Artificial intelligence analysis
Partial least squares (PLS) regression is an addendum to the general
stepwise, generalized and multiple linear regression modeling. These
modeling techniques operate based on the effect of predictor variables
A.M. Abubakar, et al. International Journal of Information Management 49 (2019) 45–57

Table 1
Scale items.
Cronbach alpha-α Mean

Distributive justice (DJ) 0.903 3.521

“My work schedule is fair”
“I think that my level of pay is fair”
“I consider my work load to be quite fair”
“Overall, the rewards I receive here are quite fair”
“I feel that my job responsibilities are fair”
Procedural justice (PJ) 0.928 3.749
“Job decisions are made by the general manager in an unbiased manner”
“My general manager makes sure that all employee concerns are heard before job decisions are made”
“To make job decisions, my general manager collects accurate and complete information”
“My general manager clarifies decisions and provides additional information when requested by employees”
“All job decisions are applied consistently across all affected employees”
“Employees are allowed to challenge or appeal job decisions made by the general manager”
Interactional justice (IJ) 0.972 4.201
“When decisions are made about my job, the general manager treats me with kindness and consideration”
“When decisions are made about my job, the general manager treats me with respect and dignity”
“When decisions are made about my job, the general manager is sensitive to my personal needs”
“When decisions are made about my job, the general manager deals with me in a truthful manner”
“When decisions are made about my job, the general manager shows concern for my rights as an employee”
“Concerning decisions made about my job, the general manager discusses the implications of the
decisions with me”
“The general manager offers adequate justification for decisions made about my job”
“When making decisions about my job, the general manager offers explanations that make sense to me”
“My general manager explains very clearly any decision made about my”
Knowledge hiding behavior (KHB) 0.906 2.446
Evasive hiding: In a specific situation, I. . .
“Agreed to help him/her but never really intended to”
“Agreed to help him/her but instead gave him/her information different from what s/he wanted”
“Told him/her that I would help him/her out later but stalled as much as possible”
“Offered him/her some other information instead of what he/she really wanted”
Playing dumb: In a specific situation, I. . .
“Pretended that I did not know the information”
“Said that I did not know, even though I did”
“Pretended I did not know what s/he was talking about”
“Said that I was not very knowledgeable about the topic”
Rationalized hiding: In a specific situation, I. . .
“Explained that I would like to tell him/her, but was not supposed to”
“Explained that the information is confidential & only available to people on a particular project”
“Told him/her that my boss would not let anyone share this knowledge”
“Said that I would not answer his/her questions”

(i.e., X's) on response variable (i.e., Y), with the following equation: Liébana-Cabanillas et al., 2018; Priyadarshinee et al., 2017; Raut,
Priyadarshinee, Gardas, & Jha, 2018), because it outperformed tradi-
Y = b0 + b1 X1 + b2 X2 + …+bp Xp
tional methods such as regression, linear modeling, CB-SEM and PLS-
SEM.
These modeling techniques were designed to meet convergent and
This is primarily due to its ability to detect both linear and non-
divergent validity as well as canonical correlation assumptions. These
linear relationships (Abubakar, 2018) couple with (1) high predictive
assumptions and methods “impose restrictions such that (1) factors
accuracy and validity predictions, (2) fast learning and accurate pre-
underlying the Y and X variables are extracted from the Y’Y and X’X
dictions – ANN can acquire new learning and store this memory (3)
matrices, respectively, and never from cross-product matrices involving
exerts reliability dominance over regression, CB-SEM and PLS-SEM, (4)
both the Y and X variables, and (2) the number of prediction functions
ANN is less restrictive in nature – no mandate for factor loadings,
can never exceed the minimum of the number of Y variables and X
normality assumptions, linearity, homoscedasticity, lack of power,
variables” (Hill & Lewicki, 2007, pg. 234). PLS is among the least re-
sample error and sample size (Abubakar et al., 2017; Abubakar,
strictive multivariate modeling technique. According to StatSoft (2013),
Karadal, Bayighomog, & Merdan, 2018; de la Paz-Marín, Campoy-
“in PLS regression, prediction functions are represented by factors ex-
Muñoz, & Hervás-Martínez, 2012), (5) fault tolerance – ANN can ac-
tracted from the Y’XX’Y matrix. The number of such prediction func-
commodate samples with great individual differences (Li et al., 2015),
tions that can be extracted typically will exceed the maximum of the
and (6) ANN has good generalization capabilities – robustness against
number of Y and X variables”.
noisy or missing data (Göçken et al., 2016).). These attractive features
A vast majority of research in the field of knowledge management
of ANN contribute to its versatility, more specifically, this implies that it
and information systems rely on methods such as regression, covar-
is largely insulated from statistical flaws and myths applicable to tra-
iance-based (CB-SEM) and partial least squares (PLS-SEM) structural
ditional methods. Scholars (i.e., Xiao & Cooke, 2018) have urged re-
equation modeling to test for causal-relationships (e.g., Černe et al.,
searchers to utilize variety of methods diagnosing or predicting
2014; Černe et al., 2017; Khalid et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2018a; Wang
knowledge hiding behavior citing that doing so may reduce the nuances
et al., 2018b; Zhao & Xia, 2017). Despite the widely acceptance of these
in knowledge hiding researches.
methods, they have the possibilities of over-simplifying the complex-
This paper responds to this call by employing ANN because it out-
ities in decision-making processes (Haykin, 1999; Abubakar et al.,
smarts other techniques such as regression, PLS-SEM and CB-SEM,
2017). As an artificial intelligence tool, ANN has recently gained mo-
while performing estimations with high level of accuracy (Abubakar
mentum from information systems and knowledge management re-
et al., 2017). The capability of ANN to model complex interactions with
searchers (i.e., Duan et al., 2019; Liébana-Cabanillas et al., 2017;

