The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

[Link]

Organizational injustice and Organizational

injustice and
knowledge hiding: the roles of knowledge
hiding
organizational dis-identification
and benevolence
Sadia Jahanzeb Received 7 May 2019
Revised 2 November 2019
Department of Business, Memorial University (Grenfell Campus), Corner Brook, 3 February 2020
Canada Accepted 2 March 2020

Dirk De Clercq
Goodman School of Business, Brock University, St. Catharines, Canada, and
Tasneem Fatima
Faculty of Management Sciences, International Islamic University,
Islamabad, Pakistan

Abstract
Purpose – With a basis in social identity and equity theories, this study investigates the relationship between
employees’ perceptions of organizational injustice and their knowledge hiding, along with the mediating role of
organizational dis-identification and the potential moderating role of benevolence.
Design/methodology/approach – The hypotheses were tested with three-wave survey data collected from
employees in Pakistani organizations.
Findings – The experience of organizational injustice enhances knowledge hiding because employees
psychologically disconnect from their organization. This mediation by organizational dis-identification is
buffered by benevolence or tolerance for inequity, which reduces employees’ likelihood of reacting negatively
to the unfavourable experience of injustice.
Practical implications – For practitioners, this study identifies organizational dis-identification as a key
mechanism through which employees’ perceptions of organizational injustice spur their propensity to conceal
knowledge, and it reveals how this process might be mitigated by a sense of obligation to contribute or “give” to
organizational well-being.
Originality/value – This study establishes a more complete understanding of the connection between
employees’ perceptions of organizational injustice and their knowledge hiding, with particular attention
devoted to hitherto unspecified factors that explain or influence this process.
Keywords Organizational injustice, Knowledge hiding, Benevolence, Organizational disidentification
Paper type Research paper

In competitive settings, employees who hide their knowledge represent a major threat to both
individual and organizational performance (Cerne
et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2019). Knowledge
hiding refers to an “intentional attempt to withhold or conceal knowledge that has been
requested by another person” (Connelly et al., 2012, p. 65). It encompasses three interrelated
strategies as follows: evasive hiding, playing dumb and rationalized hiding. Such actions can
thwart employees’ creativity, as well as hinder company growth and competitiveness
(Bogilovicet al., 2017; Connelly et al., 2019; Rhee and Choi, 2017; Singh, 2019). Previous
research indicates that it stems from various factors, such as a proving goal orientation (Rhee
and Choi, 2017), trait competitiveness (Hernaus et al., 2019), territoriality (Huo et al., 2016;
Singh, 2019), self-serving leadership (Peng et al., 2018), leader-signalled knowledge hiding


(Offergelt et al., 2019), job insecurity (Serenko and Bontis, 2016), time pressures (Skerlavaj


et al., 2018), relationship distrust (Cerne et al., 2014), workplace ostracism (Zhao et al., 2016),
Management Decision
© Emerald Publishing Limited
0025-1747
organizational politics (Malik et al., 2018) or psychological ownership (Peng, 2013). DOI 10.1108/MD-05-2019-0581
MD Another critical facet that may facilitate knowledge hiding is organizational injustice or
employees’ sense that they are being treated unfairly by their organizations (Barclay and
Saldanha, 2016; Connelly et al., 2012). Employees may perceive unfair treatment if they sense
their rewards are not in proportion to their contributions, as gauged by working assignments,
pay, bonuses, evaluations and promotions; if they are not allowed to voice their opinions or if
they believe organizational authorities fail to treat them with dignity and respect (Lavelle
et al., 2018). Perceived injustice, as an unfavourable workplace experience, is pervasive and
significant across various cultural settings (Khan et al., 2013; Khattak et al., 2019; Lu and
McKeown, 2018; Piccoli and De Witte, 2015). Although some prior theoretical research predict
a positive relationship between employees’ experience of organizational injustice and
knowledge hiding (Connelly et al., 2012), this potential antecedent has received little empirical
attention. Nor is it clear why and how injustice perceptions might escalate into enhanced
knowledge-hiding behaviours. To address this gap, the current study considers the
unexplored, potentially causal mechanism of organizational dis-identification. That is,
employees may psychologically distance themselves from an organization they perceive as
unjust (Zagenczyk et al., 2013), which in turn can have negative work outcomes, such as
unethical behaviours (Ning and Zhaoyi, 2017), voicing of strong negative opinions (Ng and
Feldman, 2012) or quitting intentions (Lai et al., 2013). To complement prior research, this
study proposes specifically that (1) exposure to organizational injustice may spur knowledge
hiding due to the presence of organizational disidentification, but (2) this process may be
mitigated by an employee’s preference for benevolence, which implies a better tolerance for
fewer rewards, even when that employee engages in greater efforts (Blakely et al., 2005;
Nguyen, 2016).
To guide the theoretical arguments about the indirect effect of perceived organizational
injustice on knowledge hiding, through organizational dis-identification and about the
mitigating role of employee benevolence, this study turns to social identity theory (SIT;
Ambrose et al., 2018; Tajfel and Turner, 1986) and equity theory (Adams, 1965; Lovegrove
and Fairley, 2017). According to SIT, people join multiple social groups (e.g. gender,
religious affiliation, age cohort, organizations) to integrate into their social environment
and reduce uncertainty in their social relations (Ashforth and Mael, 1989). They also derive
value and emotional significance from perceiving a sense of oneness with these groups,
such that they build self-esteem by developing positive evaluations of the categories to
which they belong and negative judgements of categories with which they have no
association (e.g. rival sports teams) (Pan et al., 2019; Todd and Kent, 2009). Employees
similarly might psychologically dissociate from their organization if they do not agree
with its prevailing practices, which constitutes organizational dis-identification (Lai et al.,
2013; Zagencyk et al., 2013).
This study combines SIT with equity theory to posit that employees’ negative reactions to
unfair situations may vary with their tolerance for inequity (Blakely et al., 2005; King et al.,
1993). According to equity theory, employees’ work motivation depends on how their own
output–input ratios – where output pertains to their rewards and input to their work
contributions – compare with the output–input ratios of colleagues (Lovegrove and Fairley,
2017). Employees likely seek to diminish the distress that comes with any imbalance, such as
by decreasing their input, requesting higher output or withdrawing from the employment
relationship (Adams, 1965). The related notion of equity sensitivity then adds that employees
differ in their preferences for specific output–input ratios, so they reflect a continuum from
benevolence to equity sensitivity to entitlement (Liu and Berry, 2013). If employees can be
classified as benevolent, they are “givers” and prefer output–input ratios for themselves that
are lower than others. Equity sensitivity instead implies a preference for equity norms, so all
output–input ratios should be equivalent. Employees who display entitlement instead are
“getters” who expect higher output–input ratios for themselves than for others. Consistent
with the research goal of understanding why some employees may be less sensitive to Organizational
perceptions of organizational injustice, this study predicts that employees’ benevolence (Han injustice and
et al., 2018) might mitigate the process by which a sense of organizational dis-identification
emerges in response to organizational injustice and also decrease the likelihood of knowledge
knowledge
hiding. hiding
By combining SIT with equity theory, this study makes several pertinent contributions to
extant research. First, it elucidates how organizational injustice might increase knowledge
hiding because employees feel less motivated to incorporate their organization’s identity into
their self-concepts (Lai et al., 2013; Rani et al., 2018). Second, it clarifies when this translation of
perceived injustice into knowledge hiding, through organizational dis-identification, might be
less likely to occur. Employees’ benevolence (i.e. tolerance for inequity) may mitigate the
harmful effect of organizational injustice on organizational dis-identification (Han et al., 2018),
which would reduce knowledge hiding (Singh, 2019). By considering this buffering effect, the
current study extends previous insights into the moderating roles of other resources on the
negative effects of perceived organizational injustice, including agreeableness and
neuroticism (Khattak et al., 2019), moral identity (Mingzheng et al., 2014), moral
disengagement (Liu and Berry, 2013) and self-identity (Yang et al., 2013).
Third, in response to calls for more research on organizational injustice in non-Western
contexts (De Clercq et al., 2018; Khan et al., 2013; Yang et al., 2013), this research focuses on
Pakistan, an understudied culture marked by high uncertainty avoidance, in which people
tend to avoid risky situations and prefer orderliness, consistency, structure, formalized
procedures and laws (Peretz and Fried, 2012). Because organizational injustice represents
an ambiguous setting, employees in cultures that score high on uncertainty avoidance
might be more negatively affected by unfair treatment, a form of inconsistency (Sully De
Luque and Javidan, 2004). Yet a power distant country such as Pakistan also might
discourage outward emotional and behavioural reactions to perceived organizational
injustice (De Clercq et al., 2019; Khan et al., 2013), such that organizational dis-identification
and knowledge-hiding behaviours may be less likely. By investigating the extent to which a
valuable personal resource, such as benevolence, can mitigate the harmful effect of
perceived organizational injustice on organizational dis-identification and knowledge
hiding, this study accordingly can offer important implications for Pakistan and other
understudied contexts that share similar cultural profiles. Figure 1 summarizes the
theoretical framework.

