Knowledge hiding – a systematic review
and research agenda
Amitabh Anand, Florian Offergelt and Payal Anand
Amitabh Anand is based at
Excelia Business School,
CERIIM, La Rochelle,
France. Florian Offergelt is
based at the Department
for Business Psychology,
Seeburg Castle University,
Seekirchen am Wallersee,
Austria. Payal Anand is
based at Indian Institute of
Management Kozhikode,
Kozhikode, India.
Received 27 April 2021
Revised 28 June 2021
Accepted 22 July 2021
The authors are grateful to the
editor in chief and the two
anonymous reviewers for their
guidance and constructive
comments that helped in
improving this manuscript.
Author statement and
contribution:
Amitabh Anand: First and lead
author, Idea conceptualization,
Introduction, methodology,
data analysis, data review,
research synthesis, discussion,
contribution and directions,
review, proofreading and
validation.
Florian Offergelt: Second
author, Introduction,
conceptualization, data coding,
research synthesis, discussion
and contribution, review,
proofreading and validation.
Payal Anand: Third author,
Introduction, conceptualization,
research synthesis, discussion
and, contribution, review,
proofreading and validation.
PAGE 1438 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 26 NO. 6 2022, pp. 1438-1457, © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 1367-3270
Abstract
Purpose – Because of its impact on organisational growth, innovation and employee performance,
knowledge hiding (KH) as a construct has gained increased attention from scholars and practitioners in
recent years. The purpose of this paper is to conduct a systematic review of the existing literature on KH
and take the stock of the current literature, identify research streams and offer recommendations on
areas where KH may be investigated further.
Design/methodology/approach – In this study, the authors used systematic review methods to
investigate the current state of KH research, and using thematic coding, the authors identified the current
research streams and offer directions for future research.
Findings – The review of literature identified geographic representation of KH research, methodological
approaches to explore KH and the prominent theories adopted to investigate KH, and through research
synthesis, the antecedents and moderators/mediators of KH were identified. Subsequently, the authors
also found seven research streams where KH has been predominantly studied. Finally, the authors
provide suggestions of where the future research in KH might be headed.
Originality/value – This paper is one of the few to offer systematic review of KH literature and identify
unexplored areas to be investigated in future research – which is the integral part of knowledge
management process.
Keywords Knowledge transfer, Knowledge sharing, Knowledge hiding, Literature reviews,
Knowledge hiders
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Knowledge is one of the key resources for both individuals and organisations to gain
success (Pereira and Mohiya, 2021), and it is expected by the companies that employees
share knowledge openly to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the organisation
(Connelly et al., 2019). Employees who may not share knowledge, on the other hand, cause
firms to lose revenue, lower team performance, affect the organisational knowledge
management process (Arain et al., 2019) and minimise employee productivity (Xiong et al.,
2019). Alternatively, researchers have focused on the sharing of employees’ knowledge
among coworkers and colleagues, as it promotes the creation of new knowledge,
innovations (Kamas ak and Bulutlar, 2010) and organisational growth (Garg and Anand,
2020).
Although knowledge sharing is essential for organisations, individual knowledge ownership
may influence an organisation’s competitive advantage. Consequently, scholars have been
prompted to examine why and under what circumstances people hide their knowledge
(Connelly et al., 2012; Peng, 2013). Additionally, employee workplace concealing of
knowledge has been investigated in disciplines such as organisation studies, organisation
behaviour, leadership, information systems and human resource management (Connelly
et al., 2019; Connelly et al., 2012; Khalid et al., 2019; Pan et al., 2018). This quest for
DOI 10.1108/JKM-04-2021-0336
understanding of employees concealing of knowledge gave rise to a construct named
knowledge hiding (KH) (Connelly et al., 2012). KH is defined as “an intentional attempt by
an individual to withhold or conceal knowledge that has been requested by another person”
(Connelly et al., 2012, p. 65).
The construct of KH has evolved over the years in various disciplines and was investigated
in many different industries, contexts and settings (Anand et al., 2020; Arain et al., 2018;
Khalid et al., 2018; Peng, 2013; Butt, 2019b; Rezwan and Takahashi, 2021; Di Vaio et al.,
2021). Although most research on KH in organisations characterises it as an unethical,
destructive and counterproductive behaviour that inhibits employee innovation and
undermines organisational performance (Hernaus et al., 2019; Serenko and Bontis, 2016),
yet few scholars have suggested that it also offers positive benefits (Venz and Nesher
Shoshan, 2021; Xiong et al., 2019). Besides, given its importance in organisation and
management literature, the construct has now been investigated in multidisciplinary areas
such as information systems, higher education and psychology (Abdullah et al., 2019;
Ghani et al., 2020a).
Given the growing body of literature and evidence on KH, a comprehensive review and
understanding of the present state of KH research is required (de Garcia et al., 2020; Di
Vaio et al., 2021; Ruparel and Choubisa, 2020; Rezwan and Takahashi, 2021; Xiao and
Cooke, 2018). Hence, with the aim to assess and synthesizs extant literature on KH, we will
converge our review from a three-way approach. First, we provide a comprehensive
categorisation of the current KH literature (n = 84 articles) in terms of geographic
representation, the methodological approaches, the investigation levels and the applied
theories used to explain the effects explored in the nomological network of KH. Second, we
highlight various research streams in the current body of knowledge and outline the few
remaining gaps. Third, we identify promising previously underrepresented topics that
researchers could address in future studies of KH. To provide an overview of the current
research landscape of KH and to address solutions to issues such as the mentioned
uncertainties, review studies are well suited (Petticrew and Roberts, 2008). Accordingly,
following a positivist pattern (de Garcia et al., 2020; Hirschheim, 1985), this paper will
comprehensively review and synthesise the extant literature on KH. We strictly followed the
definition of KH (Connelly et al., 2012) and we excluded articles that either misrepresented
or confused distinct notions and concepts from KH, such as knowledge hoarding (Hislop,
2003) or the absence of knowledge sharing in their investigations. Following this
introduction, we will present a conceptual understanding of KH. Following that, we will go
over the systematic review approach that was used and we finally we discuss our findings
by offering suggestions for future research.

Knowledge hiding
KH is a unique and distinct construct that may occur at individual level, when an employee
decides to hide knowledge from his/her colleagues (Pan et al., 2018), at team level, when
an individual may not contribute to sharing knowledge to a team member when explicitly
asked to do so (Babic  et al., 2019) and at organisational level, when employee deliberately
hides his/her knowledge toward contributing to the organisation (Arain et al., 2018; Butt,
2019b). The three dimensions of KH are described by Connelly et al. (2012) as distinct
behaviours that represent the higher-level construct of KH: playing dumb (i.e. where
knowledge donor pretends not to know the knowledge of interest), rationalised hiding (i.e.
where the knowledge owner is offering reasons for not providing the requested knowledge)
and evasive hiding (i.e. where the hider offers wrong or incomplete information). The latter
behaviour emphasises that KH is not always a negative behaviour within an organisational
context, and it may lead to positive outcomes such as the protection of confidentiality or the
interest of a third party (Xiong et al., 2019).

VOL. 26 NO. 6 2022 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 1439

 In their definition of KH, Connelly et al. (2012) highlight two characteristics that serve as a
unique attribute of KH and clearly separate it from other phenomena. First, the knowledge
must be requested, and second, the hiding always must be intentional. These
characteristics distinguish KH from other counterproductive knowledge-related behaviours,
such as knowledge hoarding, knowledge withholding or lack of knowledge sharing. For
example, knowledge hoarding also takes place when knowledge is not explicitly requested,
and a lack of knowledge sharing may simply occur because the knowledge is absent
(Connelly et al., 2012; Wang et al., 2019). Connelly et al. (2012) noted that KH is distinct,
and it is not simply the absence of sharing; rather, it implies an intentional effort from the
hider, as the hider dissimulates knowledge in response to a request. A vital thing that
separates KH from other constructs such as sharing is the engagement of two or more
people in the process of concealing knowledge (de Garcia et al., 2020), i.e. the knowledge
seeker (an individual seeking knowledge) and the knowledge hider (who tries to conceal
the knowledge he or she possesses by refusing to share it with the knowledge seeker only
when requested). Although some terminologies, such as knowledge hoarding or lack of
knowledge sharing, have some overlap with KH, scholars were able to show that KH is a
unique and distinct phenomena (Connelly et al., 2012; Issac and Baral, 2018).

