Content uploaded by Graham Brown
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Graham Brown on Sep 21, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
BEYOND KNOWLEDGE SHARING:
WITHHOLDING KNOWLEDGE AT WORK
Jane Webster, Graham Brown, David Zweig, Catherine E. Connelly, Susan Brodt, and
Sim Sitkin
Jan. 31, 2008
Chapter to appear in:
Martocchio, J. J. (Ed.), Research in Personnel and Human Resources
Management, Vol. 27, 2008.
Acknowledgements: We would like to thank Dianne Ford, Belle Rose Ragins,Catherine
Shea, Sandy Staples, and John Trougakos for comments on an earlier version of this
chapter, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, the Arts
Research Board at McMaster University, and the Monieson Centre at Queen’s University
for financial support.
1
BEYOND KNOWLEDGE SHARING:
KNOWLEDGE WITHHOLDING AT WORK
ABSTRACT
This chapter discusses why employees keep their knowledge to themselves.
Despite managers’ best efforts, many employees tend to hoard knowledge or are reluctant
to share their expertise with coworkers or managers. Although many firms have
introduced specialized initiatives to encourage a broader dissemination of ideas and
knowledge among organizational members, these initiatives often fail. This chapter
provides reasons as to why this is so. Instead of focusing on why individuals might share
their knowledge, however, we explain why individuals keep their knowledge to
themselves. Multiple perspectives are offered, including social exchange, norms of
secrecy, and territorial behaviors.
2
An annoying co-worker asked me to explain a process that was recently enacted in our
department. I knew all about it, but I was in the middle of some overdue work and did
not want to delay it any further so I feigned ignorance. Besides, I seem to spend lots of
my time teaching the green ones with no reward or recognition, yet I am still expected to
manage my own work (Connelly, Zweig Webster, & Trougakos 2008).
Knowledge Management (KM) is often hailed as the key to organizational
success in the information age. As such, KM initiatives have received a tremendous
amount of practitioner attention over the years (e.g., Caldwell, 2004; Voelpel, Dous, &
Davenpart, 2005). Researchers too, have begun to explore methods for increasing
knowledge sharing among organizational members.
Despite the hype, relatively few KM initiatives have resulted in real benefits.
Even when KM systems and technologies are put into place to capture and transmit
knowledge, people are often reluctant to use them (Connelly & Kelloway, 2003; Ford &
Staples, 2006). This may be because most organizational knowledge is controlled at the
level of the individual – thus for organizations to achieve success they need their
employees to be willing to share their knowledge (Kelloway & Barling, 2000). Nonaka
(1994) argued that employees’ willingness to explicate and share their knowledge is
critical for a firm’s knowledge creation capability. However, some organizations
mistakenly assume that the knowledge will be shared freely and without much prodding
by the organization.
Impeding knowledge transfer1 is an everyday part of organizational life.
Questions about what knowledge to reveal to whom (and conceal from whom) occur with
great regularity (Sitkin, 1986; Wittenbaum, Hollingshead, & Botero, 2004), and the
1 The term knowledge transfer is frequently used to describe the movement of knowledge across
organizational boundaries (e.g., Mowery, Oxley, & Silverman, 1996); here, we focus on transfer between
individuals, consistent with others, such as Lichtenstein and Hunter (2006) and Szulanski (1996).
3
choices people make are consequential: they influence organizational relationships
(Simmel, 1950; Steele, 1970), employee satisfaction (Lawler, 1971) and organizational
effectiveness (Stevenson, 1980). As Szulanski (2000: 10) has stated, "organizations do
not necessarily know all that they know." In order for organizations to rectify this
problem we need to understand why employees are not always willing to transfer their
knowledge to others.
To address this issue we consider employees who impede knowledge transfer in
organizations by withholding their knowledge, either by hiding or hoarding their
knowledge. We examine the motivations and consequences of knowledge withholding
between individuals in organizations2. To do so, we explore different perspectives on
knowledge exchange and consider how each serves to help us to better understand the
various reasons why people choose to withhold knowledge. Each perspective expands our
analysis of human behavior so that we may also consider potential reasons why KM
initiatives might fail. For example, knowledge may be withheld for territorial reasons
(Brown, Lawrence, & Robinson, 2005), for personal motives (Ragins, 2008), or because
of norms of secrecy (Brodt & Sitkin, 2006). Further, knowledge may be withheld due to
individual differences in personality, perceptions of unfairness, distrust, reciprocity, or
power (Connelly, Zweig, & Webster, 2006). These perspectives are examined further
below.
2 Previous research has examined behaviors targeted at organizations, such as silence and voice (Milliken,
Morrison, & Hewlin, 2003; Van Dyne, Ang, & Botero, 2003), which are outside the scope of this chapter.
We focus on individual behaviors that are targeted at other individuals (consistent with knowledge sharing
research focused on dyads: e.g., Quigley, Tesluk, Locke, & Bartol, 2007). Further, in contrast to
withholding knowledge, lying includes a broader set of behaviors that may include actively altering
information (Thompson, Iacovou, & Smith, 2005). Unlike the larger concept of lying, withholding
knowledge does not necessarily violate legal or moral standards. Indeed, employees may engage in
knowledge hiding in order to protect confidential information (e.g., medical records).
4
WITHHOLDING KNOWLEDGE IN ORGANIZATIONS
Knowledge encompasses the information, ideas, and expertise relevant for tasks
performed by organizational members (Bartol & Srivastava, 2002). It has been described
as tacit (e.g., a demonstration of how to perform a task) or explicit (e.g., codified task
specifications), although many argue that tacit and explicit knowledge are inseparable
(e.g., Polyani, 1969; Tsoukas, 1996). In contrast to data or information, knowledge
“consists of insights and interpretations, is personalized and refers to specific situations”
(Andriessen, 2006, p. 3). Of course, what is considered knowledge, information, or data
depends on the context and the individuals involved. In sum, knowledge is personal,
resides within the individual, and its transfer often requires direct communication
between individuals (Hislop, 2002).
The act of transferring knowledge to another is a “dyadic exchange of
organizational knowledge between a source and a recipient unit in which the identity of
the recipient matters” (Szulanski, 1996, p. 28). It should be emphasized that knowledge
requests are frequently outside the supervisor-subordinate relationship, and may include
fellow organizational members, close colleagues, and members of informal networks
(Martiny, 1998). These requests are the main ways in which tacit knowledge is shared in
organizations (Lave & Wegner, 1991; Snowden, 2002). As noted by Prusak and Cohen
(2001: 89), “managers … need to facilitate personal conversations. That’s why cafes,
chat rooms, libraries, kitchens, and other social spaces are important. Sure, they promote
knowledge exchange, but they also spur the discovery of mutual interest that support
communities.” One could argue that knowledge sharing is crucial for many organizations
5
to succeed. It is therefore important to examine why some employees would, at times,
prefer to keep knowledge to themselves.
In this chapter, we focus on employees who withhold knowledge in organizations.
To do so, we first distinguish between two types of withholding knowledge in
organizations -- knowledge hoarding and knowledge hiding. As we describe next,
knowledge hoarding and hiding represent two different types of knowledge withholding,
where hoarding captures the accumulation of knowledge and hiding represents
concealing knowledge requested by another. Unfortunately, little empirical research
investigates their similarities and differences, but we do know that knowledge hoarding
and knowledge hiding load on separate dimensions in a factor analysis (Connelly et al.,
2008). It is important to begin to distinguish between hoarding and hiding, as they may
have very different antecedents or consequences for organizations.
Knowledge hoarding is the act of accumulating knowledge which may or may not
be shared in the future (Hislop, 2003); that is, it is knowledge that has not been requested
by another individual. For instance, an employee may keep personal information secret,
an act of omission that is not targeted to a particular person but generally involves
concealing information that would be distressing if revealed to others (Lane & Wegner,
1995; Sitkin & Roth, 1993). We do not necessarily assume employees have malevolent
intentions or even incompatible interests with their organizations when they hoard.
Employees who are hoarding knowledge may be well-intended, striving to do their best,
and struggling to honor their social commitments (e.g., to the organization, to co-
workers, to clients) as best they can (Sitkin & Brodt, 2006).
6
In contrast to hoarding knowledge, knowledge hiding is an intentional attempt to
withhold or conceal knowledge that has been requested by another individual (Connelly
et al., 2006). That is, it captures dyadic situations in which knowledge is requested by one
employee and that knowledge is hidden by another employee. For example, one
employee may ask a second employee for a particular piece of knowledge. The second
employee may choose to only disclose a portion of the knowledge or may simply decline
to disclose the knowledge. Similar to knowledge hoarding, employees may hide for both
self-interested and pro-social reasons. Although the act of intentionally concealing
knowledge from another might be considered as an example of workplace deviance
(Robinson & Bennett, 1995) from the point of view of the requestor, the person
concealing the knowledge may feel that doing so is justified (e.g., it’s for the other
person’s good) or in the organization’s best interests (e.g., preserving confidentiality).
Employees hide knowledge in a variety of ways. In a series of studies examining
the knowledge hiding behaviors of a large number of participants, Connelly et al. (2008)
identified three different ways that people can engage in knowledge hiding in response to
a request for information. The first method of knowledge hiding is to engage in evasive
hiding in response to request for knowledge. Examples of evasive hiding include offering
the knowledge requestor some other information instead of what was really needed or
stalling for time and promising to help the knowledge requester at a later time. Another
identified method of knowledge hiding was playing dumb. In these cases, people reported
engaging in behaviors such as pretending that they didn’t know what the knowledge
requestor was talking about or stating that they were not very knowledgeable about the
topic. Rationalized hiding is a third identified method of knowledge hiding. People who
7
engaged in rationalized hiding reported stating that the knowledge was confidential and
could not be shared or that they were not permitted to share the requested knowledge. In
sum, the results of these studies suggest that the act of knowledge hiding can take on
three main forms. Each of these different types of knowledge hiding behaviors were
found to be predicted by a different set of antecedents and to have different relationships
with outcomes such as job performance.
An interesting question concerns the frequency of hiding behaviors in
organizations. In an event-based study conducted in an organization in which participants
were asked to report on daily knowledge transfer events over a five-day period, 11% of
the actual knowledge transfer events were hiding, while the remainder were sharing
(Connelly et al., 2008). One would expect that, like counterproductive workplace
behaviors, employees would be hesitant to report on their actual hiding incidents, and this
11% probably represents a lower bound on real hiding behaviors in organizations.