Hypotheses
Mediating role of organizational dis-identification
Organizational injustice implies that employees do not receive equitable outcomes for their
input, that explanations of specific procedures are lacking or that they are treated with
disrespect (Ambrose et al., 2018; Barclay and Saldanha, 2016; De Clercq et al., 2018). This
unfavourable experience negatively impacts their work attitudes and behaviours and

Benevolence

Perceived Organizational
organizational
Knowledge Figure 1.
disidentification hiding Conceptual model
injustice
MD undermines their quality of life outside the work domain. For example, employees’
perceptions of unfairness decrease their job satisfaction (Loi et al., 2009), spur deviant
behaviours (Khattak et al., 2019), increase their propensity to engage in time theft (Liu and
Berry, 2013) and compromise on their physical and psychological health (Barclay and
Saldanha, 2016).
According to SIT, whereas organizational justice provides helpful, interpretable
information about social identities (Fuchs and Edwards, 2012), it offers no sense of
distinctiveness or chances to enhance self-esteem (Ngo et al., 2013; Zweig and Scott, 2007). In
particular, an unattractive, inequitable workplace likely increases employees’ motivation to
maintain some cognitive separation from their organization, to protect their own self-esteem
(De Clercq et al., 2018; Lai et al., 2013). That is, they define themselves by an identity that is
explicitly different from their organization’s identity (Ning and Zhaoyi, 2017). In support of a
positive association between perceived organizational injustice and organizational dis-
identification, an experimental study by Glasford et al. (2008) reveals that people dis-identify
with a group when they perceive that the latter’s actions violate their own personal values or
preferences. For the current study, employees who experience organizational unfairness may
be likely to dis-identify with their employer because the associated organizational practices
convey values that they might not want to be associated with themselves. Therefore, the
following hypothesis is postulated
H1. Employees’ perceptions of organizational injustice relate positively to their
organizational dis-identification.
In turn, employees’ organizational dis-identification may encourage their knowledge hiding.
Employees who psychologically dissociate from their employing organization may still feel
compelled to fulfill their formal job obligations, to avoid sanctions or to ensure positive
performance evaluations. Thus, they may experience an inconsistency, between their
negative feelings towards the organization on the one hand and their execution of daily job
tasks on the other (Elsbach and Bhattacharya, 2001; Rani et al., 2018). To restore a more
pleasant sense of consistency, they might change the patterns of their behaviours (Lai et al.,
2013). In particular, and in line with SIT (Pan et al., 2019), employees who have
psychologically distanced themselves from their organization may combat the resulting
identity threats by intentionally concealing job-related knowledge from co-workers (Singh,
2019). This action allows them to assert that their self-perceptions differ from those of their
co-workers, who represent the organization that sparks their negative feelings (Wang
et al., 2019).
In summary, employees who psychologically disconnect from their organization can
affirm the distinctiveness of their own identity by intentionally withholding requested
knowledge from other members of the same organization (Connelly et al., 2012; Riketta, 2005).
Hiding this knowledge helps them rationalize their psychological dissociation (Arshad and
Ismail, 2018). Similarly, a lack of organizational identification can stimulate employees to
conceal knowledge from organizational colleagues (Zhao et al., 2019). Accordingly, the
following hypothesis is postulated:
H2. Employees’ organizational dis-identification relates positively to their knowledge
hiding.
The combination of these two hypotheses suggests a mediating role of organizational dis-
identification. Previous studies indicate a mediating role of organizational disidentification in
the relationships between psychological contract breaches and unethical behaviour (Ning
and Zhaoyi, 2017) and between the perceived moral dirtiness of work and intentions to quit
(Lai et al., 2013). As an extension of this research line, the current study predicts that the
experience of organizational injustice is dysfunctional and prompts employees to reject an
identification with their organization. This rejection then encourages them to conceal Organizational
knowledge from organizational colleagues. In short, perception of injustice can harm injustice and
organizations because it encourages knowledge-hiding behaviours within their ranks,
through employees’ sense of organizational dis-identification. Formally, it can be
knowledge
hypothesised as follows: hiding
H3. Employees’ organizational dis-identification mediates the relationship between their
perceptions of organizational injustice and knowledge hiding.