Methodology
This study adopted systematic review methods as suggested by Tranfield et al. (2003). A
systematic review can support in documenting, evaluating and synthesising all relevant
research on a particular topic (Petticrew and Roberts, 2008), and it helps to find the gaps in
the existing body of knowledge. Figure 1 summarises our methodological procedure.
We first selected Elsevier’s “Scopus” database to extract publications. Scopus is a
convenient, widely used, robust database and with many additional features in comparison
to other databases such as Web of Science (WoS) and Google Scholar (Bosman et al.,
2006; Thürer et al., 2020). Furthermore, a comparison of Scopus and WoS journal coverage
revealed relatively small number of journals indexed exclusively in WoS (Mongeon and
Paul-Hus, 2016), and approximately 97% of WoS journals are also included in Scopus.

Figure 1 Methodological procedure adopted for systematic review process

PAGE 1440 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 26 NO. 6 2022

Thus, Scopus has established a compelling reputation for conducting systematic reviews
(Centobelli and Ndou, 2019; Vieira and Gomes, 2009). Second, a keyword selection was
made based on author and peer recommendation, using synonyms. As the focus of this
work is to review the field of KH, there could be some articles that may have used keywords
such as “knowledge withholding,” “knowledge hoarding” or “knowledge sharing barriers”
interchangeably, whereas the focus of those articles might be built on KH. Thus, we used
various combination of keywords (Figure 1) and applied in the Title, Abstract and Keywords’
section of Scopus database, which resulted in more than 300 articles.
Third, we restricted our search to blind peer-reviewed journal articles, as they guarantee a
more sophisticated methodological standard than editorials, conference papers and book
chapters (Adams et al., 2017; Thyer, 2008) reducing our inventory to 246 articles. Fourth, to
identify relevant papers that are only focused on the concept of KH, we first looked at the
articles’ publication dates. Between 1995 and October 2020, 246 articles were published.
Following that, we began looking for articles published between 1995 and 2011, before
“KH” was coined in 2012. We observed that some studies used the terms “information
hiding,” “information withholding” and “KH” in general, but the study focus was on
information management literature. This technique of identifying essential articles assisted
us in reducing the number of articles to 193.
We then reviewed the remaining 193 articles to verify whether they were related to KH and
to confirm that different concepts, such as hoarding or withholding, were not mixed up or
treated similarly to KH. The process of reading and re-reading let us to select 84 articles
that focused solely on KH published between 2012 and October 2020 (Appendix 1). To
take a stock and map the future trajectories, out of the 84 works, we followed systematic
descriptive stock of the literature by Paul and Criado (2020) and qualitative thematic
synthesis following the guidelines of Anand et al. (2021). We synthesised the literature that
will allow us to derive research themes and propose future research questions following
recommendations by Heisig and Kannan (2020).

Findings
Current stock of knowledge hiding research
The aim of this descriptive section is to take stock of the 84 relevant articles focusing on KH.
Accordingly, our analysis provided three perspectives.
䊏 geographic representation of the conducted research;
䊏 methodological approaches in the study of KH; and
䊏 prominent theories adopted to study KH.

Geographic representation of knowledge hiding research

Country-based data used in the study of KH can promote the temporal diffusion of concepts
and contexts by scholars. Among the 84 publications, studies on KH have proliferated
mostly in Asia, the USA and Europe, with little scope remaining on other geographies (Table
1). This entails a significant integration of different geographies to further investigate KH, for
instance, in the context of emerging vs developed economies. Even though research
interest in KH is growing and studies are being conducted globally, publications from non-
Western perspectives are slowly gaining attention (Arain et al., 2018; Xiong et al., 2019).

Methodological approaches to study knowledge hiding

Quantitative approaches such as cross-sectional analysis, survey measurements and
experimental designs have dominated KH research. To understand KH, few qualitative

VOL. 26 NO. 6 2022 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 1441

 Table 1 Paper distribution across geographies
Geographies Selected exemplary citations

Asia Abdullah et al., 2019; Arshad and Ismail, 2018; Bhattacharya and Sharma, 2019;Butt, 2019a; Fang, 2017;
Feng and Wang, 2019; Fong et al., 2018; Gagné et al., 2019; Ghani et al., 2020a; Huo et al., 2016;
Jahanzeb et al., 2019; Jahanzeb et al.,2020a; Jahanzeb et al., 2020b; Jha and Varkkey, 2018; Jiang
et al., 2019; Jilani et al., 2020; Khalid et al., 2019; Malik et al., 2019; Men et al., 2020; Pan et al., 2018; Pan
et al., 2016; ; Peng, 2013; Pradhan et al., 2019; Rhee and Choi, 2017; Riaz et al., 2019; Shah and Hashmi,
2019; Wang et al., 2019; Xiong et al., 2019; Yao et al., 2020; Zhang and Min, 2019; Zhao and Xia, 2019;
Zhao et al., 2016, 2019; Zhu et al., 2019
Middle East Ali et al., 2020; Aljawarneh and Atan, 2018; Alnaimi and Rjoub, 2019; Arain et al., 2018; Bari et al., 2019;
Butt and Ahmad, 2019; Butt et al., 2020; Butt, 2019a, 2019b, 2019c, 2020a, 2020b; Khalid et al., 2018;
Singh, 2019
Europe Abubakar et al., 2019; Babic  et al., 2019; Belschak et al., 2018; Bogilovic
 et al., 2017; Burmeister et al.,

2019; Cerne et al., 2017; Hernaus et al., 2019; Khoreva and Wechtler, 2020; Offergelt et al., 2019;
Semerci, 2019; Škerlavaj et al., 2018; Xiong et al., 2019
Oceania Gagné et al., 2019; Xiong et al., 2019
North America Connelly and Zweig, 2015; Connelly et al., 2012; Serenko and Bontis, 2016; Xiong et. al., 2019

studies have been conducted. A key issue in the KH methods diversity is the number of
longitudinal study [at least three data collection points (Khalid et. al., 2019; Jahanzeb et al.,
2020a)] that has a lower single-digit range, although several quantitative studies exist. In
addition, KH studies using experimental methodology (Cerne  et al., 2014; Škerlavaj et al.,
2018) are scarce until now (Table 2).

Theories adopted to explore knowledge hiding research

Theories provide an understanding of the conceptual breakthroughs in the field that are vital
to researchers and marketers to exploit specific contexts (Dennis and Kintsch, 2007). KH
scholars have used several theories to investigate the causes and consequences of KH
from individual, dyadic, group and organisational level. Most theories include
sociopsychological and relational theories (Table 3). The mechanisms surrounding social
exchange theories are particularly popular for explaining effects in the nomological network
of KH (Arshad and Ismail, 2018; Fong et al., 2018). However, interpretations based on
social learning theory (Arain et al., 2019) or psychological contract breaches (Jahanzeb

Table 2 Paper distribution based on methodologies studied

Methods Selected exemplary citations

Quantitative Abdullah et al., 2019; Abubakar et al., 2019; Ali et al., 2020; Aljawarneh and Atan, 2018; Alnaimi and
Rjoub, 2019; Arain et al., 2018; Arain et al., 2019; Bhattacharya and Sharma, 2019; Bogilovic  et al., 2017;
Burmeister et al., 2019; Connelly and Zweig, 2015; Feng and Wang, 2019; Gagné et al., 2019; Ghani
et al., 2020a; Ghani et al., 2020b; Hernaus et al., 2019; Huo et al., 2016; Jahanzeb et al., 2020a; Jahanzeb
et al., 2020b; Jahanzeb et al., 2019; Jiang et al., 2019; Jilani et al., 2020; Khalid et al., 2018; Khalid et al.,
2019; Khoreva and Wechtler, 2020; Men et al., 2020; Offergelt et al., 2019; Pan et al., 2016; Pradhan
et al., 2019; Peng, 2013; Semerci, 2019; Serenko and Bontis, 2016; Shah and Hashmi,2019; Singh, 2019;
Škerlavaj et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2019; Xia et al., 2019; Yao et al., 2020; Zhao et al.,
2016; Zhao and Xia, 2019; Zhao et al., 2019; Zhu et al., 2019
Conceptual Anand et al., 2020; Anand and Hassan, 2019; Irum et al., 2020; Issac and Baral, 2018; Kang, 2016; Ladan
et al., 2017a; Peng et al., 2019; Sukumaran and Lanke, 2020
Literature review Xiao and Cooke, 2018
Qualitative Butt et al., 2020; Butt, 2020; Butt, 2019a; Butt and Ahmad, 2019; Butt, 2019b, 2019c; Jha and Varkkey,
2018; Jiang and Xu, 2019
Experiments Babic  et al., 2019; Bogilovic 
. et al., 2017; Cerne et al., 2014