Although an initial consideration of knowledge hiding and sharing might suggest
that individuals may either share or hide their knowledge, a strict dichotomy does not
exist between these variables. In other words, knowledge hiding and sharing are not
simply the “opposites” of each other, but rather, they are conceptually distinct constructs
(Connelly et al., 2006)3. To illustrate this point, let us consider two examples: First, an
employee may receive a request for knowledge and choose to fully share any and all
available information. In this case, the individual is clearly not hiding his/her knowledge.
However, in the event that s/he is not able to provide the required knowledge (that is, s/he
3 There are several similarly related constructs in the wider organizational behavior literature, such as
organizational citizenship behaviors and counterproductive work behaviors (Kelloway, Loughlin, Barling,
& Nault, 2002) and positive and negative affectivity (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). In each case, the
related variables are negatively yet highly correlated, but should be considered separately in order to be
understood more fully.
8
does not possess the information), this person will be unable to share any knowledge.
This is not a case of knowledge hiding. In contrast, we would consider the same case to
be knowledge hiding if the employee has the knowledge to provide but intentionally
conceals it (e.g., by feigning ignorance). Behaviorally, the two constructs would appear
quite similar but the motivations behind knowledge hiding and a lack of knowledge
sharing are strikingly different. As indicated above, knowledge hiding might be
motivated by a number of different reasons (e.g., prosocial, instrumental, laziness, etc),
whereas a lack of knowledge sharing is likely only driven by an absence of the
knowledge itself.
REASONS WHY PEOPLE WITHHOLD KNOWLEDGE
When considering why a coworker might prefer to hoard or hide his or her
knowledge from a coworker, it is crucial to note that some employees consider
knowledge as the sole property of the person who holds it. As such, it is difficult for an
organization to compel an employee to share all of his or her knowledge (Kelloway &
Barling, 2000). Instead, organizations need to consider the underlying dynamics that
influence employees’ behaviors. An instinctual assumption may be that withholding is
driven by a desire or need for power. However, there are a variety of other reasons why
employees withhold knowledge. One interesting perspective emerges from recent work
on territoriality (Brown, Lawrence, & Robinson, 2005); in this perspective, felt
ownership over knowledge becomes a source of resistance to knowledge transfer.
Although the results in terms of the withholding may be the same, it is important to
distinguish between the different motivations to better understand why employees may
hoard or hide their knowledge. In the following section we discuss both of these
9
perspectives, while also considering interpersonal, organizational, and individual factors
that can affect employees’ knowledge withholding behaviors.
Power and Politics in Organizations
The most obvious and simplest reason for withholding knowledge is for political
gain. In the knowledge economy, knowledge is touted to be a source of power. An idea or
knowledge can have value as a strategic or political resource that brings extrinsic rewards
to its possessor (Clegg, 1989). Indeed, a basic component of power in organizations is the
role that valued resources play in extracting benefits to the controller of those resources
(Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978). In contrast, KM systems can shift the balance of power to
managers for a variety of reasons, including reducing employees’ uniqueness and
deskilling them (Gray, 2001). As noted by Nonaka (1991: 102), “when information
differentials exist, members of an organization can no longer interact on equal terms,
which hinders the search for different interpretations of new knowledge.”
Although power can be described as a characteristic of an individual, rather than
an organizational-level variable, power is often shaped by organizational forces, such as
reward systems. Indeed, power represents “a force, a store of potential influence through
which events can be affected” (Pfeffer, 1981: 7). For example, a manager’s reward
power, which is based on his or her capacity to provide incentives (French & Raven,
1959), may affect a subordinate’s decision whether to hide their knowledge, because he
or she would expect negative consequences if this decision were detected.
Similarly, expert power, derived from the individual’s special knowledge or skills
(French & Raven, 1959), may also affect employees’ knowledge hoarding and hiding
10
behaviors. For instance, experts may hide information in order to reinforce their status
within the organization. Likewise, there is some evidence that powerless employees may
attempt to gain control through deviant behaviors (Ashforth, 1989). As such, powerless
employees may be more likely to engage in knowledge withholding, in order to garner
what leverage they can. For example, in a case study conducted in two organizations,
some employees hoarded knowledge in order to maintain their positions (Lichtenstein &
Hunter, 2006). Alternatively, experts may share their knowledge with novices in order to
repay their own training and socialization or in order to reinforce their expert status by
remaining in contact with those less knowledgeable (Fine, 1998).
Knowledge can be seen as an asset that employees can use to elevate their status
in the organization. Davenport (1997) has stressed that concerns of power, rational gain,
and distrust lead people to hide or hoard information and knowledge. As people gain
unique knowledge and perform specific roles in the organization they increase others’
dependency on them. In a relevant example, Pfeffer (1981) described machine experts
who threw away their manuals to ensure they were the irreplaceable operators of their
machines. Similarly, people who are experiencing job insecurity may try to make
themselves indispensable to the organization by hiding knowledge. These are good
examples of politically motivated behavior.
Although the political perspective is important to understanding knowledge
withholding in organizations, it cannot explain all types of behaviors and particularly the
different behaviors that serve to communicate or prevent others from taking or using an
idea. People still hoard and hide knowledge even when political or power motives are not
present and may withhold knowledge even to the point where they damage their image
11
and lose power (Brown & Robinson, 2007). To understand why employees withhold
knowledge when not driven by political or reward motives, we draw on theories of
territoriality, psychological ownership and possession.
Territoriality
Territoriality involves attachment or territorial feelings towards an object, which
in turn leads to territorial behaviors oriented towards communicating and maintaining
one’s claim over an object. Although the objective value of objects plays a role in
developing territorial feelings and seeing it as a territory, knowledge hoarding and hiding
are about much more than ‘rational’ or strategic control of valued resources. The
development of proprietary attachment to things at work is not so much reflective of a
rational calculus of the costs and benefits of ownership, but rather of naturally occurring
psychological mechanisms and needs.
Psychological ownership
According to Pierce and colleagues (2001; 2003) objects are more valuable to the
individual and thus likely to engender feelings of ownership to the extent that they fulfill
several important human needs including the need for efficacy, the need for a sense of
place, and the need for self-expression. For example, organizational members are more
likely to develop proprietary attachment to objects or entities at work that enable them to
express, construct or maintain their social identity at work (Brown & Altman, 1981;
Dittmar, 1992). This itself is dependent on the extent to which the object is important to
the individuals’ identity construction (Altman & Chemers, 1980; Ashforth & Mael, 1989;
Goffman, 1959; Tuan, 1980). For some organizational members, identity expression
12
through territories may be a key strategy for establishing who they are in relation to
others in the organization and for creating impressions for themselves and others (Brown
& Werner, 1985). Research supports this link and finds that employees who see an
association between their identity and an idea are more likely to feel a claim to that idea
(Hannah, 2004).
Objects also become more valuable as individuals invest more of themselves in
the object. This includes investments of time, effort, ideas, expertise, or attention
(Czikszentmihalyi & Rochberg-Halton, 1981; Pierce et al., 2001). For example, an
investment of energy might include extended effort to develop a program or even
research a competitor. The amount of time or degree of interaction one has had with a
particular object will also strengthen one’s sense of ownership over it (Brown et al.,
2005). People are more likely to feel ownership over an object as they gain information
or knowledge about it (Beggan & Brown, 1994; Constant, Kiesler, & Sproull, 1994;
Rudmin & Berry, 1987) and become more familiar with the object. For example, Ford
and Staples (2006) found that employees are less like to share knowledge that they
perceive as unique.
Knowledge, and ideas in particular, are examples of deeply held territories.
Drawing on the key routes to ownership, we can predict that knowledge created is more
likely to engender territoriality than knowledge learned from others. Someone who
generates the idea is more likely to have (i) invested his or her self in the knowledge, (ii)
have intimate familiarity with the knowledge, and (iii) control the inputs, the process, and
the immediate outputs of knowledge work. Thus, the more involved in creating the idea
the more likely the employee will see a stronger claim to the idea. Understanding one’s
13
attachment to knowledge also helps us understand why people engage in territorial
behaviors.
Territorial behaviors
A critical aspect of territoriality, and one that has significant implications for
knowledge transfer, is that territorial behavior is a social behavioral construct: it is only
in relation to other people that we mark and defend our claims. As Brown and colleagues
argue (2005), territorial behaviors are not simply about expressing ownership over an
object (e.g., this is mine) but they are centrally concerned with establishing,
communicating, and maintaining one’s relationship with that object relative to others in
the social environment (e.g., this is mine and not yours!). Through marking the object, the
individual both constructs it as a territory and then communicates this claim to others.
Perceptions, or fear, of infringement lead to territorial behaviors intended to maintain and
restore the claim to the territory. Thus the territorial behaviors, marking and defending,
signal and reinforce our claims.
Past research has identified four types of territorial behaviors (Altman, 1975;
Brown, 1987; Brown et al., 2005), which can influence and, in some cases, be examples
of withholding behaviors. These types of behaviors include identity-oriented marking,
control-oriented marking, anticipatory defending, and reactionary defending. Each of
these behaviors has implications for knowledge withholding, which we will discuss
below.
Control-oriented marking. Control-oriented marking involves actions and
symbols that communicate to others the claim to and boundaries around a territory
(Altman, 1975; Becker & Mayo, 1971; Smith, 1983). In the context of knowledge
14
withholding, examples of control–oriented marking might include informing others in a
meeting that one has developed an idea. Control-oriented marking serves to communicate
to others that someone has claimed a territory and as such is particularly relevant for
hoarding in that other people are discouraged from accessing or using the knowledge.
Identity-oriented marking. Identity-oriented marking is the deliberate decoration
or modification of an object by its owner to reflect the owner’s identity (Sommer, 1974;
Sundstrom & Sundstrom, 1986). Identity-oriented marking serves the function of
enabling individuals to construct and express their identities to themselves and to others
through the territory.
Identity-oriented marking allows individuals to influence how others see them and
what they are associated with, and as such has several interesting implications for
knowledge withholding, and in particular, hiding. First, an idea is not simply an idea but
an extension of the self. People may be reluctant to share certain ideas or may be more
active in promoting other ideas that reflect aspects of themselves that they want to
project. For example, if a solution reflects the positive aspects of their identity they may
push their idea that reflects this. On the other hand, if the knowledge reflects something
they don’t want others to know about them they may try to discourage discussion of a
particular solution or idea.