Moderating role of benevolence

Employees’ benevolence also might moderate the relationship between their perceptions of
organizational injustice and organizational dis-identification. According to equity theory, the
negative effect of organizational injustice should be buffered to the extent that employees are
able to ignore the experienced injustice, due to their benevolence or acceptance of inequity
(Lovegrove and Fairley, 2017; Salin and Notelaers, 2017). Benevolent employees tend to focus
on acts of “giving” instead of “receiving” and on the intrinsic outcomes that they can achieve
through their work efforts, such as a sense of personal accomplishment and growth (Han
et al., 2018). Notably, benevolent employees place greater emphasis on the quality of their
relationship with their employing organization and derive great satisfaction from positive
assessments of this relationship (Salin and Notelaers, 2017).
Such benevolence accordingly may enable employees to deal with the frustrations evoked
by perceptions of organizational injustice (Lavelle et al., 2018), which diminishes their need to
dis-identify with the organization and define themselves as distinct (Ning and Zhaoyi, 2017).
Conversely, employees who express less benevolence or tolerance for inequity suffer more
from the hardships and cannot protect themselves against the hardships, resulting from
organizational injustice (Salin and Notelaers, 2017). They instead are more likely to respond
to perceived organizational injustice with organizational dis-identification, to protect their
self-esteem and distance themselves from the employing organization. Therefore, it can be
hypothesised as follows:
H4. The positive relationship between employees’ perceptions of organizational injustice
and organizational dis-identification is moderated by their benevolence, such that
the relationship is weaker at higher levels of benevolence.
These arguments imply the presence of moderated mediation (Preacher et al., 2007):
Employees’ benevolence may serve as a contingent factor of the indirect effect of employees’
perceptions of organizational injustice on their knowledge hiding, through organizational dis-
identification. For benevolent employees, organizational dis-identification is a less important
mechanism to explain how perceived organizational unfairness can escalate into enhanced
knowledge-hiding behaviour. Consistent with SIT and equity theory (Ambrose et al., 2018;
Lovegrove and Fairley, 2017), the motivation to maintain a psychological separation between
organizational identities and self-identities, in response to perceptions of organizational
injustice, should be a less important driver of knowledge hiding if employees are “givers” and
expect little reciprocation for their work efforts (Nguyen, 2016). Conversely, to the extent that
employees are less tolerant of inequity, the desire to achieve organizational dis-identification
becomes a more important determinant of how perceptions of organizational injustice
stimulate employees to conceal knowledge from their organizational colleagues (Zhao et al.,
2019). Formally, it can be hypothesised as follows:
H5. The indirect relationship between employees’ perceptions of organizational injustice
and knowledge hiding through their organizational dis-identification is moderated
by their benevolence, such that this indirect relationship is weaker among employees
who display greater benevolence.
MD Research method
Sample and procedure
Time-lagged (i.e. three-wave) data were collected from full-time and contract employees
working in three Pakistani-based organizations. One firm operated in the telecom sector,
another in banking and the third provided courier services. The three-wave data collection
procedure incorporated time lags of eight weeks between each wave. This design helps
minimize concerns about expectancy bias, as might occur when participants can guess the
research hypotheses and adjust their responses accordingly (Podsakoff et al., 2012). The
selections of the organizations reflected personal and professional links; contacts of one of the
authors also assisted with the data collection procedure, after obtaining ethics clearance. A
cover letter detailed the significance of the research and assured participants complete
confidentiality, to reduce their evaluation apprehension or social desirability concerns.
At time 1, 400 employees were contacted and were asked about perceived organizational
injustice and benevolence; it resulted in 350 completed questionnaires. Two months later,
these 350 employees received requests to provide responses regarding organizational dis-
identification. Among the 330 questionnaires received, 297 of them could be matched with the
original responses. After a gap of another two months, these respondents were surveyed
regarding their knowledge-hiding behaviours, and 287 participants responded. The (small)
dropout rates may reflect the exit of respondents who were no longer willing to participate,
had gone on leave or had completed their contract and left their job during the data collection
process. The analyses thus are based on 287 completed sets of responses, for a final response
rate of 72%. Approximately 19% of the respondents were women, their mean age was 33
years and they had worked for their organization for an average of 8 years Table 1
summarizes pertinent information about the three organizations and the demographic
characteristics of the respondents.

Measures
The data collection relied on established scales. The questionnaires were in English, which is
the language of instruction for all schools and universities in Pakistan, as well as the official
language of business organizations. The scales used seven-point Likert anchors that ranged
from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 7 (“strongly agree”).
Perceived organizational injustice: the measure of employees’ perceptions of
organizational injustice used a four-item scale (Hodson et al., 1994). Sample items included,
“Some people are friendly with their supervisor at my workplace, so they receive special
treatment” and “People at my workplace sometimes put off finishing tasks so that they do not
get assigned additional work” (Cronbach’s alpha 5 0.86).

Organization 1 Organization 2 Organization 3

Industry Telecom Banking Courier

Number of employees 1,100 300 1,200
Target employees 125 100 175
Number of respondents 85 73 129
Response rate 68.5% 73.0% 73.5%

Table 1. Participant characteristics

Responses and Gender distribution (% female) 16% 21% 20%
demographic Age (in years) 35 32 31
characteristics by Organizational tenure (in years) 5.01 12.16 6.89
organization Note(s): N 5 287
Benevolence: an eight-item subscale of the equity sensitivity index measured benevolence Organizational
(Huseman et al., 1987), with items such as, “I feel obligated to do more than I am paid to do at injustice and
work” and “When I have completed my tasks for the day, I help out other employees who have
yet to complete their tasks” (Cronbach’s alpha 5 0.85).
knowledge
Organizational dis-identification: A six-item scale gauged organizational dis-identification hiding
in employees (Kreiner and Ashforth, 2004). Sample items were: “I have tried to keep the
organization I work for, a secret from people I meet” and “I find this organization to be
disgraceful” (Cronbach’s alpha 5 0.85).
Knowledge hiding: On the 12-item knowledge-hiding measure (Connelly et al., 2012),
respondents indicated their agreement with several descriptions of their responses when
co-workers asked them for information. The items were preceded with the phrase, “When
co-workers ask for information,” and included statements such as, “I sometimes offer them
some other information instead of what they really want,” “I sometimes pretend that I do not
know the information,” and “I sometimes explain that I would like to tell them, but I am not
supposed to.” A second-order confirmatory factor analysis confirmed that the three
dimensions of knowledge hiding (evasive hiding, playing dumb and rationalized hiding)
loaded on a second-order knowledge-hiding construct. The paths between this second-order
factor and each first-order factor were strongly significant (p < 0.001), and the second-order
model generated good fit (confirmatory fit index [CFI] 5 0.95; Tucker–Lewis index
[TLI] 5 0.91; incremental fit index [IFI] 5 0.95; root mean square error of
approximation 5 0.08). The internal consistency of the 12-item measure also was high
(Cronbach’s alpha 5 0.88). This operationalization of knowledge-hiding behaviour as an
overarching construct was consistent with previous empirical studies (e.g. Fong et al., 2018;
Peng et al., 2018), as well as with the notion that employees can engage in knowledge hiding or


not, irrespective of its specific form (Cerne et al., 2014).
Control variables: this research included three control variables as follows: gender
(1 5 female), age (in years) and organizational tenure (in years).

