Knowledge hiding of the leader and its
effects on interpersonal and informational
justice and employee performance
Msc. Business Administration 21th of June 2018
Thesis Proposal Leadership & Management Final Version
Student: Nikki Schaap
Student number: 10575553
STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY
This document is written by Student Nikki Schaap who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it. The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
ABSTRACT
Knowledge hiding of the leader is largely overlooked in previous research. Therefore, this research investigates the relationship between knowledge hiding of the leader and perceived employee interpersonal and informational justice. Furthermore, the relationship between interpersonal and informational justice of the employee and employee performance is examined. Interpersonal and informational justice of the employee are expected to mediate the relationship of knowledge hiding of the leader and employee performance. Moreover, this study examines the effect of leader-member exchange (LMX) on the relationships between knowledge hiding of the leader and interpersonal and informational justice of the employee. Questionnaires filled in by leader and employee dyads (N = 105) were collected. Contrary to expectations, knowledge hiding of the leader is not found to be negatively related to interpersonal and informational justice of the employee. Moreover, interpersonal and informational justice of the employee are not found to be positively related to employee performance. Furthermore, the relationship between knowledge hiding of the leader and employee performance is not mediated by perceived interpersonal and informational justice of the employee. No evidence was found for a possible moderating role of LMX on the relationship between knowledge hiding of the leader and interpersonal and informational justice.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction 6
2. Theoretical Framework 9
2.1. Knowledge Hiding 9
2.2. Interactional Justice 11
2.3. Relationships Knowledge Hiding and Interpersonal and Informational
Justice 13
2.4. Relationship Interpersonal and Informational Justice and Performance 16
2.5. Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) 18
3. Methods 21
3.1. Procedure and Sample 21
3.2. Measurements 22
4. Results 26
4.1. Descriptive Statistics 26
4.2. Test of the Hypotheses 27
4.2.1. Hypothesis 1 27 4.2.2. Hypothesis 2 27 4.2.3. Hypotheses 3 & 4 28 4.2.4. Hypotheses 5 & 6 28 4.2.5. Hypothesis 7 29 4.2.6. Hypothesis 8 30 4.2.7. Hypotheses 9 & 10 30 5. Discussion 32 5.1. Practical Implications 33 5.2. Limitations 34
6. Conclusions 36
7. Literature 37
8. Appendix 44
1. Surveys Supervisor and Employee 44
2. Correlation table 51
3. Multiple Regression Table (1) 52
4. Multiple Regression Table (2) 53
5. Multiple Regression Table (3) 54
6. Regression Process, model 4 55
INTRODUCTION
Knowledge is an essential resource in organizations, which can offer organizations a source of competitive advantage (Li, Zhang, Zhang & Zhou, 2017; Spender & Grant, 1996). Literature has shown that knowledge management is positively related to new product development, cost reduction, innovation, team performance and organizational performance (Collins & Smith, 2006; Hu & Randel, 2014; Li et al., 2017; Lin, 2007; Mesmer-Magnus & DeChurch, 2009). However, these studies have investigated knowledge sharing, but do not investigate the fact that individuals can decide to hide their knowledge on purpose. Knowledge hiding is described by Conelly, Zweig, Webster and Trougakos (2012) as intentionally withholding or concealing knowledge by an individual that has been requested by another person.
Knowledge hiding has received little attention by researchers. (Conelly et al., 2012). Yet, knowledge (sharing) is a crucial part for the effectiveness of the organization (Yang & Wu, 2008; Yeşil, & Dereli, 2013). Consequently, knowledge hiding might impede the future of the organization (Lin, 2007). The survival of the organization makes knowledge hiding an important research topic and identifying the factors influencing knowledge hiding is essential (Van Den Hoof & Ridder, 2004; Yeşil, & Dereli, 2013).
Especially knowledge hiding of the leader has received little attention in the literature (Conelly et al., 2012). Connelly and Zweig (2015) stated in their research that further exploration is needed to investigate the effect of knowledge hiding between the supervisor and employee. Organizations cannot simply force supervisors to share their knowledge with employees (Conelly et al., 2012; Kelloway & Barling, 2000). Sometimes it is even necessary to hide knowledge from employees. Moreover, knowledge hiding is not necessarily intended to harm an individual or the organization (Connelly & Zweig, 2015). For example, sharing knowledge can create uncertainty among employees when the company is trying to find out if they can merge with or purchase another company.
However, employees are deeply concerned with how they are treated by others, especially by leaders (O'reilly, & Aquino, 2011). Knowledge hiding of the leader can give employees the feeling that they are unfairly treated, since knowledge hiding can be seen as a form of unfair behavior of the leader. Interactional justice is focused on the perceived fairness of the employee regarding the daily interaction with the supervisor and is divided in interpersonal and informational justice. The employees’ perceptions of fairness are determined by their previous experiences with the leader. In turn, these experiences influence the employees’ attitudes and behaviors. (Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001; Li et al., 2017). The attitudes and behaviors of the employees are strong predictors of their performance (Masterson, Lewis, Goldman & Taylor, 2000). This is in line with Adams (1965), who stated that an employee’s performance is influenced by their perception of (in)justice. Thus, knowledge hiding of the leader could lead to perceived injustice and as a result injustice could lead to lower performance.
However, not all leaders treat employees the same way and each employee perceives this treatment differently. This is mainly influenced by the existing relationship between the leader and employee and the level of trust between them (Brower, Schoorman & Tan, 2000). The quality of the relationship between an employee and his/her supervisor is called the leader-member exchange (LMX) (Walumbwa, Cropanzano, & Hartnell, 2009). LMX assumes respect and trust between the leader and the employee (Walumbwa, Cropanzano, & Hartnell, 2009). A leader who is trusted will be liked more and endorsed more (Van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003). Moreover, employees who score high on LMX tend to behave in ways that are beneficial for their leader, because of their emotional attachment to the leader. They believe that their leader acts in the interests of the organization and that this helps the organization to reach their goals (Tsay, Lin, Yoon & Huang, 2014). Thus, LMX could explain that when leaders are hiding
employees will be confident that the leader acts in their best interest. In conclusion, this research investigates the relationship between knowledge hiding of the leader and informational and interpersonal justice, which is influenced by the moderator LMX and explores the consequences of this relationship on the employee’s performance.
All in all, this study will narrow down several literature gaps of the relationships between knowledge hiding, interpersonal justice, informational justice, LMX and employee performance. The main contribution of this research is investigating the potential gap in current literature on the role between knowledge hiding of the leader and informational and interpersonal justice. Also, this research tries to shed a light on investigating the moderating effect of LMX on this relationship. The subjects of this research are mainly overlooked in previous research, but as stated above research is needed to further explore these subjects and add to the literature. The aim of this study is therefore to fill up the existing literature gap and add some new implications through the results of this research.
