Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Article
Knowledge Hiding in Emergency Ambulance Healthcare
Settings: Its Mediating Role in the Relationship between
Organizational Support and Affective Commitment and
Organizational Citizenship Behaviours
Lucia Ratiu 1, *,† , Sabina R. Trif 1,† and Nicoleta Meslec 2 ,†
Citation: Ratiu, L.; Trif, S.R.; Meslec,
N. Knowledge Hiding in Emergency
Ambulance Healthcare Settings: Its
Mediating Role in the Relationship
between Organizational Support and
Affective Commitment and
Organizational Citizenship
Behaviours. Nurs. Rep. 2021,11,
965–980. https://doi.org/10.3390/
nursrep11040088
Academic Editor: Richard Gray
Received: 21 October 2021
Accepted: 23 November 2021
Published: 29 November 2021
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
1Psychology Department, Babe¸s-Bolyai University, 400084 Cluj-Napoca, Romania; sabinatrif@psychology.ro
2Department of Organization Studies, Tilburg University, 5037 AB Tilburg, The Netherlands;
M.N.Meslec@tilburguniversity.edu
*Correspondence: luciaratiu@psychology.ro
† These authors contributed equally to this work.
Abstract:
Knowledge hiding—an intentional attempt to withhold or conceal knowledge from others—
has been reported by recent studies to be a negative phenomenon in the workplace. Considering
the importance of knowledge for organizational performance, this study intends to advance un-
derstanding by investigating the mediating role of knowledge hiding on the relationship between
perceived organizational support and affective commitment as predictors and organizational citizen-
ship behaviors and turnover intentions as outcomes. Using a cross-sectional design, the study was
conducted in emergency ambulance healthcare settings on 305 medical or paramedical professionals.
As indicated by structural equation modeling results, perceived organizational support and affective
commitment positively predicted organizational citizenship behaviors but negatively predicted
turnover intentions. Also, knowledge hiding was negatively associated with perceived organiza-
tional support, affective commitment, and organizational citizenship behaviors and positively with
turnover intentions. Moreover, knowledge hiding mediated the relationship between perceived orga-
nizational support and affective commitment as predictors and organizational citizenship behaviors,
respectively turnover intentions, as dependent variables.
Keywords:
knowledge hiding; perceived organizational support; affective commitment; organiza-
tional citizenship behaviors; turnover intentions
1. Introduction
Knowledge hiding has gained increasing attention in recent years in the field of
organizational behavior, especially concerning its potential influence on organizational
performance [
1
–
7
]. Knowledge sharing, knowledge hiding, and knowledge manipulation
are the main streams of literature developed to explain individuals’ tactical choices in-
volving knowledge [
2
,
8
]. Thus far, the focus in the knowledge management literature is
typically on knowledge sharing and less on the other processes involving knowledge (e.g.,
knowledge hiding).
Unfortunately, knowledge hiding among employees frequently occurs in the work-
place because of the competitive environment having the potential to affect working
relations and so knowledge hiding can become a pressing issue [
9
]. Given its growing
importance, scholars have examined various personal and contextual contingents of knowl-
edge hiding in organizations [
10
–
15
]. Nevertheless, knowledge hiding represents a new
topic in knowledge management research, which has not been thoroughly researched. We
largely accept that knowledge hiding is not beneficial for the organizations at all levels,
including individual and team levels, but we need to deepen the understanding of specific
consequences within organizations [16].
Nurs. Rep. 2021,11, 965–980. https://doi.org/10.3390/nursrep11040088 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/nursrep
Nurs. Rep. 2021,11 966
Beyond the negative influence knowledge hiding could have, the antecedents of such
behavior could be relevant for the organizations. How bad is it to hide knowledge? What
are the antecedents of the knowledge hiding behaviors? How can we explain the rela-
tionships knowledge hiding has with other behaviors? What organizational components
might be relevant to mitigate its negative influence? Importantly, barriers to exchange vary
depending on the locations of the knowledge source and seeker and it is relevant to identify
the factors that facilitate or impede the knowledge exchange [
17
]. While factors related to
knowledge sharing have been studied intensely [
8
], those that influence knowledge hiding
have been overlooked.
Given the paucity of research in the field of knowledge hiding, we aim to study in
this paper the contingent factors of knowledge hiding. What’s wrong with lacking and
avoiding transparency at work? What predicts knowledge hiding in organizations? Given
the difficulties related to convincing employees to share their knowledge, organizations
should understand the dynamics that may enable knowledge sharing within its boundaries.
Although the emergent literature on knowledge hiding is promising [
2
,
10
], specific
situations remain open to investigation [
12
]. More precisely, it is still unclear how knowl-
edge hiding may relate to organizational citizenship behaviors and turnover intentions.
Thus, we aim to explore the antecedents and consequences of knowledge hiding and its
explanatory role. We add to the literature by disentangling the effect of both perceived
organizational support and affective commitment on knowledge hiding, alongside explor-
ing the role of knowledge hiding as an explanatory mechanism between both perceived
organizational support and affective commitment on one hand, and citizenship behaviors
and turnover intentions on the other hand.
In the following section, we will present the literature relevant to the proposed rela-
tionships. We will further present the methodological approach to testing our hypotheses,
including details about the sample, procedure, and materials used. We will then present
the results in a dedicated section, where we test each hypothesis and discuss whether they
were supported by our data. In the end, we will have a discussion section, where we will
integrate the results in the literature and discuss implications and limitations.
1.1. Literature Review
1.1.1. Defining Knowledge Hiding
Knowledge hiding refers to a dyadic relationship between an individual requesting
knowledge from another, who, in response, withholds that knowledge [
12
]. Knowledge
hiding “is not simply the absence or the opposite of sharing, but they are conceptually
distinct constructs; rather, knowledge hiding is the intentional attempt to withhold or
conceal knowledge that has been requested by another individual” [
12
]. For example,
one employee may inquire to his supervisor about a particular issue. The supervisor may
choose to only partially disclose knowledge or may simply decline to share any piece of
knowledge. Similar situations may arise in vertical or hierarchical relationships across the
organization.
Connelly and colleagues (2012) stress that knowledge hiding is different from a
lack of knowledge sharing because knowledge hiding adds the intentional withholding
component, in addition to simply omitting information.
Knowledge hiding includes three related behaviors: playing dumb, evasive hiding,
and rationalized hiding [
12
]. In fact, in organizations, knowledge hiding is triggered by
knowledge requests from others, thus emerging a deception process of varying levels. This
intentional process of knowledge hiding hinders positive organizational outcomes [
12
].
Each of these types of knowledge hiding behaviors can be expected to have both different
antecedents and different relationships with work outcomes.
1.1.2. Perceived Organizational Support and Knowledge Hiding
There are some organizational elements that influence the probability of knowledge
hiding arising, such as the way performance is appraised [
18
]—if the organization is
Nurs. Rep. 2021,11 967
focused on individual performance, it will lead to more knowledge hiding behaviors
compared to a group appraisal system. If the organization promotes collective performance,
then individuals will not be so inclined to knowledge hiding. Besides that, norms such as
secrecy play an important role in promoting knowledge hiding [19].
Another important element that may influence the emergence of knowledge hiding is
organizational support. Organizational support represents the global beliefs of employees
about the extent to which themselves and their values are valued by the organization [
20
].
According to social identity theory [
21
], an important part of an individual’s identity
is based on his social context. When an organization shows high levels of care of support,
individuals will tend to integrate the organization they belong to into their own iden-
tity [
22
]. On the contrary, an organization that doesn’t show support and appreciation to its
employees will determine the individuals to include other groups in their identity, leaving
their organization behind. In the same vein, Eisenberger and the collaborators (2001) [
23
]
show that when perceived organizations support is high, employees will develop a greater
attachment to the organization, and the lack of support will turn the employees away.