Analysis
The test of the validity of the focal constructs relied on an estimate of a four-factor model with
confirmatory factor analysis (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). This model indicated adequate
fit (χ 2(372) 5 601.29, IFI 5 0.95, TLI 5 0.94, CFI 5 0.95). The factor loadings of all items on
their respective constructs were strongly significant (p < 0.001), suggesting the presence of
convergent validity (Gerbing and Anderson, 1988). Evidence of discriminant validity
emerged from a comparison of the fit of constrained models, in which the correlation between
two constructs was set to equal 1, with that of their unconstrained counterparts, in which the
correlations between the constructs were free to vary. For each of the six pairs that could be
generated from the four constructs, the unconstrained models achieved superior fit
(Δχ 2(1) > 0.3.84, p < 0.05), in support of the presence of discriminant validity (Anderson and
Gerbing, 1988).
Two statistical tests assessed possible concerns related to the use of common respondents.
First, Harman’s one-factor test (Podsakoff and Organ, 1986) checked whether a single-factor
model that included all four constructs – perceived organizational injustice, benevolence,
organizational dis-identification and knowledge hiding – might account for a majority of the
total variance in the data. The first extracted factor explained only 35% of the total variance;
so common method bias does not appear to be a significant concern. Second, a confirmatory
factor analysis compared the fit of the four-factor model with that of a one-factor model in
which each item loaded on a single factor. The former model revealed superior fit
(Δχ2(23) 5 386.45, p < 0.001), which further diminishes the possibility of common method
bias (Lattin et al., 2003). Third, concerns about common method bias tend to be mitigated in
MD theoretical models that include moderating effects because it is difficult for respondents to
anticipate these effects and adjust their responses accordingly (Simons and Peterson, 2000).

Results
Table 2 reports the correlations and descriptive statistics; the regression results are in
Table 3. Models 1–3 predict organizational dis-identification, and models 4–6 predict
knowledge hiding. The variance inflation factor values for each regression coefficient are less
than 10, so multi-collinearity is not a problem (Aiken and West, 1991).
Hypothesis 1 predicted that employees who believe they are treated unfairly by their
organization are more likely to distance themselves psychologically from it. In support of this
prediction, a positive relationship emerges between perceived organizational injustice and
organizational dis-identification in Model 2 (β 5 0.233, p < 0.001). Furthermore, as stated in
Hypothesis 2, higher levels of organizational dis-identification increase the likelihood that
employees conceal valuable knowledge from other organizational members, as indicated by
the positive relationship between organizational dis-identification and knowledge hiding in
model 6 (β 5 0.135, p < 0.001). The test of Hypothesis 3 for the presence of mediation by
organizational dis-identification relied on the bootstrapping method suggested by Preacher
and Hayes (2004), using the PROCESS macro developed by Hayes (2013). This test provides
confidence intervals (CIs) for the indirect effect of perceived organizational injustice on
knowledge hiding, to avoid the statistical power problems that might arise due to asymmetric
or other non-normal sampling distributions (MacKinnon et al., 2004). Obtained with 10,000
random samples and replacement from the full sample, the CI for the indirect effect of
perceived organizational injustice on knowledge hiding through organizational dis-
identification does not include 0 [0.037; 0.097], indicating the presence of mediation.
The test of Hypothesis 4 then assessed the perceived organizational injustice 3
benevolence interaction term, to predict organizational dis-identification (Model 3). The
interaction term is significant (β 5
0.203, p < 0.001); the positive effect of perceived
organizational injustice on organizational dis-identification is buffered by higher levels of
benevolence, in support of Hypothesis 4. To clarify the nature of this interaction, Figure 2
plots the effect of perceived organizational injustice on knowledge hiding at high and low
levels of benevolence, combined with a simple slope analysis (Aiken and West, 1991). The
results indicate that the relationship between perceived organizational injustice and
organizational dis-identification is significant at low levels of benevolence (β 5 0.378,
p < 0.001) but not at high levels (β 5
0.028, ns), in further support of Hypothesis 4.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Perceived organizational
injustice
2. Benevolence
0.518**
3. Organizational 0.372**
0.347**
dis-identification
4. Knowledge hiding 0.517**
0.602** 0.410**
5. Gender 0.097
0.131* 0.074 0.119*
6. Age 0.136*
0.181**
0.028 0.130* 0.041
7. Organizational tenure 0.130*
0.098
0.075 0.028
0.083 0.720**
Table 2. Mean 2.849 2.889 3.350 3.155 0.192 33.035 8.093
Correlation table and Standard deviation 1.443 1.145 1.216 0.948 0.394 6.026 4.748
descriptive statistics Note(s): N 5 287; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01
 Organizational disidentification Knowledge hiding
Organizational
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 injustice and
knowledge
Gender 0.197 0.030 0.056 0.242þ 0.045 0.041
Age 0.008
0.004 0.000 0.033* 0.015 0.016 hiding
Organizational tenure
0.025
0.030
0.030
0.023
0.024þ
0.020
Perceived organizational 0.233*** 0.175*** 0.189*** 0.157***
injustice
Benevolence
0.232***
0.157*
0.369***
0.337***
Perceived organizational
0.203***
injustice 3 benevolence
Organizational 0.135***
dis-identification
2
R 0.011 0.189 0.252 0.036 0.428 0.452
ΔR2 0.178*** 0.063*** 0.392*** 0.024***
Note(s): N 5 287 (unstandardized regression coefficients); þp < 0.10; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001 Table 3.
(two-tailed tests) Regression results

4.5
Organizational disidentifcation

3.5 High Benevolence

Low Benevolence Figure 2.

Moderating effect of
3 benevolence on the
relationship between
perceived
organizational injustice
2.5 and organizational
Low Perceived High Perceived dis-identification
organizational injustice organizational injustice

To assess the presence of a moderated mediation effect, as proposed in Hypothesis 5, the