Anticipatory defenses. Although marking is intended to demarcate territorial
boundaries and the claim of a territory by an individual, the socially defined nature of
these boundaries and attachments means they will sometimes be subject to differing
interpretations (Brown & Altman, 1981, 1983; Lyman & Scott, 1967; Wollman, Kelley,
& Bordens, 1994). For example, newcomers to the organization or work group may be
15
unaware of claims or misinterpret territorial markers. As a result, individuals may engage
in anticipatory defenses, actions designed to thwart potential infringement. These actions
are classified as anticipatory defenses because people engage in them before an
infringement occurs and these defenses serve to thwart infringement attempts by others
(Dyson-Hudson & Smith, 1978; Edney, 1975, 1976; Knapp, 1978).
Anticipatory defenses that relate to knowledge hoarding might include a password
on computer files to prevent others from accessing that information. Not providing
known information might also be used as a way of leading people astray. Whereas
announcing an idea is one strategy for claiming the idea, not telling (hiding) could be an
anticipatory defense. If one is afraid that others will claim an idea he or she may hide it.
Similarly, if an idea is only partially developed or the individual is afraid that others will
modify it in ways they do not agree with, they may hide it. Again, the territoriality
perspective is unique in that it points out that this may happen even when rewards are not
involved.
Reactionary defenses. Reactionary defenses are responses to infringement
attempts by others: how one reacts if someone uses or takes that which they see as
belonging to them (Brown, 1987; Brown et al, 2005; Wollman et al, 1994). Reacting to
an infringement of one’s territory serves primarily to restore the claim to the object.
However, reacting can also function to provide an emotional expression of one’s feelings
toward the infringement. Examples include confronting the individual or taking the issue
to higher ups. Although beneficial in terms of protecting the claims of the individual,
reactions, or fear of reaction, may increase knowledge withholding, in particular hiding,
because the individual may be concerned about infringing on another’s territory. Fear of
16
infringement and the subsequent reactions will reduce collaborative work and desire to
work on someone else’s idea (i.e., contribute to it).
In sum, the territoriality perspective highlights that attachment to knowledge is a
function of variety of factors, many of which cannot be explained with simple reference
to the objective value of knowledge. To this point, territoriality and feelings of ownership
have been relatively ignored by researchers, but as we have discussed, the value of
knowledge must also be understood in terms of its subjective value to the owner. It is
furthermore important to note that specific territorial behaviors can be used to hide
information and therefore undermine knowledge management efforts within the
organization.
Interpersonal Dynamics
To this point we have examined factors related to knowledge in terms of its value,
whether objective or subjective. Another important influence on withholding knowledge
relates to the nature of social exchanges. An implicit social exchange underlies many
interactions between organizational members. Essentially, someone who voluntarily and
spontaneously engages in a behavior that benefits another person may implicitly invoke a
similar yet unspecified reciprocal behavior (Blau, 1964). In due course, the nature of the
exchanges expands, as obligations are discharged and new ones are created. Based on
Blau’s social exchange theory, the history of reciprocity among colleagues may affect the
likelihood of an employee engaging in knowledge hiding behaviors. Employees who
have received assistance previously may feel duty-bound to reciprocate by sharing their
knowledge whenever possible with those who have provided the assistance. Employees
17
whose requests for assistance are rebuffed may conversely feel entitled to hide
knowledge from those who request it.
It is important to consider cases where two colleagues have established a
relationship. In this scenario, the quality of their relationship, as shaped by their previous
interactions, may affect their knowledge hiding behaviors. Interpersonal distrust may be a
particularly salient determinant of how these relationships frame future interactions.
Interpersonal distrust may underlie ineffective social exchanges (Blau, 1964) and it may
in fact affect employees’ knowledge hiding behaviors. Whereas trust has been broadly
defined as confident positive expectations regarding another’s conduct, distrust refers to
confident negative expectations regarding another’s conduct (Lewicki et al., 1998).
Although the nomological net of distrust has yet to be widely established, McAllister,
Lewicki and Bies (2000) suggest that individuals who actively distrust another party are
likely to use hard influence tactics. Indeed, Ford and Chan (2003) found that distrust
relates to knowledge hoarding, Ford and Staples (2006) reported that employees cited
distrust as a reason for not sharing knowledge, and Connelly et al. (2008) found a strong
relationship between distrust and the three types of knowledge hiding behaviors (evasive
hiding, playing dumb, and rationalized hiding).
Knowledge hiding in organizations may also be affected by interpersonal fairness,
or the courtesy of interpersonal treatment by one person to another (Donovan, Drasgow
& Munson, 1998). People who believe that they have been treated rudely or unfairly by a
colleague may retaliate by engaging in various retaliatory behaviors, such as
interpersonal aggression (e.g., Dupre, Inness, Connelly, Barling, & Hoption, 2006) or by
reducing their organizational citizenship behaviors (e.g., Blakely, Andrews, & Moorman,
18
2005). Similarly, employees who believe that they have been treated rudely or
disrespectfully by a colleague will be more likely to hide their knowledge from this
individual, even in response to a legitimate request for assistance (Sitkin & Stickel,
1996).
Organizational Culture and Norms
Employees’ knowledge hoarding and hiding behaviors may also be affected by
the broader organizational environment in which they work. As some employees have
reported, “Active hoarders would not survive within this organization; they would be
singled out” (Ford & Chan, 2003, p. 22).
Organizational culture and social norms will affect what employees consider to be
acceptable conduct towards fellow organizational members; these have been shown to
predict knowledge sharing behaviors in organizations (e.g., Connelly & Kelloway, 2003;
Jarvenpaa & Staples, 2001). For instance, in an organization with a non-hierarchical
organizational culture, both management and employees socialize and interact frequently
with each other, with little regard for their organizational status (Connelly & Kelloway,
2003). The resultant social interaction is an important determinant of how employees’
knowledge is used and shared (Kelloway & Barling, 2000). Employees who have several
opportunities to interact socially with coworkers will have a better understanding of their
colleagues’ abilities and knowledge, will trust their colleagues more, and will have more
opportunities to share their knowledge with coworkers in the future (Connelly &
Kelloway, 2003).
19
Interestingly, an organization’s sharing climate may have little effect on
employees who hide knowledge. In a study of actual knowledge sharing and hiding
behaviors in an organization, intentions to withhold knowledge related strongly (and
negatively) to organizational sharing climate for those who shared, but did not relate for
those who hid (Connelly et al., 2008). In contrast, an organization’s norms concerning
distrust and secrecy may be particularly relevant to withholding knowledge in
organizations.
Norms of distrust and organizational secrecy may be particularly prevalent in
complex and uncertain environments (Erickson, 1979). Whether this transfers to
withholding behaviors within the organization is an empirical question. Employees’
withholding decisions are based on a variety of factors in the organizational environment,
and in particular, on formal (e.g., Hannah, 2005) and informal rules about secrecy (e.g.,
Brodt & Sitkin, 2006; Sitkin, 1986). For example, Hannah (2005) found that formal rules
resulted in employees feeling obligated to protect trade secrets. Further, Brodt and Sitkin
(2006) identified a variety of norms around secrecy in their interviews with employees
from three semiconductor companies and identified eight secrecy norms, including:
“Need to Know” (related to the pragmatics of getting the job done), “Right to Know”
(related to informational rights), “Avoiding Disruptions” (related to avoiding conflict,
minimizing discomfort, and protecting people’s feelings), and “Maintaining Interpersonal
Trust” (related to the psychology of trust and close relationships). Thus, whether through
explicit instructions or simply by observing the actions of their coworkers, employees
learn quickly that it is the norms of secrecy that they are actually expected to follow
(Browning & Folger, 1994; Van Mannen & Pentland, 1994).
20
In addition, employees are motivated to follow secrecy norms because they want
to be accepted by others and not appear deviant (Deutsch & Gerard, 1955; Sitkin & Roth,
1993). Indeed, individuals who stray from group norms are often disliked, rejected, and
ridiculed (Levine, 1989), which is stressful and difficult to endure (Williams, et al, 2002).
Of the eight norms that emerged from and Brodt and Sitkin’s (2006) analysis, the
majority reflected concerns about being accepted either by peers or by organization
leaders (e.g., respecting authority, maintaining interpersonal trust).
More generally, social norms are an important mechanism by which organizations
provide guidance (Katz & Kahn, 1966) and facilitate social interactions (Cialdini, Reno,
& Kallgren, 1991; Pruitt & Carnevale, 1993). Norms clarify shared beliefs about how
group or organization members should behave. Managers serving on special committees
or task forces, for example, are expected to be open with fellow committee members
during deliberations, but also tight-lipped regarding discussions outside of the group.4
Because of this norm, committee members know how to behave among themselves and
with non-committee members. Norms also help people know what to expect of others
and often guide interpretations of other people’s behavior. Specifically, they provide a
situational explanation for behavior that might otherwise be interpreted as indicative of
some other motive.
Taken together, norms can create a sense of social comfort when tackling difficult
and/or ambiguous tasks such as decisions concerning knowledge transfer. Norms foster a
shared understanding of what is expected of oneself and of others and by providing a
non-personal (i.e., system) explanation for the resulting behavior. They are generally
thought to be sources of guidance for individuals who face complex or potentially
4 This can be a matter of formal policy but more often takes the form of an informal norm.
21
controversial choices (Hackman, 2002). Thus, in the case of knowledge transfer, norms
help individuals decide whether to withhold knowledge or to disclose it (Brodt & Sitkin,
2006).
Individual Characteristics
Thus far, there has been little research that examines individual characteristics
related to the withholding of knowledge in organizations. Although some research has
examined the dissimilarity of a peer’s workgroup with respect to personality in predicting
an individual’s deviant behaviors (e.g., Liao, Joshi, & Chuang, 2004), few studies have
specifically examined what aspects of people’s personalities and other characteristics
might predict whether or not individuals will engage in behaviors such as knowledge
hiding. However, one personality trait that might predispose individuals to withhold
knowledge is Machiavellianism (O’Neill & Adya, 2006). People who have high levels of
this trait are self-interested and are predisposed to win at all costs (Fehr, Samsom, &
Paulhus, 1992). Because of their strategic orientation, high Machiavellians are likely to
hide knowledge if it serves their interests. Furthermore, perceptions of another
individual’s level of Machiavellianism may affect whether or not someone will engage in
knowledge hiding with this person.