49
A.M. Abubakar, et al.
flexible non-linear response values gave the method superior predictive
power in comparison to traditional methods (Liébana-Cabanillas et al.,
2017; Hew et al., 2017; Olden & Jackson, 2002; Taneja & Arora, 2019).
Apart from the fact that ANN can detect non-linear functional re-
lationships that are hidden in case data, ANN's are able to apply these
relationships to new data (de la Paz-Marín et al., 2012). Knowledge
hiding and organizational (in)justice are complex issues, as such, ANN
seems suitable to test these variables.
More subtly, ANNs are information processing systems that com-
prise a certain number of information processing units (also “cells,”
“neurons”) that incorporate mathematical functions and are connected
by directed weighted links (Strohmeier & Piazza, 2015). ANNs con-
stitute a category of knowledge discovery that is able to solve clus-
tering, classification, estimation and prediction tasks (Haykin, 1999).
The information processing units are usually organized in layers, with
an input layer to provide the input data, one or more hidden layers to
process the data through the neural network and an output layer to
provide the result (Abubakar, 2018).
ANN can forecast both symmetric and asymmetric relationships
with nearly 100% accuracy, and without a mandate for multivariate
assumptions e.g., homoscedasticity, normality, and linearity
(Abubakar, 2018). Additionally, this strength of ANN as an AI method
may help overcome the problem of common method bias in knowledge
management studies, since research models can be simulated and in
each case a test for accuracy in prediction can be conducted. It is on this
premises that this study combines PLS package (i.e., plsr) and ANN (i.e.,
neuralnet) in R to predict knowledge hiding behavior among bank
employees. PLS regression is used for factor structuring and to under-
stand the explained variance of predictor variables on a response
variable; and ANN is used in modeling and testing the accuracy of the
research model. 75:25% ratio of the collated data is assigned for
training and testing following the procedures adopted by prior studies
(i.e., Abubakar et al., 2017; Liébana-Cabanillas et al., 2017; Liébana-
Cabanillas et al., 2018; Raut et al., 2018).
The author utilized two cross-validation estimates, CV is the or-
dinary CV estimate, and adjCV is the bias-corrected estimate. The root
mean squared errors of prediction (RMSEP) were estimated during the
cross-validation process for the PLSR models. The probable prediction
errors for the new samples were estimated using cross-validation. The
cross-validation was repeated ten times by which data from each of the
subsample group used exactly once for validating the model. Average of
ten iterations was reported for the model performance. In Table 2, a 3-
components leave-one-out (LOO) cross-validated prediction analytics is
illustrated. Root Mean Square Error of Prediction (RMSEP) value 1.37
suggest that the 3-components model is reliable as it does not differ
significantly from 1 or 2-components model. RMSEP values are
Table 2
PLS coefficients.
(Intercept) 1 comps 2 comps
Data: X dimension : 114-3
Y dimension : 114-1
Fit method : kernelpls
VALIDATION: RMSEP
Cross-validated
using 10
RANDOM
segments
CV 1.310 1.335 1.375
adjCV 1.310 1.333 1.370
TRAINING: % variance
explained
X - 75.720 95.036
Knowledge hiding - 1.035 1.046
behavior
Note: Fit method = kernelpls; RMSEP = RMSEP stands for Root Mean Square
Error of Prediction.
International Journal of Information Management 49 (2019) 45–57
illustrated diagrammatically in Fig. 2. The result shows that component
1, 2, and 3 explained 75.72%, 19.32%, and 4.96% of the variance in
knowledge hiding behavior. To visualize the explained variance the
following functions were utilized (see Fig. 3). The test data model
produces an RMSEP of 1.25. The algorithm (codes) used are provided in
Appendix 1.
ANN modeling was conducted using a Multi-Layer Perceptron with
3:2 hidden nodes and Resilient Backpropagation with Weight
Backtracking algorithm. Logistic function was used as the activation
function for both hidden and output layer, and Sum Squared Errors
(SSE) was used as differentiable error function. The algorithm (codes)
used is provided in Appendix 1. Training data used was 75% and 25%
for testing, the synaptic weights of the input nodes on the hidden and
output nodes are shown in Fig. 4. The objective of this algorithm is to
minimize error until the ANN learns through the learning or training
process. During the training process, random synaptic weights were
assigned to the connections and the aim is to adjust them to obtain
minimal error. The training process needed 372 steps until all absolute
partial derivatives of the error function were smaller than 0.010. ANN
are difficult to work with, for example, visually they suffer from a
problem of serious clutter, making the interaction weights mostly ille-
gible (Beck, 2013).
In addition, the plot.nn function we used has some undesirable
behavior (Beck, 2015) in terms of interpretation. ANN experts (i.e.,
Alice, 2015; Günther & Fritsch, 2010) suggested that distribution of the
generalized weights is easy and useful in interpreting the nature of the
predictor variable effect on the response variable. This is because the
weight parameters are the knowledge carriers that keep the learning
results. The generalized weights were evaluated based on closeness to
or below 0, all the generalized weights for the predictor variables were
mostly above 0. The distributions of the generalized weights illustrated
in Fig. 5 shows that predictor variables exert a non-linear effect on the
response variable. More specifically, the impact of organizational in
(justice) on knowledge hiding behavior is non-linear (asymmetric).
Table 4 illustrate that low and moderate distributive justice are
more likely to trigger knowledge hiding behavior when compared with
higher distributive justice. The lower the procedural justice, the higher
the tendency of employees to exhibit knowledge hiding behavior; and
moderate procedural justice is likely to trigger mediocre knowledge
hiding behavior as opposed to higher procedural justice. Low inter-
personal justice is less likely to knowledge hiding behavior, the results
denote that low and high interpersonal justice are likely to cause slight
effect, more specifically, some level of employee's knowledge hiding
behavior might be exhibited. However, moderate level of interpersonal
justice is more likely to trigger knowledge hiding behavior than low and
high. Cross validation is another important step for building predictive
models. To avoid over-fitting, a 10-fold cross-validation modeling with
a ratio of 75:25 data for training and testing of predictions was con-
ducted. Mean Square of Error (MSE) from ten networks was used to
3 comps
examine the accuracy of the model. Table 3 shows that MSE stretches
from 0.026 to 0.046 for training and 0.009 to 0.030 for testing. Based
on this outcome, we concluded that the model is reliable in predicting
output variable and that the present predictions are reliable since the
MSE are closer to .000. Thus, all hypotheses [1, 2 and 3] received
empirical support.
4. Discussion
1.377
1.373 Knowledge management within organizations is challenging and
imperative in today's knowledge-based economy. Understanding the
dynamics of knowledge exchange within organizations can help man-
100.000 agers and policy makers to design systems and apply processes facil-
1.046
itating knowledge sharing. Organizations expect their employees to
share their knowledge with their colleagues (Cabrera & Cabrera, 2002;
Gagné, 2009; Hwang, Lin, & Shin, 2018). However, the “intellectual
assets” of employees do not belong to organizations, so these
50
A.M. Abubakar, et al.
Fig. 2. Knowledge hiding predictor components maximization.
Fig. 3. Explained variance of the predictor variables on the response variable.
organizations cannot force workers to transfer their knowledge to other
organization members (Kelloway & Barling, 2000). Knowledge hiding,
although it is not always harmful, does hinder effective knowledge
transfer within an organization (Bogilovic, C, & Skerlavaj, 2017; Černe
et al., 2014; Connelly et al., 2012).
Recently, the issue of “employees’ knowledge withholding” and its
motivations and consequences has attracted a great deal of attention
(Černe et al., 2014; Connelly et al., 2012; Connelly & Zweig, 2015; De
Geofroy and Evans, 2017; Huo et al., 2016; Kumar and Varkkey, 2018;
Serenko & Bontis, 2016). Still, more work is needed. An increased un-
derstanding of knowledge hiding will benefit knowledge management
and human resource management practices in various ways. For in-
stance, affect climate has been shown to be a determinant of personal
mood and is defined as “employees’ shared perception of organizational
aspects such as policies, practices and routines, as well as the behaviors
that are expected, supported or rewarded regarding their affective ex-
pressions or experiences” (Parke & Seo, 2017, 335). Xiao and Cooke
(2018) argue that this could be linked to knowledge hiding among
employees. Previous research has claimed to explore the factors that
51
International Journal of Information Management 49 (2019) 45–57
predict knowledge hiding, but the antecedents of knowledge hiding in
non-Western countries have not been widely investigated. Thus, we
extend the literature by identifying a potential antecedent and, in doing
so, interrogating concepts developed in the Western World.
In addition, affect climate is closely intertwined with organizational
(in)justice. Thus, exploring this link will aid organizations in designing
and implementing knowledge-management practices to foster knowl-
edge sharing and decrease hiding behavior. The current study extends
the literature on knowledge-hiding behavior empirically by examining
the role of organizational in(justice) in predicting banking employees’
knowledge-hiding behaviors. This study highlights the contextual ap-
plication of artificial intelligence (AI) techniques in an organizational
setting to help predict organizational behavior. Using primary data, a
normative conceptual model that seeks to determine whether organi-
zational (in)justice can instigate employee knowledge-hiding behavior
is used. Several evaluations and prototypes reveal the application of AI
to be a knowledge-discovery technique in human resource management
(HRM) research (e.g., Fan, Fan, Chan, & Chang, 2012; Lawler & Elliot,
1996; Quinn et al., 2002; Strohmeier & Piazza, 2015).
A.M. Abubakar, et al. International Journal of Information Management 49 (2019) 45–57