PAGE 1442 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 26 NO. 6 2022

 Table 3 Prominent theories adopted in investigating KH
Theories adopted in investigating KH Selected exemplary citations

Social exchange theory Abdullah et al., 2019; Alnaimi and Rjoub, 2019; Arain et al., 2018; Arshad and
Ismail, 2018; Babic 
 et al., 2019; Fong et al., 2018; Bari et al., 2019; Cerne et al.,
2014; Fong et al., 2018; Ghani et al., 2020a; Jiang and Xu, 2019; Khalid et al.,
2018; Khalid et al., 2019; Lanke, 2018; Rhee and Choi, 2017; Semerci, 2019;
Serenko and Bontis, 2016; Shah et al., 2019; Singh, 2019; Sukumaran and
Lanke, 2020; Wang, 2019
Psychological ownership theory Alnaimi and Rjoub, 2019; Aljawarneh and Atan, 2018; Bhattacharya and Sharma,
2019; Huo et al., 2016; Jilani et al., 2020; Peng, 2013; Singh, 2019
Conservation of resources theory Aljawarneh and Atan, 2018; Jahanzeb et al.,2020a; Riaz et al., 2019; Škerlavaj
et al., 2018; Yao et al.,2020
Social learning theory Abdullah et al., 2019; Arain et al., 2019; Ghani et al., 2020b; Men et al., 2020
Displaced aggression Ghani et al., 2020a; Jahanzeb et al.,2019; Khalid et al., 2018
Territoriality theory Huo et al., 2016; Peng, 2013
Norms of reciprocity Arain et al., 2018; Zhao et al., 2016
Social cognitive theory Ghani et al., 2020b; Peng, 2013
Social categorisation theory Anand et al., 2020; Bogilovic  et al., 2017
Social identity theory Jahanzeb et al., 2020b; Sukumaran and Lanke, 2020
Self-determination theory Gagné et al., 2019; Wang, 2019
Agency theory Khoreva and Wechtler, 2020
Absorptive capacity perspective Fong et al., 2018
Construal theory Connelly and Zweig, 2015
Cognitive evaluation theory Xia et al., 2019
Co-operation and competition theory Hernaus et al., 2019
Emotional intelligence theory de Geofroy and Evans, 2017
Equity theory Jahanzeb et al., 2020b
Extended self-theory Wang et al., 2019
Group engagement theory Zhao et al., 2019
Job characteristic theory Zhang and Min, 2019
Negative reciprocity Arshad and Ismail, 2018
Organisational learning theory Zhang and Min, 2019
Psychological contract theory Pan et al., 2018
Interdependence theory Connelly et al., 2012
Theory of planned behaviour Xiong et al., 2019
Transformational leadership theory Ladan et al., 2017a,b
Work design theory Gagné et al., 2019
Theories of coping, regulatory focus and guilt Fang, 2017
Two-factor theory Kang, 2016

et al., 2020a) are widely used too. The theoretical variation around KH is strong and proves
that this behaviour is multifaceted. Beside the most used theories, our review discovered
some studies that use rather uncommon theories in the field of knowledge management,
such as displaced aggression theory (Jahanzeb et al., 2019), equity theory (Jahanzeb
et al., 2020b) and work-design theory (Gagné et al., 2019).

Research synthesis and streams in knowledge hiding

According to our content analysis of 84 studies, KH has mostly been investigated at the
individual and interpersonal levels. The main factor of KH is related with negative effects
in most of the articles reviewed, and only a few with positive benefits (Xiong et al., 2019).
Our analysis also examines some factors that may influence KH to occur in an
organisation and conditions that may suppress its effects. Tables 4 and 5 provide details
of those.
Based on the qualitative coding and synthesis, we were able to distinguish the following
research streams, which in our opinion shows where KH has been highly investigated.

VOL. 26 NO. 6 2022 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 1443

 Table 4 Antecedents of KH behaviour investigated in the literature
Antecedents of KH Selected exemplary citations

Personality Arshad and Ismail, 2018; Belschak et al., 2018; Issac and Baral; 2019; Pan et al.,
2018, 2016
Abusive supervision Pradhan et al., 2019; Jahanzeb et al., 2019; Feng and Wang, 2019; Khalid et al.,
2018; Ghani et al., 2020a

Job Insecurity Ali et al., 2020; Butt and Ahmad, 2019; Feng and Wang, 2019; Jha and Varkkey,
2018; Serenko and Bontis, 2016
Workplace ostracism Zhao et al., 2016; Shah et al.,2019; Riaz et al., 2019
Territoriality Bhattacharya and Sharma, 2019; Huo et al., 2016; Peng, 2013; Singh, 2019

Workplace incivility Aljawarneh and Atan, 2018; Arshad and Ismail, 2018; Irum et al., 2020
Distrust Arain et al., 2018; Connelly et al., 2012; Jha and Varkkey, 2018
Time pressure Qureshi and Evans, 2015; Škerlavaj et al., 2018
Competition Butt and Ahmad, 2019; Jha and Varkkey, 2018
Psychological ownership Huo et al., 2016; Xia et al., 2019
Negative reciprocity Zhao et al., 2016; Butt and Ahmad, 2018; Anand et al., 2020
Lack of personal relationships/conflicts Butt, 2019; Semerci, 2019

Task interdependence Gagné et al., 2019; Hernaus et al., 2019
Psychological entitlement Alnaimi and Rjoub, 2019; Khalid et al., 2019
Guilt Fang, 2017
Lack of recognition Jha and Varkkey, 2018
Lack of confidence Jha and Varkkey, 2018
Social status Rhee and Choi, 2017
Workplace bullying Yao et al., 2020
Organisational injustice Jahanzeb et al., 2020b
Job burnout Ali et al., 2020
Task conflict Semerci, 2019
Job engagement Wang et al., 2019; Anser et al., 2020
Organisational culture Shah and Hashmi, 2019
Perceived and influenced disengagement Anand et al., 2020
Note:  Indicates that these variables have also been used as mediators/moderators in some studies

Table 5 Factors moderating/reducing KH behaviour investigated in the literature

Selected moderators/mediators reducing KH Selected exemplary citations

Ethical leadership Abdullah et al., 2019; Men et al., 2020; Zho and Xia, 2019
Task interdependence Hernaus et al., 2019; Gagné et al., 2019
Transformational leadership Ladan et al., 2017b
Prosocial motivations Škerlavaj et al., 2018
Emotional intelligence de Geofroy and Evans, 2017; Issac and Baral, 2019
Extra role behaviour Alnaimi and Rjoub, 2019
Organisational support Alnaimi and Rjoub, 2019
Professional commitment Malik et al., 2019
Social support Hernaus et al.,2019
Performance climate Feng and Wang, 2019
Positive affectivity Jahanzeb et al., 2020a
Guilt Fang 2017; Burmeister et.al., 2019

Research stream 1: knowledge hiding is more a dyadic and interpersonal activity

KH behaviour is mostly measured using self-assessment scales (Connelly et al., 2019). A
third party’s KH is difficult to evaluate, as certain facets of KH (evasive hide and playing
dumb) are deceptive (Connelly and Zweig, 2015). KH is mostly studied at the individual
level, as hiding is an individual influenced phenomenon. At the individual level, Connelly
et al.’s (2012) view of hiding knowledge is based on the belief that knowledge requested by
a seeker is intentionally hidden by the potential knowledge provider; therefore, KH is

PAGE 1444 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 26 NO. 6 2022

considered a dyadic activity (one to one). Within both antecedents and consequences,
most studies have analyzed KH at an individual level as compared to an interpersonal or
group level. Research is only slowly beginning to consider other perspectives, such as the
team (Babic et al., 2019) and tendencies to hold back unique knowledge among team
members (Jiang and Xu, 2019). Additionally, research at the organisational level is also only
slowly emerging (Arain et al., 2018).