Finally, this research is similarly structured as other studies in this field of research. Firstly, the theoretical background of the different concepts is discussed and lead to the proposed hypotheses. Secondly, the method section discusses the data collection process. Thirdly, the results of the data collection are examined. Finally, this research ends with the discussion section in which the implications and contributions of this research are explained.
Taking all this into consideration leads to the following proposed model:
Model 1. Proposed research model. Knowledge hiding leader Informational justice (employee) Leader-member exchange (LMX) Employee performance Interpersonal justice (employee)
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 2.1. Knowledge Hiding
To achieve and maintain a competitive advantage, an organization must manage and organize the knowledge of its people (Stewart, 1997). Davenport and Prusak (1998) define knowledge as “a fluid mix of framed experience, values, contextual information and expert insights that provides a framework for evaluating and incorporating new experiences and information." (p.5). Thus, knowledge includes the values, information and expertise of individuals which are relevant for the tasks they perform (Webster et al., 2008). According to Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995), organizations cannot create and share knowledge without individuals. When knowledge is not shared between individuals, knowledge has little influence on the effectiveness of the organization and this is detrimental for the organization (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). This makes knowledge a necessary tool for an organization, because knowledge sharing must take place in order to achieve and retain the competitive advantage (Hitt, Miller, & Colella, 2011).
Although knowledge sharing is a crucial part for the effectiveness of the organization (Yang & Wu, 2008; Yeşil, & Dereli, 2013), knowledge hiding, on the other side of the continuum, might impede the future of the organization (Lin, 2007). Knowledge hiding is described by Conelly et al. (2012) as intentionally withholding or concealing knowledge by an individual that has been requested by another person. It captures a dyadic situation in which on the one side knowledge is asked by a person (recipient) and on the other side knowledge is hidden by a person (source) (Szulanski, 1996; Webster et al., 2008). Knowledge hiding is seen as a deliberate choice, despite the fact that another person asks for this knowledge to be shared (Webster et al., 2008). However, it may give the person, who intentionally withholds or conceals knowledge, the feeling that it is justified to do so, because it might be better for the other person’s good or in the organization’s best interests (Webster et al., 2008). Furthermore,
it hard for organizations to control (Conelly et al., 2012; Kelloway & Barling, 2000), although it is a crucial part for the organization’s survival.
Previous research has investigated several outcomes of knowledge hiding (of the leader). For instance, Connelly and Zweig (2015) concluded in their research that knowledge hiding of the leader leads to negative outcomes, such as a damaged relationship between the source and recipient and higher knowledge hiding intentions in the future within the relationship. Moreover, Černe, Nerstad, Dysvik and Škerlavaj (2014) show that knowledge hiding reduces creativity of the people affected by it and a reciprocal reaction caused by distrust that leads to further hiding. Furthermore, Tang, Bavik, Chen and Tjosvold (2015) show that ethical leadership is negatively related to followers’ knowledge hiding.
There are different reasons for supervisors to hide their knowledge from followers, for example: territoriality, political gain, psychological ownership or interpersonal dynamics. First, territoriality is a person’s feeling of ownership over knowledge and this withholds the person to share knowledge (Brown, Lawrence, & Robinson, 2005). Second, knowledge is seen as a source of power and grants a supervisor political gain. Knowledge possesses value when it is seen as a strategic or political resource which benefits the knowledge holder, e.g. the supervisor (Clegg, 1989). Third, knowledge can also be seen by supervisors as the sole property of the supervisor and this holds him/ her back to share the information with employees (Kelloway & Barling, 2000). Another reason for supervisors to hide their knowledge relates to the social exchange theory. “Essentially, someone who voluntarily and spontaneously engages in a behavior that benefits another person may implicitly invoke a similar yet unspecified reciprocal behavior (…) The history of reciprocity among colleagues may affect the likelihood of an employee engaging in knowledge hiding behaviors” (Webster et al. 2008, p. 17). Thus, there are several reasons why supervisors hide their knowledge within organizations.
The social exchange theory is based on the quality of the relationship between (two) employees. This relationship is created by their previous interactions, which are determinants for the future interactions and the knowledge hiding behavior (Webster et al., 2008). A determinant of the quality of the relationship is interpersonal distrust, for example. Distrust relates to confident negative expectations regarding the behavior of another (Lewicki, McAllister, & Bies, 1998). Another determinant is the perceived interpersonal fairness of an employee (Donovan, Drasgow & Munson, 1998). During the interaction between persons, employees determine the way they are treated by others. If they experience this treatment by the other person as rude or disrespectful, they are more likely to hide their knowledge from this particular person, even when they are asked to share this knowledge (Sitkin & Stickel, 1996). Thus, the social exchange theory is an important component of knowledge hiding. However, this can be challenging, since it implies the complexity of interaction between people and organizations (Yeşil, & Dereli, 2013; Yang & Wu, 2008)
2.2. Interactional Justice
Interaction plays also an important role in organizational justice (Yeşil, & Dereli, 2013). Organizational justice refers “to the extent to which employee perceives workplace procedure, interactions and outcomes to be fair in nature” (Baldwin, 2006, p.1). Moreover, organizational justice is an essential part of the effectiveness of an organization (Yeşil, & Dereli, 2013). Organizational justice is a very wide subject, which includes procedural, distributive and interactional justice (Colquitt, 2001). The procedural and distributive justices are mainly focused on the perceived fairness regarding decision making processes and outcomes distributive (Li et al., 2017). On the contrary, interactional justice is more focused on the perceived fairness of the employee regarding the daily interaction with the supervisor. Also,
organizational justice and especially within interactional justice, the importance of interaction is highlighted.
Interactional justice has several characteristics. First, studies show that interactional justice is a strong predictor of employee’s attitudes and behaviors (Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001; Li et al., 2017) and that it is sometimes even a stronger predictor of employee’s attitudes and behaviors than procedural and distributive justice (Ambrose & Schminke, 2003; Li et al., 2017; Moorman, 1991; Williams, Pitre, & Zainuba, 2002). Additionally, interactional justice is determined by the treatment of a supervisor during personal encounters and it contains the dyadic relationship between the employee and the leader (Webster, Brown, Zweig, Connelly, Brodt & Sitkin, 2008).
Historically, literature on organizational justice favored the three-factor model (procedural, distributive and interactional justice) (Bies, 2001). However, other studies show that organizational justice is more precisely represented in a factor structure. This four-factor structure divides interactional justice into two types, namely interpersonal and informational justice (Camerman, Cropanzano & Vandenberghe, 2007; Colquitt, 2001; Greenberg, 1993; Greenberg & Cropanzano, 1993). First, interpersonal justice refers to the dignity, politeness and respect that an employee receives from another. Second, informational justice refers to the adequate information and social accounts which are provided to the employee (Camerman, Cropanzano & Vandenberghe, 2007; Walumbwa, Cropanzano, & Hartnell, 2009).