Fig. 4. Artificial neural network modeling.

Xiao and Cooke's (2018) meta-analysis, drawn from published work Table 3
on knowledge hiding, shows that only a few studies have been con- Neural network - MSEs.
ducted on the subject of knowledge hiding. Of the 52 papers sampled, Neural network Training Testing
17 articles (33%) used qualitative methods, two (4%) used mixed
methods, and the remainder (63%) used quantitative methods. More- 1 0.046 0.014
over, most of these quantitative studies adopted a linear approach, e.g., 2 0.026 0.030
3 0.038 0.022
structural equation modeling, regression, and/or ANOVA. Xiao and 4 0.041 0.009
Cooke (2018) urged future research to adopt a variety of methods to 5 0.033 0.012
cater to investigations with different themes and levels of analysis re- 6 0.042 0.012
garding knowledge hiding. The deployment of (artificial neural net- 7 0.039 0.016
8 0.029 0.013
works) in knowledge management studies for behavior prediction is
9 0.038 0.019
scarcely discussed in the literature. For instance, Zhao and Xia (2017) 10 0.039 0.030
argue that the relationship between ostracism and knowledge hiding is Mean MSE 0.037 0.018
curvilinear. In response to the above-mentioned call, this study uses
ANNs to explore whether the effect of organizational (in)justice on Notes: Input nodes – distributive, procedural and interactional (in)justice;
knowledge hiding behavior is non-linear. The findings are imperative output node – knowledge hiding behavior.
because the central paradox in knowledge management studies is the
issue of linearity. Existing studies most commonly relate variables

Fig. 5. Distribution of the generalized weights.