In turn, identification and attachment make them deploy more effort into their work in
order to attain the organization’s goals [
22
]. Given that organizational goals take the lead,
leaving individual goals behind, employees may not have a reason to engage in knowl-
edge hiding. According to the motivational dilemma framework [24], the opposite is also
present—not identifying with the organization and not showing attachment towards may
raise the salience of individual goals, promoting knowledge hiding. As such, it is possible
that the process of information becoming public will create discomfort, stemming from
mixed motives or misaligned goals [
25
]. Schultze and Stabell (2004) [
26
] show that knowl-
edge hiding stems from a mismatch between self-goals and team or organizational goals.
In addition, based on the social exchange theory [
27
], at work, individuals engage
in social exchange processes that generate different obligations. Thus, the way a person
acts is dependent on another individual’s actions. By the means of these exchanges, the
parts involved create a relationship based on trust and loyalty. The development of such
relationships is conditioned by some rules and norms—reciprocity being a very important
one [
28
]. When an organization doesn’t offer support and doesn’t provide for its employees,
then, by the means of reciprocity, they will be motivated to act in a selfish manner, which
prompts the emergence of knowledge hiding.
Thus, we propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1 (H1).
The level of perceived organizational support is negatively related to the levels
of knowledge hiding in an organization.
1.1.3. Knowledge Hiding as a Mediator between Perceived Organizational Support and
Organizational Citizenship Behaviors
Although there is some research on reasons for engaging in knowledge hiding behav-
iors (expressed, for example, by evasive hiding, rationalized hiding, and playing dumb),
less is known about their consequences [
16
]. As knowledge hiding is an intentional attempt
to conceal or to withhold knowledge that others have requested, it may represent a threat
to beneficial outcomes [
2
,
12
]. Like other negative work behaviors, it is rarely self-reported,
having unanticipated consequences organizations and managers need to address [10].
One important outcome variable, which weighs heavily in the performance of an
organization is citizenship behaviors [
29
–
31
]. Citizenship performance refers to extra
behaviors, beyond employees’ formal requirements that actively benefit the organization
(e.g., helping co-workers) [32].
A predictor for the emergence of organizational citizenship behaviors could be per-
ceived organizational support. When employees feel valued and see the organization
as supportive, they will tend to reciprocate with citizenship behaviors oriented towards
the organization [
33
]. Moreover, variables related to employee morale, such as support,
are the most predictive for citizenship behaviors [
31
]. Piercy and colleagues (2006) [
34
]
also show that, next to control behaviors from leadership, perceived organizational con-
Nurs. Rep. 2021,11 968
trol is an important antecedent of these behaviors, motivating employees to do well for
their organization.
As previously argued, based on the social identity theory [
21
] and on the social
exchange theory [
27
], perceived organizational support negatively predicts knowledge
hiding. In turn, knowledge hiding may negatively predict organizational citizenship
behaviors, as knowledge hiding may be seen as a way of avoiding unpleasant consequences
of knowledge sharing [
35
]. For instance, experts may want to hide information to keep
their status high within the organization or to avoid a time-consuming process. Thus,
when the perceived organizational support is high, the knowledge hiding levels will be
low, which will raise the probability of citizenship behaviors, given that individuals do not
have to protect themselves from the perils of opening up.
Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2 (H2).
Knowledge hiding mediates the relationship between perceived organizational
support and organizational citizenship behaviours.
1.1.4. Knowledge Hiding as a Mediator between Perceived Organizational Behaviours and
Turnover
Increasingly complex work environments and tremendous cost constraints have chal-
lenged organizations to find unique ways to attract, motivate, and retain valued employ-
ees [36,37].
Turnover intentions refer to “employees’ voluntary severance of employment ties” [
38
].
Employee turnover has been a vital issue for management and applied psychology and
research studies, as well as meta-analytic tests, show negative relationships between
turnover rates and organizational performance [39,40].
Perceived organizational support may act as a buffer for turnover intentions. Based
on organizational support theory [
20
], employees who see their organization as supportive
will develop higher levels of organizational identification, which, in turn, will lower the
probability of employees wanting to leave the organization [
33
]. Also, the social exchange
theory [
27
] informs that for a working relationship to be maintained, it is important that
both parties perceive the relationship as valuable. In the case of organizational support,
employees will feel they receive recognition and that their needs are satisfied, which will
lower the chance to leave the organization. Conversely, if they don’t feel appreciated and if
they don’t perceive the relationship as valuable, they will manifest turnover intentions.
But this relationship may also be explained by the means of knowledge hiding in
organizations, in the sense that, as previously argued, when an organization doesn’t
offer the support expected by its employees, they will engage in knowledge hiding. This
knowledge hiding may, in turn, be related to turnover intentions. As Serenko and Bontis
(2016) show, knowledge hiding will lower employees’ commitment to the organization,
which will raise the probability of leaving the organization. Cerne and the collaborators
(2014) show that knowledge hiding behaviors from one employee will lead to reciprocation
from others, resulting in them being stuck in a knowledge hiding loop characterized by
mistrust and negative feelings. Such a negative climate will lead to a higher chance of
employee turnover [
41
]. When individuals perceive the organization as being supportive,
the chances of knowledge hiding will be lower and, as such, the turnover intentions will
have a lower probability.
Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3 (H3).
Knowledge hiding mediates the relationship between perceived organizational
support and turnover intentions.
1.1.5. Affective Commitment and Knowledge Hiding
Besides organizational factors that predict knowledge hiding, such as perceived
injustice [
42
], diversity [
10
], organizational climate [
16
], or organizational culture, there are
Nurs. Rep. 2021,11 969
also personal factors that play an important role in the emergence of knowledge hiding,
one of which could be the level of commitment displayed by an employee.
Organizational commitment can be defined as the strength of an individual’s identifi-
cation with an organization and their level of involvement in the workplace [
43
]. Meyer
and Allen (1991) [
44
] describe three components to commitment: affective commitment,
continuance commitment, and normative commitment. Affective commitment is repre-
sented by an emotional bond with the organization, by identification with the organization
and involvement in it. Employees with continuance commitment will remain with an orga-
nization based on how costly they perceive leaving the organization would be. Normative
commitment implies staying in an organization based on a feeling of obligation to continue
working there [44].
Out of the three forms of commitment, we expect that affective commitment may be
related to knowledge hiding behaviors. Brown and his colleagues (2005) [
45
] propose the
idea of territoriality, seen as the tendency of employees to behaviorally express feelings of
ownership of a physical or social object. It is well documented that when individuals share
feelings of territoriality towards the information they possess, it will lead to more knowl-
edge hiding behaviors [
5
,
7
,
46
]. But when the employees manifest affective commitment
based on an emotional attachment to the organization, they may not see the information as
their possession, but as a common good in the organization [15].
In addition, an affective commitment based on emotional attachment for the orga-
nization will be a source of identification with the organization. According to the social
identity theory [
21
], affect can lead to a process of social categorization, a process that is at
the basis of forming the social identity. Based on positive feelings for the organization, it is
probable that it will be a source of an employee’s identity. When identification occurs, the
probability of taking on knowledge hiding behaviors is reduced because the individual’s
goals are aligned with the organizational goals [22].
Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 4 (H4). Affective commitment is negatively associated with knowledge hiding.