Another potential characteristic that is worth further examination is an
individual’s goal orientation, or the types of goal preferences (learning, performance)
held in achievement situations (Dweck, 1986). These may influence one’s intention to
engage in goal-oriented behaviors (Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996) such as knowledge
hiding. For instance, an individual high in learning orientation has a malleable view of
22
ability and is likely to want to share and receive knowledge from others (Zweig &
Webster, 2004). In this case, even sharing information about failures would be considered
an opportunity to learn. In contrast, individuals high in performance approach orientation
(a desire to attain favorable judgments) or performance avoidance orientation (a desire to
avoid unfavorable judgments) believe that ability is fixed. The personalities of these
performance-oriented individuals may preclude them from pretending to be ignorant or
incompetent. In support of this, Connelly et al. (2008) found that knowledge sharing
relates positively to learning orientation, while the hiding behavior of playing dumb
relates negatively to performance approach orientation.
As indicated earlier, individual power and status should also be particularly
pertinent to knowledge withholding in organizations (O’Neill & Adya, 2006). For
example, those with higher need for power may try to control knowledge more through
territorial behavior. In contrast, those lower in power may be more likely to be territorial
and try to use knowledge as a resource. This may be less important to people with more
status or position power (Esser, 1968; Esser, Chamberlain, Chapple & Kline, 1965).
People lower in status or power may be more sensitive to the cues of others (Keltner,
Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003) and therefore be more sensitive to potential invasions.
Those higher in status or who are more dominant in personality may ignore the markings
and signals of others thus increasing animosity between employees. Knowledge may also
be more important to the identity of lower status or less dominant people. If they come up
with a solution, or have a niche area, they may be more protective of this, not because of
trying to get ahead but rather, because it is more important to how others see them.
Giving this up has greater implications for them.
23
In a related vein, it is also interesting to consider the implications of certain
individual characteristics that employees feel represent “invisible stigmas” (Ragins, 2008;
Sitkin & Roth, 1993) and how these stigmas might influence decisions to disclose or
withhold information. Employees may feel that certain specific characteristics, such as
their religion or sexual orientations, would be detrimental to their careers if others knew
about them. For example, studies of gay and lesbian employees who choose to disclose
their sexual orientation to their employers suggest that disclosure is heavily context-
specific (e.g., Schneider, 1987). Further, gay and lesbian employees who perceive
discrimination in their workplaces are hesitant to disclose their sexual orientations to
colleagues (Ragins, Cornwell & Miller, 2003). Interestingly, Ragins and Cornwell (2001)
suggest that the presence of protective legislation as well as progressive organizational
policies and practices will affect whether gay and lesbian employees disclose their sexual
orientations. For example, Ragins, Singh, and Cornwell (2007) report that gay, lesbian,
and bisexual employees are more likely to disclose their sexual orientations when they
work in a group that is perceived as supportive and sharing their stigma. That is, although
many individuals have a common “secret” (i.e., their sexual orientation), their decisions
to share or withhold this information may depend heavily on workgroup cultures
Although the non-disclosure of stigmatizing information might not influence the
transfer of organizationally-relevant knowledge, the act of withholding stigmatizing
information itself might be reflected as reluctance on the part of the stigmatized group
member to generally share knowledge freely. This reluctance could be perceived
negatively by others and lead to consequent knowledge withholding in response. Thus, it
24
is important for future research to explore the effects of stigmas on workplace
relationships in general and knowledge withholding in particular.
CONSEQUENCES OF WITHHOLDING KNOWLEDGE
As we have seen, employees may resist transferring knowledge despite its
importance to organizational goals. Understanding the different ways that employees may
withhold knowledge, as well as correctly identifying their reasons, can have important
implications for solving these knowledge transfer dilemmas. As we discuss in this
section, withholding knowledge has consequences for individuals as well as for
organizations; some of these consequences are detrimental but there are also potentially
positive outcomes as well.
The Individual
Withholding knowledge can be expected to lead to a number of negative or
positive outcomes. Of course, withholding knowledge is sometimes important to do, as in
protecting trade secrets (Hannah, 2005). However, in other situations, employees who
hide their knowledge are likely to have knowledge hidden from them as well and to
experience damaged interpersonal relationships; this is due to the strong element of
reciprocity in employees’ decisions to share or hide their knowledge from coworkers.
The relationship between knowledge withholding and other outcomes, such as
individual performance, is more complex. In the short term, employees who hide
knowledge will have more time available to work on their own tasks, and their
performance would be expected to be higher than that of employees who take the time to
share their knowledge with their coworkers. In the long term, however, knowledge hiding
25
that is reciprocated with further hiding behaviors from colleagues is likely to lead to
lower job performance because crucial, task-related information will become less readily
available. Sharing knowledge is also likely to enhance the reputation of employees who
have demonstrated that their expertise is valuable and that they are altruistic enough to
make it available to others.
Withholding knowledge can also have negative consequences for the individual
both in terms of image and lost opportunities. People deceive others for both self-
interested and pro-social reasons (DePaulo & Kashy, 1998; Grover, 1993) and the
inferred reasons behind a lie affect the way in which this deception is perceived by
others. Generally, lies told for affiliation reasons (e.g., “I like your new hairstyle”), to
benefit others (e.g., “everyone chipped in to pay for your gift”), or to protect privacy
(e.g., “she was let go because of the economy”) are considered to be acceptable (Seiter
Seiter, Bruschke, & Bai, 2002; Sitkin & Brodt, 2006). Similarly, as described earlier,
employees may engage in withholding knowledge for both self-interested and pro-social
reasons, but the inferred motivations are likely to affect how this behavior is perceived.
For example, employees who are perceived to hide knowledge for instrumental reasons
rather than to benefit others are likely to face more serious interpersonal consequences.
It is also important to recognize that withholding knowledge by engaging in
territorial behaviors can lead to pejorative views of the individual doing so. For example,
if one constantly marks one’s ideas, that person may be seen as self-promoting. Even
expressing oneself through an idea may be seen as self-serving at the cost of other
options or input. Certainly anticipatory and reactionary defenses may lead to the
perception that the territorial individual is not a team player or is secretive. In all of these
26
examples, coworkers may not understand the reason for the behavior which could lead to
isolation and ostracizing of the territorial individual.
On the positive side, feelings of ownership over physical space have been found
to be associated with more responsibility for (Rodgers & Freundlich, 1998) and positive
evaluations of (Nuttin, 1987) the object itself. This has several implications for
knowledge transfer which could lead to positives for the organization. People who have
higher ownership are likely to be more committed and see the project through to
completion. With creative, demanding work the pitfalls are numerous and individuals
who have a higher sense of ownership are less likely to abandon projects. With feelings
of ownership comes a right to exercise influence (control) over the target (Barzel, 1989).
Certainty about what will happen to the knowledge is important in understanding whether
employees will withhold knowledge. If individuals create the idea it may be “their baby.”
If an organization neglects to capitalize on this idea, the creator may decide to go on his
own to pursue his idea. Of course there are potential financial incentives for this, but
oftentimes it is driven by a sense of responsibility and desire to see an idea through.
Clear organizational norms of secrecy should smooth social interactions and thus
minimize interpersonal conflicts resulting from knowledge withholding. For example, if
secrecy norms are clear and followed, they stand to reduce uncertainty, impose a
modicum of control on employee behavior, and make non-disclosure less socially
awkward by providing socially acceptable explanations (Brodt & Sitkin, 2006). However,
the promise of secrecy norms – that they will provide a coherent set of informal
behavioural guidelines that clarify actions and simplify secrecy decisions – may not
square with reality (Brodt & Sitkin, 2006).
27
Dealing with multiple norms is likely to be challenging for individuals for a
number of reasons. For example, having multiple norms raises questions about the
relationships among them: Are they compatible? Do they adequately cover the secrecy
terrain? The secrecy norms that Brodt and Sitkin (2006) identified turned out to fall short
on both accounts: the norms were incompatible, incomplete, and overly inclusive.
Incompatible norms indicated disclosure as well as secrecy, whereas incomplete norms
left “norm gaps” where existing norms seemed not to apply. Perhaps most challenging,
however, were the secrecy norms that were overly inclusive: employees found these
norms to be so stringent and broadly inclusive that they could not be followed without
disrupting essential or routine work-related, professional, or social interactions. Thus,
relying on a well-developed set of secrecy norms intended to clarify the situation can
actually muddy the waters even further for many well-meaning and diligent employees
(Brodt & Sitkin, 2006).
Concerning withholding personal information, it may be difficult to disentangle
whether various negative outcomes of nondisclosure derive from the employee’s actions,
or whether they relate to a larger issue that contributed to the nondisclosure in the first
place (Ellis & Riggle, 1995). For example, employees who feel that the work
environment is unwelcoming may choose to avoid disclosing personal information that
they believe may be used against them (Sitkin & Roth, 1993). However, coworkers may
simply notice that this individual seems “distant” or hesitant to reveal personal
information, and these perceptions may lead to coworker behaviors (e.g., fewer social
invitations) that would further reinforce existing perceptions regarding the collegiality of
the workplace. Issues of causality aside, there is some evidence to suggest that employees
28
who hide personal information experience negative emotional outcomes. For example,
lesbians who do not disclose their sexual orientations to coworkers experience more
psychological strain (Ragins et al., 2007), more anxiety, less positive affectivity, and
lower self-esteem (Jordan & Deluty, 1998) than employees who do disclose this personal
information. On the other hand, employees may still withhold personal information in
order to protect themselves from negative reactions of managers and coworkers.
The Organization
From an organizational perspective, there are a host of additional consequences.
For instance, the consequences of secrecy norms for organizations reflect some of the
challenges faced by individuals, but at a broader level. For example, when guidance
provided by norms is unclear and employees use considerable individual judgment in
deciding what to do, the resulting diversity of knowledge transfer choices may not be in
the organization’s best interest (Sitkin & Brodt, 2006). For instance, employees who need
to know information to do their jobs effectively may not be getting it whereas those who
do not need it may have easy access. Moreover, organization members who witness such
diversity of knowledge transfer behaviors may impute a variety of motives to their co-
workers, some of which may be uncharitable and create disruptions in the work
environment.