In addition, interpersonal justice focuses more on the respect and propriety criteria side of organizational justice, whereas informational justice focuses more on the truthfulness and justification side of organizational justice (Colquitt, 2001; Tyler & Bies, 1990). As shown by Colquitt (2001) in his research both types of interactional justice have independent effects of one another. So, not including these types of justice in the construct of organizational justice
will lead to incomplete coverage of organizational justice. On the one hand, interpersonal justice is positively related to leader evaluation and helping behavior, according to Colquitt (2001). On the other hand, informational justice is positively related to collective esteem and trust in management (Colquitt, 2001; Kernan & Hanges, 2002). Thus, interpersonal and informational justice must be treated as distinct constructs, because of the independent effects of both types of justice.
2.3. Relationships Knowledge Hiding and Interpersonal and Informational Justice Employees are deeply concerned with how they are treated by others, especially by leaders (O'reilly, & Aquino, 2011). Employees make justice evaluations based upon the quality of the interpersonal treatment they have received during previous interactions with their supervisor. Therefore, supervisors are held responsible for the perceived interactional justice of employees (Chiu, Wang, Shih & Fan, 2011). Knowledge hiding can be seen as counterproductive work behavior (Serenko & Bontis, 2016) and as a negative treatment by the one who hides knowledge intentionally (in this case the leader) (Holten, Hancock, Persson, Hansen & Høgh, 2016). This negative treatment and counterproductive work behavior by the leader will according to social exchange theory be reciprocated with a negative treatment by the employee (Holten, Hancock, Persson, Hansen & Høgh, 2016; Serenko & Bontis, 2016). So, knowledge hiding by the leader will be reciprocated by the employee with knowledge hiding from the lekader.
However, knowledge hiding is seen by most people as unfair, unethical and harmful (Jaros, 1997; Serenko & Bontis, 2016) and may lead to difficult relationships between leader and employee (Evans, Hendron & Oldroyd, 2014; Holten, Hancock, Persson, Hansen & Høgh, 2016; Szulanski, 1996). Therefore, the negative treatment of the leader, experienced by the employee will give a feeling that this unfair, unethical and harmful (Jaros, 1997; Serenko &
is intentionally hidden by the supervisor. Thus, when employees notice that their supervisor intentionally hides knowledge, they will see this as unfair behavior towards them. This can be seen as (interpersonal and informational) injustice.
In addition, knowledge sharing of the leader stimulates employees to share knowledge with their leader, because employees will reciprocate this behavior according to social exchange theory (Li et al., 2017). Moreover, leaders who share knowledge with their employees are trusted more and receive more respect from their employees, because employees have the feeling they are supported by their leader in a polite and dignified manner. This will be perceived by employees as interpersonal justice (Li et al., 2017; Serenko & Bontis, 2016).
On the contrary, knowledge hiding of the leader can be perceived as a disrespectful treatment of the leader, because knowledge is intentionally hidden from the employee by the leader (Li et al., 2017; Serenko & Bontis, 2016). Also, knowledge hiding of the leader will encourage reciprocal knowledge hiding behavior and will damage the level of trust in the relationship between the leader and employee (Lewicki, McAllister, & Bies, 1998; Li et al., 2017; Serenko & Bontis, 2016). Moreover, employees will not have the feeling that they are supported by their leader nor that they received dignity and politeness from their leader (Li et al., 2017; Serenko & Bontis, 2016). These negative consequences of knowledge hiding can lead to an unfairly treated feeling among the employees. Thus, knowledge hiding of the leader will lead to perceived interpersonal injustice of the employee. This leads to the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: “Knowledge hiding of the leader is negatively related to perceived interpersonal justice of the employee.”
Knowledge sharing improves a two-way communication between the leader and the employee and can be a seen as a sign of mutual support (Cropanzano, Prehar & Chen, 2002). Furthermore, knowledge sharing can lead to more useful feedback of the leader, which can be used by the
employee (Cropanzano, Prehar & Chen, 2002). Thus, knowledge sharing provides employees adequate information and employees will perceive the accounts with the leader as positive (Connelly et al., 2012, Cropanzano, Prehar & Chen, 2002). This will lead to informational justice.
On the contrary, knowledge hiding is detrimental for the two-communication between the leader and the employee (Cropanzano, Prehar & Chen, 2002). In addition, knowledge hiding will lead to one-way communication, where the employee provides information to the leader, but does not receive any information in return. So, the employees may also not be supported by their leader and may not receive any feedback (Cropanzano, Prehar & Chen, 2002). Leaders who are intentionally withholding or concealing knowledge that has been requested by the employee will discourage two-way communication, support and feedback to the employee (Connelly et al., 2012; Cropanzano, Prehar & Chen, 2002). This leads to poor communication and mutual misunderstanding. This is perceived by employees as informational injustice.
Furthermore, employees may see knowledge hiding of the leader as an unequal chance among employees to access information. They may have the feeling that other employees may have access to this knowledge, whereas their access is not granted by their leader (Holten et al., 2016). Therefore, the employees might get the feeling that the leader treats them unfair (Holten et al., 2016). This is also perceived by the employee as informational injustice. Thus, knowledge hiding of the leader will lead to perceived informational injustice of the employee. This leads to the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2: “Knowledge hiding of the leader is negatively related to perceived informational justice of the employee.”
2.4. Relationship Interpersonal and Informational Justice and Performance
The employees’ perceptions of fairness are determined by their previous experiences with the supervisor. Experiences, such as a performance appraisal or a meeting with the supervisor, are stored in the history of experiences with the leader. In turn, these experiences are strong predictors of the employees’ attitudes and behaviors toward the leader (Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001; Li et al., 2017). Furthermore, the attitudes and behaviors of the employees toward the leader influence their performance (Masterson, Lewis, Goldman & Taylor, 2000). Thus, this means that the fairness’ perceptions gained by the previous experiences with the leader will determine the attitudes and behaviors of the employees toward the leader and in the end will determine the performance of the employees.
In addition, according to the social exchange theory, employees will reciprocate the attitudes and behaviors shown by their leader (Webster et al., 2008). This means that when employees feel that they are treated with (interpersonal and informational) fairness by their leader, they will reciprocate these attitudes and behaviors. Moreover, these attitudes and behaviors will benefit the leader who treated them fairly, because employees will show higher job performance (Cropanzano, Prehar & Chen, 2002). This is caused by employees who engage in extra-role behaviors and include more responsible tasks in their work, because they have perceived positive experiences with their supervisor and have the feeling they are fairly treated by their supervisor (Cropanzano, Prehar & Chen, 2002).