1.1.6. Knowledge Hiding as a Mediator between Affective Commitment and
Organizational Citizenship Behaviors
As previously argued, citizenship behaviors represent a vital component of an orga-
nization’s life [
29
–
31
]. One predictor for this kind of behavior may reside in the type of
commitment displayed by an employee [
47
]. It seems that effective commitment has the
strongest relationship with organizational citizenship behaviors, especially with altruism
and compliance, compared to normative and continuance commitment [
48
]. We argue
that effective commitment will lead to a higher number of citizenship behaviors these
employees take an interest in promoting the organization’s well-being. Thus, employees
that have high levels of affective commitment want to be part of the organization for a long
time and employ extra effort to make sure that the organization is successful.
Also, the relationship between affective commitment and citizenship behaviors can be
explained by the social exchange theory [
27
,
49
]. Given that the organization triggers good
feelings in its employees, they will want to offer something back. One way to repay the
organization is investing effort in citizenship behaviors.
A meta-analysis shows that affective commitment is negatively related to an ex-
ternal locus of control [
48
]. Thus, individuals that present affective commitment see
themselves as responsible for work-related outcomes. This may be a sufficient motivator
for them to not keep the information they possess for themselves in order to promote
organizational performance.
Drawing on these assumptions, we expect that the direct relationship between organi-
zational affective commitment and organizational citizenship behaviors may be explained
by knowledge hiding. Given that organizational affective commitment will lead to employ-
ees not being territorial [
45
] to the information they own, they may be motivated to display
more organizational citizenship behaviors oriented toward helping others. In addition, the
Nurs. Rep. 2021,11 970
affective commitment will lead to an overlap between employees’ goals and the organiza-
tion’s goals [
22
] which will lower the probability of engaging in knowledge hiding, which,
in turn, will lead to more citizenship behaviors oriented towards common goals.
Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 5 (H5).
Knowledge hiding mediates the positive relationship between affective com-
mitment and organizational citizenship behaviours.
1.1.7. Knowledge Hiding as a Mediator between Affective Commitment and Turnover
Affective commitment characterized by positive emotions towards the organiza-
tion [
47
] may play an important role in employees’ decisions about leaving the orga-
nization [
50
,
51
]. Whitener and Walz (1993) [
52
] show that, based on a social exchange
view [
27
], the presence of affective commitment, not other kinds of commitment, leads to
lower levels of turnover because employees feel the need to give back to the organization
that provides a good environment. Meyer and the collaborators (1990) [
53
] show that
emotional commitment represents a state that binds employees to the organizations.
Consequently, knowledge hiding may explain the relationship between affective com-
mitment and turnover intentions. Knowledge hiding will be associated with an unhealthy
unethical environment that employees will be motivated to leave [
15
]. If individuals are af-
fectively committed to the organization, lowering knowledge hiding behaviors will reduce
the perception of the environment as being unhealthy, so that employees will not manifest
turnover intentions.
Thus, we propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 6 (H6).
Knowledge hiding mediates the negative relationship between affective com-
mitment and turnover intentions.
2. Method
2.1. Sample and Procedure
The study was conducted in the ambulance setting from two different counties in an
East-European country using a convenience sampling method. Five hundred and forty-five
questionnaires were handed out, of which 324 were filled out and returned. The valid
sample consisted of 305 participants working as medical or paramedical professionals
providing emergency medical support to people who are injured or critically ill and
transporting them to a medical facility, if necessary. Most ambulance journeys could
be nonemergency but vital to patients. The ultimate task of the ambulance staff is to
assess the medical needs of the sick or injured. Following the assessment, they provide
the medical assistance needed. This means highly trained professionals carrying out
life-saving procedures, making decisions on treatment, and administering it on the spot,
sometimes under difficult conditions. In so doing they share information with each other
and collaborate to deliver the very best care for the patients. In between responding to
emergencies, the professionals working in the ambulance setting file reports and fill out
forms related to the calls they have been on. Also, ambulance staff needs to communicate
with the hospital staff about the patient’s condition keeping track of the procedures they
have performed and medications they have administered. They usually work on teams
and are required to communicate and coordinate their activities closely to face stressful
situations. In terms of work schedule, the participants worked full time, in shifts. The
shifts could run from 8 to 12 h (with a couple of days off after), but their rotations are rarely
the same from week-to-week. Because they must be available to work in emergencies, they
may work overnight and on weekends.
Prior to data collection, the management of the two organizations has presented the
goals and the procedure of the study, and the informed consent was obtained in line
with the local ERB regulations. Paper-and-pencil surveys were completed on-site during
regular work hours and returned in sealed envelopes. To reduce social desirability bias
and to protect the rights of our participants, the questionnaire was accompanied by a
Nurs. Rep. 2021,11 971
cover letter in which anonymity, confidentiality, and the voluntary nature of participation
were emphasized.
The average age of the respondents was 43.23 (SD = 8.84) and 62.5% were male. The
average tenure in the organization was 13.58 years (SD = 8.39). The respondents belonged
to various hierarchical and functional levels: doctors (4.5%), nurses (46.2%), and ambulance
drivers (49.3%).
2.2. Measures
Participants reported on perceived organizational support, affective commitment,
knowledge hiding, organizational citizenship behaviors, and TI. We also obtained de-
mographic information. Given the fact that the variables are, in general, at the level
of psychological perception, the self-reported measurement method is appropriate. All
measures originally developed in English were translated into the local language, and
back-translated using the procedures recommended by the International Test Commission
Guidelines (2005). Unless otherwise noted, all items were assessed on a 7-point Likert-type
scale on which 1 = “not at all” and 7 = “to a very great extent”. Scale items were averaged
such that higher scores indicated a greater degree of the underlying construct.
Perceived organizational support. Following the theoretical conceptualization based
on organizational support theory, we estimated perceived organizational support as a gen-
eralized perception concerning the extent to which the organization values the employees’
contributions and cares about their well-being [
20
]. To assess perceived organizational
support, we used a 16-item scale developed by Eisenberger et al., 1986. Sample items are,
“The organization strongly considers my goals and values” and “The organization fails to
appreciate any extra effort from me” (α= 0.90).
Affective commitment. The Affective subscale of the Organizational Commitment
Questionnaire [
54
] was administered. Its items (e.g., “I really feel as if this organization’s
problems are my own”) assess employees’ affective bond to their organization, in terms
of willingness to remain in their organization because they want to [
55
]. Items have been
rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”). The
Cronbach’s alpha was 0.64.
Knowledge hiding. Knowledge hiding was assessed with a 12-item scale developed
by Connelly (2012) [
12
]. The scale was preceded by the following statement: “In a specific
episode in which a particular co-worker requested knowledge from you and you declined.”
It further includes items such as “I pretended I did not know what s/he was talking
about.” Hereby, the items assess the intentional attempt to withhold or conceal knowledge
that has been requested by another individual. The three sub-dimensions of knowledge
hiding were: evasive hiding, playing dumb, and rationalized hiding. Evasive hiding
was measured with four items and the internal consistency was good (
α
= 0.86). Playing
dumb was also measured with four items, including “said I didn’t know even though
I did” and demonstrated good internal consistency (
α
= 0.88). Rationalized hiding was
measured with four items, as well, including “explained that I would like to tell him/her
but was not supposed to” and demonstrated good internal consistency (
α
= 0.93). It is
important to note that the requests for knowledge came from individuals, not from groups
or organizations [
12
]. The situations in which employees keep silent or keep secrets (as
no knowledge has been requested), or the situations focusing on other levels of analysis,
such as group (e.g., [
56
]), organizational (e.g., [
57
]), or inter-organizational (e.g., [
58
]) are
not considered.