52
A.M. Abubakar, et al.
Table 4
Non-linear effect of organizational in(justice) on knowledge hiding behavior.
Exogenous variables Low Moderate High
Distributive justice High Effect High Effect Slight effect
Procedural justice High Effect Moderate Effect Slight effect
Interpersonal justice Slight Effect High Effect Slight Effect
linearly, ignoring the simple fact that human behavior is inconsistent
and full of uncertainty. The present study contributes to the existing
literature by showing that this relationship is non-linear. Our findings
provide empirical support for Serenko and Bontis (2016) and Kumar,
Jha, and Varkkey (2018), who argued that organizational culture and
related factors (i.e., the norm of sharing knowledge, the presence of
social trust, fairness, job insecurity, and justice) are strong determinants
of knowledge-hiding behavior.
4.1. Implications for theory
The contributions of the current study are three-fold. Firstly, in
comparison to knowledge-sharing behavior, the knowledge-hiding
construct is distinct and relatively new. Scholars (Issac & Baral, 2018;
Lanke, 2018) have given knowledge hiding in organizations, especially
its antecedents and consequences, increased attention. In congruence to
this, the current study contributes to the body of existing knowledge by
observing how each component of organizational (in)justice may affect
knowledge hiding in organizations. Secondly, previous studies suggest
that employees with perceptions of fairness in regard to the quality of
workplace interpersonal relationships, information flow, and the allo-
cation and distribution of rewards are less likely to exhibit unwanted
behaviors (e.g., Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Hemdi & Nasurdin,
2007). The significant contribution of the study is the association of two
complementary theoretical perspectives, POK theory and SET, which
highlight the positive and negative consequences of knowledge hiding,
respectively. The study applied and connect these unlinked theories to
uncover how (in)justice can trigger knowledge-hiding behavior.
Thirdly, the AI findings of the current study indicate the influence of (in)
justice on knowledge hiding, thereby making significant theoretical
contributions on the methodological front. In summary, this paper ar-
gued that knowledge-hiding prediction using ANNs allows for proactive
knowledge-based HRM. For instance, ANNs have the capacity to predict
and forecast. Predicting and proactively managing the prevalence of
knowledge-hiding behavior can avoid or at least alleviate the severe
downsides of dysfunctional behavior, such as declines in performance,
increased turnover, and declines in the number of innovations and or-
ganizational productivity. Additionally, the costs of recruiting, in-
troducing, training, and mentoring new employees can be alleviated,
which is especially important given intense competition and the current
global economic outlook.
4.2. Implications for practice
SET suggests that knowledge hiding is dependent on the frequency
and quality of social interactions among entities, including the orga-
nization and its members. Firstly, the findings indicate that not only the
distributive and procedural fairness of organizations but also the
quality of interpersonal interactions among supervisors and sub-
ordinates are quite effective in mitigating workplace misbehavior. All
three dimensions of (in)justice help in avoiding the reciprocal distrust
loop. Human resource managers and supervisors have the power to
alleviate the negative effects of knowledge hiding in the workplace by
creating a favorable justice climate, as well as a friendly and knowl-
edgeable work environment. Secondly, the current study suggests that
organizations should have a design process and performance evalua-
tion/reward system that consider both process and outcomes (Simons,
53
International Journal of Information Management 49 (2019) 45–57
Dávila, & Kaplan, 2000). Because of its effect on employees’ perceptions
of fairness, which may subsequently force them to take refuge in
knowledge hiding, the socialization process can be effective in pro-
moting social interactions among employees (Chatman, 1989). Thirdly,
in terms of organizational culture, adopting a teamwork-based ap-
proach can promote interaction and bonding among employees. This
may alleviate knowledge hiding and thus motivate the sharing of
knowledge.
Subsequently, POK theory accepts employees’ claims on the
knowledge and skills they possess. Organizational (in)justice impedes
organizational harmony and social balance. Thus, individuals will be
less likely to share knowledge with peers to avoid losing hard-earned
resources. For instance, a performance-oriented climate was found to be
positively associated with knowledge hiding (Anaza & Nowlin, 2017).
This implies that programs designed to promote work performance and
knowledge sharing do not necessarily reduce knowledge hiding beha-
vior. The findings of the current study have important implications
regarding business practices that can be useful from a managerial
perspective. Firstly, management should ensure that there is a climate in
which employees perceive that the formal processes involved in deci-
sion-making, the allocation of rewards, and the quality of the interac-
tion and information exchange are fair. Secondly, organizations can
develop “information systems” to capture certain types of knowledge
and keep them in data warehouses to ensure equal and fair access for all
employees. Thirdly, managers and practitioners can increase employees’
perceptions of the trustworthiness of their colleagues by granting in-
centives for sharing knowledge, providing managerial support, and
enhancing the level of personal contact with colleagues to improve
organizations’ knowledge-sharing climates. Fourthly, managers must
know that (in)injustice results in knowledge hiding, which results in a
reciprocal distrust loop and leads to further knowledge hiding. Thus, it
is fair to say that (in)injustice augments counterproductive work be-
haviors. For instance, knowledge hiding can inhibit the flow of
knowledge due to retaliation, which can start at the unit level before
expanding to an organization-wide level and even spilling out into the
community. A community, society, or organization characterized by a
high level of knowledge hiding will be less likely to be innovative.
5. Conclusion
Knowledge hiding is inherently risky and can potentially harm or-
ganizational objectives. Building on SET and POK theory, this paper
explained how and when organizational (in)justice may lead to
knowledge-hiding behavior. The results not just advance the knowl-
edge-hiding and organizational (in)justice literature but also demon-
strate the benefits of using an advanced methodological approach e.g.,
ANNs, in studying sensitive issues. Specifically, the results revealed that
distributive, procedural, and interpersonal (in)justice have a non-linear
(asymmetric) impact on knowledge-hiding behavior. These results also
suggest that future research and practice should account for the po-
tential detrimental effects of organizational (in)justice on changes in
knowledge-hiding behavior.
5.1. Limitations and future research courses
This study's limitations provide several opportunities for future re-
search. Although the sample size for this study was mediocre given the
required analysis, the limited number of participants restricted the
generalizability of the current findings. Most empirical and self-report
data are subject to common method bias (CMB). However, the use of an
ANN may have made a profound improvement in terms of abating the
potential effects of CMB due to its complex nature and ability to identify
linear and non-linear relationships. The use of activation functions and
bias functions in training the neural networks and the testing phase also
served as a validation measure. For instance, Weng et al. (2016) argue
that an ANN can significantly improve the generalization ability of
A.M. Abubakar, et al. International Journal of Information Management 49 (2019) 45–57

