The investigation into how narcissistic leadership impacts
knowledge hiding in organizations
Luisa Wagner, 11088990
Thesis supervisors: Prof. Dr. Deanne Den Hartog
Dr. Annebel De Hoogh
Abstract
This study focuses on the mediating role of perceived interpersonal exploitation in the relation between narcissistic leadership and knowledge hiding behavior of subordinates. In addition, organizational individualistic culture is investigated as moderator on the relation between narcissistic leadership and perceived interpersonal exploitation and the relation between perceived interpersonal exploitation and knowledge hiding behavior. Data were collected from 123 supervisors and 123 corresponding subordinates in different organizations and countries. This study showed a positive relation between narcissistic leadership and
knowledge hiding behavior. In addition, it was found that perceived interpersonal exploitation mediates the aforementioned relation. It was expected that narcissistic leadership has a
stronger effect on perceived interpersonal exploitation in a culture high on individualism. Furthermore, it was expected that perceived interpersonal exploitation has a stronger effect on knowledge hiding behavior in a culture high on individualism. However, no evidence was found for the moderating role of individualistic culture. The main contribution of this study is an increased understanding of the relation between narcissistic leadership and knowledge hiding behavior of subordinates.
Keywords: narcissistic leadership, perceived interpersonal exploitation , knowledge hiding, individualistic culture
i Table of contents
Index of figures and tables ... ii
Index of appendices ... ii
1. Introduction ... 1
2. Theoretical background ... 4
2.1. Narcissistic Leadership ... 4
2.2 Knowledge Hiding ... 6
2.3. Narcissistic Leadership and Knowledge Hiding ... 8
2.4 Perceived interpersonal exploitation ... 10
2.5 Narcissistic Leadership, perceived interpersonal exploitation and knowledge hiding ... 11
2.6 Individualistic organizational culture ... 12
2.7. The moderating role of individualistic organizational culture ... 13
3. Research Method ... 15
3.1. Procedure ... 15
3.2. Sample ... 16
3.3 Measures ... 17
4. Data analysis and results ... 18
4.1. Data analysis ... 18
4.2 Results ... 20
4.2.1 Hypothesis testing - Hierarchical regression ... 21
4.2.2 Hypotheses testing - Testing the moderating effect ... 21
5. Discussion ... 23
5.1 Theoretical implications and directions for future research ... 24
5.2 Practical implications ... 27
5.3Limitations ... 28
6. Conclusion ... 29
ii Index of figures and tables
Figure 1: Research Model
Table 1: Means, standard deviations, correlations and reliabilities scores
Table2: Hierarchical Regression Model of Knowledge Hiding
Table 3: Interaction Variables
Table 4: Analysis of the moderating Effect of Knowledge Hiding
Index of appendices
Appendix A: Survey instructions Appendix B: Survey item
1 1. Introduction
Today we are facing an increasingly interconnected and highly competitive business world where factors such as knowledge transfer, the willingness of employees to communicate and share information, are crucial for the success and competitiveness of the organization. Because knowledge has been recognized as a strategic and very important resource, an increasing number of organizations have turned their attention to facilitating the transfer of knowledge across the organization (Syed Ikhsan & Rowland, 2004). Knowledge is an intangible asset that has the potential to increase its value when it is used and transferred (Syed Ikhsan & Rowland, 2004). However, in order to use this intangible asset efficiently, the willing cooperation of the employees to communicate and share information with each other is necessary. But why are some organizations more successful at creating this willingness than others?
Leaders behavior has the potential to affect willingness of subordinates to
communicate and extent of knowledge sharing (Lee et al. 2010). Researchers so far have primarily focused their attention on constructive leadership styles, that reinforce efficient knowledge transfer and communication within organizations, but there are other important aspects (Schyns & Schilling, 2013). Authentic, transformational and ethical leadership, for instance, directly correlates with positive organizational behavior, and therefore enjoys higher attention from researchers (De Hoogh & Den Hartog, 2008; Schyns & Schilling, 2013). However, there are a significant number of workers who are averse to knowledge sharing (Connelly et al. 2012). The leadership style might be a significant driver of the choice of subordinates, whether to share or not to share knowledge. There is a dark side of leadership which inhibits the employees ability/desire to work cooperatively (Connelly & Zweig, 2015). The individuals, who decide to keep the knowledge for themselves, seem to adhere to the advice by Roger H. Lincoln, who states, "...rules for success: never tell everything you know". Not only are some employees unwilling to share knowledge, they hide it from each other and/or their leader (Connelly et al. 2012). This problematic behavior brings negative
organizational consequences which is why this topic has recently begun to gain attention from researchers.