Research stream 2: knowledge hiding can be a positive act

Although research on KH has mainly found negative effects such as reduced creativity

(Cerne et al., 2014), reduced team performance (Zhang and Min, 2019) or lowered
psychological safety (Jiang et al., 2019), positive effects, mostly of individual facets of KH,
have also been discovered, particularly in the recent past. For example, Khoreva and
Wechtler (2020) found that the use of rationalised hiding can increase the personal well-
being. Offergelt et al. (2019) found that rationalised hiding can increase the empowerment
of employees, and Connelly and Zweig (2015) discovered that those affected by
rationalised hiding even see a strengthening in their relationship with the hider through the
open justification. Although the literature seems to be converging toward negative aspects
of KH, it is also important to understand the positive or prosocial intentions that may
accompany KH (Connelly et al., 2019). KH may also have a positive impact, as it protects
the knowledge and resources of the organisation (Connelly et al., 2012). Additionally, KH
may help both individuals and companies to protect their competitive advantage (Anand
et al., 2020).

Research stream 3: perceived situational knowledge hiding events

Although in literature, the three widely accepted subdimensions proposed by Connelly et al.
(2012) exist, which best describes the KH behaviour, Anand et al. (2020) posits that KH can
be caused by different situation-dependent events such as observing coworker not sharing
knowledge, and following to do so assuming it could benefit. Keeping the observer as a
context, Anand et al. (2020) call for understanding KH in a triadic network, and propose
how an individual who observe the knowledge-provider hiding behaviour may have
influenced him/her to perform similar behaviour. Other situational events that can cause KH
behaviour are also conceivable. For instance, Škerlavaj et al. (2018) show that time
pressure during work can be a trigger of KH, and the results of Zhu et al. (2019) further
suggest that a competitive work environment may supports KH. Also, work situations that
are characterised by incivility (Zhao et al., 2016), injustice (Jahanzeb et al., 2020a) or even
bullying (Yao et al., 2020) lead to the hiding of requested knowledge.

Research stream 4: knowledge hiding research is context dependent

The growing body of research examining cultural aspects regarding KH clearly shows that
KH is context dependent. Whether it is the work culture (Men et al., 2020), the work ethic
(Abdullah et al., 2019) or even a certain industry dependency (Zhao and Xia, 2019), these
are all factors that can have an influence. For example, Issac and Baral (2019) highlighted
the role of culture in determining KH behaviours. Another recent article highlights the
cultural aspects of the organisation such as role of leader–member exchange in identifying
the levels of KH. “LMX can impair employees’ knowledge hiding behaviours. For business
managers, this means that in addition to material incentives, it is even more necessary to
develop good relationships with employees” (Zhao et al., p. 845). Another paper
establishes mastery climate as a boundary condition to reduce abusive supervision’s
influence on KH (Feng and Wang, 2019). In the context of industries, scholars established
the occurrence of KH among industries such as logistics, chemical, etc., focussing on
buying and supplying behaviours across supply chain management (Butt and Ahmad,

VOL. 26 NO. 6 2022 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 1445

 2019). A research among a small airline sample shows the occurrence of KH too (Jiang
et al., 2019). Similarly, KH (specifically, evasive hiding) was evident in the context of
academia (Hernaus et al., 2019). This is alarming as academic contexts are expected to be
more collaborative in nature.

Research stream 5: knowledge hiding research is widespread in large

organisations
To date, research on KH has mainly taken place in larger organisations. For instance,
numerous studies (Zhao et al., 2019) impressively show the different predictors and
consequences of KH in large organisations. So far, there are very few studies that examine
the role of KH in start-ups (Bogilovic 
 et al., 2017; Cerne et al., 2017). The work in start-ups is
often knowledge-intensive, and by nature, there are often different processes and
structures compared to large organisations. Most of the KH studies are investigated in large
IInformation Technology (IT) companies (Peng, 2013; Pan et al., 2016), high technology and
R&D firms (Men et al., 2020; Fong et al., 2018). Furthermore, KH is less researched in public
sector firms (Butt, 2019b) and dominated in large private sectors.

Research stream 6: knowledge hiding studies are dominant across Asia

As our review demonstrates, the substantial research on KH is undertaken in Asia (Huo
et al., 2016; Peng, 2013; Pradhan et al., 2019). The review article written by Xiao and Cooke
(2018) exclusively focuses on the phenomenon of KH in the Chinese context. Other regions,
such as Oceania and South America, are strongly underrepresented. Research in the
African region is so far almost non-existent. Several studies have already shown that cultural
differences play a key role in the nomological network of KH (Bogilovic  et al., 2017; Issac
and Baral, 2019). Therefore, it seems promising to advance the research also in the regions
that have not been considered much so far such as Brazil, Iran, Israel, New Zealand, etc.
Especially, the African continent is still a white spot on the research map and should
increasingly be addressed in future studies.

Research stream 7: knowledge hiding research implication are largely at the

individual level
The review reflected that most of the research on KH has individual level (the knowledge
seeker or the knowledge provider) as its unit of analysis compared to meso or macro level,
thus offering better implications at an individual and managerial/leader level, as compared
to group or organisational level. To elaborate, most studies have explored antecedents and
consequences of KH at the individual level (Burmeister et al., 2019). However, there is a
dearth of research on KH at the highest levels of organisations. The exploration of KH
cannot be ignored. For instance, researchers proposed that mitigating KH is not only a
responsibility of employees or their supervisors, but also their organisations (Arain et al.,
2020; Bari et al., 2019; Khalid et al., 2018). Factors such as organisational climate, justice in
terms of the resources distributed, procedures followed, etc., play a crucial role in
alleviating KH (Abubakar et al., 2019).

Discussion and directions for future research

This review study contributes to theory on two levels. To begin, we demonstrate the current
state of the KH literature and how it is divided across different geographies, the key theories
that have been adopted, the methodology that have been used and the research streams
on which KH is focused. Second, although a considerable amount of research exists on KH
and as the field is maturing, we found that there is limited attention paid in several areas,
which can offer various avenues for future research (Table 6). In addition, based on our
systematic literature review, we present important future research topics regarding KH

PAGE 1446 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 26 NO. 6 2022

 Table 6 Summary of key avenues for future research on KH
Theme Key research questions

Organisational size How does KH differ based on the size of the organisation, e.g. the causes and
consequences of KH in SMEs, start-ups, family firms and large organisations.
Training mechanisms What type of training can organisations develop to induce a greater sharing culture and
counter KH behaviour?
Organisational policy What is the stance of human resource departments on having a policy toward KH? Can a
policy document help in overcoming or reducing KH?
Geography How does KH differ between a developed economy vs emerging economy? How does
culture influence KH behaviours?
Status level Does socioeconomic status of a person influence KH behaviour in an organisation?
Intergenerational How does KH behaviour differs between Gen X, Y and Z in organisations? Which
generations are found to hide more knowledge and what are the underlying reasons?
Virtual teams The antecedents and consequences of KH in virtual context in the wake of crisis such as
COVID-19.
Intra-organisational vs interorganisational Investigating the antecedents and consequences of intra-organisational KH and
interorganisational KH
Recognition and appreciation Can recognition and appreciation for employees in organisation reduce the inclination
toward KH?
Tacit and explicit knowledge hiding Differentiating tacit knowledge hiding vs explicit knowledge hiding, its antecedents and
consequences
Industry-specific KH What factors constitute KH among employees working in retail, fashion and pharma
industries?
Values and belief system What values and belief system (cultural, ethical and principles) may help in reducing KH
among employees?
Intergenerational KH What is the frequency of hiding activities among generational employees? Do newcomers
hide more knowledge or does experienced workers hide more knowledge?
Hierarchical KH Does low-ranked employees hide more knowledge, or do high-ranked employees hide
more knowledge?
Situational KH What situations (such as coworker influence other coworker to hide, observing a coworker
hide knowledge and be influenced) best lead to KH and how to overcome them?