Organizational citizenship behaviors. Organizational citizenship behaviors consist of
behaviors of a discretionary nature that are not part of employees’ formal role requirements,
but nevertheless, promote the effective functioning of the organization [
32
]. The scale
developed by Podsakoff and colleagues (1990) [
59
] has 24 items (e.g., “I help others who
have heavy workloads”, “I consume a lot of time complaining about trivial matters”). The
Cronbach’s alpha was 0.79.
Nurs. Rep. 2021,11 972
Turnover intentions. Participants’ turnover intentions were measured with four modi-
fied items taken from the scale developed by Kelloway, Gottlieb, and Barham (1999) [
60
].
These items referred to participants’ intentions to quit their job. Sample item stated, “I
intend to ask people about new job opportunities.” Participants rated items using the
5-point Likert scales that vary from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). The scale
was internally consistent (α= 0.85).
Control variables. We collected data on a number of controls which, based upon prior
literature were deemed possible variables which may account for turnover intentions and
organizational citizenship behaviors. For example, longer-tenured employees generally
have higher in-role performance and display more organizational citizenship behaviors.
According to a meta-analysis, the age (rather than organizational tenure) was largely unre-
lated to core task performance but had stronger relationships with citizenship performance
and counterproductive performance [61]. Tenure and age were reported in years.
We tested additional models with other control variables including participants’ age,
gender, organizational tenure, all of which might affect the variables in the model. However,
these variables did not alter the results substantially and are excluded here.
3. Results
Before starting with the actual model testing, we checked the potential influence of
the control variables on the dependent variables. Age, gender, and professional level have
been shown in other studies to influence turnover intentions or organizational citizenship
behaviors. In our sample, there was no influence of gender on turnover intentions (
t = 1.857
,
p= 0.064) or organizational citizenship behaviors (t = 1.378, p= 0.169). The average age
of the participants was uncorrelated with turnover intentions (r =
−
0.031, p= 0.601)
and organizational citizenship behaviors (r =
−
0.036, p= 0.556). As recommended by
Becker [
62
] (2005), we excluded all non-significant control variables in subsequent analyses
given that they were not significantly related to the dependent variables.
Table 1presents the means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations of all
the variables in the study and demographics, as well. As can be seen, a strong negative
relationship between perceived organizational support and knowledge hiding (
r = −0.22
,
p< 0.0001) and between knowledge hiding and organizational citizenship behaviors
(
r = −0.29
,p< 0.0001) were found. Moreover, knowledge hiding positively correlated
with turnover intentions (r = 0.36, p< 0.0001) whereas affective commitment negatively
correlates with knowledge hiding (r = −0.13, p< 0.05).
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations among Variables.
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Age 43.23 8.34 -
2. Work exp. ambulance 13.58 8.39 0.65 ** -
3. Gender 1.38 0.48 −0.13 * −0.03 -
4. Perceived organizational support 5.29 0.96 0.03 0.04 0.09 -
5. Affective commitment 4.01 0.64 0.06 0.00 0.03 0.28 ** -
6. Knowledge hiding 1.91 1.04 0.05 −0.003 −0.07 −0.22 ** −0.13 * -
7. Organizational citizenship behaviours 5.82 0.57 −0.04 −0.05 0.09 0.40 ** 0.26 ** −0.29 ** -
8. Turnover intentions 1.46 0.76 −0.03 −0.04 −0.11 −0.32 ** 0.38 ** 0.36 ** −0.25 **
Note. n= 305; Gender: 1 = male; 2 = female. * p< 0.05; ** p< 0.01. Work exp. Ambulance = experience with working on an ambulance.
All hypotheses were corroborated and a structural equation model (by IBM SPSS
Amos 23. IBM Corp.: Armonk, NY, USA) was computed to simultaneously test all the
relationships as predicted by the hypotheses (Figure 1).
Maximum likelihood estimation methods were used to test the different models. The
goodness-of-fit of the models was evaluated using absolute and relative indices. The
estimated measurement model showed a good fit to the data:
χ2
= 0.146; p= 0.703; normed
fit index (NFI) = 0.99, CFI = 1, and RMSEA = 0.00. Therefore, we used it to calculate the
following structural models. Since there is no single statistical test that best describes the
Nurs. Rep. 2021,11 973
strength of a model’s predictions, several measures of approximation were employed. In
the Normed Fit Index (NFI), the Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI), and the Comparative Fit
Index (CFI), a degree of fit above 0.9 is considered sufficient [
63
], whereas RMSEA (the
root mean square error of approximation) with values of 0.06 or less indicates good model
fit [64]. This allowed us to proceed in testing the hypotheses.
Nurs. Rep. 2021, 11, FOR PEER REVIEW 9
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations among Variables.
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Age 43.23 8.34 -
2. Work exp. ambulance 13.58 8.39 0.65 ** -
3. Gender 1.38 0.48 −0.13 * −0.03 -
4. Perceived organizational support 5.29 0.96 0.03 0.04 0.09 -
5. Affective commitment 4.01 0.64 0.06 0.00 0.03 0.28 ** -
6. Knowledge hiding 1.91 1.04 0.05 −0.003 −0.07 −0.22 ** −0.13 * -
7. Organizational citizenship behaviours 5.82 0.57 −0.04 −0.05 0.09 0.40 ** 0.26 ** −0.29 ** -
8. Turnover intentions 1.46 0.76 −0.03 −0.04 −0.11 −0.32 ** 0.38 ** 0.36 ** −0.25 **
Note. n = 305; Gender: 1 = male; 2 = female. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01. Work exp. Ambulance = experience with working on an
ambulance.
All hypotheses were corroborated and a structural equation model (by IBM SPSS
Amos 23. IBM Corp: Armonk, NY, USA) was computed to simultaneously test all the re-
lationships as predicted by the hypotheses (Figure 1).
Figure 1. The research model.
Maximum likelihood estimation methods were used to test the different models. The
goodness-of-fit of the models was evaluated using absolute and relative indices. The esti-
mated measurement model showed a good fit to the data: χ
2
= 0.146; p = 0.703; normed fit
index (NFI) = 0.99, CFI = 1, and RMSEA = 0.00. Therefore, we used it to calculate the fol-
lowing structural models. Since there is no single statistical test that best describes the
strength of a model’s predictions, several measures of approximation were employed. In
the Normed Fit Index (NFI), the Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI), and the Comparative Fit
Index (CFI), a degree of fit above 0.9 is considered sufficient [63], whereas RMSEA (the
root mean square error of approximation) with values of 0.06 or less indicates good model
fit [64]. This allowed us to proceed in testing the hypotheses.
Specifically, Figure 1 indicates that perceived organizational support relates directly
and negatively to knowledge hiding (β = −0.219, p < 0.0001) and positively to organiza-
tional citizenship behaviors (β = 0.314, p < 0.0001), whereas knowledge hiding relates neg-
atively to OCB (β = −0.193, p < 0.0001). Knowledge hiding is positively associated with
turnover intentions (β = 0.279, p < 0.0001) and turnover intentions is negatively associated
with perceived organizational support (β = −0.183, p < 0.0001). Effective commitment re-
lates directly and negatively to turnover intentions (β = −0.292, p < 0.0001), but not to
knowledge hiding (β = −0.066, p > 0.05).
Knowledge
Hiding
–0.219
Turnover
Intention
Perceived
Organizational
Support
–0.066
Organizational
Citizenship
Behavior
Affective
Commitment
–0.292
–0.183
0.279
0.151
–0.193
0.314
Figure 1. The research model.