analysis also applied Preacher et al.’s (2007) procedure. Similar to the bootstrapping test for
mediation, this approach generates CIs for the conditional indirect effects at different levels of
the moderator (MacKinnon et al., 2004). As clarified by Hayes’s (2013) PROCESS macro, these
CIs capture different levels of the moderator (i.e. 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th and 90th percentiles).
With 10,000 random samples and replacement from the full sample, the results reveal that the
bootstrap 95% CIs for the conditional indirect effect of perceived organizational injustice on
knowledge hiding at the 10th and 25th percentiles do not contain 0 ([0.059, 0.168] and [0.049,
0.136], respectively), but the intervals contain 0 at the 50th, 75th and 90th percentiles of
benevolence ([
0.009, 0.037], [
0.030, 0.025] and [
0.045; 0.018], respectively). A more direct
evaluation of the presence of moderated mediation relied on an assessment of the index of
moderated mediation and its corresponding CI (Hayes, 2015). This index equals
0.039, and
the CI does not include 0 ([
0.066;
0.019]). These results indicate that benevolence functions
as a buffer against the positive, indirect effect of perceived organizational injustice on
knowledge hiding, through organizational dis-identification, in support of Hypothesis 5 and
the overall conceptual framework.
MD Discussion
Theoretical implications
This study contributes to extant research by investigating how employees’ perceptions of
organizational injustice inform their knowledge hiding, with a special focus on unspecified
factors that explain or influence this process. Some limited investigations note that
perceptions of unfair organizational treatment might prompt knowledge hiding (Connelly
et al., 2012; Khalid et al., 2018; Singh, 2019), but little empirical research has investigated why
employees’ perceptions of injustice in the workplace might increase their willingness to
conceal knowledge, let alone the critical role of their sensitivity to inequity in this process.
Drawing from SIT (Pan et al., 2019) and equity theory (Lovegrove and Fairley, 2017), the
current study helps fill these gaps by establishing that the likelihood of knowledge hiding in
response to perceived organizational injustice increases because employees seek to define
themselves as having attributes that do not match those that define their organization
(Zagenczyk et al., 2013). Their benevolence mitigates this process (Clark et al., 2010).
A first theoretical insight derived from this study accordingly is that employees who
perceive unfair organizational practices are more likely to hide knowledge because they dis-
identify with their organization. They seek a conscious separation of their own identity from
that of the organization (Lai et al., 2013). The presence of organizational injustice offers few
opportunities for self-expression among employees and curtails their self-esteem (Barclay
and Skarlicki, 2016; Khan et al., 2013). Employees respond to these identity-threatening
situations by dis-identifying with an employing organization that jeopardizes their self-
concept (Branscombe et al., 1999; Ning and Zhaoyi, 2017). Moreover, employees who
psychologically distance themselves from their organization also intentionally conceal job-
related knowledge from organizational peers (Singh, 2019; Zhao et al., 2019). By doing so, they
seek to ensure their self-perceptions are distinct from those of their organization and its
constituents (Wang et al., 2019). In other words, employees hide knowledge to rationalize their
psychological distance from their organization.
As a second theoretical insight, employees’ sense of organizational dis-identification,
stemming from their perceived organizational injustice, is mitigated by their benevolence
(Lovegrove and Fairley, 2017). The negative effect of organizational injustice is subdued to
the extent that employees have a more “giving” disposition (Salin and Notelaers, 2017), which
lowers their need to psychologically distance themselves from their unfair employer. When
employees find it important to contribute to, instead of benefit from, their organization, the
process by which perceived organizational injustice escalates into enhanced organizational
dis-identification becomes attenuated (Nguyen, 2016). Therefore, employees who expect little
reciprocation for their work contributions are more likely to identify with their employing
organization, even if this very same organization has failed to treat them fairly (Lu and
McKeown, 2018)
Finally, the buffering effect of benevolence on the relationship between perceived
organizational injustice and organizational dis-identification is particularly insightful when
considered in combination with the mediating role of organizational dis-identification (Clark
et al., 2010). As the analysis of moderated mediation revealed (Preacher et al., 2007), the
strength of the indirect effect of employees’ perceptions of organizational injustice on
knowledge hiding, through organizational dis-identification, depends on their benevolence.
The negative feelings that arise with beliefs about unfair work conditions translate less
powerfully into knowledge hiding, through organizational dis-identification, to the extent
that employees gain satisfaction from “giving” their talents and expertise to the organization.
In summary, this study provides a more comprehensive understanding of the factors that
define the connection between perceived injustice in the workplace and knowledge hiding. It
extends extant research by revealing organizational dis-identification as a critical mechanism
that links this source of workplace adversity with knowledge hiding and by showing that
employees’ benevolence helps contain this process. The findings thus expand previous Organizational
investigations of the direct effect of benevolence on positive work outcomes, such as injustice and
organizational commitment (King et al., 1993) and ethical competence (Pohling et al., 2016).
That is, the benefits of benevolence can also be more indirect, in that benevolent employees
knowledge
are better positioned to cope with organizational injustice (Salin and Notelaers, 2017). Overall, hiding
these theoretical insights clarify the detrimental role of organizational injustice in spurring
knowledge hiding, through employees’ psychological disassociation from their organization,
which can be contained by benevolence because it counters the frustration resulting from
unfairness beliefs.

Practical implications
This study offers several important implications for organizational practitioners. Perceptions
of injustice create a psychological disassociation from the organization’s identity, leading
employees to hide their knowledge; so organizations must monitor potential sources of this
sense of organizational injustice (Lavelle et al., 2018). Clear, realistic communication programs
could be designed to focus on employee participation in the organization, institute affirmative
action policies or grant employees more voice. Furthermore, organizations might benefit from
installing adequate reward systems, stimulating close interpersonal relationships and
creating supportive internal cultures. Such measures promise to help boost not only
employees’ sense of belonging or oneness with their organization but also their evaluations of
the fairness of their work situation (van Houwelingen et al., 2017).
In addition to the general recommendation that organizations should seek to reduce
employees’ beliefs about organizational injustice, this study offers pertinent insights for
organizations that cannot totally eliminate such perceptions. Employees who are relatively
tolerant of imbalanced rewards can deal better with perceptions of unfair organizational
practices (Nguyen, 2016). Accordingly, human resource managers could benefit from
assessing the extent to which employees are “givers” instead of “getters” – with self-rated
survey instruments or supervisor-rated observations, for example – and then develop their
recruitment and retention policies accordingly. Employees who appear well-equipped with
high levels of benevolence may offer particularly great benefits for organizations that cannot
avoid scenarios in which employees are likely to perceive contraventions of organizational
justice (Salin and Notelaers, 2017).
Beyond these advantages, organizations in which perceptions of organizational injustice
are prevalent also might benefit from finding ways to enhance employees’ tolerance for
inequity. For example, employees might be more likely to endure lower output–input ratios,
relative to comparable others, if the organization provides ethical guidelines. By evoking
moral elements, the organization might make employees more sensitive to the consequences
of their actions (Nguyen and Leclerc, 2011), such as purposefully hiding critical knowledge
from colleagues. Furthermore, organizations can benefit from instilling the propensity to
forgive, relinquish anger and resist the desire for revenge among their employee bases, even
when the work conditions are less than optimal (Barclay and Saldanha, 2016; Khan et al.,
2013), which should limit their strong negative reactions to perceptions of unfairness.