learning systems via training; the cross-validation and test data pro-
vided by an ANN can help optimize the network parameters and ar-
chitecture (e.g., by reducing residual generalization errors), thereby
allowing for near 100% accuracy and successful application in real-life
decision making (Weng et al., 2016). Additionally, the replication of
this model in other service industries, such as tourism, aviation, and
retailing, as well as using a larger sample size, a time lag design, and
multiple data sources, is recommended.
The obstacles facing the knowledge transfer process in organizations
can be attributed to the characteristics of the associated organizational
systems and the personalities of their members (Michailova & Husted,
2003; Wolfe & Loraas, 2008). This study only observed the organiza-
tional factors linked to employees’ knowledge-hiding behavior. There-
fore, it would be useful for future research to extend this study and
consider personal factors because personality affects people's cognitive,
affective, and behavioral outcomes, such as employees’ deviant beha-
vior at work (Mount, Barrick, Scullen, & Rounds, 2005). In addition to
personal factors, future studies can investigate the process of
information hiding at the team or group level. For instance, in-
vestigating knowledge hiding through the lens of the social network
perspective may be fruitful because networks are components of orga-
nizations. Thus, the strength or weakness of network ties has a tendency
to strengthen or dampen knowledge-hiding behavior. Stronger ties,
which denote closeness and/or friendship, may dampen the level of
hiding (Granovetter, 1977). The literature frequently considers
knowledge hiding from the perspective of the knowledge hider. It will
be imperative to also study the perceptions of knowledge seekers, i.e., a
knowledge seeker's perception that a colleague has deliberately with-
held knowledge from him or her.
Acknowledgements
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The au-
thors have no conflict of interest.

Appendix A. Appendix 1

# Check for missing values

apply(KHBDAT,2,function(x) sum(is.na(x)))
# 75% for training and the rest for testing
index < - sample(1:nrow(KHBDAT),round(0.75*nrow(KHBDAT)))
train1 < - KHBDAT[index,]
test1 < - KHBDAT[-index,]
library(pls)
#Appling partial least squares regression analysis on the model
pls.fit < - plsr(KHB ∼ IJ+DJ+PJ, data = train1, validation = “CV”)
# Generating results
summary(pls.fit)
plot(RMSEP(pls.fit), legendpos = “topright”)
# This functions generates the explained variance in % by each predictor
explvar(pls.fit)
# This plots the explained variance graphically, an extension of the function above
plot(pls.fit, plottype = “scores”, comps = 1:3)
plot(pls.fit, plottype = “coef”, ncomp = 1:3, legendpos = “bottomleft”, xlab = “nm”)
# predicting with test data
#—————————————————————————————————————————
predict(pls.fit, ncomp = 1:3, newdata = test1)
#Appling partial least squares regression analysis on the model
pls.fit < - plsr(KHB ∼ IJ + DJ + PJ, data = test1, validation = “CV”)
# Generating results
summary(pls.fit)
plot(RMSEP(pls.fit), legendpos = “topright”)
######################################
# NEURAL NET FITTİNG
######################################
maxs < - apply(KHBDAT, 2, max)
mins < - apply(KHBDAT, 2, min)
scaled < - as.data.frame(scale(KHBDAT, center = mins, scale = maxs - mins))
train_ < - scaled[index,]
test_ < - scaled[-index,]
library(neuralnet)
nn < - neuralnet (KHB ∼ DJ + PJ + IJ, data = train_, hidden = c(3,2), err.fct = “sse”)
plot(nn)
par(mfrow = c(2,2))
gwplot(nn, selected.covariate = “DJ”, selected.response = “KHB”, min = -5, max = 5)
gwplot(nn, selected.covariate = “PJ”, selected.response = “KHB”, min = -5, max = 5)
gwplot(nn, selected.covariate = “IJ”, selected.response = “KHB”, min = -5, max = 5)
############################FOR TRAİNİNG##########################
set.seed(450)
cv.error < - NULL
k < - 10
library(plyr)
pbar < - create_progress_bar(’text’)
pbar$init(k)
for(i in 1:k)
{
index < - sample(1:nrow(KHBDAT),round(0.75*nrow(KHBDAT)))
train.cv < - scaled[index,]
test.cv < - scaled[-index,]
library(neuralnet)

54
A.M. Abubakar, et al. International Journal of Information Management 49 (2019) 45–57

nn < - neuralnet (KHB ∼ DJ + PJ + IJ, data = train.cv, hidden = c(3,2), err.fct = “sse”)
columns < - c(“DJ”, “PJ”, “IJ”)
covariate < - subset(train.cv, select = columns)
pr.nn < - compute(nn, covariate, rep = 1)
pr.nn < - pr.nn$net.result*(max(train.cv$KHB)-min(train.cv$KHB)) + min(train.cv$KHB)
train.cv.r < - (train.cv$KHB)*(max(train.cv$KHB)-min(train.cv$KHB)) + min(train.cv$KHB)
cv.error[i] < - sum((train.cv.r - pr.nn)^2)/nrow(train.cv)
print(paste(cv.error[i]))
pbar$step()
}
mean(cv.error)
############################FOR TESTİNG##########################
set.seed(450)
cv.error < - NULL
k < - 10
library(plyr)
pbar < - create_progress_bar(’text’)
pbar$init(k)
for(i in 1:k)
{
index < - sample(1:nrow(KHBDAT),round(0.75*nrow(KHBDAT)))
train.cv < - scaled[index,]
test.cv < - scaled[-index,]
library(neuralnet)
nn < - neuralnet (KHB ∼ DJ + PJ + IJ, data = test.cv, hidden = c(3,2), err.fct = “sse”)
columns < - c(“DJ”, “PJ”, “IJ”)
covariate < - subset(test.cv, select = columns)
pr.nn < - compute(nn, covariate, rep = 1)
pr.nn < - pr.nn$net.result*(max(test.cv$KHB)-min(test.cv$KHB)) + min(test.cv$KHB)
test.cv.r < - (test.cv$KHB)*(max(test.cv$KHB)-min(test.cv$KHB)) + min(test.cv$KHB)
cv.error[i] < - sum((test.cv.r - pr.nn)^2)/nrow(test.cv)
print(paste(cv.error[i]))
pbar$step()
}
mean(cv.error)

References characteristics in stimulating innovative work behavior. Human Resource Management