In spite of the enormously important role that knowledge shared cooperatively within organizations plays, the relationship between "dark leadership" and knowledge hiding behavior of the employees, has not yet been adequately researched and therefore is still unclear. According to Blair, Hoffman and Helland (2008), a significant number of workers
2 claim that the worst aspect of their job is the manager. Apparently there are many immoral and ineffective leaders out there, who have the power to degrade the quality of life of their subordinates (Blair, Hoffman & Helland, 2008). Despotic or "dark" leadership can be very costly and even dangerous for organizations which is what necessitates closer exploration. For instance, Schyns and Schilling (2013) claim that US companies are facing annual costs of $ 23.8 billion due to destructive leadership and the consequences thereof e.g. employee turnover or lower effectiveness. Another important reason for an investigation into dark leadership, is its effects on the individuals. Leaders cannot be seen as the only contributor to the company's performance, because without the cooperation of the subordinates, a leader's ability to reach their goals is limited. A variety of outcomes, such as resistance behavior, low job satisfaction, and deviant work behavior have been examined (Schyns & Schilling, 2013).
This master thesis focuses on narcissistic leadership, which can be perceived as one type of destructive or dark leadership. I argue that narcissistic leadership promotes knowledge hiding behavior in organizations and perceived exploitation of the subordinates has a
mediating role in this relationship. Additionally, individualistic organizational culture is examined as a potential moderator of the above mentioned relationship.
According to Paulhus and Williams (2002), narcissism is considered as part of the 'dark triad' of personality traits due to a variety of negative behaviors and features. Narcissism encompasses characteristics such as arrogance, entitlement, self-absorption, grandiose sense of self-importance and lack of empathy (Ouimet, 2010; Rosenthal & Pittinsky, 2006). Narcissism shows a clear link to unethical and immoral leadership (Blair, Hoffman &
Helland, 2008). Additionally the literature emphasizes the exploitative behavior of narcissists and the negative association of narcissistic leadership and interpersonal performance, which can lead to negative outcomes, such as lack of trust and understanding (Blair, Hoffman and Helland, 2008; Brennell et al. 2013). Researchers usually focus on the direct outcomes for followers, such as job satisfaction, turnover or work efficiency. The perception of the
followers of the behaviors of the leader, however, is often neglected in the literature. Based on the negative characteristics of narcissistic leaders, mentioned above, this study tests whether narcissistic leadership is positively associated with perceived exploitation of subordinates. In addition, I propose that one of the consequences of perceived exploitation is knowledge hiding behavior displayed by subordinates. Research suggests that it is very hard for
subordinates to build a relationship based on trust with their narcissistic leaders due to their exploitative behavior but also other negative characteristics (Blair, Hoffman & Helland, 2008). According to Connelly et al. (2012), one of the most important barriers to positive
3 knowledge transfer and an important predictor for knowledge hiding behavior is distrust. Thus, I propose that narcissistic leadership is positively related to knowledge hiding behavior.
This study also aims to investigate the role of an individualistic organizational culture. Referring to Chatman and Cha (2003), organizational culture can be seen as a tool, which shapes and coordinates the behavior of the employees and guides their decision making. Employees internalize particular beliefs, values and norms which then influences their actions (Robert & Wasti, 2002). Since individualism is driven by the assumption that self is the most important social unit and the prioritization of one's own interest and goals, employees in individualistic culture may do little thinking about the goals of the collective but are rather driven by their own interests (Robert & Wasti, 2002). On the one hand, individualistic culture might sensitize the self-centered view of narcissistic leaders and encourage them to act even more selfish and exploit others in order to achieve personal goals. On the other hand,
subordinates who perceive their supervisors as exploitative might be influenced by
individualistic culture and withhold knowledge in order to maximize their own payoff relative to their coworkers/supervisor. Individualistic culture is more likely to facilitate low concern for coworkers' outcome and therefore subordinates might not be concerned about the negative outcome that can occur while they hide knowledge from their coworkers.
Figure 1 Research Model
This master thesis firstly provides a literature review on narcissistic leadership, perceived exploitation, knowledge hiding and individualistic culture, while addressing and leading the hypotheses. The subsequent section presents the research methodology. The ensuing section describes results of the data analysis. Hereafter, the discussion section can be
4 found, which includes theoretical and practical implications, but also limitations and
suggestions for future research. Finally, gained findings about the relationship of narcissistic leadership and knowledge hiding are summarized.