Perhaps the most notable consequence of secrecy norms for organizations,
however, is the recognition that individuals rely on secrecy norms as a powerful informal
organization mechanisms to help them deal with knowledge hiding and hoarding. People
naturally look to their social environment (Gabbert, Memon, & Allan, 2003; Gilbert,
29
Giesler, & Morris, 1995) and thus secrecy norms will play a large part in the choices they
make about what to reveal or conceal. Despite their prevalence, these norms are not a
panacea and organizations that rely exclusively on a system of norms to manage
knowledge withholding will undoubtedly encounter significant challenges (Brodt &
Sitkin, 2006).
To avoid relying on norms, some organizations create formal policies and
contracts, such as intellectual property contracts or IPs (Hannah, 2004). These IPs specify
the organization’s claims and rights over knowledge/products that are created by
employees. These contracts are intended to protect the interests of the organization by
giving the organization the right to find, collect, store, and disseminate knowledge that
their employees create. Yet, this has not solved many of the sharing problems and in
some cases employees still hoard information, even when threatened and facing severe
penalties. The resource or political view fails to account for why employees hoard or hide
knowledge even in the face of severe costs; however, a territoriality lens helps shed light
on why employees, who willingly sign intellectual property contracts before anything has
been created, are resistant once they have actually developed an idea. These contracts,
and the companies who develop them, do not recognize the employee’s considerable
investment of the self in the idea and the high emotional and psychological attachment to
the knowledge. Even when sharing ideas would be in the best interest of the organization,
individuals may feel it is their right to choose when or if to share them. As organizations
are beginning to realize, creating knowledge is one thing, sharing it is quite another.
Unfortunately, the more that norms and formal policies dictate knowledge
sharing, and the more pressure that is created for such cooperation, the worse this
30
problem may become. In fact, resistance to sharing may increase when one feels others
are demanding it. Ruback and colleagues (Ruback & Juieng, 1997; Ruback & Snow,
1993; Ruback, Pape, & Doriot, 1989) found that people actually spend longer with an
object (i.e., a parking space, telephone booth) if they sense that others are waiting to use
the object. This is consistent with work on psychological reactance theory (Brehm, 1966).
Reactance theory suggests that people react against threats against their control of an
object or others attempts to influence them. People respond to these perceived influence
attempts by engaging in the form of behavior that is threatened by the loss. Thus, if one
feels their right to choose a particular object is threatened they will in fact choose that
object. Extrapolating this effect to knowledge withholding in the workplace, individuals
may be even more likely to hide their knowledge and ideas when pressured to share than
when left to make their own choices. In these cases, the organization may not even be
aware of the problem, which makes it that much more difficult to manage.
Recognizing the underlying motives is an important step to correctly identifying
and then subsequently dealing with knowledge withholding. As noted above, employees
may engage in withholding knowledge to protect from, or in response to, infringement.
For example, withholding knowledge could be an example of anticipatory defending that
is driven by fears that others will take or use the idea in ways that the originator does not
intend. Employees who suddenly refuse to participate, quit, or try to sabotage an idea
could reflect reactionary defenses indicating that the knowledge worker believes the firm
has encroached on his or her territory or property.
An alternate problem with respect to knowledge withholding lies in knowledge
receiving. In addition to being less willing to share their knowledge, employees may not
31
be willing to fully listen to or incorporate others’ knowledge. Stronger feelings of
ownership lead to overvaluing the object (Reb & Connolly, 2007). This could lead to not
considering the full range of ideas as in team brainstorming processes. People may also
resist others’ ideas because it affects their territory (knowledge). People may not put in
the effort to understand knowledge because it is not their creation. All of these reasons
create serious impediments to organizational creativity.
DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS
Organizations need to attend to and address the dynamics of knowledge
withholding in the workplace, including employees’ motivations for doing so. Although
organizations can do little to alter individual characteristics that lead to the withholding
of knowledge, they can create a climate for sharing characterized by trust, reciprocity,
and fairness, and scrutinize the nature of their policies and procedures in guiding
employees’ decisions about sharing. They can also manage territorial issues by
accentuating and harnessing the benefits of territoriality, while mitigating and eliminating
some of its negative repercussions.
Implications for Human Resource Practices
For Human Resource (HR) managers, one implication is clear: organizations
cannot rely on technological solutions alone to manage the transfer of knowledge. Indeed,
without addressing the underlying interpersonal and organizational issues, employee
knowledge is likely to remain hidden. In this section, we describe some implications for
HR practice, namely selection, training, and assessment, treatment of specific
32
occupational groups, managing territoriality, and implementing knowledge management
systems.
Selection, training, and assessment. Although knowledge withholding is a
recently defined organizational phenomenon, initial research findings do offer some
potential suggestions for reducing the incidence of knowledge hiding and increasing the
transfer of knowledge. For example, certain personality characteristics such as
Machiavellianism5 may lead to increased knowledge hiding. Selection systems designed
to screen for extreme scorers may help to reduce the number of employees who are
predisposed to hide their knowledge. Further, training in the use of knowledge
management systems must be supported by real expectations that organizational
knowledge will be shared; that is, there needs to be a culture of sharing in the
organization.
As with any organizational initiative, employees must perceive that senior
management supports knowledge sharing and is promoting a climate for sharing within
the organization. There is some evidence that management support for knowledge sharing
can predict a positive knowledge sharing culture (Connelly & Kelloway, 2003). Thus,
efforts to inhibit knowledge hiding should include an emphasis on communicating to
employees that knowledge hiding is actively discouraged, and demonstrating that
knowledge sharing is indeed rewarded. For example, performance evaluation criteria
could include assessment and recognition of desired knowledge sharing behaviors.
However, as described further below, HR professionals need to ensure that these
evaluation criteria would reward employees for their quality of sharing, rather than for
5 Machiavellianism is highly situation specific, however, and may only become relevant if circumstances
warrant. This suggests that HR professionals examine not only the applicant but the interaction between the
applicant and the work environment in factoring Machiavellianism into their selection decisions.
33
their quantity of sharing. As such, organizations should consider how knowledge hiding
behaviors might be assessed as part of performance evaluation systems, and how
knowledge sharing behaviors could be recognized and rewarded, both formally as well as
informally. All of these actions should contribute to increased perceptions of fairness and
trust, and set the stage for the effective transfer of knowledge within organizations.
Nonstandard Workers. The above discussion builds primarily upon research that
has been conducted in the context of permanent employees who perform their work
during a regular and predictable schedule, for a single employer. However, given the
dramatic growth of alternative employment contracts and outsourcing (e.g., Gilley &
Rasheed, 2000; Kalleberg, Reynolds & Marsden, 2003; Mauno, Kinnunen, Mäkikangas
& Nätti, 2005), it is important to consider how these “nonstandard workers” may
experience knowledge withholding.
Although the stereotypical temporary worker or contractor performs only routine
tasks, such as clerical work or data entry, nonstandard workers are actually frequently
employed in the IT sector and other knowledge-based occupations (Ang & Slaughter,
2001). In fact, the decision to go outside the boundaries of the organization is often
driven by a need for access to knowledge or skills not currently found within the
organization itself (Connelly & Gallagher, 2006).
The use of nonstandard workers to add new knowledge to the firm, however,
assumes that these workers will freely share their knowledge with their permanent or full-
time counterparts and that knowledge will be shared freely with them. This is not
necessarily the case. There are several factors that encourage nonstandard workers to hide
their knowledge. For example, because of concerns about job security, nonstandard
34
workers may hide their knowledge in order to encourage their employers to engage their
services for a longer period of time. Although not exploring knowledge hiding directly,
Sias, Kramer, and Jenkins (1997) suggest that contingent workers are less likely to share
knowledge compared to newly-hired permanent employees. Further, social identity
theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986) suggests that individuals maintain a positive self image by
categorizing themselves into “in-groups” whose members are perceived more favorably
than the members of the “out-groups”. Differences in employment status alone may
cause contingent workers to be categorized in an “out group.
Several other theories may also help to explain why permanent employees and
non-standard workers’ withhold knowledge with each other. For example, Broschak and
Davis-Blake (2006) use Blalock’s (1967) theory of majority-minority group relations to
explain why contact between minority (nonstandard) and majority (standard) group
members is likely to evoke negative reactions towards minority group members,
especially those who are more tangibly different from the majority (i.e., temporary
workers rather than part-time employees).
Because of these tensions, permanent employees may not necessarily be receptive
to nonstandard workers who endeavor to share their knowledge. Although nonstandard
workers’ knowledge may be valuable, it is not necessarily valued (Castaneda, 2003).
Because, as shown in the experimental research using “hidden profiles”, group members
have a tendency to discount or ignore information that is provided by newcomers or
outsiders (e.g., Kane, Argote & Levine, 2005), Managers seeking to encourage
knowledge transfer among nonstandard and regular employees have several options: they
can focus on the socio-emotional factors that might present barriers to effective
35
knowledge exchange, or they can focus on offering appropriate incentives. Unfortunately,
initiatives that would presumably encourage nonstandard workers to share their
knowledge with regular employees (e.g., increasing social interaction and trust, reducing
status distinctions and social norms that promote hiding) may risk blurring the distinction
between workers’ nonstandard or permanent status within the organization, with the
attendant legal consequences. The remaining approach, offering incentives for knowledge
exchange, for example by renewing the contracts of nonstandard workers who avoid
hiding their knowledge, assumes that such behaviors can be readily measured.
Managing territoriality. Our chapter also highlights another factor in knowledge
withholding that HR professionals need to recognize and address. Given that employees
create ideas and are thus likely to be very territorial over the knowledge they create, how
can organizations encourage the transfer of ideas? First it is important to recognize the
underlying motives for knowledge withholding and then to identify the ways in which
people withhold knowledge. It is unlikely that organizations can reduce people’s feelings
of ownership over knowledge, and as we have suggested, doing this would be erroneous.
There are a variety of benefits from owning including greater commitment and effort.
Instead, organizations and managers need to work on strategies that capitalize on
employees’ natural tendencies toward territoriality and ownership of their creations. In
fact, feelings of ownership can be used to decrease the hoarding of knowledge. As
Hannah (2004) found, to the extent that employees see knowledge generation as part of
their identity in the organization, they are more likely to share. This transfers the focus of
identity from the idea to the job or role within the organization. To the extent that
employees identify with the role (i.e., knowledge generator) they are more committed to
36
the role and thus to generating more knowledge. Although they may still see the ideas as
their own, their needs will be met by sharing (not hoarding) the information. As Constant,
Kiesler, and Sproull (1994, p. 406) have argued, "sharing expertise, in addition to (or
instead of) imposing personal costs, may produce significant personal benefits to the
information provider because it permits self-expression and demonstrates self-
consistency. Therefore, even in the absence of strong organizational norms of ownership
or prosocial attitudes, people may be inclined to share expertise." Further, organizational
ownership does not imply a reduction in an individual’s sense of ownership; in fact,
employees do not view organizational and individual ownership of knowledge as a zero-
sum game but as reinforcing each other (Jarvenpaa & Staples, 2001).