Limitations and future research

This study is not without limitations, which suggest further research avenues. First, the


measures did not differentiate tacit from explicit knowledge hiding (Skerlavaj et al., 2018).
Tacit knowledge is more difficult to formalize and share than explicit knowledge (Szulanski,
1996), but it also is easier to hide from colleagues (Peng, 2013). Future research therefore could
examine whether the strength of the relationships studied herein might differ between tacit
and explicit knowledge-hiding scenarios. In a similar vein, this study addresses individual
MD knowledge hiding, and future studies could extend the scope to explore knowledge hiding at
the team or organizational levels (Connelly and Zweig, 2015). The overall construct of
knowledge hiding tested herein also does not separate out the three sub-dimensions of
evasive hiding, playing dumb and rationalized hiding. Continued studies could investigate
the potentially unique antecedents of each dimension of knowledge hiding and then specify
interventions that can effectively minimize their negative impacts (Hernaus et al., 2019).
Second, prior research has called for explicit investigations of why perceived
organizational injustice might generate negative employee behaviours (Barclay and
Saldanha, 2016; De Clercq et al., 2018; Khattak et al., 2019), prompting the consideration of
organizational dis-identification as an important explanatory mechanism. Yet other
mediators remain to be explored too, such as moral disengagement (Liu and Berry, 2013),
sleep disorders (Manville et al., 2016), or forgiveness (Barclay and Saldanha, 2016).
Third, the investigation of benevolence as a contingency factor that mitigates the indirect
relationship between perceived organizational injustice and knowledge hiding might be
extended by a consideration of other personal characteristics. For example, personal
competitiveness, achievement striving, a pro-social motivation (Hernaus et al., 2019), an
ethical ideology (Hastings and Finegan, 2011) or victim sensitivity (Lavelle et al., 2018) could
influence the transformation of perceived organizational injustice into organizational dis-
identification and subsequent knowledge hiding. Organizational factors also could disrupt
this effect, such as an ethical organizational climate (Ning and Zhaoyi, 2017), co-worker
satisfaction or team commitment (Flaherty and Moss, 2007).
Fourth, these results reflect insights gathered from organizations that operate in Pakistan.
Its cultural context is marked by risk aversion, which makes it highly relevant for testing the
negative impact of uncertainty-inducing organizational injustice (De Clercq et al., 2018). Yet,
its hierarchical nature may also discourage strong negative behavioural reactions, such as
knowledge hiding (Khan et al., 2013); from this perspective, the empirical tests of this study
were conservative. Cross-country comparisons could assess the prominence of perceived
organizational injustice for evoking organizational dis-identification and subsequent
knowledge hiding, as well as the strength of the underlying moderators in this process, in
cultural contexts that differ from that of Pakistan’s . Moreover, it would be interesting to
investigate the roles of the corresponding individual characteristics in this process, such as
employees’ own risk propensity (Chow et al., 2012) and power distance orientation (Lin
et al., 2013).

Conclusion
This study has expanded extant research on the negative consequences of perceived injustice
in organizations by examining the effect of employees’ exposure to this negative work
condition on their knowledge hiding, as well as the role of their organizational dis-
identification and benevolence in this process. Employees’ motivation to psychologically
distance themselves from their organization represents an important reason that their beliefs
about organizational injustice stimulate knowledge hiding, but the potency of this
explanatory mechanism is weaker when employees act as organizational “givers” and
expect little reciprocation for their work contributions. This study then may serve as a
platform for further investigations into how organizations can avoid a scenario in which
employees’ disappointment about a lack of fairness translate into their negative work
behaviours.

References
Adams, J.S. (1965), “Inequity in social exchange”, in Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental
Social Psychology, Academic Press, New York, NY, Vol. 2, pp. 267-299.
Aiken, L.S. and West, S.G. (1991), Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions, Sage, Organizational
Newbury Park, California, CA.
injustice and
Ambrose, S.C., Matthews, L.M. and Rutherford, B.N. (2018), “Cross-functional teams and social
identity theory: a study of sales and operations planning (S&OP)”, Journal of Business Research,
knowledge
Vol. 92, pp. 270-278. hiding
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103, pp. 411-423.
Arshad, R. and Ismail, I.R. (2018), “Workplace incivility and knowledge hiding behavior: does
personality matter?, Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, Vol. 5
No. 3, pp. 278-288.
Ashforth, B.E. and Mael, F. (1989), “Social identity theory and the organization”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 14, pp. 20-39.
Barclay, L.J. and Saldanha, M.F. (2016), “Facilitating forgiveness in organizational contexts: exploring
the injustice gap, emotions, and expressive writing interventions”, Journal of Business Ethics,
Vol. 137, pp. 699-720.
Blakely, G.L., Andrews, M.C. and Moorman, R.H. (2005), “The moderating effects of equity sensitivity
on the relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors”,
Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 20, pp. 259-273.


Bogilovic, S., Cerne,

M. and Skerlavaj, M. (2017), “Hiding behind a mask? Cultural intelligence,
knowledge hiding, and individual and team creativity”, European Journal of Work andand
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 26, pp. 710-723.
Branscombe, N.R., Ellemers, N., Spears, R. and Doosje, R. (1999), “The context and content of social
identity threat”, in Branscombe, N.R., Ellemers, N., Spears, R. and Doosje, B. (Eds), Social
Identity: Context, Commitment, Content, Blackwell Science, Oxford, UK, pp. 35-38.


Cerne,

M., Hernaus, T., Dysvik, A. and Skerlavaj, M. (2017), “The role of multilevel synergistic interplay
among team mastery climate, knowledge hiding, and job characteristics in stimulating
innovative work behavior”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 27, pp. 281-299.


Cerne,

M., Nerstad, C.G., Dysvik, A. and Skerlavaj, M. (2014), “What goes around comes around:
knowledge hiding, perceived motivational climate, and creativity”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 57, pp. 172-192.
Chow, I.H.S., Ng, I. and Gong, Y.Y. (2012), “Risk-taking and relational perspective on turnover
intentions”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 23, pp. 779-792.
Clark, L.A., Foote, D.A., Clark, W.R. and Lewis, J.L. (2010), “Equity sensitivity: a triadic measure and
outcome/input perspectives”, Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 22, pp. 286-305.


Connelly, C., Cerne,

M., Dysvik, A. and Skerlavaj, M. (2019), “Understanding knowledge hiding in
organizations”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 40, pp. 779-782.
Connelly, C.E. and Zweig, D. (2015), “How perpetrators and targets construe knowledge hiding in
organizations”, European Journal of Work andand Organizational Psychology, Vol. 24,
pp. 479-489.
Connelly, C.E., Zweig, D., Webster, J. and Trougakos, J.P. (2012), “Knowledge hiding in organizations”,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 33, pp. 64-88.
De Clercq, D., Haq, I.U. and Azeem, M.U. (2018), “The roles of informational injustice and political
climate in the relationship between dispositional envy and job performance in Pakistani
organizations”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 82, pp. 117-126.
De Clercq, D., Haq, I.U. and Azeem, M.U. (2019), “Time-related work stress and counterproductive
work behaviour: invigorating roles of deviant personality traits”, Personnel Review, Vol. 48,
pp. 756-1781.
Elsbach, K.D. and Bhattacharya, C.B. (2001), “Defining who you are by what you’re not: organizational
disidentification and the National Rifle Association”, Organization Science, Vol. 12, pp. 393-413.
MD Flaherty, S. and Moss, S. (2007), “The impact of personality and team context on the relationship
between workplace injustice and counterproductive work behavior”, Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, Vol. 37, pp. 2549-2575.
Fong, P.S., Men, C., Luo, J. and Jia, R. (2018), “Knowledge hiding and team creativity: the contingent
role of task interdependence”, Management Decision, Vol. 56, pp. 329-343.
Fuchs, S. and Edwards, M.R. (2012), “Predicting pro-change behaviour: the role of perceived
organisational justice and organisational identification, Human Resource Management Journal,
Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 39-59.
Gerbing, D.W. and Anderson, J.C. (1988), “An updated paradigm for scale development incorporating
unidimensionality and its assessment”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 25, pp. 186-192.
Glasford, D.E., Pratto, F. and Dovidio, J.F. (2008), “Intragroup dissonance: responses to ingroup
violation of personal values”, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 44,
pp. 1057-1064.
Han, Y., Sears, G. and Zhang, H. (2018), “Revisiting the ‘give and take’ in LMX: exploring equity
sensitivity as a moderator of the influence of LMX on affiliative and change-oriented OCB”,
Personnel Review, Vol. 47, pp. 555-571.
Hastings, S.E. and Finegan, J.E. (2011), “The role of ethical ideology in reactions to injustice”, Journal
of Business Ethics, Vol. 100, pp. 689-703.
Hayes, A.F. (2013), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A
Regression-Based Approach, Guilford Press, New York, NY.
Hayes, A.F. (2015), “An index and test of linear moderated mediation”, Multivariate Behavioral
Research, Vol. 50, pp. 1-22.