Specifically, Figure 1indicates that perceived organizational support relates directly
and negatively to knowledge hiding (
β
=
−
0.219, p< 0.0001) and positively to organi-
zational citizenship behaviors (
β
= 0.314, p< 0.0001), whereas knowledge hiding relates
negatively to OCB (
β
=
−
0.193, p< 0.0001). Knowledge hiding is positively associated with
turnover intentions (
β
= 0.279, p< 0.0001) and turnover intentions is negatively associated
with perceived organizational support (
β
=
−
0.183, p< 0.0001). Effective commitment
relates directly and negatively to turnover intentions (
β
=
−
0.292, p< 0.0001), but not to
knowledge hiding (β=−0.066, p> 0.05).
In order to investigate the role of knowledge hiding in the relationships between
perceived organizational support and the dependent variables—organizational citizenship
behaviors and TI—we tested the indirect effects using the bootstrapping procedure de-
scribed by Hayes (2013) [
65
] as well as Hayes’s PROCESS procedure for SPSS. Similarly,
the indirect effects were reported for the relationships between affective commitment and
the dependent variables. Effects are considered significant when the bootstrapped 95% CI
around the indirect effect does not include zero.
Hypothesis 1 predicted that perceived organizational support would negatively affect
knowledge hiding. As can be seen in Table 2, from the full-mediation model, the direct
paths from perceived organizational support to knowledge hiding (
β
=
−
0.232, p< 0.001)
were significantly negative.
The second hypothesis suggested that knowledge hiding would mediate the relation-
ship between perceived organizational support and organizational citizenship behaviors.
According to the mediation analysis, knowledge hiding is a significant mediator given
that the indirect effect of perceived organizational support on organizational citizenship
behaviors is positive and significant (
β
= 0.03, p< 0.001, CI [01; 0.04)]. The indirect effect
size was 0.10 (SE = 0.03; CI [0.04; 0.19]. After controlling for the mediator, the direct
effect of perceived organizational support on organizational citizenship behaviors remains
significant (
β
= 0.205, p< 0.001). Although the indirect effect size is small, knowledge
Nurs. Rep. 2021,11 974
hiding partially mediates the effect of perceived organizational support on organizational
citizenship behaviors, and Hypothesis 2 was supported by the data.
Table 2. Regression analyses.
Knowledge Hiding Organizational Citizenship
Behaviours Turnover Intentions
Antecedent Coeff. SE Coeff. SE Coeff. SE
Perceived organisational support −0.232 *** 0.061 0.205 *** 0.032 −0.194 *** 0.041
Knowledge hiding −0.104 *** 0.030 0.189 *** 0.039
Constant 3.121 *** 0.326 4.942 *** 0.192 2.107 *** 0.249
R2= 0.187
F(2288) = 33.225 ***
R2= 0.165
F(2294) = 29.040 ***
Affective commitment −0.219 * 0.095 0.208 *** 0.049 −0.418 *** 0.061
Constant 2.787 *** 0.387 5.260 *** 0.214 2.700 *** 0.267
R2= 0.136
F(2288) = 22.751 ***
R2= 0.248
F(2294) = 48.463 ***
Note. Unstandardized regression coefficients are presented in the table *p<0.05; *** p < 0.001.
Hypothesis 3 predicted that knowledge hiding would mediate the effects of perceived
organizational support on turnover intentions. The results supported the significance
of the indirect effect of perceived organizational support on turnover intentions, 95% CI
[−0.039, −0.003]
, through knowledge hiding (
β
=
−
0.02, p< 0.001). The indirect effect size
was 0.09 (SE = 0.06; CI [0.01; 0.25]. The direct effect of perceived organizational support on
TI is negative and significant (
β
=
−
0.194, p< 0.001). Therefore, with a small indirect effect
size, knowledge hiding partially mediates the effect of perceived organizational support
on turnover intentions.
The fourth hypothesis stated that affective commitment is negatively associated with
knowledge hiding. According to the mediation model, the direct paths from affective
commitment to knowledge hiding (β=−0.219, p< 0.05) were significantly negative.
The fifth hypothesis predicted that knowledge hiding mediates the positive relation-
ship between affective commitment and organizational citizenship behaviors. In order
to test the mentioned relationships, we employed the bootstrapping mediation analysis
proposed by Preacher and Hayes (2013) [
66
]. The results supported the significance of the
indirect effect of affective commitment on organizational citizenship behaviors, 95% CI
[
−
0.197,
−
0.080], through knowledge hiding (
β
=
−
0.138, p< 0.001). The indirect effect
size was 0.03 (SE = 0.014; CI [0.004; 0.061]. The direct effect of affective commitment on
organizational citizenship behaviors is positive and significant (
β
= 0.208, p< 0.001, CI
[0.111; 0.304]. Based on these results, knowledge hiding partially mediates the effect of
affective commitment on organizational citizenship behaviors.
The last hypothesis stated that knowledge hiding would mediate the relationship
between affective commitment and turnover intentions. According to the mediation
analysis, knowledge hiding is a significant mediator given that the indirect effect of affective
commitment on turnover intentions is negative and significant. The indirect effect was
−
0.050 (CI [
−
0.124; 0.004]). After controlling for the mediator, the direct effect of affective
commitment on turnover intentions remains significant (
β
=
−
0.418, p< 0.001). Thus, the
last hypothesis was supported.
4. Discussion
The core aim of this paper was to disentangle how the perceived organizational
support and emotional commitment are linked to organizational citizenship behaviors and
turnover intentions by the means of knowledge hiding as an explanatory mechanism.
Building on social identity theory [
21
] and the social exchange theory [
27
], we argued
that high levels of perceived organizational support will lead to lower levels of knowledge
hiding. The results supported this hypothesis. In other words, when employees face
an environment perceived as supportive, they will not be tempted to hide information
Nurs. Rep. 2021,11 975
because they identify more with the organization [
22
], and they feel like they should
give something back to the organization [
28
]. This comes in line with other studies from
the literature that document the importance of creating a positive relationship between
employees and their organizations [
67
]. Moreover, studies show that abusive leadership
promotes knowledge hiding [
67
,
68
], underlining the importance of showing care and
offering support for the employees.
Next, we tested two mediation hypotheses aiming at explaining the way perceived or-
ganizational support predicts organizational citizenship behaviors [31; 34; 35] and turnover
intentions [
15
,
41
], with knowledge hiding acting as an explanatory mechanism. The me-
diation analyses support these two hypotheses. When employees benefit from perceived
organizational support, their knowledge hiding behaviors are reduced. The reduction of
knowledge hiding behaviors is what explains the positive effect of perceived organiza-
tional support of organizational citizenship behaviors and the negative effect on turnover
intentions. These results may underline the importance of receiving support from the
organization—employees do not perceive that they need to protect themselves by hiding
knowledge, which will be beneficial to both individuals and the organization.
One interesting finding represents the significant indirect effect of perceived organi-
zational support and citizenship behaviors via knowledge hiding. Other studies did not
find a significant mediation [
67
], while our study did. It is possible that not only culture is
important [
67
], but also the job’s profile, as the medical domain may involve high levels of
complexity and urgency, alongside a more individualistic approach to compensation.
Building on territoriality [
5
,
7
,
46
] and social identification [
21
], the third hypothesis
stated that emotional commitment to the organization is linked to knowledge hiding behav-
iors in the organization. The results support this statement. As such, when individuals are
emotionally attached to their organizations, they will be less likely to engage in knowledge
hiding behaviors. These results come in line with what Jahanzeb and the collaborators
(2020) [
69
] showed—disidentification from one’s organizational context promotes knowl-
edge hiding. Thus, it becomes clear that knowledge hiding is strongly influenced by work
attitudes displayed by employees.