2. Theoretical background 2.1. Narcissistic Leadership
What do Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein have in common? The three of them were leaders with grandiose belief systems and leadership styles (Rosenthal & Pittinsky, 2006). They are examples of leaders with clear signs of narcissism, who are driven by their personal needs and the need for power and admiration (Rosenthal & Pittinsky, 2006). The connection between narcissism and leadership has been established in the literature and researchers point out that a significant number of important leaders in the world show clear signs of narcissism and have grandiose belief systems (Rosenthal & Pittinsky, 2006; Stein, 2013). The topic of narcissistic leadership is of growing interest to researchers, not only because a significant number of existing leaders show signs of narcissism, but also due to the fact that narcissism levels are increasing (Twenge & Foster, 2008).
Rosenthal and Pittinsky (2006) state that narcissistic leadership occurs "when leaders actions are principally motivated by their own egomaniacal needs and beliefs, superseding the needs and interests of the constituents and institutions they lead" (Rosenthal & Pittinsky, 2006, p. 629). In order to have a better understanding of the reasons why narcissistic leadership can occur, it might be a good idea, first to take a closer look at the
characteristics/symptoms of narcissism. According to American Psychiatric Association, narcissism is defined as a "pervasive pattern of grandiosity, self-focus, and self-importance" (Morf and Rhodewalt, 2001, p.177). Moreover, narcissism is recognized as a personality disorder and in order to be diagnosed with this disorder, individuals must exhibit at least five of the nine symptoms, which are among others: overwhelming fantasies of unlimited success, power, beauty or ideal love; a belief that they are special and unique and that they can only be understood by other individuals or institutions of similar superior status (DSM-IV, 1996 cited in Ouimet, 2010, p.714). An argument against the view that narcissism is a clinical disorder, was published by Raskin and Hall (1979) and Raskin and Terry (1988) (in Higgs, 2009). They support the view that narcissism is a personality construct rather than a clinical disorder (Higgs, 2009). Based on this assumption, a psychometric instrument was developed to be able to measure narcissistic traits. Four elements of the narcissistic trait were subsequently
5 identified by researchers, namely as follows: 1. exploitativeness/entitlement which they
described as being: "I demand the respect due to me", 2. leadership/authority: "I like to be the centre of attention", 3. superiority/arrogance: "I am better than others", 4. self-absorption/self-admiration: "I am pre-occupied with how extraordinary I am" (Higgs, 2009, p.170-171).
The described measures of narcissism indicate that narcissists share the opinion that the whole world revolves around them. There are more features of narcissism that intensify the negative association with narcissism. According to Campbell et al. (2011), the
relationships of narcissists lack of empathy and emotional intimacy. Besides, the authors claim that narcissists tend to play games in relationship and are very satisfied and happy when they are successful at this. However, in case the game does not go the way they want it to go, narcissists show sometimes aggression, anxiety and even depression (Campbell et al. 2011). Furthermore, they tend to exploit others, are dominant and crave admiration and attention (Nevicka et al. 2011). Studies on narcissistic leadership in workplaces, show that narcissistic leadership leads to many negative outcomes (Ouimet, 2010). For instance, narcissistic leadership shows positive links to toxic work atmosphere, poor management rankings,
destruction of subordinates' trust and the degradation of organizational effectiveness (Ouimet, 2010).
After seeing these negative aspects of narcissism, the question arises how and why narcissists are chosen to be leaders. Glad (2002) claims that individuals with narcissistic characteristics are likely to gain power and perceive the power as a kind of narcotic. Ouimet (2010) states that "certain idiosyncratic traits compatible with assertiveness (egotism, self-esteem and the need to exercise power) contributes to the emergence of narcissistic
leadership" (Ouimet, 2010, p.719). Despite the fact that narcissism is a negatively laden term in literature, narcissists also have some positive characteristics. Researchers distinguish between "productive" and "destructive" narcissism, whereas "productive" narcissism is seen as beneficial and necessary for organizations (Higgs, 2009). Due to their optimism, charisma and confidence, narcissists have the potential to provide a strong vision to organizations and/or their followers and lead it/them towards a new direction (Higgs, 2009). Their strong charisma, helps narcissists to be able to seduce individuals in their entourage (Ouimet, 2010), inspire people and shape the future (Maccoby, 2004). Besides, they are also able to enhance the development of innovation, because narcissist tend to be creative (Higgs, 2009).
Referring to the positive side of narcissism, it is also important to mention that narcissists receive high ratings as leaders due to their characteristics such as confidence, authority and dominance (De Hoogh, Den Hartog & Nevicka, 2015). Steve Jobs is probably
6
the most used example while talking about successful narcissistic leaders. Even though he was often criticized for his arrogance and his way of dealing with subordinates, he was still experiencing an enormous success as an entrepreneur (Maccoby, 2004). However, Stein (2013) claims that narcissistic leadership is more effective in the short-term perspective. Looking at it from the long-term perspective, narcissistic behavior becomes problematic and is more likely to have a negative impact.