A second strategy that organizations could use in some cases is to allow the
knowledge worker who generates the idea to take control of the project. This would
encourage employees to share ideas because sharing does not mean losing control of their
ideas. Moreover, the originator is likely to work the hardest to see the idea through. The
one downside, as noted above, is that employees may be less receptive to others’ inputs
on their ideas.
A third strategy that would address some of the territoriality issues raised above is
to develop a culture of sharing. Organizations could encourage people to view objects (in
our case knowledge) as secondary territories belonging to the group (organization)
(Brown & Menkhoff, forthcoming). The individual may still have strong feelings of
personal ownership but not the exclusivity that comes with feelings of territoriality (i.e.,
this is mine and not yours but rather this is mine and ours). In support of this, Constant et
37
al. (1994: 400) found that a belief in organizational ownership of work encourages and
mediates attitudes favoring sharing.
Implementing Knowledge Management Systems. Knowledge management (KM)
systems are “a class of information systems applied to managing organizational
knowledge. That is, they are IT-based systems developed to support and enhance the
organizational processes of knowledge creation, storage/retrieval, transfer, and
application” (Alavi & Leidner, 2001, p. 114). KM systems are generally classified into
one of two major types, either a repository of codified knowledge (such as “lessons
learned”) or a network support linking employees (such as knowledge directories) (Alavi,
2000).
Technologies such as intranet knowledge repositories (e.g., FAQs, wikis,
databases) and communication tools (e.g., email, IM, phones) have been identified as
possible knowledge management solutions. Whatever the type of KM system, it is not
hard to find instances of KM failures in organizations (Hart & Warne, 2006; Nidumolu,
Subramani, & Aldrich, 2001). In these instances, employees may share knowledge with
KM systems for incentive reasons, resulting in too much information of questionable
quality and information overload (Garud & Kumaraswamy, 2005). In fact, some research
has demonstrated that anticipation of extrinsic rewards results in negative attitudes
towards knowledge sharing in organizations (Bock, Zmud, Kim, & Lee, 2005). Thus, KM
systems may end up destroying the free flow of tacit knowledge, resulting in calculative
social exchanges rather than spontaneous ones (Garud & Kumaraswamy, 2005).
When considering how KM systems can best be used so as to facilitate knowledge
transfer among employees, it is important for HR professionals to go beyond the
38
traditional perspective of implementing systems that are technically reliable and easy to
use and to consider the important lessons outlined above concerning withholding
knowledge. For example, if we extend the notion of the benefits of territoriality, we can
suggest that KM systems be designed to help employees identify with their roles as
knowledge generators. Some research supports this notion: Wasko and Faraj (2005)
found that one reason that employees contribute knowledge to KM systems is to enhance
their professional reputations.
Implications for Research
Although withholding knowledge was highlighted as an important area of study
over a century ago (Simmel, 1906), it did not develop into a mainstream area of
organizational study (Erickson, 1979). Researchers are just beginning to highlight its
importance now (e.g., Greenberg et al., 2007). Some of the topics that warrant future
research lie at the core of the issues we have discussed. For example, further explorations
of the drivers behind knowledge withholding and attributions made by targets of this
behavior are needed. Early on we distinguished between two types of knowledge
withholding, knowledge hoarding or the accumulation of knowledge, and knowledge
hiding or concealing knowledge requested by another. Unfortunately, little empirical
research investigates their similarities and differences (Connelly et al., 2008) and we are
not aware of any research that explores whether they have differing influences and
outcomes. This is a key area for future research.
Another vital issue to address is the prevalence of withholding behaviors. It is
important to understand the degree to which the various mechanisms that people hide and
39
hoard are practiced. We are aware of only one study that examines the incidence of
hiding behaviors in organizations (Connelly et al., 2008) and none that explore the
prevalence of hoarding. We believe that territoriality and feelings of ownership may be
very central, even though to this point they have not received much attention. Yet, it is
important to understand the many ways and the incidence rates of such behaviors before
adopting strategies to deal with them. Therefore an important study with significant
implications for both practice and research is an overview of the prevalence of the
different hiding and hoarding strategies.
Withholding behaviors are difficult to study. Fortunately, recently developed
measures of knowledge hiding behaviors (Connelly et al., 2006), ownership (Avey,
Avolio, Crossley & Luthans, 2007; Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004), territorial behaviors
(Brown, 2006), and perceptions of territoriality (Avey et al., 2007) are now available. For
example, these could be used to link ownership of ideas with withholding behaviors and
to study strategies knowledge workers use to prevent others from accessing or modifying
their knowledge territories.
As described earlier, little research has examined the relationship between
individual differences and withholding behaviors. We suggested several to investigate,
including Machiavellianism, goal orientation, power, and status. Another potential
individual characteristic relates to territoriality, and whether it might be innate, or more
malleable.
Research on secrecy norms points out the importance of studying how employees
come to understand and make sense of organization policies and procedures, as well as
the multitude of associated social norms. Research on knowledge hoarding and hiding
40
might benefit from having a better understanding of the relationship between formal
policies and procedures and the social norms that attempt to clarify and situate them.
What organizational and managerial factors contribute to the emergence of secrecy
norms, particularly ones that muddy rather than clarify choices for employees? We know
that managers’ words and deeds are salient to employees and can often compensate for
HR policies and procedures that are perceived to be unfair (Korsgaard, Brodt, &
Whitener, 2002); perhaps multi-level research at the intersection of the organization and
manager-subordinate relationships could help clarify the dynamics of knowledge hiding
and withholding. More generally, research on cross-cultural issues around sharing (e.g.,
Ford & Chan, 2003) needs to be extended to knowledge withholding in organizations.
We can also draw inspiration from recent work in the area of organizational
justice. Recent studies have explored the impact of injustice on observers (i.e.,
coworkers, customers) (Bies & Greenberg, 2002; Skarlicki, Ellard, and Kelln, 1998;
Skarlicki & Kulik, 2005). This extends the research beyond the dyadic relationship
between employees and coworkers or employees and managers. In our own case, it is
important to consider how knowledge withholding affects the relationships between the
hider and those who are directly and indirectly affected. Furthermore, future research
should also consider potential contagion. If people perceive someone as being resistant to
transferring knowledge, they may develop negative attitudes towards this “hider”, which
may in turn affect their own decisions to transfer knowledge to this person.
A related issue that needs to be addressed is the extent to which withholding
behaviors are correctly identified as such. Certainly the reactions by others may change
depending on the meaning they ascribe to the knowledge worker’s behavior. Perhaps
41
there may be more sympathy when the motivation is seen as ownership rather than
political gain. Thus we call for studies from multiple perspectives, including the
employee withholding the knowledge as well as those from whom the knowledge is
withheld. Of course in some cases such as not telling this would be difficult to know from
an outsider’s view.
The validity of these studies will be increased to the extent that longitudinal
designs can be employed. Multiple measurements in time can be used to assess possible
contagion effects. Longitudinal studies also allow stronger inferences of causality.
Experiments allow the strongest statements of causality but in many cases lack external
validity. Nevertheless, they may be useful for assessing people’s resistance to others
modifying their ideas. Experiments can also be useful to explore people’s willingness to
share information. For example, people could be given bits of information and measured
to see how much or what they share.
Recognizing that cross-sectional studies still dominate the organizational research
landscape there are still several steps that can be taken to address the major concerns. An
important issue that researchers need to be concerned with is the tendency towards
socially desirable responding. Obviously assurances of anonymity are important. One
strategy that may have success is web based reporting. The online approach increases
anonymity, which is especially valuable for gathering sensitive information (see Bampton
& Cowton, 2002, for a discussion on the pros and cons of this approach).
In converse to all of the interest and activity directed toward promoting
knowledge management is the harsh reality that not all organizational employees will
share their knowledge freely. In this chapter, we have described the phenomenon of
42
knowledge withholding and identified how it manifests itself in organizations (e.g.,
knowledge hoarding and knowledge hiding). There is much still to learn about
knowledge withholding and how and when to discourage these behaviors in
organizations. Some potential answers have emerged but research in this area is still in its
infancy. It is hoped that this chapter will serve as a guiding framework for future studies
aimed at exploring knowledge withholding, identifying ways to mitigate it, and building
processes for enhancing knowledge sharing.
43
REFERENCES
Alavi, M. (2000). Managing organizational knowledge. In: R. W. Zmud (Ed.), Framing
the domains of IT management: Projecting the future through the past (pp. 85-
104). Cincinnati, OH: Pinnaflex Education Resources.
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. (2001). Review: Knowledge management and knowledge
management foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly, 25, 107-136.
Altman, I. 1975. Environment and social behavior: Privacy, personal space, territory,
and crowding. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Altman, I. and M.M. Chemers (1980), Culture and environment, Monterey, CA:
Brooks/Cole.
Andriessen, J.H.E. (2006). To share or not to share, that is the question. Conditions for
the willingness to share knowledge. Working paper #IS-2006-02, Delft University
of Technology, The Netherlands.
Ang, S., & Slaughter, S.A. (2001). Work outcomes and job design for contract versus
permanent information systems professionals on software development teams.
MIS Quarterly, 25, 321-350.
Ashforth, B. (1989). The experience of powerlessness in organizations. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43, 207-242.
Ashforth, B.E. and F. Mael (1989), Social identity theory and the organization, Academy
of Management Review, 14, 20-39.
Avey, J. B., Avolio, B., Crossley, C. D., & Luthans, F. (2007). Psychological ownership:
Theoretical extensions, measurement and relation to work outcomes. Paper
44
presented at the Academy of Management Meeting, August, 2007, Philadelphia,
PA.
Bampton, R., & Cowton, C. J. 2002. The E-Interview. Forum Qualitative Social
Research, 3 (2).
Bartol, K., & Srivastava, A. (2002). Encouraging knowledge sharing: The role of
organizational reward systems. Journal of Leadership and Organization Studies,
19, 64-76.
Barzel, Y. (1989). Economic analysis of property rights, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Becker, F. D., & Mayo, C. 1971. Delineating personal space and territoriality.