The last two hypotheses implied another two mediation analyses, one for the link
between affective commitment and organizational citizenship behaviors [
45
,
48
,
49
] and
one between affective commitment and turnover intentions [
51
–
53
] both by the means of
knowledge hiding. The mediation analyses support these two hypotheses. Thus, when
employees’ affective commitment to their organization is high, their knowledge hiding
behaviors will be reduced. The reduction of knowledge hiding behaviors is what explains
the positive effect of the affective commitment on organizational citizenship behaviors and
the negative effect on turnover intentions. These results are aligned with the idea that the
positive feelings triggered by the organization play an important role in the approach the
individual has towards the organization [27,49].
4.1. Implications
The present study has several implications, both at a theoretical level and a practical
one. At the theoretical level, the study adds to the literature on knowledge hiding by iden-
tifying complex dynamics in which it is involved. On one hand, we show that perceived
organizational support and affective commitment towards the organization are important
predictors for knowledge hiding, adding to the literature regarding the antecedents of
knowledge hiding. As previous studies focused on organizational elements that promote
the emergence of knowledge hiding [
70
,
71
], we show the importance of factors that may
inhibit it, prompting a positive approach and alternatives in organizations. We thus inte-
grate the literature of elements that should be avoided in the context of an organization
with the one focused on appliable, positive alternatives [71,72].
Second, we add to the literature on knowledge hiding and organizational outcomes
by underlining the important indirect role knowledge hiding plays regarding both positive
consequences (citizenship behaviors) and negative consequences (turnover intentions). It is
Nurs. Rep. 2021,11 976
important that our study looks into employee behaviors that indirectly affect organizational
performance. Organizations that promote care towards their employees and manage to
construct affective commitment will be subject to less information hiding. This will be ben-
eficial for promoting positive extra-role behaviors and preventing employees from leaving
the organization. Studying potential mechanisms that explain organizational outcomes
is important as it helps us disentangle the complexities of organizational dynamics and
pinpoint elements open for interventions.
On a practical level, the study answers the call of Anand and the collaborators (2020)
regarding directions for HR practitioners. In order to lessen the negative effect of knowl-
edge hiding, our study offers guidelines for developing strategies and interventions aimed
at creating a supportive organizational environment and raising the affective level of
employees. First, our recommendations are directed towards creating a supportive orga-
nizational climate. Thus, organizations that show their employees that they are valued
and are oriented towards showing care to their employees may be protected from the
emergence of knowledge hiding. Based on the obtained results, organizations should make
sure that their employees’ needs are fulfilled, while also showing appreciation for their
efforts and work. Noticing and praising employees will, thus, protect the organization
against knowledge hiding behaviors.
Second, our practical recommendations are oriented towards ensuring the commit-
ment of employees, especially affective commitment. In this case, practicians should make
sure that their employees really do feel like part of the organization, identifying with
the organization and its needs. As results show, encouraging affective commitment in
the organization, employees will refrain from knowledge hiding, leading to beneficial
outcomes in the organization.
Moreover, the previous recommendation may aim not only at reducing knowledge
hiding, but also prompting knowledge sharing. Raising the levels of knowledge sharing in
an organization will enable the stakeholders and team to harvest multiple benefits, such
as innovation [
73
] or task performance [
74
,
75
]. Thus, given that work teams are more
and more diverse, knowledge sharing may offer a way to integrate goals and positive
social interaction towards higher performance both in intra-organizational settings [
74
]
and inter-organizational settings [76].
4.2. Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research
The study has several limitations. First, we have to take into consideration the fact
that knowledge hiding is under-reported and a low-base-rate event because it is seen as an
undesirable work-related behavior [
12
]. Even if the self-reported data may not reflect reality,
knowledge-hiding behaviors involve concealing information, so it cannot be externally
assessed [12].
Second, the fact that the study is based on self-report could be a liability as it raises
the problem of the common method variance. The hypothesis testing is based on single-
source data, therefore, some additional analyses have been employed. First, self-reported
data is most problematic for topics that generate strong feelings, such as attitudes [
77
].
Dimensions of behavior or performance might be a less emotionally laden subject, and
hence the potential distortion by self-reports is reduced. In addition, the response range
was diverse [78], so that the social desirability bias was not apparent in our sample.
Next, the study does not run an experimental design, thus any causal claims are
not appropriate. Future studies could replicate our findings while using an experimental
design in order to further establish the validity of our results.
We still have much to discover about knowledge hiding and the actions needed to
discourage these behaviors in organizations. Future research should also look into the
contagion of knowledge hiding—when employees perceive others as hiding information,
they will be affected, and they will develop resistance. In addition, future studies should
focus on a longitudinal design in order to explore contagion effects in a more valid way.
Nurs. Rep. 2021,11 977
5. Conclusions
The main goal of this study was to look into the antecedents of knowledge hiding in
organizations and knowledge hiding as an explanatory mechanism for the relationship
between perceived organizational support and organizational citizenship behaviors and
turnover intentions, respectively between affective commitment and organizational citi-
zenship behaviors and turnover intentions. The results support perceived organizational
support and affective commitment as antecedents of knowledge hiding. Both knowledge
hiding as a mediator between perceived organizational support and organizational citi-
zenship behaviors and turnover intentions and knowledge hiding as a mediator between
affective commitment and organizational citizenship behaviors and turnover intentions
were supported. As employees will remain unmotivated to share their knowledge and will
sometimes intentionally withhold it, scholars need a new, deeper understanding of what
triggers individual knowledge hiding, its negative effects on employees, and how it can be
mitigated in organizations.
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization, L.R., N.M.; methodology, L.R., N.M.; data col-lection,
L.R.; formal analysis, L.R., N.M., S.R.T.; data curation, L.R.; writing—original draft preparation, L.R.;
writing—review and editing, L.R., S.R.T., N.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement:
The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the
Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by Babes-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
Informed Consent Statement:
Informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in the
study. Participation was anonymous; participants could withdraw from the study at any moment
and they were assured that data will remain confidential and unidentified.
Data Availability Statement:
Data is available upon substantiated request from the corresponding
author.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
STROBE Guidelines: We confirm that this study is STROBE compliant.
References
1.
Babiˇc, K.; ˇ
Cerne, M.; Connelly, C.E.; Dysvik, A.; Škerlavaj, M. Are we in this together? Knowledge hiding in teams, collective
prosocial motivation and leader-member exchange. J. Knowl. Manag. 2019,23, 1502–1522. [CrossRef]
2.
ˇ
Cerne, M.; Nerstad, C.G.; Dysvik, A.; Škerlavaj, M. What goes around comes around: Knowledge hiding, perceived motivational
climate, and creativity. Acad. Manag. J. 2014,57, 172–192. [CrossRef]
3.
Gagné, M.; Tian, A.W.; Soo, C.; Zhang, B.; Ho, K.S.B.; Hosszu, K. Different motivations for knowledge sharing and hiding: The
role of motivating work design. J. Organ. Behav. 2019,40, 783–799. [CrossRef]
4.
Ghani, U.; Zhai, X.; Spector, J.M.; Chen, N.S.; Lin, L.; Ding, D.; Usman, M. Knowledge hiding in higher education: Role of
interactional justice and professional commitment. High. Educ. 2020,79, 325–344. [CrossRef]
5.
Huo, W.; Cai, Z.; Luo, J.; Men, C.; Jia, R. Antecedents and intervention mechanisms: A multi-level study of R&D team’s knowledge
hiding behaviour. J. Knowl. Manag. 2016,20, 880–897.