(Figure 2) that have not been investigated or have been insufficiently explored so far.
According to our findings, sectoral samples, such as manufacturing, information
technology, banking and finance, are used to investigate KH, with lot of the sample focused
on individuals; however, KH research could benefit from expanding into other industries
such as pharmaceutical, retail, tourism, etc.
Although there is a dearth of research on knowledge sharing, transfer and its importance in
SMEs (Anand et al., 2021), yet from our analysis, we found that KH studies lack from an
organisational size perspective. The impact of different organisational structures on KH
should be investigated. For example, how does the characteristics (e.g. tall vs flat
hierarchy, centralisations vs decentralisation) of small companies and start-ups affect the
behaviour of the employees regarding the hiding of knowledge. Additionally, literature is yet
to identify the antecedents and consequences of KH in the context of start-ups and family-
oriented enterprises. Thus, future research is needed to investigate these areas. In other
words, in these areas, researchers will find open doors to explore and theorise KH. We also
propose that future KH studies need more cross-disciplinary convergence (e.g. marketing,
innovation and technology) and diverse samples (e.g. leaders, line managers, blue- and
white-collar workers, salespeople and top management).
This review revealed that most of the studies in KH are quantitative (e.g., Offergelt et al.,
2019; Jahanzeb et al., 2020a), the source of samples is often focused on KH between
employees or KH between supervisor to subordinates (e.g., Arain et al., 2020; Khalid et al.,
2019). Furthermore, recent studies focused more on the managerial-level implications, such
as the manager’s role in facilitating a culture of knowledge sharing (Anand and Hassan,
2019; Anand et al., 2020) or offering training mechanisms (Arain et al., 2019; Butt and

VOL. 26 NO. 6 2022 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 1447

 Figure 2 Framework for KH future direction

Ahmad, 2019). This is because, as KH has been quantitatively operationalised, what might
limit scholars to explore the theoretical construct of KH more qualitatively. We believe that
more exploratory and qualitative studies are required to understand the nature of KH from
different perspectives. For instance, using a qualitative inductive approach, scholars can
identify patterns and theorise KH from an individual, organisational and group context.
Furthermore, the number of experimental studies should be increased regarding frequently
used causality assumptions. To date, there are no meta-analyses in the research area of
KH. With the steadily growing number of studies, research on KH would benefit greatly from
a meta-analysis today.
Although KH literature is gaining momentum and maturity because of increased attention in
recent years, yet studies still lack in organisational-level literature. Thus, exploring new
avenues such as organisational policy, management board or composition of diversity of
the board and organisational culture influence may advance the KH research. Additionally,
hiding knowledge in an ethical environment is likely to be considered unethical, unhealthy
and harmful to both employees and organisations (Men et al., 2020); hence, future studies
may explore from the context of ethics on how KH can affect organisations. For instance, do
ethical factors, such as altruism, compassion and pro-social behaviours, help in reducing
KH behaviours, which may be investigated in the future.
Although the KH construct originated in North America, a look at the sample articles
(Table 1) gives an indication that Asian scholars are highly influenced by KH research, as
around 50% of the papers are from Asia. Although studies that include samples from Asia
(Pan et al., 2018; Peng, 2013) represent the vast majority of the current literature on KH,
there has also been an increase in recent studies that focus on members in the Middle East
(Arain et al., 2019; Khalid et al., 2018). So far, little attention has been paid to employees
from organisations based in African countries or South America. Especially, the cultural high
variety on the African and South American continents promises to provide complex and
interesting results for KH, as it was already shown by several authors that culture and
cultural understanding plays an important role in the context of KH (Bogilovic  et al., 2017;
Khalid et al., 2018).
It is significant to consider phenomenon such as KH from diverse cultural perspectives, as
these factors are still poorly understood and appear to be a promising avenue for gaining a

PAGE 1448 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 26 NO. 6 2022

deeper understanding of the effects of KH, a behaviour that is likely to be understood as
harmful in most cultures (Xiong et al., 2019). For instance, the studies mostly coming from
Asia may have cultural significance on individual behaviour; hence, future collaborative
studies can measure how KH can vary in different cultures (e.g. West vs East, Africa vs
Latin America and Middle East vs North America). In a globalised world, where multicultural
teams increasingly work together, important recommendations for practice can thus be
derived.
Furthermore, the fact that only a few journals are leading the publications (e.g. Journal of
Knowledge Management, Knowledge and Process Management and Journal of
Organizational Behaviour) suggests that many well-known management journals may
consider the limitations to publication on the topic of KH to be extremely high or have had
little interest in the phenomenon so far. Calls for papers and special issues in well-known
journals could stimulate KH research. Given the increase in publications from 2018 to
2020 (over 60 publications), KH is gaining popularity, and future studies may benefit from
cross-cultural data, which may spark novel arguments to improve KH research. There is
still a paucity of research regarding KH’s positive benefits and underlying processes.
However, the ongoing investigation of KH in all of its facets gives reason to expect that
future studies will reveal new insights into KH’s possible positive benefits. Additionally,
research lacks an understanding of the technological context. Given the dramatic
changes that occurred following the COVID-19 pandemic, the new normal of working
from home and, thereby, the formation of more virtual teams, future research could
investigate the role of KH in a virtual or online context. Virtual workplaces have been
shown in studies to influence individual behavioural changes (Elyousfi et al., 2021), and
virtual relationships such as online leadership and virtual team collaborations could be
studied in the future to better understand the underlying mechanisms of KH in virtual
networks.
Knowledge sharing is crucial for both organisations and the management of human
resources (Xiao and Cooke, 2018). The framework for future research guidelines provided
in this paper (Table 6 and Figure 2) can assist management to develop suitable
management practices and create a strong organisational policy to reduce employee KH
behaviour (Xiao and Cooke, 2018). In today’s globalised economy, where most knowledge
and information is freely accessible, it is obvious that academics should focus on the type of
work or role that leads to the concealment of knowledge.
In the KH scenario, both a knowledge seeker and a knowledge provider are involved.
Because of the possibility that yesterday’s knowledge seekers will become tomorrow’s
knowledge providers, future researchers should examine KH from the perspectives of both
knowledge seekers and providers, while also considering border variables such as gender
and intergenerational employees. On the other hand, it is worthwhile to examine KH from an
intergenerational viewpoint, including the differences in KH behaviour between older and
younger employees, as well as who is more likely to conceal knowledge (Gen X, Y or Z).
Additionally, it could be investigated whether differences in work status or hierarchical
levels between supervisors and employees influence KH. Finally, there is scant evidence to
suggest that the type of knowledge (tacit or explicit) sought contributes to increased or
decreased KH behaviour today.

Practical and theoretical contributions

In summary, this study contributes to theory and practice in several ways. To begin, we
contribute by reviewing the present KH literature and synthesise geographical samples
and major theories used to understand the consequences of KH and factors that cause
and diminish KH behaviour. We then identified research gaps and developed key
research questions for the future. We contend that KH is gradually emerging from its
infancy in the business and management disciplines, with most study focusing on the

VOL. 26 NO. 6 2022 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 1449

 Asian context and primarily employing quantitative methodologies. Furthermore, by
using a systematic review approach, we add to the growing corpus of literature on KH.
Finally, our findings are relevant to both academics and practitioners. Scholars can
leverage our review to discover new and potential research areas and to direct future
effort based on existing gaps in the current KH research. This work attempts to provide
direction to interested practitioners on what comprises the current state of understanding
regarding KH behaviour, and, perhaps more importantly, what we do not yet know about
the origins, implications and boundary conditions of KH.
Scholars interested in expanding their understanding of novel approaches to investigating
KH literature will find this review to be a valuable resource for future research and theory
building. For example, researchers can extend present studies to include other categories
such as withholding, hoarding, etc., generating new discussions around KH conservation.
The findings would therefore serve as a comprehensive framework within which scholars
may analyze KH and other related concepts on an individual, group and organisational
level. Researchers are advised to use the variables shown in Figure 1 as a starting point for
future investigations to see whether the preceding parameters contribute to the elimination
of KH behaviours at various levels and which factors may attenuate or mediate the effects
(e.g. individual, dyadic, group and organisational levels). Furthermore, detailed studies and
in-depth empirical investigation of the proposed framework are also needed. These should
be done, for example, through longitudinal and cross-sectional data using quantitative
methods. Similarly, inductive approaches should be applied to qualitatively discover
possible subfactors that may cause KH. Finally, the framework proposed, as well as the
potential moderators that may mitigate the effect of KH, may help scholars gain a better
understanding of how to mitigate KH effects.