Environment and Behavior, 3, 375-381.
Beggan, J. K., & Brown, E. M. (1994). Association as a psychological justification for
ownership. Journal of Psychology, 128, 365-380.
Bidwell, M. (2005). Reworking contingent employment. Paper presented at the Academy
of Management Meetings, Honolulu, HI.
Bies, R. J., & Greenberg, J. (2002). Justice, culture, and corporate image: The swoosh, the
sweatshops, and the sway of public opinion. In M. J. Gannon & K. L, Newman
(Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural management (pp. 320-334). Oxford, England:
Blackwell.
Blakely, G. L., Andrews, M. C., & Moorman, R. H. (2005). The moderating effects of
equity sensitivity on the relationship between organizational justice and
organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Business and Psychology, 20, 259-
273.
45
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: John Wiley &
Sons.
Bock, G. W., Zmud, R. W., Kim, Y. G., & Lee, J. N. (2005). Behavioral intention
formation in knowledge sharing: Examining the roles of extrinsic motivators,
social-psychological forces & organizational climate. MIS Quarterly, 29, 87-112.
Brodt, S., & Sitkin, S. (2006). The paradox of secrecy norms in organizations: When
norms are incomplete, incompatible, and overly-inclusive. Working paper.
Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
Blalock, H.M (1967). Toward a theory of minority-group relations. New York: Wiley.
Broschak, J.P. & Davis-Blake, A. 2006. Mixing standard work and nonstandard deals:
The consequences of heterogeneity in employment arrangements. Academy of
Management Journal, 49, 371-393.
Brown, B.B. (1987). Territoriality. In: D. Stokols & I. Altman (Eds.) Handbook of
Environmental Psychology 2 (pp. 505-531). New York. NY: Wiley.
Brown, B. B., & Altman, I. (1981). Territoriality and residential crime: A conceptual
framework. In P. J. Brantingham & P. L. Brantingham (Eds.), Environmental
criminology: 55-76. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Brown, B. B., & Altman, I. 1983. Territoriality, defensible space and residential burglary:
An environmental analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3, 203-220.
Brown, B. B., & Werner, C. M. (1985). Social cohesiveness, territoriality, and holiday
decorations: The influence of cul-de-sacs. Environment and Behavior, 17, 539-565.
Brown, G., Lawrence, T. B., & Robinson, S. L. (2005). Territoriality in organizations.
Academy of Management Review, 30, 577-594.
46
Brown, G. & Menkhoff, T. (2008). Territoriality over knowledge: Towards a cross-
cultural perspective. Journal of Asian Business, in press.
Brown, G. & Robinson, S. L. (2007). The dysfunction of territoriality in organizations.
Janice Langan-Fox, Cary L. Cooper & Richard Klimoski (Eds). Research
Companion to the Dysfunctional Workplace: Management Challenges and
Symptoms.
Browning, L. D. & Folger, R. (1994). Communication under conditions of litigation risk:
A grounded theory of plausible deniability. In S. B. Sitkin & R. J. Bies (eds.) The
legalistic organization (pp 251-280). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Caldwell, F. (2004). Enterprises are challenged to benefit from ‘grass-roots’ KM.
Gartner Research, #G00123834.
Castaneda, L. W. (2003). The impact of contingent workers on knowledge flow within
the firm. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Meetings, Seattle, WA.
Church, P.H. & Lambert, K.R. (1993). Employee or independent contractor?
Management Accounting, 74, 52-55.
Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., & Kallgren, C. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative
conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public PUcts. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 1015-1026.
Clegg, S. R. (1989), Frameworks of power, London: Sage.
Connelly, C. E., & Kelloway, E. K. (2003). Predictors of employees' perceptions of
knowledge sharing cultures. Leadership and Organization Development Journal,
24, 294-301.
47
Connelly, C. E., & Gallagher, D. G. (2006). Independent and dependent contracting:
meaning and implications. Human Resources Management Review, 16, 95-106.
Connelly, C., Zweig, D., & Webster, J. (2006). Knowledge hiding in organizations. Paper
presented as part of the symposium “Don’t say a word: Explaining employees’
withholding of knowledge from coworkers” (David Zweig, Chair), the Society for
Industrial and Organizational Psychology Conference, Dallas, TX.
Connelly, C., Zweig, D., & Webster, J., & Trougakos, J. (2008). Don’t say a word:
Knowledge hiding in organizations. Working paper, McMaster University, Canada.
Constant, D., Kiesler, S., & Sproull, L. (1994). What’s mine is ours, or is it? A study of
attitudes about information sharing. Information Systems Research, 5, 400-421.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Rochberg-Halton, E. 1981. The meaning of things. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1997). Information ecology: Mastering the information
and knowledge environment. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
DePaulo, B. & Kashy, D. (1998). Everyday lies in close and casual relationships. Journal
of Personality and Social Pyschology, 74, 63-79.
Deutsch, M. & Gerard, H. (1955). A study of normative and informational social
influences upon individual judgment, Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 51, 629-636.
Dittmar, H. (1992). The social psychology of material possessions: To have is to be. New
York, NY: St. Martin's Press.
Donovan, M. A., Drasgow, F., & Munson, L. J. (1998). The perceptions of fair
interpersonal treatment scale: Development and validation of a measure of
48
interpersonal treatment in the workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 683-
692.
Dupre, K. E., Inness, M., Connelly, C.E., Barling, J., & Hoption, C. (2006). Workplace
aggression among teenage part-time employees. Journal of Applied Psychology,
91, 987-997.
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational approaches affecting learning. American
Psychologist, 41, 1040-1048.
Dyson-Hudson, R., & Smith, E.A. 1978. Human territoriality: An ecological
reassessment. American Anthropologist, 80, 21-41.
Edney, J. J. 1975. Territoriality and control: A field experiment. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 31, 1108-1115.
Edney, J.J. (1976), ‘Human territories: Comment on functional properties’, Environment
and Behavior, 8, 31-47.
Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goals
and intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 70, 461-475.
Ellis, A. L., & Riggle, E. D. B. (1995). The relation of job satisfaction and degree of
openness about one’s sexual orientation for lesbians and gay men. Journal of
Homosexuality, 30, 75-85.
Erickson, P.E. (1979). The role of secrecy in complex organizations: From norms of
rationality to norms of distrust. Cornell Journal of Social Relations, 14(2), 121-138.
Esser, A. H. 1968. Dominance hierarchy and clinical course of psychiatrically
hospitalized boys. Child Development, 39, 147-157.
49
Esser, A. H., Chamberlain, A. S., Chapple, E. D., & Kline, N. S. 1965. Territoriality of
patients on a research ward. In J. Wortis (Ed.), Recent Advances in Biological
Psychiatry, vol. 7: 36-44. New York: Plenum Press.
Fehr, B., Samson, D., & Paulhus, D.L. (1992). The construct of Machiavellianism:
Twenty years later. In Spielberger, C. D. and Butcher, J. N. (Eds.). Advances in
personality assessment, Vol. 9 (pp. 77-116). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc.
Ford, D.P., & Chan, Y.E. (2003). Knowledge sharing in a multi-cultural setting: A case
study. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 1, 11-27.
Ford, D.P., & Staples, D. S. (2006). Perceived value of knowledge: The potential
informer’s perception. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 4, 3-16.
French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. H. (1959). The basis of social power. In: D. Cartwright
(Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150-167). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan,
Institute for Social Research.
Gabbert, F, Memon, A, & Allan, K. (2003). Memory conformity: Can eyewitnesses
influence each other’s memories for an event? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17,
533-543.
Garud, R., & Kumaraswamy, A. (2005) Vicious and virtuous circles in the management
of knowledge: The case of Infosys Technologies. MIS Quarterly, 29, 9-33.
Gilbert, D., Giesler, R., & Morris, K. (1995). When comparisons arise. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology. 69, 227-236.
50
Gilley, K. M. & Rasheed, A. (2000). Making more by doing less: An analysis of
outsourcing and its effects on firm performance. Journal of Management, 26, 763-
790.
Goffman, E. (1959), The presentation of self in everyday life, New York: Doubleday.
Gray, P.H. (2001). The impact of knowledge repositories on power and control in the
workplace. Information Technology & People, 14(4), 368-384.
Greenberg, J., Brinsfield, C. T., & Edwards, M. S. (2007, April). Silence as deviant work
behavior: The peril of words unspoken. In. M. Mitchell (Chair), Understanding
dark organizational behavior: Investigating motives of workplace deviance.
Symposium presented at the meeting of the Society for Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, New York, NY.
Grover, S. (1993). Project management as a language game. Industrial Management +
Data Systems, 93, 10-19.
Hackman, J. R. (2002). Leading teams: Setting the stage for great performances. Boston,
MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Hannah, D. R. (2004). Who owns ideas? An investigation of employee’s beliefs about the
legal ownership of ideas. Creativity and Innovation Management, 13, 216-230.
Hannah, D. R. (2005). Should I keep a secret? The effects of trade secret protection
procedures on employees’ obligations to protect trade secrets. Organization Science,
16, 216-230.
Hart, D., & Warne, L. (2006). Comparing cultural and political perspectives of data,
information, and knowledge sharing in organizations. International Journal of
Knowledge Management, 2(2), 1-15.
51
Hislop, D. (2002). Mission impossible? Communicating and sharing knowledge via
information technology. Journal of Information Technology, 17, 165-177.
Hislop, D. (2003). Linking human resource management and knowledge management via
commitment: A review and research agenda. Employee Relations, 25, 182-202.
Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Staples, D. S. (2001). Exploring perceptions of organizational
ownership of information and expertise. Journal of Management Information
Systems, 18, 151-183.
Jordan, K. M., & Deluty, R. H. (1998). Coming out for lesbian women: Its relation to
anxiety, positive affectivity, self-esteem, and social support. Journal of
Homosexuality, 35, 41-63.
Kalleberg, A. L., Reynolds, J., & Marsden, P. V. (2003). Externalizing employment:
Flexible staffing arrangements in US organizations. Social Science Research, 32,
525-552.
Kane, A. A., Argote, L., & Levine, J. M. (2005). Knowledge transfer between groups via
personnel rotation: Effects of social identity and knowledge quality.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 96, 56-71.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. (1966). The social psychology of organizations, (2nd edition). New
York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Kelloway & Barling (2000). Knowledge work as organizational behavior. International
Journal of Management Reviews, 2, 287-304.