Hernaus, T., Cerne,

M., Connelly, C., Poloski Vokic, N. and Skerlavaj, M. (2019), “Evasive knowledge
hiding in academia: when competitive individuals are asked to collaborate”, Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 23, pp. 597-618.
Hodson, R., Creighton, S., Jamison, C.S., Rieble, S. and Welsh, S. (1994), “Loyalty to whom? Workplace
participation and the development of consent”, Human Relations, Vol. 47, pp. 895-909.
Huo, W., Cai, Z., Luo, J., Men, C. and Jia, R. (2016), “Antecedents and intervention mechanisms: a multi-
level study of R&D team’s knowledge hiding behavior”, Journal of Knowledge Management,
Vol. 20, pp. 880-897.
Huseman, R.C., Hatfield, J.D. and Miles, E.W. (1987), “A new perspective on equity theory: the equity
sensitivity construct”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 12, pp. 222-234.
Khalid, M., Bashir, S., Khan, A.K. and Nida, A. (2018), “When and how abusive supervision leads to
knowledge hiding behaviors”, Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 39,
pp. 794-806.
Khan, A.K., Quratulain, S. and Crawshaw, J.R. (2013), “The mediating role of discrete emotions in the
relationship between injustice and counterproductive work behaviors: a study in Pakistan”,
Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 28, pp. 49-61.
Khattak, M.N., Khan, M.B., Fatima, T. and Shah, S.Z.A. (2019), “The underlying mechanism between
perceived organizational injustice and deviant workplace behaviors: moderating role of
personality traits”, Asia Pacific Management Review, Vol. 24, pp. 201-211.
King, W.C. Jr, Miles, E.W. and Day, D.D. (1993), “A test and refinement of the equity sensitivity
construct”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 14, pp. 301-317.
Kreiner, G.E. and Ashforth, B.E. (2004), “Evidence toward an expanded model of organizational
identification”, Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial,
Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, Vol. 25, pp. 1-27.
Lai, J.Y., Chan, K.W. and Lam, L.W. (2013), “Defining who you are not: the roles of moral dirtiness and
occupational and organizational disidentification in affecting casino employee turnover
intention”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66, pp. 1659-1666.
Lattin, J.M., Carroll, J.D. and Green, P.E. (2003), Analyzing Multivariate Data, Thomson Brooks/Cole. Organizational
Pacific Grove, California, CA.
injustice and
Lavelle, J.J., Harris, C.M., Rupp, D.E., Herda, D.N., Young, R.F., Hargrove, M.B. and McMahan, G.C.
(2018), “Multifoci effects of injustice on counterproductive work behaviors and the moderating
knowledge
roles of symbolization and victim sensitivity”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 39, hiding
pp. 1022-1039.
Lin, W., Wang, L. and Chen, S. (2013), “Abusive supervision and employee well-being: the moderating
effect of power distance orientation”, Applied Psychology: An International Review, Vol. 62,
pp. 308-329.
Liu, Y. and Berry, C.M. (2013), “Identity, moral, and equity perspectives on the relationship between
experienced injustice and time theft”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 118, pp. 73-83.
Loi, R., Yang, J. and Diefendorff, J.M. (2009), “Four-factor justice and daily job satisfaction: a multilevel
investigation”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 94, pp. 770-781.
Lovegrove, H. and Fairley, S. (2017), “Using equity theory to understand non-host city residents’
perceptions of a mega-event”, Journal of Sport and Tourism, Vol. 21, pp. 1-14.
Lu, T. and McKeown, S. (2018), “The effects of empathy, perceived injustice and group identity on
altruistic preferences: towards compensation or punishment”, Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, Vol. 48, pp. 683-691.
MacKinnon, D.P., Lockwood, C.M. and Williams, J. (2004), “Confidence limits for the indirect effect:
distribution of the product and resampling methods”, Multivariate Behavioral Research, Vol. 39,
pp. 99-128.
Malik, O.F., Shahzad, A., Raziq, M.M., Khan, M.M., Yusaf, S. and Khan, A. (2018), “Perceptions of
organizational politics, knowledge hiding, and employee creativity: the moderating role of
professional commitment”, Personality and Individual Differences, doi: 10.1016/[Link].2018.
05.005.
Manville, C., El Akremi, A., Niezborala, M. and Mignonac, K. (2016), “Injustice hurts, literally: the role
of sleep and emotional exhaustion in the relationship between organizational justice and
musculoskeletal disorders”, Human Relations, Vol. 69, pp. 1315-1339.
Mingzheng, W., Xiaoling, S., Xubo, F. and Youshan, L. (2014), “Moral identity as a moderator of the
effects of organizational injustice on counterproductive work behavior among Chinese public
servants”, Public Personnel Management, Vol. 43, pp. 314-324.
Ng, T.W. and Feldman, D.C. (2012), “Employee voice behavior: a meta-analytic test of the conservation
of resources framework”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 33, pp. 216-234.
Ngo, H., Loi, R., Foley, S., Zheng, X. and Zhang, L. (2013), “Perceptions of organizational context and
job attitudes: the mediating effect of organizational identification”, Asia Pacific Journal of
Management, Vol. 30, pp. 149-168.
Nguyen, N. (2016), “Reinforcing customer loyalty through service employees’ competence and
benevolence”, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 36, pp. 721-738.
Nguyen, N. and Leclerc, A. (2011), “The effect of service employees’ competence on financial
institutions’ image: benevolence as a moderator variable”, Journal of Services Marketing,
Vol. 25, pp. 349-360.
Ning, N. and Zhaoyi, L. (2017), “Psychological contract breach, organizational disidentification, and
employees’ unethical behavior: organizational ethical climate as moderator”, Social Behavior
and Personality: An International Journal, Vol. 45, pp. 1409-1424.
Offergelt, F., Sp€orrle, M., Moser, K. and Shaw, J. (2019), “Leader-signaled knowledge hiding: effects on
employees’ job attitudes and empowerment”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 40,
pp. 819-833.
Pan, N.D., Gruber, M. and Binder, J. (2019), “Painting with all the colors: the value of social identity
theory for understanding social entrepreneurship”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 44,
pp. 213-215.
MD Peng, H. (2013), “Why and when do people hide knowledge?”, Journal of Knowledge Management,
Vol. 17, pp. 398-415.
Peng, J., Wang, Z. and Chen, X. (2018), “Does self-serving leadership hinder team creativity? A
moderated dual-path model”, Journal of Business Ethics, pp. 1-15.
Peretz, H. and Fried, Y. (2012), “National cultures, performance appraisal practices, and organizational
absenteeism and turnover: a study across 21 countries”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 97,
pp. 448-459.
Piccoli, B. and De Witte, H. (2015), “Job insecurity and emotional exhaustion: testing psychological
contract breach vs distributive injustice as indicators of lack of reciprocity”, Work and Stress,
Vol. 29, pp. 246-263.
Pohling, R., Bzdok, D., Eigenstetter, M., Stumpf, S. and Strobel, A. (2016), “What is ethical competence?
The role of empathy, personal values, and the five-factor model of personality in ethical
decision-making”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 137, pp. 449-474.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2012), “Sources of method bias in social science
research and recommendations on how to control it”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 63,
pp. 539-569.
Podsakoff, P.M. and Organ, D.W. (1986), “Self-reports in organizational research: problems and
prospects”, Journal of Management, Vol. 12, pp. 531-544.
Preacher, K.J. and Hayes, A.F. (2004), “SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in
simple mediation models”, Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, Vol. 36,
pp. 717-731.
Preacher, K.J., Rucker, D.D. and Hayes, A.F. (2007), “Assessing moderated mediation hypotheses:
theory, methods, and prescriptions”, Multivariate Behavioral Research, Vol. 42, pp. 185-227.
Rani, H., Ghulam, A.A., Kumar, A. and Shaikh, I.R. (2018), “Interplay between trust and distrust in the
workplace: examining the effect of psychological contract breach on organizational
disidentification”, Journal of Asia Business Studies, Vol. 12, pp. 1-16.
Rhee, Y.W. and Choi, J.N. (2017), “Knowledge management behavior and individual creativity: goal
orientations as antecedents and in-group social status as moderating contingency”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 38, pp. 813-832.
Riketta, M. (2005), “Organizational identification: a meta-analysis, Journal of Vocational Behavior”,
Vol. 66, pp. 358-384.
Salin, D. and Notelaers, G. (2017), “The effect of exposure to bullying on turnover intentions: the role
of perceived psychological contract violation and benevolent behaviour”, Work and Stress,
Vol. 31, pp. 355-374.
Serenko, A. and Bontis, N. (2016), “Understanding counterproductive knowledge behavior:
antecedents and consequences of intra-organizational knowledge hiding”, Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 20, pp. 1199-1224.
Simons, T.L. and Peterson, R.S. (2000), “Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management
teams: the pivotal role of intragroup trust”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 83, pp. 102-111.
Singh, S.K. (2019), “Territoriality, task performance, and workplace deviance: empirical evidence on
role of knowledge hiding”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 97, pp. 10-19.