Limitations
Although using Scopus as a database is justified in our research, the generalizability of the
reviewed papers can be limited. Thus, data from other sources, such as Google Scholar
and WoS, may provide additional insights. Additionally, the use of keywords may also have
some limitation, for instance, the use of “manager/leader KH” may have reduced our
number of retrieved publications from Scopus. Furthermore, other keywords may be used in
future to investigate the relation with KH such as “knowledge protection” and “knowledge
ownership” may expand broadening the scope of review. Moreover, though we provide a
comprehensive overview on KH using a systematic review, thus a follow-up studies should
adopt a broader scope, using bibliometrics, metareviews and scientometric methods to
classify the literature of KH.

Conclusion
KH is recognised as a rather young research area that needs further investigation (Pereira
and Mohiya, 2021). Building upon the works of de Garcia et al. (2020), Ruparel and
Choubisa (2020) and Xiao and Cooke (2018), we aimed at advancing the understanding of
KH through systematic and more comprehensive reviews. We converged a large amount of
literature by identifying the existing research themes and name potential future research
directions. Overall, our comprehensive review showed that the extant literature on KH is
increasingly focused on specific geographical areas, a specific industry size and limited
industry segments. In recent years, many attempts have been made to study KH (de Garcia
et al., 2020; Xiao and Cooke, 2018); however, this paper is the first to attempt to review
systematically focusing on KH and offers foundations for scholars looking to enhance their
understanding and advancing research on KH.

PAGE 1450 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 26 NO. 6 2022

References  Indicates the references used for literature review analysis

Abdullah, M.I., Dechun, H., Ali, M. and Usman, M. (2019), “Ethical leadership and knowledge hiding: a
moderated mediation model of relational social Capital, and instrumental thinking”, Frontiers in
Psychology, Vol. 10, p. 2403.

Abubakar, A.M., Behravesh, E., Rezapouraghdam, H. and Yildiz, S.B. (2019), “Applying artificial
intelligence technique to predict knowledge hiding behavior”, International Journal of Information
Management, Vol. 49, pp. 45-57.
Adams, R.J., Smart, P. and Huff, A.S. (2017), “Shades of grey: guidelines for working with the grey
literature in systematic reviews for management and organizational studies”, International Journal of
Management Reviews, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 432-454.

Ali, M., Ali, I., Albort-Morant, G. and Leal-Rodrı́guez, A.L. (2020), “How do job insecurity and perceived
well-being affect expatriate employees’ willingness to share or hide knowledge?”, International
Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 185-210.

Aljawarneh, N.M.S. and Atan, T. (2018), “Linking tolerance to workplace incivility, service innovative,
knowledge hiding, and job search behavior: the mediating role of employee cynicism”, Negotiation and
Conflict Management Research, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 298-320.

Alnaimi, A.M.M. and Rjoub, H. (2019), “Perceived organizational support, psychological entitlement,
and extra-role behavior: the mediating role of knowledge hiding behavior”, Journal of Management and
Organization, pp. 1-16.

Anand, P. and Hassan, Y. (2019), “Knowledge hiding in organizations: everything that managers need to
know”, Development and Learning in Organizations: An International Journal, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 12-15.

Anand, A., Centobelli, P. and Cerchione, R. (2020), “Why should I share knowledge with others? A
review-based framework on events leading to knowledge hiding”, Journal of Organizational Change
Management, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 379-399.
Anand, A., Muskat, B., Creed, A., Zutshi, A. and Csepregi, A. (2021), “Knowledge sharing, knowledge
transfer and SMEs: evolution, antecedents, outcomes, and directions”, Personnel Review, Vol. ahead-of-
print No. ahead-of-print, doi: 10.1108/PR-05-2020-0372.

Anser, M.K., Ali, M., Usman, M., Rana, M.L.T. and Yousaf, Z. (2020), “Ethical leadership and knowledge
hiding: an intervening and interactional analysis”, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 41 Nos 5/6,
pp. 1-23.

Arain, G.A., Bhatti, Z.A., Ashraf, N. and Fang, Y.-H. (2018), “Top-down knowledge hiding in
organizations: an empirical study of the consequences of supervisor knowledge hiding among local and
foreign workers in the Middle east”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 164 No. 3, pp. 611-625.

Arain, G.A., Bhatti, Z.A., Hameed, I. and Fang, Y.H. (2019), “Top-down knowledge hiding and innovative
work behavior (IWB): a three-way moderated-mediation analysis of self-efficacy and local/foreign status”,
Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 127-149.

Arain, G.A., Hameed, I., Umrani, W.A., Khan, A.K. and Sheikh, A.Z. (2020), “Consequences of
supervisor knowledge hiding in organizations: a multilevel mediation analysis”, Applied Psychology,
Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 57.

Arshad, R. and Ismail, I.R. (2018), “Workplace incivility and knowledge hiding behavior: does
personality matter?”, Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, Vol. 5 No. 3,
pp. 278-288.

Babic 
, K., Cerne, M., Connelly Catherine, E., Dysvik, A. and Škerlavaj, M. (2019), “Are we in this
together? Knowledge hiding in teams, collective prosocial motivation and leader-member exchange”,
Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 23 No. 8, pp. 1502-1522.

Bari, M.W., Abrar, M., Shaheen, S., Bashir, M. and Fanchen, M. (2019), “Knowledge hiding behaviors
and team creativity: the contingent role of perceived mastery motivational climate”, SAGE Open, Vol. 9
No. 3, p. 2158244019876297.

Belschak, F.D., Den Hartog, D.N. and De Hoogh, A.H.B. (2018), “Angels and demons: the effect of
ethical leadership on Machiavellian employees’ work behaviors”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 9(JUN)

Bhattacharya, S. and Sharma, P. (2019), “Dilemma between ‘it’s My or it’s My organization’s territory’:
antecedent to knowledge hiding in Indian knowledge base industry”, International Journal of Knowledge
Management (IJKM), Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 24-44.

VOL. 26 NO. 6 2022 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 1451

 
Bogilovic 
, S., Cerne, M. and Škerlavaj, M. (2017), “Hiding behind a mask? Cultural intelligence,
knowledge hiding, and individual and team creativity”, European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 710-723.
Bosman, J., van Mourik, I., Rasch, M., Sieverts, E. and Verhoeff, H. (2006), “Scopus reviewed and
compared”, The Coverage and Functionality of the Citation Database Scopus, Including Comparisons
with Web of Science and Google Scholar, Utrecht: Utrecht University Library.

Burmeister, A., Fasbender, U. and Gerpott, F.H. (2019), “Consequences of knowledge hiding: the
differential compensatory effects of guilt and shame”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 2, pp. 281-304.

Butt, A.S. (2019a), “Antecedents of knowledge hiding in a buyer–supplier relationship”, Knowledge and
Process Management, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 346-354.

Butt, A.S. (2019b), “Consequences of top-down knowledge hiding in firms: a pilot study”, Heliyon, Vol. 5
No. 12, doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e03000.

Butt, A.S. (2020a), “Consequences of top-down knowledge hiding: a multi-level exploratory study”, VINE
Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print, doi,
doi: 10.1108/VJIKMS-02-2020-0032.

Butt, A.S. (2020b), “Mitigating knowledge hiding in a buyer-supplier relationship: an exploratory study”,
Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 187-196.

Butt, A.S. and Ahmad, A.B. (2019), “Are there any antecedents of top-down knowledge hiding in firms?
Evidence from the United Arab Emirates”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 23 No. 8,
pp. 1605-1627.

Butt, A.S. and Ahmad, A.B. (2020), “Strategies to mitigate knowledge hiding behavior: building
theories from multiple case studies”, Management Decision, Vol. 59 No. 6, doi, doi: 10.1108/MD-01-
2020-0038.

Butt, A.S., Ahmad, A.B. and Shah, S.H.H. (2020), “Knowledge hiding in a buyer-supplier relationship: a
pilot study”, Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 272-279.

Butt, A.S. (2019c), “Determinants of top-down knowledge hiding in firms: an individual-level
perspective”, Asian Business and Management, pp. 1-21.