On the contrary, an employee who feels unfairly treated, deals with more uncertainty and worries more. This results in decreased focus of attention, which leads to lower employee performance (Colquitt, LePine, Piccolo & Zapata, 2012). For example, an employee who feels the presence of inequity, creates some sort of tension in him/her. This tension or the feeling of inequity leads to the fact that the employee is distracted from work and is not motivated to fulfill the standards of the job, leading to lower employee performance. Furthermore, the
employee will reciprocate the unfair attitudes and behavior shown by the leader (Webster et al., 2008). In turn, these attitudes and behaviors lead to lower performance of the employee. Thus, an employee who perceives interpersonal and informational injustice of the leader will reciprocate these attitudes and behaviors and experiences more uncertainty, which in turn lead to lower employee performance.
Indeed, research by Adams (1965) shows that an employee’s performance is influenced by their perception of (in)justice. However, research that further investigated this relationship found that interpersonal and informational justice is positively related to employee performance (Burton, Sablynski & Sekiguchi, 2008; Colquitt, LePine, Piccolo & Zapata, 2012; Masterson et al., 2000). As stated above and in line with previous studies, it is expected that interpersonal and informational justice perceived by the employee will lead to higher employee performance.
This leads to the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 3: “Perceived interpersonal justice of the employee is positively related to employee’s performance.”
Hypothesis 4: “Perceived informational justice of the employee is positively related to employee’s performance.”
In conclusion, this research investigates the relationship between knowledge hiding of the leader and employee performance. It is expected that knowledge hiding of the leader will lead to lower employee performance. However, this research states that this relationship will not be a direct relationship. This relationship is indirectly mediated by interpersonal and informational injustice. Taking this and the first four hypotheses into consideration, leads to the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 5: “Perceived interpersonal justice of the employee mediates the relationship between knowledge hiding of the leader and employee’s performance.”
Hypothesis 6: “Perceived informational justice of the employee mediates the relationship between knowledge hiding of the leader and employee’s performance.”
2.5. Leader-Member Exchange (LMX)
Not all leaders treat employees the same way and each employee perceives this treatment differently. This is mainly influenced by the existing relationship between the supervisor and the employee and the level of trust between them (Brower, Schoorman & Tan, 2000). The quality of the relationship between an employee and supervisor is called the leader-member exchange (LMX) (Walumbwa, Cropanzano, & Hartnell, 2009). LMX influences several individual and organizational outcomes, such as goal and organizational commitment (Kinicki and Vecchio, 1994; Klein and Kim, 1998), job and career satisfaction (Schriesheim, Neider & Scandura, 1998; Wayne, Liden, Kraimer & Graf, 1999), citizenship behaviors (Wayne, Shore & Liden, 1997; Deluga, 1994), salary progression (Wayne et al. 1999) and turnover (Ferris, 1985).
LMX assumes respect and trust between the leader and the employee (Walumbwa, Cropanzano, & Hartnell, 2009). A leader who is trusted, will be more endorsed and liked by employees (Van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003). Moreover, employees who score high on LMX tend to behave in ways that are beneficial for their leader, because of their emotional attachment to their leader. They believe that their leader acts in the interests of the organization and that this helps the organization to reach their goals (Tsay, Lin, Yoon & Huang, 2014).
Employees who experience that their leader is hiding knowledge and perceive this as unfair treatment by their leader, may see knowledge hiding as less unfair when LMX is high. In addition, they may see the actions of the leader differently than intended when there is a good leader-employee relationship present and the leader is trusted (Tsay, Lin, Yoon & Huang, 2014). These actions might be seen as good actions, because the employees may perceive it in
a way that is beneficial for the leader and moreover, the employee thinks that the leaders acts in their best interests (Tsay, Lin, Yoon & Huang, 2014). Therefore, the employee might see the relationship knowledge hiding and perceived justice in a better light, because of LMX.
This means when LMX is high, employees might perceive knowledge hiding of the leader as less disrespectful or even as not disrespectful, because employees might think this is in their own interests and they are likely to think in a beneficial way for the leader (Tsay, Lin, Yoon & Huang, 2014). Similarly, when LMX is high, employees might also perceive knowledge hiding of the leader as adequate communication for the same reason as above (Tsay, Lin, Yoon & Huang, 2014). However, when LMX is low, employees might perceive knowledge hiding of the leader as disrespectful and as inadequate communication. Thus, LMX could explain that when leaders are hiding knowledge, their employees are less inclined to perceive knowledge hiding as unfair or as interpersonal and informational injustice.
This leads to the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 7: “LMX moderates the relationship between knowledge hiding of the leader and perceived interpersonal justice of the employee, such that the negative relationship between knowledge hiding of the leader and perceived interpersonal justice of the employee is weaker for higher levels of LMX.”
Hypothesis 8: “LMX moderates the relationship between knowledge hiding of the leader and perceived informational justice of the employee, such that the negative relationship between knowledge hiding of the leader and perceived informational justice of the employee is weaker for higher levels of LMX.”
Taking all the hypotheses into consideration, leads to the following hypotheses and model:
the indirect effect is weaker when LMX is high, and the moderation effect occurs between knowledge hiding of the leader and perceived interpersonal justice of the employee.”
Hypothesis 10: “LMX moderates the relationship between knowledge hiding of the leader and employee’s performance through perceived informational justice of the employee. Specifically, the indirect effect is weaker when LMX is high, and the moderation effect occurs between knowledge hiding of the leader and perceived informational justice of the employee.”
Model 2. Research model with expected effects. _ _ + + + Knowledge hiding leader Informational justice (employee) Leader-member exchange (LMX) Employee performance Interpersonal justice (employee) +
METHODS 3.1. Procedure and Sample
The research is designed as a questionnaire or, in other words, as a survey. A questionnaire increases the generalizability if the sample is representative for the entire population (Saunders et al., 2016). Also, questionnaires are not difficult to understand and easy to explain to the respondents (Saunders et al., 2016). Furthermore, a questionnaire is a great way to reach a large number of respondents, who also can be reached relatively quickly and cheaply (Robson, 2002). Following these arguments, it is decided in this research to collect data on the basis of a questionnaire (see Appendix 1).
In this research, respondents were approached by 7 Business Administration Master students between the period of the 15th of March until the 22nd of April. These students collected
responses from dyads consisting of an employee and a leader. The dyads are coded in a way that employee and leader could be matched later on. The questionnaires are distributed by email and are self-completed. The selected participants are part of the working population and will therefore have an age between 18 and 67 years. The respondents are all residents of the Netherlands and work in a variety of organizations. Moreover, leaders and employees are selected to work at least 32 hours per week together and should have daily or weekly contact. This study, aims at purposive heterogeneous sampling, since the population is relatively diverse. However, the selecting criteria will decrease some of population’s diversity.