6.
Khoreva, V.; Wechtler, H. Exploring the consequences of knowledge hiding: An agency theory perspective. J. Manag. Psychol.
2000,35, 71–84. [CrossRef]
7. Peng, H. Why and when do people hide knowledge? J. Knowl. Manag. 2013,17, 398–415. [CrossRef]
8.
Wang, S.; Noe, R.A. Knowledge sharing: A review and directions for future research. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev.
2010
,20, 115–131.
[CrossRef]
9.
Connelly, C.E.; Ford, D.P.; Turel, O.; Gallupe, B.; Zweig, D. ‘I’m busy (and competitive)!’Antecedents of knowledge sharing under
pressure. Knowl. Manag. Res. Pract. 2014,12, 74–85. [CrossRef]
10.
Bogilovi´c, S.; ˇ
Cerne, M.; Škerlavaj, M. Hiding behind a mask? Cultural intelligence, knowledge hiding, and individual and team
creativity. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 2017,26, 710–723. [CrossRef]
11.
ˇ
Cerne, M.; Hernaus, T.; Dysvik, A.; Škerlavaj, M. The role of multilevel synergistic interplay among team mastery climate,
knowledge hiding, and job characteristics in stimulating innovative work behaviour. Hum. Resour. Manag. J.
2017
,27, 281–299.
[CrossRef]
Nurs. Rep. 2021,11 978
12.
Connelly, C.E.; Zweig, D.; Webster, J.; Trougakos, J.P. Knowledge hiding in Organizations. J. Organ. Behav.
2012
,33, 64–88.
[CrossRef]
13.
de Geofroy, Z.; Evans, M.M. Are emotionally intelligent employees less likely to hide their knowledge? Knowl. Process Manag.
2017,24, 81–95. [CrossRef]
14.
Rhee, Y.W.; Choi, J.N. Knowledge management behaviour and individual creativity: Goal orientations as antecedents and
in-group social status as moderating contingency. J. Organ. Behav. 2017,38, 813–832. [CrossRef]
15.
Serenko, A.; Bontis, N. Understanding counterproductive knowledge behaviour: Antecedents and consequences of intra-
organizational knowledge hiding. J. Knowl. Manag. 2016,20, 1199–1224. [CrossRef]
16.
Connelly, C.E.; Zweig, D. How perpetrators and targets construe knowledge hiding in organizations. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol.
2015,24, 479–489. [CrossRef]
17.
Kehoe, R.R.; Collins, C.J. Human resource management and unit performance in knowledge-intensive work. J. Appl. Psychol.
2017,102, 1222–1236. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
18.
Collins, C.J.; Smith, K.G. Knowledge exchange and combination: The role of human resource practices in the performance of
high-technology firms. Acad. Manag. J. 2006,49, 544–560. [CrossRef]
19.
Costas, J.; Grey, C. Bringing secrecy into the open: Towards a theorization of the social processes of organizational secrecy. Organ.
Stud. 2014,35, 1423–1447. [CrossRef]
20.
Eisenberger, R.; Huntington, R.; Hutchison, S.; Sowa, D. Perceived organizational support. J. Appl. Psychol.
1986
,71, 500.
[CrossRef]
21.
Tajfel, H.; Turner, J.C. An integrative theory of social conflict. In The Social Psychology of Inter-Group Relations; Austein, W., Worchel,
S., Eds.; Nelson Hall: Boston, MA, USA, 1979.
22.
Edwards, M.R.; Peccei, R. Perceived organizational support, organizational identification, and employee outcomes. J. Pers.
Psychol. 2010,9, 17–26. [CrossRef]
23.
Eisenberger, R.; Armeli, S.; Rexwinkel, B.; Lynch, P.D.; Rhoades, L. Reciprocation of perceived organizational support. J. Appl.
Psychol. 2001,86, 42–51. [CrossRef]
24.
Razmerita, L.; Kirchner, K.; Nielsen, P. What factors influence knowledge sharing in organizations? A social dilemma perspective
of social media communication. J. Knowl. Manag. 2016,20, 1225–1246. [CrossRef]
25.
Kimmerle, J.; Wodzicki, K.; Jarodzka, H.; Cress, U. Value of information, behavioural guidelines, and social value orientation in
an information-exchange dilemma. Group Dyn. Theory Res. Pract. 2011,15, 173–186. [CrossRef]
26.
Schultze, U.; Stabell, C. Knowing what you don’t know? Discourses and contradictions in knowledge management research. J.
Manag. Stud. 2004,41, 549–573. [CrossRef]
27. Blau, P.M. Exchange and Power in Social Life; John Wiley & Sons Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 1964.
28. Cropanzano, R.; Mitchell, M.S. Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. J. Manag. 2005,31, 874–900. [CrossRef]
29.
Sun, L.Y.; Aryee, S.; Law, K.S. High-performance human resource practices, citizenship behaviour, and organizational perfor-
mance: A relational perspective. Acad. Manag. J. 2007,50, 558–577. [CrossRef]
30.
Dalal, R.S. A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational citizenship behaviour and counterproductive work
behaviour. J. Appl. Psychol. 2005,90, 1241–1255. [CrossRef]
31.
Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Paine, J.B.; Bachrach, D.G. Organizational citizenship behaviours: A critical review of the
theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. J. Manag. 2000,26, 513–563.
32.
Organ, D.W. Organizational Citizenship Behaviour: The Good Soldier Syndrome; Lexington Books/DC Heath and Company: Lexington,
MA, USA, 1988.
33.
Moorman, R.H.; Blakely, G.L.; Niehoff, B.P. Does perceived organizational support mediate the relationship between procedural
justice and organizational citizenship behaviour? Acad. Manag. J. 1998,41, 351–357. [CrossRef]
34.
Piercy, N.F.; Cravens, D.W.; Lane, N.; Vorhies, D.W. Driving organizational citizenship behaviours and salesperson in-role
behaviour performance: The role of management control and perceived organizational support. J. Acad. Mark. Sci.
2006
,34,
244–262. [CrossRef]
35. Hislop, D. Knowledge Management in Organizations: A Critical Introduction; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2013.
36.
Hornung, S.; Rousseau, D.M.; Glaser, J.; Angerer, P.; Weigl, M. Beyond top-down and bottom-up work redesign: Customizing job
content through idiosyncratic deals. J. Organ. Behav. 2010,31, 187–215. [CrossRef]
37.
Vidyarthi, P.R.; Singh, S.; Erdogan, B.; Chaudhry, A.; Posthuma, R.; Anand, S. Individual deals within teams: Investigating the
role of relative i-deals for employee performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 2016,101, 1536. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
38. Hom, P.W.; Griffeth, R.W. Employee Turnover; South-Western College Publishing: Cincinnati, OH, USA, 1995.
39.
Hancock, J.I.; Allen, D.G.; Bosco, F.A.; McDaniel, K.R.; Pierce, C.A. Meta Analytic Review of Employee Turnover as a Predictor of
Firm Performance. J. Manag. 2013,39, 573–603. [CrossRef]
40.
Park, T.Y.; Shaw, J.D. Turnover rates and organizational performance: A meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol.
2013
,98, 268–309.
[CrossRef]
41.
Mulki, J.P.; Jaramillo, J.F.; Locander, W.B. Effect of ethical climate on turnover intention: Linking attitudinal-and stress theory. J.
Bus. Ethics 2008,78, 559–574. [CrossRef]
42.
Abubakar, A.M.; Behravesh, E.; Rezapouraghdam, H.; Yildiz, S.B. Applying artificial intelligence technique to predict knowledge
hiding behaviour. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2019,49, 45–57. [CrossRef]
Nurs. Rep. 2021,11 979
43.