Abubakar, A. M. (2018). Linking work-family interference, workplace incivility, gender
and psychological distress. Journal of Management Development, 37(3), 226–242.
Abubakar, A. M., Karadal, H., Bayighomog, S. W., & Merdan, E. (2018). Workplace in-
juries, safety climate and behaviors: Application of an artificial neural network.
International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, 1–11.
Abubakar, A. M., Namin, B. H., Harazneh, I., Arasli, H., & Tunç, T. (2017). Does gender
moderate the relationship between favoritism/nepotism, supervisor incivility, cyni-
cism and workplace withdrawal: A neural network and SEM approach. Tourism
Management Perspectives, 23, 129–139.
Alexander, S., & Ruderman, M. (1987). The role of procedural and distributive justice in
organizational behavior. Social Justice Research, 1(2), 177–198.
Alice, M. (2015 September). Fitting a Neural Network in R; neuralnet package.
DataScience+ 2016.
Anaza, N. A., & Nowlin, E. L. (2017). What's mine is mine: A study of salesperson
knowledge withholding and hoarding behavior. Industrial Marketing Management, 64,
14–24.
Beck, M. (2015). ‘NeuralNetTools: Visualization and Analysis Tools for Neural Networks’ R
package version 1.4.0. Available at: http://CRAN.R-project.org/
package=NeuralNetTools [Accessed September 2017].
Beck, M. (2013). Visualizing neural networks in R – update. Available at: https://beck-
mw.wordpress.com/tag/neural-network/ [Accessed September 2017].
Bies, R. J. (1987). Interactional justice. In the Oxford Handbook of Justice in the Workplace.
Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness.
Research on Negotiation in Organizations, 1(1), 43–55.
Bies, R. J., & Shapiro, D. L. (1987). Interactional fairness judgments: The influence of
causal accounts. Social Justice Research, 1(2), 199–218.
Blau, P. (1964). Power and exchange in social life. J Wiley & Sons: New York352.
Bogilovic, S. M., Cerne, & Skerlavaj, M. (2017). Hiding behind a mask? Cultural in-
telligence, knowledge hiding, and individual and team creativity. European Journal of
Work & Organizational Psychology, 26(5), 1–14.
Brodt, S., & Sitkin, S. (2006). The paradox of secrecy norms in organizations: When norms are
incomplete, incompatible, and overly-inclusive. Working paper. Kingston, Ontario,
Canada: Queen's University.
Brown, G., Lawrence, T. B., & Robinson, S. L. (2005). Territoriality in organizations.
Academy of Management Review, 30(3), 577–594.
Cabrera, A., & Cabrera, E. F. (2002). Knowledge-sharing dilemmas. Organization Studies,
23(5), 687–710.
Černe, M., Nerstad, C. G., Dysvik, A., & Škerlavaj, M. (2014). What goes around comes
around: Knowledge hiding, perceived motivational climate, and creativity. Academy
of Management Journal, 57(1), 172–192.
Černe, M., Hernaus, T., Dysvik, A., & Škerlavaj, M. (2017). The role of multilevel sy-
nergistic interplay among team mastery climate, knowledge hiding, and job
Journal, 27(2), 281–299.
Chan, D. (2009). So why ask me? Are self-report data really that bad? In C. E. Lance, & R.
J. Vandenberg (Eds.). Statistical and methodological myths and urban legends: Doctrine,
verity and fable in the organizational and social sciences (pp. 311–338). New York:
Routledge.
Chatman, J. A. (1989). Improving interactional organizational research: A model of
person-organization fit. Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 333–349.
Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-
analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(2), 278–321.
Connelly, C. E., & Zweig, D. (2015). How perpetrators and targets construe knowledge
hiding in organizations. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,
24(3), 479–489.
Connelly, C. E., Zweig, D., Webster, J., & Trougakos, J. P. (2012). Knowledge hiding in
organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(1), 64–88.
Conway, J. M., & Lance, C. E. (2010). What reviewers should expect from authors re-
garding common method bias in organizational research. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 25(1), 325–334.
Cox, A., Zagelmeyer, S., & Marchington, M. (2006). Embedding employee involvement
and participation at work. Human Resource Management Journal, 16(3), 250–267.
Cropanzano, R., Anthony, E. L., Daniels, S. R., & Hall, A. V. (2017). Social exchange
theory: A critical review with theoretical remedies. Academy of Management Annals,
11(1), 479–516.
Cropanzano, R., Howes, J. C., Grandey, A. A., & Toth, P. (1997). The relationship of
organizational politics and support to work behaviors, attitudes, and stress. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 18(2), 159–180.
Cropanzano, R., Prehar, C. A., & Chen, P. Y. (2002). Using social exchange theory to
distinguish procedural from interactional justice. Group & Organization Management,
27(3), 324–351.
de la Paz-Marín, M., Campoy-Muñoz, P., & Hervás-Martínez, C. (2012). Non-linear mul-
ticlassifier model based on Artificial Intelligence to predict research and development
performance in European countries. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,
79(9), 1731–1745.
De Geofroy, Z., & Evans, M. M. (2017). Are emotionally intelligent employees less likely
to hide their knowledge? Knowledge and Process Management, 24(2), 81–95.
Demirkasimoglu, N. (2015). Knowledge hiding in academia: Is personality a key factor?
International Journal of Higher Education, 5(1), 128–140.
Dong, Y., Bartol, K. M., Zhang, Z. X., & Li, C. (2017). Enhancing employee creativity via
individual skill development and team knowledge sharing: influences of dual-focused
transformational leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(3), 439–458.
Duan, Y., Edwards, J. S., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2019). Artificial intelligence for decision
making in the era of Big Data—Evolution, challenges and research agenda.
International Journal of Information Management, 48, 63–71.
Fan, C. Y., Fan, P. S., Chan, T. Y., & Chang, S. H. (2012). Using hybrid data mining and
machine learning clustering analysis to predict the turnover rate for technology