Before starting the analysis on the basis of descriptive statistics in the SPSS program, some necessary adjustments were made. First, respondents who did not answer any questions were removed from the dataset. After that, the respondents who could not form a dyad were removed from the dataset. After these steps, the total sample consisted of 105 leader-follower dyads. This results in a response rate of 68.18% which is relatively higher than the average
response rate of 52.7 percent suggested by research (Baruch & Holtom, 2008). The above average response rate is achieved by sending three reminders to all the respondents.
The demographics (Table 1) show that 45.2% of the employees (54.8% female) and 53.8% of the leaders are identified as male (46.2% female). The age of the employees ranged from 18 to 61 years (M = 33.66, SD = 12.70) and the age of the leaders ranged from 21 to 62 years (M = 42.19, SD = 10.66). The average tenure for employees is 6.49 years (SD = 9.15), which ranged from 1 months to 39 years and 3 months. The average tenure for leaders is 12.18 years (SD = 10.62), which ranged from 1 month to 39 years and 3 months. The education level of the employees shows that most of them (45.2%) completed a Bachelor of Applied Sciences, the second largest group (25.0%) completed a Master’s degree at a university. Finally, 12.5% of the employees completed a secondary vocational education. The category primary education was not filled in once and the remaining categories are between the 1.9 and 7.7 per cent. Most supervisors (47.6%) completed a Bachelor of Applied Sciences, the second largest group (34.3%) completed a Master’s degree at a university. The categories primary education and pre-university education (VWO in Dutch) were not filled in once and the remaining categories are between the 1.0 and 8.6 per cent. Finally, the average amount of time that a leader and follower are working together is 3.14 years (SD = 4.78), with a total range between 1 month and 32 years.
3.2. Measurements
In this study, the results include some demographics (e.g. the control variables), such as age and gender. Furthermore, the other variables are measured by a seven-point Likert scale ranging from (1) completely disagree to (7) completely agree. Translations of the variables were provided by researchers in the field, namely A.H.B de Hoogh and D. den Hartog of the
University of Amsterdam, department Business Studies. See Appendix 1 for the full outline of the leader and follower surveys.
Knowledge hiding of the leader (leader survey). In this study, the independent variable is:
knowledge hiding. Knowledge hiding is measured by the scale which is used in the research of Connelly, Zweig, Webster and Trougakos (2012). This scale originally consists of 11 items (Cronbach’s alpha = 84). However, in this study the scale consists of 7 items and therefore, it is a shortened version of the original (see Appendix 1). The choice to use a shortened version is made, since participants might become bored or irritated when they are frustrated with the length of the survey. This might end up in measurement errors (Donnellan, Oswald, Baird, & Lucas, 2006; Schmidt, Le & Ilies, 2003). An example of an item is: ‘In this situation, I agreed to help him/her but never really intended to.’ The scale of knowledge hiding proved to be reliable and showed no signs of a connection on another construct when conducting factor analyses on the items of the diverse constructs. So, the 7 items were averaged into one score (Cronbach’s alpha = .88).
Leader’s evaluation of employee performance (leader survey). In this study, the dependent
variable is: leader’s evaluation of employee performance. The leader’s evaluation of employee performance is measured by the scale which is used in the research of Williams and Anderson (1996) (Cronbach’s alpha = .91). This scale consists of 7 items (see Appendix 1). An example of an item is: ‘This employee meets the formal performance standards of his/her job’. Items 6 and 7 of this scale (see Appendix 1) were not reliable, so these two items were removed. This may be caused by the fact that these items needed to be reversed coded and respondents have overlooked this when filling in the survey. The remaining items proved to be reliable and showed no signs of a connection with another construct when conducting factor analyses on the items of the diverse constructs. Thus, the remaining items were averaged into one score
Interpersonal justice (employee survey). In this study, one of the mediators is: interpersonal
justice. Interpersonal justice is measured by the scale which is used in the research of Colquitt (2001) (Cronbach’s alpha = .79). This scale consists of 4 items (see Appendix 1). An example of an item is: ‘My supervisor treats me with respect’. Item 4 (see Appendix 1) of this scale was removed, because this item shows signs of a connection with the construct of leader’s evaluation of employee performance rather than on the construct of interpersonal justice when conducting factor analysis. The remaining items proved to be reliable and showed no signs of a connection with other constructs. Thus, they were averaged into one score (Cronbach’s alpha = .97).
Informational justice (employee survey). In this study, one of the mediators is informational
justice. Informational justice is measured by the scale which is used in the research of Colquitt (2001) (Cronbach’s alpha = .79). This scale consists of 5 items (see Appendix 1). An example of an item is: ‘My supervisor communicates details in a timely matter’. Items 1 & 2 (see Appendix 1) of this scale were removed, because in the factor analysis item 1 showed signs of a connection with both constructs of informational and interpersonal justice and item 2 showed signs of a connection with the construct of LMX rather than with the construct of informational justice. The remaining items proved to form a reliable scale and showed no signs of a connection with another construct when conducting factor analyses on the items of the diverse constructs. So, the remaining items were averaged into one score (Cronbach’s alpha = .83).
Leader-member exchange (LMX (employee survey). In this study, the moderator is:
leader-member exchange (LMX). LMX is measured by the scale which is used in the research of Liden and Maslyn (1998) (Cronbach’s alpha = .89). This scale consists of 11 items (see Appendix 1). An example of an item is: ‘I like my supervisor very much as a person’. The scale of LMX proved to be reliable and showed no signs of a connection with another construct when
conducting factor analysis on all the items under study, so the average of the 11 items was calculated into one score (Cronbach’s alpha = .90).
Control variables. Gender is taken into account, because it is not unlikely that gender
influences knowledge hiding behaviors. Females will perceive knowledge hiding behaviors differently than males (Connelly & Kelloway, 2003). Age is asked in years and is taken into account because experience plays an important role in the tested subjects (Connelly & Kelloway, 2003).
RESULTS
This section shows and discusses the results of this research in response to the data analysis using SPSS and PROCESS (Hayes, 2013). First, the correlation matrix will be discussed. Second, the hypotheses will be tested in chronological order, on the basis of linear regression analyses or PROCESS models.
4.1. Descriptive Statistics
Table 1 (see Appendix 2) shows the results of the correlation matrix. The most striking results from this matrix are discussed. First, the Cronbach’s alphas of knowledge hiding, interpersonal justice, informational justice, employee performance and LMX are reported between brackets on the diagonal. All scales are above 0.8 and thus are proven to be reliable (Bunt, 2012). Second, the analysis shows that knowledge hiding is only negatively related to LMX (r = -.23, p < .05). Contrary to expectations, knowledge hiding is found to be unrelated to the two types of justice (interpersonal justice r = -.17, p > .05; informational justice r = -.15, p > .05) and employee performance (r = -.18, p > .05. Third, interpersonal justice is strongly positively correlated with informational justice (r = .62, p < .01) (Bunt, 2012). This could be explained by the fact that these variables are both part of interactional justice. The factor and reliability analyses show that these variables are distinct concepts. Fourth, both justice variables are positively related to employee performance (interpersonal .24, p < .05; informational r = .21, p < .05) and LMX (interpersonal r = .32, p < .01; informational r = .56, p < .01). Fifth, employee performance is positively related to LMX (r = .30, p < .01). Sixth and remarkably, LMX relates to all the variables of the research model.