Cerne, M., Hernaus, T., Dysvik, A. and Škerlavaj, M. (2017), “The role of multilevel synergistic interplay
among team mastery climate, knowledge hiding, and job characteristics in stimulating innovative work
behavior”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 281-299.

Cerne, M., Nerstad, C.G., Dysvik, A. and Škerlavaj, M. (2014), “What goes around comes around:
knowledge hiding, perceived motivational climate, and creativity”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 172-192.
Centobelli, P. and Ndou, V. (2019), “Managing customer knowledge through the use of big data analytics
in tourism research”, Current Issues in Tourism, Vol. 22 No. 15, pp. 1862-1882.

Connelly, C.E. and Zweig, D. (2015), “How perpetrators and targets construe knowledge hiding in
organizations”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 479-489.
 
Connelly, C.E., Cerne, M., Dysvik, A. and Škerlavaj, M. (2019), “Understanding knowledge hiding in
organizations”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 40 No. 7, pp. 779-782.

Connelly, C.E., Zweig, D., Webster, J. and Trougakos, J.P. (2012), “Knowledge hiding in organizations”,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 64-88.
de Garcia, P.S., Oliveira, M. and Brohman, K. (2020), “Knowledge sharing, hiding and hoarding: how are
they related?”, Knowledge Management Research & Practice, pp. 1-13.

de Geofroy, Z. and Evans, M.M. (2017), “Are emotionally intelligent employees less likely to hide their
knowledge?”, Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 81-95.

Dennis, S. and Kintsch, W. (2007), “Evaluating theories”, in R.J. Sternberg, H.L. Roediger III, & D.F.
Halpern (Eds), Critical Thinking in Psychology, (pp. 143-159). Cambridge University Press,
New York.
Di Vaio, A., Hasan, S., Palladino, R., Profita, F. and Mejri, I. (2021), “Understanding knowledge hiding in
business organizations: a bibliometric analysis of research trends, 1988–2020”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 134, pp. 560-573.

PAGE 1452 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 26 NO. 6 2022

Elyousfi, F., Anand, A. and Dalmasso, A. (2021), “Impact of e-leadership and team dynamics on virtual
team performance in a public organization”, International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 34
No. 5, doi: 10.1108/IJPSM-08-2020-0218.

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

Feng, J. and Wang, C. (2019), “Does abusive supervision always promote employees to hide
knowledge? From both reactance and COR perspectives”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 23
No. 7, pp. 1455-1474.

Fong, P.S., Men, C., Luo, J. and Jia, R. (2018), “Knowledge hiding and team creativity: the contingent
role of task interdependence”, Management Decision, Vol. 56 No. 2, pp. 329-343.

Gagné, M., Tian, A.W., Soo, C., Zhang, B., Ho, K.S.B. and Hosszu, K. (2019), “Different motivations for
knowledge sharing and hiding: the role of motivating work design”, Journal of Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 40 No. 7, pp. 783-799.

Garg, N. and Anand, P. (2020), “Knowledge hiding, conscientiousness, loneliness and affective
commitment: a moderated mediation model”, International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 34
No. 9, pp. 1417-1437.

Ghani, U., Teo, T., Li, Y., Usman, M., Islam, Z.U., Gul, H. and Zhai, X. (2020a), “Tit for tat: abusive
supervision and knowledge hiding-the role of psychological contract breach and psychological
ownership”, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 1240.

Ghani, U., Zhai, X., Spector, J.M., Chen, N., Lin, L., Ding, D. and Usman, M. (2020b), “Knowledge hiding
in higher education: role of interactional justice and professional commitment”, Higher Education, Vol. 79
No. 2, pp. 325-344.
Heisig, P. and Kannan, S. (2020), “Knowledge management: does gender matter? A systematic review of
literature”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 1315-1342.
 
Hernaus, T., Cerne, M., Connelly, C., Poloski Vokic, N. and Škerlavaj, M. (2019), “Evasive knowledge
hiding in academia: when competitive individuals are asked to collaborate”, Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 597-618.
Hirschheim, R. (1985), “Information systems epistemology: an historical perspective”, Research Methods
in Information Systems, Vol. 9, pp. 13-35.
Hislop, D. (2003), “Linking human resource management and knowledge management via commitment:
a review and research agenda”, Employee Relations, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 182-202.

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

Irum, A., Ghosh, K. and Pandey, A. (2020), “Workplace incivility and knowledge hiding: a research
agenda”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 958-980.

Issac, A.C. and Baral, R. (2018), “Dissecting knowledge hiding: a note on what it is and what it is not”,
Human Resource Management International Digest, Vol. 26 No. 7, pp. 20-22.

Issac, A.C. and Baral, R. (2019), “Knowledge hiding in two contrasting cultural contexts”, VINE Journal
of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 455-475.

Jahanzeb, S., Clercq, D.D. and Fatima, T. (2020a), “Bridging the breach: using positive affectivity to
overcome knowledge hiding after contract breaches”, The Journal of Psychology, Vol. 154 No. 3,
pp. 249-272.

Jahanzeb, S., De Clercq, D. and Fatima, T. (2020b), “Organizational injustice and knowledge hiding: the
roles of organizational dis-identification and benevolence”, Management Decision, Vol. 59 No. 2,
pp. 446-462.

Jahanzeb, S., Fatima, T., Bouckenooghe, D. and Bashir, F. (2019), “The knowledge hiding link: a
moderated mediation model of how abusive supervision affects employee creativity”, European Journal
of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 810-819.

Jha, J.K. and Varkkey, B. (2018), “Are you a cistern or a channel? Exploring factors triggering
knowledge-hiding behavior at the workplace: evidence from the Indian R&D professionals”, Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 824-849.

VOL. 26 NO. 6 2022 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 1453

 
Jiang, G. and Xu, Y. (2019), “Tacit knowledge sharing in IT R&D teams: nonlinear evolutionary theoretical
perspective”, Information & Management, Vol. 57 No. 4, pp. 103211.

Jiang, Z., Hu, X., Wang, Z. and Jiang, X. (2019), “Knowledge hiding as a barrier to thriving: the mediating
role of psychological safety and moderating role of organizational cynicism”, Journal of Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 40 No. 7, pp. 800-818.

Jilani, M.M.A.K., Fan, L., Islam, M.T. and Uddin, M. (2020), “The influence of knowledge sharing on
sustainable performance: a moderated mediation study”, Sustainability, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 908.
Kamasak, R. and Bulutlar, F. (2010), “The influence of knowledge sharing on innovation”, European
Business Review, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 306-317.

Kang, S.W. (2016), “Knowledge withholding: psychological hindrance to the innovation diffusion within
an organisation”, Knowledge Management Research & Practice, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 144-149.

Khalid, M., Bashir, S., Khan, A.K. and Abbas, N. (2018), “When and how abusive supervision leads to
knowledge hiding behaviors: an Islamic work ethics perspective”, Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, Vol. 39 No. 6, pp. 794-806.

Khalid, M., Gulzar, A. and Khan, A.K. (2019), “When and how the psychologically entitled
employees hide more knowledge?”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 89,
pp. 102413.

Khoreva, V. and Wechtler, H. (2020), “Exploring the consequences of knowledge hiding: an agency
theory perspective”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 71-84.

Ladan, S., Nordin, N.B. and Belal, H.M. (2017a), “Does knowledge based psychological ownership
matter? Transformational leadership and knowledge hiding: a proposed framework”, Journal of Business
and Retail Management Research, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 60-67.

Ladan, S., Nordin, N.B. and Belal, H.M. (2017b), “Influence of transformational leadership on knowledge
hiding: mediating role of organizational psychological ownership”, International Journal of Business and
Management Science, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 261-277.

Lanke, P. (2018), “Knowledge hiding: impact of interpersonal behavior and expertise”, Human Resource
Management International Digest, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 30-32.

Malik, O.F., Shahzad, A., Raziq, M.M., Khan, M.M., Yusaf, S. and Khan, A. (2019), “Perceptions of
organizational politics, knowledge hiding, and employee creativity: the moderating role of professional
commitment”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 142, pp. 232-237.

Men, C., Fong, P.S.W., Huo, W., Zhong, J., Jia, R. and Luo, J. (2020), “Ethical leadership and knowledge
hiding: a moderated mediation model of psychological safety and mastery climate”, Journal of Business
Ethics, Vol. 166 No. 3, pp. 461-472.