Skerlavaj,

M., Connelly, C.E., Cerne, M. and Dysvik, A. (2018), “Tell me if you can: time pressure,
prosocial motivation, perspective taking, and knowledge hiding”, Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 22, pp. 1489-1509.
Sully de Luque, M. and Javidan, M. (2004), “Uncertainty avoidance”, in House, J.S., Hanges, P.J.,
Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W. and Gupta, V. (Eds), Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The
GLOBE Study of 62 Societies, Sage, Thousand Oaks, California, CA, pp. 602-653.
Szulanski, G. (1996), “Exploring internal stickiness: impediments to the transfer of best practice within
the firm”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17, pp. 27-43.
Tajfel, H. and Turner, J.C. (1986), “The social identity theory of intergroup behavior”, in Worchel, S. Organizational
and Austin, W.G. (Eds), Psychology of Intergroup Relations, Nelson-Hall Publishers,
Chicago, pp. 7-24. injustice and
Todd, S. and Kent, A. (2009), “A social identity perspective on the job attitudes of employees in sport”,
knowledge
Management Decision, Vol. 47, pp. 173-190. hiding
van Houwelingen, G., van Dijke, M. and De Cremer, D. (2017), “Fairness enactment as response to
higher level unfairness: the roles of self-construal and spatial distance”, Journal of Management,
Vol. 43, pp. 319-347.
Wang, Y., Han, M.S., Xiang, D. and Hampson, D.P. (2019), “The double–edged effects of perceived
knowledge hiding: empirical evidence from the sales context”, Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 23, pp. 279-296.
Yang, L.Q., Johnson, R.E., Zhang, X., Spector, P.E. and Xu, S. (2013), “Relations of interpersonal
injustice with counterproductive work behavior: the moderating role of employee self-identity”,
Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 28, pp. 189-202.
Zagenczyk, T.J., Cruz, K.S., Woodard, A.M., Walker, J.C., Few, W.T., Kiazad, K. and Raja, M. (2013),
“The moderating effect of Machiavellianism on the psychological contract breach–
organizational identification/disidentification relationships”, Journal of Business and
Psychology, Vol. 28, pp. 287-299.
Zhao, H., Liu, W., Li, J. and Yu, X. (2019), “Leader–member exchange, organizational identification,
and knowledge hiding: the moderating role of relative leader–member exchange”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 40, pp. 834-848.
Zhao, H., Xia, Q., He, P., Sheard, G. and Wan, P. (2016), “Workplace ostracism and knowledge hiding in
service organizations”, The International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 59, pp. 84-94.
Zweig, D. and Scott, K. (2007), “When injustice matters most: supervisory violations of electronic
monitoring practices”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 17, pp. 227-247.

About the authors

Sadia Jahanzeb is an Assistant Professor of Business, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, Memorial
University of Newfoundland (Grenfell campus). Her research interests include workplace incivility,
counterproductive behaviours, employee silence and knowledge hiding. Sadia Jahanzeb is the
corresponding author and can be contacted at: sjahanzeb@[Link]
Dirk De Clercq is Professor of Management in the Goodman School of Business at Brock University,
Canada. He is also Research Professor in the Small Business Research Centre at Kingston University,
UK. His research interests are in entrepreneurship, organizational behaviour and cross-country studies.
Tasneem Fatima is an Assistant Professor and Chairperson, Faculty of Management Sciences (FMS),
International Islamic University, Pakistan. She currently studies dark side of leadership, psychological
capital, knowledge hiding and organizational justice.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
[Link]/licensing/[Link]
Or contact us for further details: permissions@[Link]