The results of the correlation matrix were used to establish the use of extra control variables in the regression analyses, because these variables need to be included in the
regressions to prevent other explanations of the outcomes. The correlation matrix shows that leader age and follower gender will be used in the regressions.
4.2. Test of the Hypotheses 4.2.1. Hypothesis 1
Hypothesis 1 predicted that knowledge hiding of the leader is negatively related to interpersonal justice of the employee. The results of the analyses are shown in Table 2 (see Appendix 3). In the first step of the linear regression analysis the control variables leader age and follower gender are entered. In the next step, knowledge hiding of the leader is entered. The analyses show that knowledge hiding of the leader and interpersonal justice of the employee are unrelated ( = -.18, p = .09). Thus, Hypothesis 1, which stated that knowledge hiding of the leader is negatively related to interpersonal justice of the employee, is not supported.
4.2.2. Hypothesis 2
Hypothesis 2 predicted that knowledge hiding of the leader is negatively related to informational justice of the employee. The results of the analyses are shown in Table 3 (see Appendix 4). In the first step of the linear regression analysis the control variable leader age and follower gender are entered. In the next step of the regression knowledge hiding of the leader is entered. The second model explains 8% in variance (p < .05) in informational justice of the employee. Contrary to expectations, the analyses show that knowledge hiding of the leader and informational justice of the employee are unrelated ( = -.19, p = .06). In conclusion, Hypothesis 2, which stated that knowledge hiding of the leader is negatively related to informational justice of the employee, is not supported.
4.2.3. Hypotheses 3 & 4
Hypothesis 3 states that interpersonal justice of the employee is positively related to employee performance. Hypothesis 4 states that informational justice of the employee is positively related to employee performance. The results of the analyses are shown in Table 4 (see Appendix 5). In the first step of the linear regression analysis the control variables leader age and follower gender are entered. These variables explain 8% of the variance (p < .05) in employee performance. In the next step interpersonal and informational justice of the employee are entered. This model has led to an increase of 7% in explained variance (p < .01) in employee performance. Contrary to expectations, the analyses show that interpersonal and informational justice are unrelated to employee performance (interpersonal justice = .14, p = .25; informational justice = .16, p = .22). Thus, Hypotheses 3 & 4, which stated that interpersonal and informational justice are positively related to employee performance are not supported.
4.2.4. Hypotheses 5 & 6
Hypothesis 5 predicts that interpersonal justice of the employee mediates the relationship between knowledge hiding of the leader and employee performance. Hypothesis 6 predicts that informational justice of the employee mediates the relationship between knowledge hiding of the leader and employee performance. To test the mediating roles of both justice constructs, a regression analysis using Process Model 4 is conducted. Results are reported in Table 5 (see Appendix 6). As can be seen in Table 5, knowledge hiding is unrelated to both justice constructs (interpersonal justice = -.18, p = .09; informational justice = -.08, p = .31) and both justice constructs are unrelated to performance (interpersonal justice = .13, p = .28; informational justice = .15, p = .26). This means that the mediating effect of both justice constructs is not found. All in all, this means that Hypotheses 5 and 6 which predicted that interpersonal and
informational justice of the employee mediate the relationship between knowledge hiding of the leader and employee performance, are not supported.
4.2.5. Hypothesis 7
Hypothesis 7 predicted that LMX moderates the relationship between knowledge hiding of the leader and interpersonal justice of the employee, such that the negative relationship between knowledge hiding of the leader and interpersonal justice of the employee is weaker for higher levels of LMX. The results of the analysis are shown in Table 2 (see Appendix 3) and Table 6 (see Appendix 7). In the first step of the linear regression analysis, the control variables leader age and follower gender are entered. In the next step of the regression knowledge hiding of the leader is entered. In the third step of the linear regression analysis LMX is entered. This model explains 11% of the explained variance (p < .05) in interpersonal justice of the employee. Remarkably, LMX has a positive relationship with interpersonal justice ( = .30, p < .01), controlled by the control variables and knowledge hiding. In the fourth model, the interaction term knowledgehiding*LMX is entered. In model 4, the moderating effect is shown. This model explains again 12% of the variance (p < .05) in interpersonal justice of the employee. The fourth model shows, as expected, a relatively small, positive effect ( = .07, p > .05) of LMX on the relationship between knowledge hiding and interpersonal justice of the employee. However, this effect is not significant. Thus, this means that Hypothesis 7 which predicted that LMX moderates the relationship between knowledge hiding of the leader and interpersonal justice of the employee, such that the negative relationship between knowledge hiding of the leader and interpersonal justice of the employee is weaker for higher levels of LMX, is not supported.
4.2.6. Hypothesis 8
Hypothesis 8 predicted that LMX moderates the relationship between knowledge hiding of the leader and informational justice of the employee, such that the negative relationship between knowledge hiding of the leader and informational justice of the employee is weaker for higher levels of LMX. The results of the analyses are shown in Table 3 (see Appendix 4) and Table 6 (see Appendix 7). In the first step of the linear regression analysis the control variables leader age and follower gender are entered. In the next step of the regression knowledge hiding of the leader is entered. This model explains 8% of variance (p < .05) in informational justice of the employee. In the third step of the linear regression analysis LMX is entered. This model explains 33% of the variance (p < .01) in interpersonal justice. Remarkably, LMX has a positive relationship with informational justice ( = .53, p < .01), controlled by the control variables and knowledge hiding. In the fourth model, the interaction term knowledgehiding*LMX is entered. In model 4, the moderating effect is shown. This model significantly explains again 33% of the explained variance (p < .01) in informational justice of the employee. The fourth model shows, in contradiction of what is expected, there is no effect of LMX on the relationship between knowledge hiding of the leader and informational justice ( = .00, p > .05). This means that hypothesis 8 which predicted that LMX moderates the relationship between knowledge hiding of the leader and informational justice of the employee, such that the negative relationship between knowledge hiding of the leader and informational justice of the employee is weaker for higher levels of LMX, is not supported.