Mongeon, P. and Paul-Hus, A. (2016), “The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a
comparative analysis”, Scientometrics, Vol. 106 No. 1, pp. 213-228.

Offergelt, F., Spörrle, M., Moser, K. and Shaw, J.D. (2019), “Leader-signaled knowledge hiding: effects
on employees’ job attitudes and empowerment”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 40 No. 7,
pp. 819-833.

Pan, W., Zhou, Y. and Zhang, Q. (2016), “Does darker hide more knowledge? The relationship between
machiavellianism and knowledge hiding”, International Journal of Security and Its Applications, Vol. 10
No. 11, pp. 281-292.

Pan, W., Zhang, Q., Teo, T.S.H. and Lim, V.K.G. (2018), “The dark triad and knowledge hiding”,
International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 42, pp. 36-48.
Paul, J. and Criado, A.R. (2020), “The art of writing literature review: what do we know and what do we
need to know?”, International Business Review, Vol. 29 No. 4, p. 101717.

Peng, H. (2013), “Why and when do people hide knowledge?”, Journal of Knowledge Management,
Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 398-415.
Pereira, V. and Mohiya, M. (2021), “Share or hide? Investigating positive and negative employee
intentions and organizational support in the context of knowledge sharing and hiding”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 129, pp. 368-381.
Petticrew, M. and Roberts, H. (2008), Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide, John
Wiley & Sons.

PAGE 1454 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 26 NO. 6 2022


Pradhan, S., Srivastava, A. and Mishra, D.K. (2019), “Abusive supervision and knowledge hiding: the
mediating role of psychological contract violation and supervisor directed aggression”, Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 216-234.

Qureshi, A.M.A. and Evans, N. (2015), “Deterrents to knowledge-sharing in the pharmaceutical industry:
a case study”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 296-314.

Rhee, Y.W. and Choi, J.N. (2017), “Knowledge management behaviour and individual creativity: goal
orientations as antecedents and in-group social status as moderating contingency”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 38 No. 6, pp. 813-832.

Rezwan, R.B. and Takahashi, Y. (2021), “The psychology behind knowledge hiding in an organization”,
Administrative Sciences, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 57 ,

Riaz, S., Xu, Y. and Hussain, S. (2019), “Workplace ostracism and knowledge hiding: the mediating role
of job tension”, Sustainability ( Sustainability, Vol. 11 No. 20.
Ruparel, N. and Choubisa, R. (2020), “Knowledge hiding in organizations: a retrospective narrative
review and the way forward”, Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 5-22.

Semerci, A.B. (2019), “Examination of knowledge hiding with conflict, competition and personal values”,
International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 111-131.

Serenko, A. and Bontis, N. (2016), “Understanding counterproductive knowledge behavior:
antecedents and consequences of intra-organizational knowledge hiding”, Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 1199-1224.

Shah, M. and Hashmi, S., M. (2019), “Relationship between organizational culture and knowledge hiding
in software industry: mediating role of workplace ostracism and workplace incivility”, Pakistan Journal of
Commerce and Social Science, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 934-952.

Singh, S.K. (2019), “Territoriality, task performance, and workplace deviance: empirical evidence on role
of knowledge hiding”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 97, pp. 10-19. .
 
Škerlavaj, M., Connelly, C.E., Cerne, M. and Dysvik, A. (2018), “Tell me if you can: time pressure,
prosocial motivation, perspective taking, and knowledge hiding”, Journal of Knowledge Management,
Vol. 22 No. 7, pp. 1489-1509.

Sukumaran, R. and Lanke, P. (2020), “Un-hiding” knowledge in organizations: the role of climate for
innovation, social exchange and social identification”, Development and Learning in Organizations,
Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 7-9.
, I., Stevenson, M., Blome, C., Melnyk, S., Chan, H.K. and Huang, G.Q. (2020), “A
Thürer, M., Tomaševic
systematic review of china’s belt and road initiative: implications for global supply chain management”,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 58 No. 8, pp. 2436-2453.
Thyer, B.A. (2008), Preparing Research Articles, Social Work Research Methods Oxford University Press,
New York, NY.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D. and Smart, P. (2003), “Towards a methodology for developing evidence-
informed management knowledge by means of systematic review”, British Journal of Management,
Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 207-222.
Venz, L. and Nesher Shoshan, H. (2021), “Be smart, play dumb? A transactional perspective on Day-
Specific knowledge hiding, interpersonal conflict, and psychological strain”, Human Relations,
pp. 0018726721990438.
Vieira, E. and Gomes, J. (2009), “A comparison of scopus and web of science for a typical university”,
Scientometrics, Vol. 81 No. 2, pp. 587-600.

Wang, Y., Han, M.S., Xiang, D. and Hampson, D.P. (2019), “The double-edged effects of perceived
knowledge hiding: empirical evidence from the sales context”, Journal of Knowledge Management,
Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 279-296.

Xia, Q., Yan, S., Zhang, Y. and Chen, B. (2019), “The curvilinear relationship between knowledge
leadership and knowledge hiding: the moderating role of psychological ownership”, Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, Vol. 40 No. 6, pp. 669-683.

Xiao, M. and 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, Vol. 57 No. 4, pp. 470-502.

VOL. 26 NO. 6 2022 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 1455

 
Xiong, C., Chang, V., Scuotto, V., Shi, Y. and Paoloni, N. (2019), “The social-psychological approach in
understanding knowledge hiding within international R&D teams: an inductive analysis”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 128, pp. 799-811., doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.04.009.

Yao, Z., Zhang, X., Luo, J. and Huang, H. (2020), “Offense is the best defense: the impact of workplace
bullying on knowledge hiding”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 675-695.

Zhang, Z. and Min, M. (2019), “The negative consequences of knowledge hiding in NPD project teams:
the roles of project work attributes”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 37 No. 2,
pp. 225-238.

Zhao, H. and Xia, Q. (2019), “Nurses’ negative affective states, moral disengagement, and knowledge
hiding: the moderating role of ethical leadership”, Journal of Nursing Management, Vol. 27 No. 2,
pp. 357-370.

Zhao, H., He, P., Sheard, G. and Wan, P. (2016), “Workplace ostracism and knowledge hiding in service
organizations”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 59, pp. 84-94.

Zhao, H., Liu, W., Li, J. and Yu, X. (2019), “Leader–member exchange, organizational identification, and
knowledge hiding: the moderating role of relative leader–member exchange”, Journal of Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 40 No. 7, pp. 834-848.

Zhu, Y., Chen, T., Wang, M., Jin, Y. and Wang, Y. (2019), “Rivals or allies: how performance-prove goal
orientation influences knowledge hiding”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 40 No. 7, pp. 849-868.

PAGE 1456 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 26 NO. 6 2022

Appendix

Table A1 Journal article sample used for analysis

Name of the Journal No. of articles

Journal of Knowledge Management 15

Journal of Organizational Behavior 8
Knowledge and Process Management 4
Management Decision 3
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 3
Journal of Business Ethics 2
Frontiers in Psychology 2
Human Resource Management International Digest 2
International Journal of Hospitality Management 2
International Journal of Information Management 2
Journal of Business Research 2
Leadership and Organization Development Journal 2
VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems 2
Sustainability (Switzerland) 2
Development and Learning in Organizations 2
Human Resource Management Journal 1
Higher Education 1
Information and Management 1
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 1
International Journal of Business and Management Science 1
International Journal of Conflict Management 1
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 1
International Journal of Knowledge Management (IJKM) 1
International Journal of Project Management 1
International Journal of Security and its Applications 1
Applied Psychology 1
Journal of Business and Retail Management Research 1
Journal of Management and Organization 1
Journal of Managerial Psychology 1
Journal of Nursing Management 1
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 1
Journal of Organizational Change Management 1
Journal of Organizational Effectiveness 1
Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied 1
Negotiation and Conflict Management Research 1
Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Science 1
Personality and Individual Differences 1
SAGE Open 1
Service Industries Journal 1
Telematics and Informatics 1
Academy of Management Journal 1
Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 1
Asian Business and Management 1
Benchmarking 1
Knowledge Management Research & Practice 1
Total 84

Corresponding author
Amitabh Anand can be contacted at: enviamit@gmail.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

VOL. 26 NO. 6 2022 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 1457