Kelloway, E. K., Loughlin, C., Barling, J., & Nault, A. (2002). Self-reported
counterproductive behaviors and organizational citizenship behaviors: Separate
52
but related constructs. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10,
143-151.
Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H, & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition.
Psychological Review, 110, 265–284.
Knapp, M. L. 1978. Non-verbal communication in human interaction. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston.
Korsgaard, M. A., Brodt, S., & Whitener, E. (2002). Trust in the face of conflict: The role
of managerial trustworthy behavior and organizational context. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 87, 312-319.
Kraimer, M.L., Wayne, S.J., Liden, R.C., & Sparrowe, R.R. (2005). The role of job
security in understanding the relationship between employees’ perceptions of
temporary workers and employees’ performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,
90, 389-398.
Lane, J. D., & Wegner, D. M. (1995). The cognitive consequences of secrecy. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 237-253.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Lawler. E. E. (1971). Pay and organizational effectiveness: A psychological view. New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Levine, J. (1989). Reactions to opinion deviance in small groups. In P.B. Paulus (Eds.)
Psychology of group influence (2nd ed) pp. 187-231. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Liao, H., Joshi, A., & Chuang, A. (2004). Sticking out like a sore thumb: Employee
dissimilarity and deviance at work. Personnel Psychology, 57, 969-1000.
53
Lichtenstein, S., & Hunter, A. (2006). Toward a receiver-based theory of knowledge
sharing. International Journal of Knowledge Management, 2(1), 24-40.
Lyman, S. M., & Scott, M. B. 1967. Territoriality: A neglected sociological dimension.
Social Problems, 15, 236-249.
March, J. (1994). A primer on decision making: How decisions happen. New York, NY:
Free Press.
Mauno, S., Kinnunen, U., Mäkikangas, A., & Nätti, J. (2005). Psychological
consequences of fixed-term employment and perceived job insecurity among
health care staff. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 14,
209-237.
Milliken F. J., Morrison, E. W., & Hewlin, P. F. (2003). An exploratory study of
employee silence: Issues that employees don't communicate upward and why.
Journal of Management Studies, 40, 1453-1476.
Nidumolu, S., Subramani, M., and Aldrich, A. (2001). Situated learning and the situated
knowledge web: Exploring the ground beneath knowledge management. Journal of
Management Information Systems, 18, 115-150.
Nonaka, I. (1991). The Knowledge-Creating Company. Harvard Business Review, 69,
96-104.
Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization
Science, 5, 14–37.
Nuttin, J. M. Jr. (1987). Affective consequences of mere ownership: The name letter
effect in twelve European Languages. European Journal of Social Psychology, 17,
381–402.
54
O’Neill, B. S., & Adya, M. (2006). Knowledge sharing and the psychological contract.
Managing knowledge workers across different stages of employment. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 22(4), 411-436.
Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in organizations. Boston, MA: Pitman Publishing, Inc.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978), The external control of organizations: A resource
dependence perspective, New York: Harper & Row.
Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T. & Dirks, K.T. (2001). Toward a theory of psychological
ownership in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 26, 298-310.
Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T, & Dirks, K. T. (2003). Toward a theory of psychological
ownership in organizations. Review of General Psychology, 7, 84-107.
Polyani, M. (1969). Knowing and being. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Pruitt, D. & Carnevale, P. (1993). Negotiation in social conflict. Pacific Grove, CA:
Brooks-Cole.
Prusak, L. & Cohen, D. (2001). How to invest in social capital. Harvard Business
Review, June, 86-93.
Quigley, N., Tesluk, P.E., Locke, E. A., & Barol, K.M. (2007). A multilevel investigation
of the motivational mechanisms underlying knowledge sharing and performance.
Organization Science, 18(1), 71-88.
Ragins, B. R. (2008). Disclosure disconnects: Antecedents and consequences of
disclosing invisible stigmas across life domains. Academy of Management
Review, 33, in press.
55
Ragins, B. R., & Cornwell, J. M. (2001). Pink triangles: Antecedents and consequences
of perceived workplace discrimination against gay and lesbian employees.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1244-1261.
Ragins, B. R., Cornwell, J. M., & Miller, J. S. (2003). Heterosexism in the workplace: Do
race and gender matter? Group & Organization Management, 28, 45-74.
Ragins, B. R., Singh, R., & Cornwell, J. M. (2007). Making the invisible visible: Fear and
disclosure of sexual orientation at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1103-
1118.
Reb, J., & T. Connolly. (2007). Possession, feelings of ownership and the endowment
effect, Judgment and Decision Making, 2, 107-114.
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A
multidimensional scale. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 555-572.
Rodgers, L., & Freundlich, F. (1998). Nothing measured, nothing gained. Employee
ownership report, XVIII, No. 1. Oakland, CA: National Center for Employee
Ownership, http://www.ownershipassociates.com/nothingm.html.
Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after
all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23, 393-
404.
Ruback, R.B., & Juieng, D. (1997). Territorial defense in parking lots: Retaliation against
waiting drivers, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27(9), 821-834.
Ruback, R.B., & Snow, J. N. (1993). Territoriality and nonconscious racism at water
fountains: Intruders and drinkers (Blacks and Whites) are affected by race,
Environment and Behavior, 25, 250-267.
56
Ruback, R.B., Pape, K.D., & Doriot, P. (1989). Waiting for a phone: Intrusion on callers
leads to territorial defense, Social Psychology Quarterly, 52, 232-241.
Rudmin, F.W., & Berry, J.W. (1987), Semantics of ownership: A free-recall study of
property, The Psychological Record, 37, 257-268.
Schneider, B. E. (1987). Coming out at work: Bridging the private / public gap. Work &
Occupations, 13, 43-487.
Seiter, J. S., Bruschke J., & Bai, C. (2002). The acceptability of deception as a function
of perceiver's culture, deceiver's intention, and deceiver-deceived relationship.
Western Journal of Communication, 66, 158-180.
Sias, P. M., Kramer, M. W., & Jenkins, E. (1997). A comparison of the communication
behaviors of temporary employees and new hires. Communication Research, 24,
731-754.
Simmel, G. (1906). The sociology of secrecy and of secret societies. The American
Journal of Sociology, 11 (4), 441-498
Simmel, G. (1950). The sociology of George Simmel. New York: Free Press.
Sitkin (1986). Secrecy in organizations: The determinants of secrecy behavior among
engineers in three Silicon Valley semiconductor firms. Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, Stanford CA: Stanford University.
Sitkin, S., & Brodt, S. (2006). Coping with the paradox of secrecy norms in
organizations. Working paper, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Sitkin, S. B. & Roth, N. (1993) Explaining the limited effectiveness of legalistic remedies
for trust/distrust, Organization Science, 4(3), 365-390.
57
Sitkin, S., & Stickel, D. (1995). The road to hell . . .: The dynamics of distrust in an era
of "quality" management. In R. Kramer & T. Tyler (eds.), Trust in organizations
(196-215). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Skarlicki, D. P., Ellard, J. H., & Kelln, B. R. C. (1998). Third-party perceptions of a layoff:
Procedural, derogation, and retributive aspects of justice. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 83, 119-127.
Skarlicki, D. P., & Kulik, C. (2005). Third party’s reactions to employee mistreatment: A
justice perspective. In B. Staw & R. Kramer (Eds.), Research in organizational
behavior, (pp. 183-230) Oxford UK: Elsevier.
Smith, H. W. 1983. Estimated crowding capacity, time, and territorial markers: A cross-
national test. Sociological Inquiry, 53, 95-99.
Snowden, D. (2002). Complex acts of knowing: Paradox and descriptive self-awareness.
Journal of Knowledge Management, 6, 100-111.
Sommer, R. 1974. Tight spaces: Hard architecture and how to humanize it. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Steele, F. (1970). The open organization: The impact of secrecy and disclosure on people
and organizations. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Stevenson, R. B. (1980). Corporations and information: Secrecy, access and disclosure.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Sundstrom, E., & Sundstrom, M. G. 1986. Work places: The psychology of the physical
environment in offices and factories. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Szulanski, G. (1996). Exploring internal stickiness: impediments to the transfer of best
practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 27-43
58
Szulanski, G. (2000). The process of knowledge transfer: A diachronic analysis of
stickiness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 9-27.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S.
Worchel, & W. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations. 7-24. Chicago:
Nelson-Hall.
Thompson, R., Iacovou, C., & Smith, H. J. (2005). Distortion in information systems
project status reporting. Administrative Sciences Association of Canada Annual
Conference. Toronto, Ontario.
Tsoukas, H. (1996). The firm as a distributed knowledge system: A constructionist
approach. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 11-25.
Tuan, Y. 1980. The significance of artifact. Geographic Review, 70, 462-472.
Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., & Botero, I. C. (2003). Conceptualizing employee silence and
employee voice as multidimensional constructs. Journal of Management Studies,
40, 1359-1392.
Van Dyne, L. & Pierce, J. L. (2004). Psychological ownership and feelings of possession:
Three field studies predicting employee attitudes and organization citizenship
behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 439-459.
Van Maanen, J., & Pentland, B. T. (1994). Cops and auditors: The rhetoric of records.
In: S. Sitkin & B. Bies (Eds.), The legalistic organization (pp. 53-90). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Voelpel, S. C., Dous, M., & Davenport, T. H. (2005). Five steps to creating a global
knowledge-sharing system: Siemens' sharenet. Academy of Management
Executive, 19, 9-23.
59
Wasko, M., & Faraj, S. (2005). Why should I share? Examining social capital and
knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice. MIS Quarterly, 29, 35-
58.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1998). Development and validation of brief
measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063-1070.
Weick, K. E. 1995. Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Williams, K., Govan, C., Croker, V., Tynam, D., Cruickshank, M., & Lam, A. (2002).
Investigations into differences between social- and cyberostracism. Group dynamics:
Theory, research and practice, 6, 65-77.
Wittenbaum, G., Hollingshead, A., & Botero, I. (2004). From cooperative to motivated
information sharing in groups: Moving beyond the hidden profile
paradigm. Communication Monographs, 71(3), 286-310.
Wollman, N., Kelly, B. M., & Bordens, K. S. 1994. Environmental and intrapersonal
predictors of reactions to potential territorial intrusions in the workplace.
Environment and Behavior, 26, 179-194.
Zweig, D., & Webster, J. (2004). Validation of a three-factor measure of goal
orientation. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 36, 232-243.
60