4.2.7. Hypotheses 9 & 10
Hypothesis 9 predicted that knowledge hiding is related to a leader’s evaluation of employee performance via conditional indirect effects, such that the interaction between knowledge hiding and leader-member exchange is related to interpersonal justice, which in turn is related
to leader’s evaluation of employee performance. Hypothesis 10 predicted that knowledge hiding is related to leader’s evaluation of employee performance via conditional indirect effects, such that the interaction between knowledge hiding and leader-member exchange is related to informational justice, which in turn is related to leader’s evaluation of employee performance. To test the moderated mediation effect, a regression analysis using Process Model 7 is conducted. Results are reported in Table 6 (see Appendix 7). As can be seen in Table 6 and previously concluded by Hypotheses 7 and 8, the interaction term for interpersonal and informational justice is not found. This means the moderated mediation does not exist in this research. All in all, this means that Hypotheses 9 and 10 are not supported.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationships between knowledge hiding of the leader, interpersonal justice of the employee, informational justice of the employee, employee performance and LMX. First, Knowledge hiding of the leader was expected to be negatively related to perceived interpersonal and informational justice of the employee. This implies that the more knowledge is hidden by the leader, the less interpersonal and informational justice is perceived by the employee. Contrary to expectations, these relationships are not found in this research. Thus, knowledge hiding of the leader is not related to perceived interpersonal and informational justice of the employee.
Second and contrary to expectations, are the relationship between perceived interpersonal and informational justice of the employee and employee performance. This relationship implies that the more an employee perceives interpersonal justice, the higher the employee performance will be rated by the leader. Contrary to previous research (Burton, Sablynski & Sekiguchi, 2008; Colquitt, LePine, Piccolo & Zapata, 2012; Masterson et al., 2000), the positive relationship between interpersonal justice of the employee and employee performance is not found. Thus, interpersonal justice is not related to employee performance. This means that further investigation of the relationship is needed, because this relationship shows conflicting results in the available literature.
Third, this research investigated the mediation of interpersonal and informational justice of the employee between knowledge hiding of the leader and employee performance. The results in this research show that a full mediation is not possible, because knowledge hiding of the leader and employee performance are not related to each other. Furthermore, an indirect mediation is not found in this research and contradicts the expectations. Thus, interpersonal and informational justice of the employee do not mediate the relationship between knowledge hiding of the leader and employee performance.
Fourth, this research also investigated the moderations of LMX on the relationship between knowledge hiding of the leader and interpersonal and informational justice of the employee, such that the negative relationship between knowledge hiding of the leader and interpersonal and informational justice of the employee is weaker for higher levels of LMX. It was therefore expected that LMX had a positive effect on the relationship between knowledge hiding of the leader and interpersonal and informational justice of the employee. Unfortunately, in this study the results show that both moderations are not found. This means that LMX does not have an effect on the relationships between knowledge hiding of the leader and interpersonal and informational justice of the employee in this research.
5.1. Practical Implications
Although all hypotheses are not supported in this research, some practical implications can still be made. Organizations find it important that leaders and employees share their knowledge and discourage knowledge hiding behavior. This research may conclude that knowledge hiding of the leader will not have a relationship with interpersonal and informational justice. This implies for organizations, that knowledge hiding of the leader might not be perceived by employees as unfair.
Furthermore, this research contradicts previous research, because the relationships between interpersonal and informational justice and employee performance are not found. This means that there are still some mixed signals in the literature, which means that organizations might unnecessary focus on enhancing interpersonal and informational justice to improve employee performance. Therefore, organizations should await a consistent answer on this subject by researchers in the field.
5.2. Limitations
Although this research provides several contributions to the literature, it also has multiple limitations. First, Connelly et al. (2012) identified three different strategies of intentionally knowledge hiding, namely playing dumb, evasive hiding, and rationalized hiding. Although all three concepts were taken into account in this research, they were not investigated any further or separately. It could be stated that one of the strategies has a larger effect than the other strategies. For example, rationalized hiding might be perceived by employees as less unfair, because an explanation is provided for not receiving the knowledge, making it more likely that this justification will be accepted by the employees (Connelly et al., 2012). However, evasive hiding might be perceived as more unfair, because misleading knowledge is transferred or promises to provide the knowledge are not fulfilled by the leader (Connelly et al., 2012). These suggestions need to be further investigated in future research.
Second, in this study, the data is gathered at one point in time. This means that this has some implications for causality. For instance, no conclusions of causality can be conclusively made, nor can the possibility of reverse causality be excluded. Moreover, it could be stated that the hypothesized relationships could have been found when the data is collected on multiple moments in time. The cross-sectional design of this study may have caused that relationships were not found, which could have been found in a longitudinal design. Especially, LMX shows a variety of outcomes at different points in time, according to Burton, Sablynski & Sekiguchi, (2008). LMX may be more important in the early stages of the relationship between a leader and employee and less important in later stages of the relationship (Burton, Sablynski & Sekiguchi, 2008). This might have had some influence on the moderation effects of LMX and why the expected effects were not found (Burton, Sablynski & Sekiguchi, 2008). As stated by Liden, Sparrowe and Wayne (1997) researchers should take into account the developmental aspects of LMX.
Furthermore, generalizability cannot be guaranteed by the use of the non-probability sampling technique (Bryman, 2012). Although this sampling technique was considered the best option in relation to the short time frame, this way of collecting data has the disadvantage that the different organizations have a large variance (Bryman, 2012). Although the large variance has been taken into account by including the control variables in the questionnaire, future researchers can select respondents more strictly in their research design. Stricter selection of respondents, for example sampling in one organization, will lead to less contextual factors influencing the research (Bryman, 2012). This might improve the generalizability of the research. Thus, future research may impose stricter conditions on the selected respondents in their sample.
Moreover, the questionnaire is self-completed by respondents. Downsides of this could be common method bias and that respondents answer the questions socially desirable (Bryman, 2012). In addition, interviewing the respondents could provide the researchers with a better assessment of subsequent behaviors on a daily basis (Connelly et al., 2012). However, this is reduced in this study, by stressing out the importance of honesty and anonymity. Furthermore, an online questionnaire is cheaper, can be distributed more quickly than interviews and it can be filled in by the respondents when this suits them (Bryman, 2012). In addition, future researchers can use positive and negative pooled questions in all sections of the questionnaire, to check whether respondents have read the questionnaire correctly or that they have filled in the same answer everywhere (Bryman, 2012).
CONCLUSIONS
All in all, this research tried to open up the literature gap of knowledge hiding by the leader. Furthermore, this research tried to shed a light on the moderating effect of LMX on the relationship between knowledge hiding of the leader and interpersonal and informational justice. Moreover, previous research, which investigated the relationship between interpersonal and informational justice was reproduced to enhance its empirical rigidity. Contrary to expectations, knowledge hiding of the leader is not found to be negatively related to interpersonal and informational justice of the employee. Moreover, interpersonal and informational justice of the employee are not found to be positively related to employee performance. Furthermore, the relationship between knowledge hiding of the leader and employee performance is not mediated by perceived interpersonal and informational justice of the employee. No evidence was found for a possible moderating role of LMX on the relationship between knowledge hiding of the leader and interpersonal and informational justice.