Mowday, R.T.; Steers, R.M.; Porter, L.W. The measurement of organizational commitment. J. Vocat. Behav.
1979
,14, 224–247.
[CrossRef]
44.
Meyer, J.P.; Allen, N.J. A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev.
1991
,1,
61–89. [CrossRef]
45. Brown, G.; Lawrence, T.B.; Robinson, S.L. Territoriality in organizations. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2005,30, 577–594. [CrossRef]
46.
Singh, S.K. Territoriality, task performance, and workplace deviance: Empirical evidence on role of knowledge hiding. J. Bus. Res.
2019,97, 10–19. [CrossRef]
47. Meyer, J.P.; Allen, N.J. Commitment in the Workplace: Theory, Research, and Application; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1997.
48.
Meyer, J.P.; Stanley, D.J.; Herscovitch, L.; Topolnytsky, L. Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization:
A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. J. Vocat. Behav. 2002,61, 20–52. [CrossRef]
49.
Morin, A.; Vandenberghe, C.; Boudrias, J.; Madore, I.; Morizot, J.; Tremblay, M. Affective commitment and citizenship behaviours
across multiple foci. J. Manag. Psychol. 2011,26, 716–738. [CrossRef]
50.
Maertz, C.P.; Griffeth, R.W.; Campbell, N.S.; Allen, D.G. The effects of perceived organizational support and perceived supervisor
support on employee turnover. J. Organ. Behav. 2007,28, 1059–1075. [CrossRef]
51.
Payne, S.C.; Huffman, A.H. A longitudinal examination of the influence of mentoring on organizational commitment and
turnover. Acad. Manag. J. 2005,48, 158–168. [CrossRef]
52.
Whitener, E.M.; Walz, P.M. Exchange theory determinants of affective and continuance commitment and turnover. J. Vocat. Behav.
1993,42, 265–281. [CrossRef]
53.
Meyer, J.P.; Allen, N.J.; Gellatly, I.R. Affective and continuance commitment to the organization: Evaluation of measures and
analysis of concurrent and time-lagged relations. J. Appl. Psychol. 1990,75, 710–720. [CrossRef]
54.
Allen, N.J.; Meyer, J.P. Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: An examination of construct
validity. J. Vocat. Behav. 1996,49, 252–276. [CrossRef]
55.
Mowday, R.; Porter, L.; Steers, R. Organizational linkages: The psychology of commitment. J. Vocat. Behav.
1982
,14, 224–247.
[CrossRef]
56.
Kane, A.A.; Argote, L.; Levine, J.M. Knowledge transfer between groups via personnel rotation: Effects of social identity and
knowledge quality. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 2005,96, 56–71. [CrossRef]
57.
Morrison, E.W.; Milliken, F.J. Organizational silence: A barrier to change and development in a pluralistic world. Acad. Manag.
Rev. 2000,25, 706–725. [CrossRef]
58.
Mowery, D.C.; Oxley, J.E.; Silverman, B.S. Strategic alliances and inter-firm knowledge transfer. Strateg. Manag. J.
1996
,17, 77–91.
[CrossRef]
59.
Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Moorman, R.H.; Fetter, R. Transformational leader behaviours and their effects on followers’
trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviours. Leadersh. Q. 1990,1, 107–142. [CrossRef]
60.
Kelloway, E.K.; Gottlieb, B.H.; Barham, L. The source, nature, and direction of work and family conflict: A longitudinal
investigation. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 1999,4, 337. [CrossRef]
61.
Ng, T.W.; Feldman, D.C. The relationships of age with job attitudes: A meta-analysis. Pers. Psychol.
2010
,63, 677–718. [CrossRef]
62.
Becker, T.E. Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in organizational research: A qualitative analysis with
recommendations. Organ. Res. Methods 2005,8, 274–289. [CrossRef]
63. Bentler, P.M. Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychol. Bull. 1990,107, 238–246. [CrossRef]
64.
Byrne, B.M. Structural equation modelling with AMOS, EQS, and LISREL: Comparative approaches to testing for the factorial
validity of a measuring instrument. Int. J. Test. 2001,1, 55–86. [CrossRef]
65.
Hayes, A.F. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: Methodology in the Social Sciences, Kindle Edition;
Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2013; Volume 193.
66.
Hayes, A.F.; Preacher, K.J. Conditional process modeling: Using structural equation modeling to examine contingent causal
processes. In Structural Equation Modeling: A Second Course; Hancock, G.R., Mueller, R.O., Eds.; IAP Information Age Publishing:
Charlotte, NC, USA, 2013; pp. 219–266.
67.
Alnaimi, A.M.M.; Rjoub, H. Perceived organizational support, psychological entitlement, and extra-role behavior: The mediating
role of knowledge hiding behavior. J. Manag. Organ. 2021,27, 507–522. [CrossRef]
68.
Agarwal, U.A.; Avey, J.; Wu, K. How and when abusive supervision influences knowledge hiding behavior: Evidence from India.
J. Knowl. Manag. 2021. ahead-of-print. [CrossRef]
69.
Jahanzeb, S.; De Clercq, D.; Fatima, T. Organizational injustice and knowledge hiding: The roles of organizational dis-identification
and benevolence. Manag. Decis. 2020,59, 446–462. [CrossRef]
70.
Anand, A.; Centobelli, P.; Cerchione, R. Why should I share knowledge with others? A review-based framework on events
leading to knowledge hiding. J. Organ. Chang. Manag. 2020,33, 379–399. [CrossRef]
71.
Gürlek, M. Antecedents of knowledge hiding in organizations: A study on knowledge workers. In Proceedings of the Third
Economics, Business And Organization Research (EBOR) Conference, Economics Business and Organization Research, Rome,
Italy, 20–22 November 2020; pp. 20–32.
72.
Chatterjee, S.; Chaudhuri, R.; Thrassou, A.; Vrontis, D. Antecedents and consequences of knowledge hiding: The moderating role
of knowledge hiders and knowledge seekers in organizations. J. Bus. Res. 2021,128, 303–313. [CrossRef]
Nurs. Rep. 2021,11 980
73.
Yao, J.; Crupi, A.; Di Minin, A.; Zhang, X. Knowledge sharing and technological innovation capabilities of Chinese software
SMEs. J. Knowl. Manag. 2020,24, 607–634. [CrossRef]
74.
Thomas, A.; Cillo, V.; Caggiano, V.; Vrontis, D. Drivers of social capital in enhancing team knowledge sharing and team
performance: Moderator role of manager’s cultural intelligence. Int. J. Manag. Financ. Account. 2020,12, 284–303. [CrossRef]
75. Lim, S.E. Knowledge sharing in hospitality organizations: A meta-analysis. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2021,95, 102940. [CrossRef]
76.
Hinder, S.; Cresswell, K.; Sheikh, A.; Franklin, B.D.; Krasuska, M.; The Nguyen, H.; Williams, R. Promoting inter-organisational
knowledge sharing: A qualitative evaluation of England’s Global Digital Exemplar and Fast Follower Programme. PloS ONE
2021,16, e0255220. [CrossRef]
77.
Cote, J.A.; Buckley, M.R. Estimating trait, method, and error variance: Generalizing across 70 construct validation studies. J. Mark.
Res. 1987,24, 315–318. [CrossRef]
78.
Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Podsakoff, N.P.; Lee, J.Y. The mismeasure of man (agement) and its implications for leadership
research. Leadersh. Q. 2003,14, 615–656. [CrossRef]