55
A.M. Abubakar, et al.
professionals. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(10), 8844–8851.
Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. A. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on
reactions to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32(1), 115–130.
Gagné, M. (2009). A model of knowledge-sharing motivation. Human Resource
Management: Published in Cooperation with the School of Business Administration.
The University of Michigan and in alliance with the Society of Human Resources
Management, 48(4), 571–589.
Göçken, M., Özçalıcı, M., Boru, A., & Dosdoğru, A. T. (2016). Integrating metaheuristics
and artificial neural networks for improved stock price prediction. Expert Systems with
Applications, 44, 320–331.
Granovetter, M. S. (1977). The strength of weak ties. Social Networks, 78(6), 347–367.
Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of
management, 16(2), 399–432.
Guenter, H., van Emmerik, I. H., & Schreurs, B. (2014). The negative effects of delays in
information exchange: Looking at workplace relationships from an affective events
perspective. Human Resource Management Review, 24(4), 283–298.
Günther, F., & Fritsch, S. (2010). neuralnet: Training of Neural Networks. The R Journal,
2(1), 30–38.
Gurbuz, S., & Mert, I. S. (2009). Validity and reliability testing of organizational justice
scale: An empirical study in a public organization. Review of Public Administration,
42(3), 117–139.
Han, T. S., Chiang, H. H., & 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 Management, 21(12), 2218–2233.
Haykin, S. (1999). Neural networks: A comprehensive foundation (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
He, H., Zhu, W., & Zheng, X. (2014). Procedural justice and employee engagement: Roles
of organizational identification and moral identity centrality. Journal of Business
Ethics, 122(4), 681–695.
Hemdi, M. A., & Nasurdin, A. M. (2007). Investigating the influence of organizational
justice on hotel employees’ organizational citizenship behavior intentions and turn-
over intentions. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 7(1), 1–23.
Hew, J. J., Leong, L. Y., Tan, G. W. H., Ooi, K. B., & Lee, V. H. (2017). The age of mobile
social commerce: An Artificial Neural Network analysis on its resistances.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change (in press).
Hill, T., & Lewicki, P. (2007). Statistics methods and applications. Tulsa, USA:
Statsoft135–150.
Huo, W., Cai, Z., Luo, J., Men, C., & Jia, R. (2016). Antecedents and intervention me-
chanisms: A multilevel study of R&D team's knowledge hiding behavior. Journal of
Knowledge Management, 20(5), 880–897.
Huysman, M., & Wulf, V. (2006). IT to support knowledge sharing in communities, to-
wards a social capital analysis. Journal of Information Technology, 21(1), 40–51.
Hwang, Y., Lin, H., & Shin, D. (2018). Knowledge system commitment and knowledge
sharing intention: The role of personal information management motivation.
International Journal of Information Management, 39, 220–227.
Issac, A. C., & Baral, R. (2018). Dissecting knowledge hiding: A note on what it is and
what it is not. Human Resource Management International Digest, 26(7), 20–24.
James, K. (1993). The social context of organizational justice: Cultural, intergroup, and
structural effects on justice behaviors and perceptions. Justice in the workplace:
Approaching fairness in human resource management, 21–50.
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. (1986). Fairness as a constraint on profit
seeking: Entitlements in the market. The American Economic Review, 728–741.
Kelloway, E. K., & Barling, J. (2000). Knowledge work as organizational behavior.
International Journal of Management Reviews, 2(3), 287–304.
Khalid, M., Bashir, S., Khan, A. K., & Abbas, N. (2018). When and how abusive super-
vision leads to knowledge hiding behaviors: An Islamic work ethics perspective.
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 39(6), 794–806.
Konovsky, M. A. (2000). Understanding procedural justice and its impact on business
organizations. Journal of Management, 26(3), 489–511.
Konovsky, M. A., & Pugh, S. D. (1994). Citizenship behavior and social exchange.
Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 656–669.
Koriat, N., & Gelbard, R. (2014). Knowledge sharing motivation among IT personnel:
Integrated model and implications of employment contracts. International Journal of
Information Management, 34(5), 577–591.
Kumar Jha, J., & Varkkey, B. (2018). Are you a cistern or a channel? Exploring factors
triggering knowledge-hiding behavior at the workplace: Evidence from the Indian R&
D professionals. Journal of Knowledge Management, 22(4), 824–849.
Lanke, P. (2018). Knowledge hiding: Impact of interpersonal behavior and expertise.
Human Resource Management International Digest, 26(2), 30–32.
Lawler, J. J., & Elliot, R. (1996). Artificial intelligence in HRM: An experimental study of
an expert system. Journal of Management, 22(1), 85–111.
Lerner, M. J. (1980). The Belief in a Just World. In the Belief in a just World. Boston, MA:
Springer9–30.
Li, X., Chen, F., Sun, D., & Tao, M. (2015). Predicting menopausal symptoms with arti-
ficial neural network. Expert Systems with Applications, 42(22), 8698–8706.
Liébana-Cabanillas, F., Marinković, V., & Kalinić, Z. (2017). A SEM-neural network ap-
proach for predicting antecedents of m-commerce acceptance. International Journal of
Information Management, 37(2), 14–24.
Liébana-Cabanillas, F., Marinkovic, V., de Luna, I. R., & Kalinic, Z. (2018). Predicting the
determinants of mobile payment acceptance: A hybrid SEM-neural network ap-
proach. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 129, 117–130.
Lin, T. C., & Huang, C. C. (2010). Withholding effort in knowledge contribution: The role
of social exchange and social cognitive on project teams. Information & Management,
47(3), 188–196.
Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the Workplace. Sage
56
International Journal of Information Management 49 (2019) 45–57
Publications.
Martínez-Tur, V., Peiró, J. M., Ramos, J., & Moliner, C. (2006). Justice Perceptions as
Predictors of Customer Satisfaction: The Impact of Distributive, Procedural, and
Interactional Justice. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36(1), 100–119.
Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, M. S. (2000). Integrating justice and
social exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work re-
lationships. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 738–748.
Michailova, S., & Husted, K. (2003). Knowledge-sharing hostility in Russian firms.
California Management Review, 45(3), 59–77.
Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., Scullen, S. M., & Rounds, J. (2005). Higher-order dimen-