LITERATURE
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. Advances in experimental social psychology, 2, 267-299.
Ambrose, M. L., & Schminke, M. (2003). Organization structure as a moderator of the relationship between procedural justice, interactional justice, perceived organizational support, and supervisory trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 295–305.
Baldwin, S. (2006). Organisational justice. Brighton: Institute for Employment Studies. Bies, R. J. (2001). Interactional (in) justice: The sacred and the profane. Advances in
organizational justice, 89 (118).
Brown, G., Lawrence, T. B., & Robinson, S. L. (2005). Territoriality in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 30, 577-594.
Brower, H. H., Schoorman, F. D., & Tan, H. H. (2000). A model of relational leadership: The integration of trust and leader–member exchange. The Leadership Quarterly, 11(2), 227-250.
Burton, J. P., Sablynski, C. J., & Sekiguchi, T. (2008). Linking justice, performance, and citizenship via leader–member exchange. Journal of Business and Psychology, 23(1-2), 51-61.
Camerman, J., Cropanzano, R., & Vandenberghe, C. (2007). The benefits of justice for temporary workers. Group & Organization Management, 32(2), 176-207.
Černe, M., Nerstad, C. G., Dysvik, A., & Škerlavaj, M. (2014). What goes around comes around: Knowledge hiding, perceived motivational climate, and creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 57(1), 172-192.
Chiu, C. M., Wang, E. T., Shih, F. J., & Fan, Y. W. (2011). Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual communities: An integration of expectancy disconfirmation and justice
Clegg, S. R. (1989), Frameworks of power, London: Sage.
Collins, C. J., & Smith, K. G. (2006). Knowledge exchange and combination: The role of human resource practices in the performance of high-technology firms. Academy of Management Journal, 49(3), 544–560.
Colquitt, J. (2001), On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 86 (3), 386-400.
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425–445.
Colquitt, J. A., LePine, J. A., Piccolo, R. F., Zapata, C. P., & Rich, B. L. (2012). Explaining the justice–performance relationship: Trust as exchange deepener or trust as
uncertainty reducer?. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1), 1.
Connelly, C. E., & Zweig, D. (2015). How perpetrators and targets construe knowledge hiding in organizations. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24(3), 479-489.
Connelly, C. E., Zweig, D., Webster, J., & Trougakos, J. P. (2012). Knowledge hiding in organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(1), 64-88.
Cropanzano, R., Prehar, C. A., & Chen, P. Y. (2002). Using social exchange theory to distinguish procedural from interactional justice. Group & Organization
Management, 27(3), 324-351.
Deluga, R. J. (1994). Supervisor trust building, leader-member exchange, and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67, 315-326.
tiny-yet-effective measures of the Big Five factors of personality. Psychological assessment, 18(2), 192.
Donovan, M. A., Drasgow, F., & Munson, L. J. (1998). The perceptions of fair interpersonal treatment scale: Development and validation of a measure of interpersonal treatment in the workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 683-692.
Du, R., Ai, S., & Ren, Y. (2007). Relationship between knowledge sharing and performance: A survey in Xi’an, China. Expert systems with Applications, 32(1), 38-46.
Evans, J. M., Hendron, M. G., & Oldroyd, J. B. (2014). Withholding the ace: The individual- and unit-level performance effects of self-reported and perceived knowledge hoarding.
Organization Science, 26(2), 494-510.
Ferris, G. R. (1985). Role of leadership in the employee withdrawal process: A constructive replication. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 777-781.
Gittell, J. H. (2006). Relational coordination: Coordinating work through relationships of shared goals, shared knowledge and mutual respect. Relational perspectives in
organizational studies: A research companion, 74-94.
Greenberg, J. (1993). Stealing in the name of justice: Informational and interpersonal moderators of theft reactions to underpayment inequity. Organizational behavior and
human decision processes, 54(1), 81-103.
Greenberg, J., & Cropanzano, R. (1993). The social side of fairness: Interpersonal and informational classes of organizational justice. Justice in the workplace: Approaching
fairness in human resource management, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
Hayes, AF. (2013). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process
member exchange, and employee performance: Examining the moderating role of justice differentiation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(4), 537-557. Hu, L., & Randel, A. E. (2014). Knowledge sharing in teams: Social capital, extrinsic
incentives, and team innovation. Group & Organization Management 2014, 39(2), 213–243.
Kelloway, E. K., & Barling, J. (2000). Knowledge work as organizational behavior. International Journal of Management Reviews, 2, 287–304.
Kernan, M. C., & Hanges, P. J. (2002). Survivor reactions to reorganization: Antecedents and consequences of procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 916.
Kinicki, A. J., & Vecchio, R. P. (1994). Influences on the quality of supervisor?subordinate relations: The role of time-pressure, organizational commitment, and locus of control. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 75-82.
Klein, H., & Kim, J. S. (1998). A field study of the influence of situational constraints, leader- member exchange, and goal commitment on performance. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 88-95.
Lewicki, R. J., McAllister, D. J., & Bies, R. J. (1998). Trust and distrust: New relationships and realities. Academy of management Review, 23(3), 438-458.
Li, X., Zhang, J., Zhang, S., & Zhou, M. (2017). A multilevel analysis of the role of
interactional justice in promoting knowledge-sharing behavior: The mediated role of organizational commitment. Industrial Marketing Management, 62, 226-233.
Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. (1998). Multidimensionafity of leader-member exchange: An empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of management, 24(1), 43-72.
past and potential for the future. Research in personnel and human resources
management, 15, 47-120.
Lin, C. P. (2007). To share or not to share: Modeling tacit knowledge sharing, its mediators and antecedents. Journal of Business Ethics, 70(4), 411–428.
Lin, H. F. (2007). Knowledge sharing and firm innovation capability: An empirical study.
International Journal of Manpower, 28(3/4), 315–332.
Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, M. S. (2000). Integrating justice and social exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work
relationships. Academy of Management journal, 43(4), 738-748.
Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & DeChurch, L. A. (2009). Information sharing and team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 535–546. Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational
citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(6), 845–855.
O'reilly, J., & Aquino, K. (2011). A model of third parties' morally motivated responses to mistreatment in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 36(3), 526-543. Politis, J. D. (2003). The connection between trust and knowledge management: what are its
implications for team performance. Journal of knowledge management, 7(5), 55-66. Schmidt, F. L., Le, H., & Ilies, R. (2003). Beyond alpha: An empirical examination of the
effects of different sources of measurement error on reliability estimates for measures of individual differences constructs. Psychological Methods, 8, 206–224.
Schriesheim, C. A., Neider, L. L., & Scandura, T. A. (1998). Delegation and leader-member exchange: Main effects, moderators, and measurement issues. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 298-318.