sions of the big five personality traits and the big six vocational interest types.
Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 447–478.
Niehoff, B. P., & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Justice as a mediator of the relationship between
methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of
Management journal, 36(3), 527–556.
Olden, J. D., & Jackson, D. A. (2002). Illuminating the “black box”: a randomization
approach for understanding variable contributions in artificial neural networks.
Ecological Modelling, 154(1–2), 135–150.
Pan, W., Zhang, Q., Teo, T. S. H., & Lim, V. K. G. (2018). The dark triad and knowledge
hiding. International Journal of Information Management, 42(1), 36–48. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.05.008.
Parke, M., & Seo, M. G. (2017). The role of affect climate in organizational effectiveness.
Academy of Management Review, 42(2), 334–360.
Parker, A., Gerbasi, A., & Cullen-Lester, K. (2018, July). A Social Comparison Approach to
Knowledge Hiding. In Academy of Management Proceedings, 2018, No. 1, Briarcliff
Manor, NY 10510: Academy of Management14324.
Peng, H. (2013). Why and when do people hide knowledge? Journal of Knowledge
Management, 17(3), 398–415.
Pierce, J. L., & Jussila, I. (2011). Psychological ownership and the organizational context:
Theory, research evidence, and application. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Pierce, J. L., Jussila, I., & Li, D. (2017). Development and validation of an instrument for
assessing collective psychological ownership in organizational field settings. Journal
of Management & Organization, 1–17.
Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T., & Dirks, K. T. (2001). Toward a theory of psychological own-
ership in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 298–310.
Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T., & Dirks, K. T. (2003). The state of psychological ownership:
Integrating and extending a century of research. Review of General Psychology,
7(1), 84.
Pirkkalainen, H., Pawlowski, J. M., Bick, M., & Tannhäuser, A. C. (2018). Engaging in
knowledge exchange: The instrumental psychological ownership in open innovation
communities. International Journal of Information Management, 38(1), 277–287.
Priyadarshinee, P., Raut, R. D., Jha, M. K., & Gardas, B. B. (2017). Understanding and
predicting the determinants of cloud computing adoption: A two staged hybrid SEM-
Neural networks approach. Computers in Human Behavior, 76, 341–362.
Quinn, A., Rycraft, J. R., & Schoech, D. (2002). Building a model to predict caseworker
and supervisor turnover using a neural network and logistic regression. Journal of
Technology in Human Services, 19(4), 65–85.
Raut, R. D., Priyadarshinee, P., Gardas, B. B., & Jha, M. K. (2018). Analyzing the factors
influencing cloud computing adoption using three stage hybrid SEM-ANN-ISM
(SEANIS) approach. Technological Forecasting and Social Change (In press).
Sapienza, H. J., & Korsgaard, M. A. (1996). Procedural justice in entrepreneur-investor
relations. Academy of Management Journal, 39(3), 544–574.
Schepers, P., & Van den Berg, P. T. (2007). Social factors of work-environment creativity.
Journal of Business and Psychology, 21(3), 407–428.
Serenko, A., & Bontis, N. (2016). Understanding counterproductive knowledge behavior:
Antecedents and consequences of intra-organizational knowledge hiding. Journal of
Knowledge Management, 20(6), 1199–1224.
Simons, R., Dávila, A., & Kaplan, R. S. (2000). Performance measurement & control systems
for implementing strategy. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall (p. 203).
Strohmeier, S., & Piazza, F. (2015). Artificial Intelligence Techniques in Human Resource
Management—A Conceptual Exploration. In Intelligent Techniques in Engineering
Management. Springer, Cham pp. 149-172.
Sweeney, P. D., & McFarlin, D. B. (1993). Workers′ evaluations of the “ends” and the
“means”: An examination of four models of distributive and procedural justice.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 55(1), 23–40.
Taneja, A., & Arora, A. (2019). Modeling user preferences using neural networks and
tensor factorization model. International Journal of Information Management, 45,
132–148.
Tepper, B., Mitchell, M., & Almeda, M. (2011). Examining negative exchange from a
relational perspective: Consequences of reciprocating downward hostility in super-
visor-subordinate relationships. In Israel Organizational Behavior Conference co-
sponsored by the Academy of Management and Human Relations.
Thibaut, J. W., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. L. Erlbaum
Associates.
StatSoft, Inc (2010). Electronic Statistics Textbook. Tulsa, OK: StatSoft.
Von der Trenck, A. (2015). It's Mine.” The Role of Psychological Ownership and
Territoriality in Knowledge Hiding. ICIS’8 2015 Conferences Proceedings.
Wang, Y., Han, M. S., Xiang, D., & Hampson, D. P. (2018a). The double-edged effects of
perceived knowledge hiding: Empirical evidence from the sales context. Journal of
Knowledge Management (In press).
Wang, S., & Noe, R. A. (2010). Knowledge sharing: A review and directions for future
research. Human Resource Management Review, 20(2), 115–131.
Wang, S., Noe, R. A., & Wang, Z. M. (2014). Motivating knowledge sharing in knowledge
management systems: A quasi–field experiment. Journal of Management, 40(4),
978–1009.
Wang, N., Sun, Y., Shen, X. L., & Zhang, X. (2018b). A value-justice model of knowledge
A.M. Abubakar, et al.
integration in wikis: The moderating role of knowledge equivocality. International
Journal of Information Management, 43, 64–75.
Weng, C. H., Huang, T. C. K., & Han, R. P. (2016). Disease prediction with different types
of neural network classifiers. Telematics and Informatics, 33(2), 277–292.
Witherspoon, C. L., Bergner, J., Cockrell, C., & Stone, D. N. (2013). Antecedents of or-
ganizational knowledge sharing: A meta-analysis and critique. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 17(2), 250–277.
Wolfe, C., & Loraas, T. (2008). Knowledge sharing: The effects of incentives, environment,
and person. Journal of Information Systems, 22(2), 53–76.
57
International Journal of Information Management 49 (2019) 45–57
Xiao, M., & Cooke, F. L. (2018). Why and when knowledge hiding in the workplace is
harmful: A review of the literature and directions for future research in the Chinese
context. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources (In press).
Zhao, H., Xia, Q., He, P., Sheard, G., & Wan, P. (2016). Workplace ostracism and
knowledge hiding in service organizations. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 59, 84–94.
Zhao, H., & Xia, Q. (2017). An examination of the curvilinear relationship between
workplace ostracism and knowledge hoarding. Management Decision, 55(2), 331–346.