2.2 Knowledge Hiding
Knowledge is considered to be an important resource for organizations and for that reason, enormous efforts and expenses are invested into the development of knowledge management systems (Conelly & Zweig, 2015; Trong Tuan, 2012). The sharing of knowledge is crucial for organizations, because this resource can lead to a competitive advantage and is identified to be an indicator for organizations' effectiveness and efficiency (Liu & DeFrank, 2013; Trong Tuan, 2012).To be more specific, "firm effectiveness is dependent on how well knowledge is shared among individuals, teams and units" (Liu & DeFrank, 2013, p. 1151). This helps to understand why organizations increase their efforts to enhance knowledge sharing among employees.
Knowledge is often divided by researchers into explicit and tacit knowledge(Trong Tuan, 2012; Wang, 2004). "Explicit knowledge is referred to as the knowledge codified and expressed in formal language whereas tacit knowledge is intuitive, unarticulated and cannot be verbalized as well as acquired through experience sharing, and through observation and imitation" (Trong Tuan, 2012, p. 461). One of the main goals of organizations is to obtain tacit knowledge of individuals and convert it into explicit knowledge, because explicit knowledge can be easily transferred (Wang, 2004). Thus, organizations have to make sure to enhance communication among employees, knowledge conversations and sharing of
information (Wang, 2004). Factors such as fairness, knowledge sharing climate, trust or transformational leadership climate might be useful to encourage knowledge sharing (Connelly et al. 2012; Liu & DeFrank, 2013).
Despite the importance of knowledge sharing and here from resulted benefits, many employees refuse to share their knowledge (Connelly & Zweig, 2015). Moreover, they do not only refuse to share knowledge, but they rather engage in knowledge hiding, "where they attempt to withhold or conceal knowledge that has been requested by another member of the organization" (Connelly & Zweig, 2015, p. 479). The distinction between knowledge hiding and knowledge sharing is the fact that knowledge hiding is an intentional act and not just the
7 absence of sharing (Connelly et al. 2012). Connelly at al. (2012) point out that knowledge hiding behaviors are not necessarily intended to harm individuals or organizations.
Knowledge hiding behaviors might for instance occur in order to protect oneself, co-workers or to protect the interests of others(Connelly et al. 2012).
Social exchange theory forms a good theoretical basis to identify the predictors of knowledge hiding, because such hiding occurs between coworkers dyads (Connelly et al. 2012). The response to a request for knowledge can be affected by the quality of relationship between coworkers and the history of reciprocity (Connelly et al. 2012). Thus, if the
relationship is based on trust, mutual aid and honesty, the response is more likely to be positive. Connelly et al. (2012) emphasize that especially interpersonal distrust has a negative effect on social exchange and therefore may lead to knowledge hiding behavior. Abrams et al. (2003) claim that trust leads to increased knowledge exchange and makes this exchange less costly. Researchers agree that interpretation of behaviors is crucial for the determination of responses such as knowledge hiding (Connelly et al. 2012; Connelly & Zweig, 2015). In contrast to social exchange theory, Peng (2013) identified another predictor for knowledge hiding behavior. He found that ownership feeling of knowledge is a predictor for knowledge hiding behavior. "The results demonstrated that if an individual feels the knowledge that he/she used in work settings is his/her personal property, he/she is more likely to conduct knowledge hiding" (Peng, 2013, p. 408).
Connelly at al. (2012) distinguish knowledge hiding in three separate but related factors, namely: playing dumb, evasive hiding and rationalized hiding. Playing dumb refers to knowledge hiding by pretending to be ignorant of the requested knowledge (Connelly & Zweig, 2015). Evasive hiding occurs when "the hider provides incorrect information or a misleading promise of a complete answer in the future, even though there is no intention to actually provide this" (Connelly & Zweig, 2015, p. 480). The third factor is rationalized hiding, which refers to the justification of an individual who hides knowledge from his/her coworkers by claiming that he/she is unable to provide requested knowledge (Connelly & Zweig, 2015). However, the main goal of all three factors is the same, namely "to hide knowledge from a coworker who has requested it" (Connelly et al. 2012, p. 76).
The perception of the context can affect employees' knowledge hiding behavior (Connelly & Zweig, 2015). A perceived climate of sharing in organizations can, for instance, increases knowledge sharing among employees (Connelly et al. 2012). Moreover, Peng (2013) found that concerns of employees regarding territoriality have a potential to influence knowledge hiding behavior. He suggests that a decrease of individuals' territoriality can lead
8 to a decrease in knowledge hiding behavior. Peng (2013) also claims that organization-based psychological ownership weakens the relationship between knowledge-based psychological ownership and knowledge hiding. Organizational-based psychological ownership is therefore negatively related to knowledge hiding (Peng, 2013). Furthermore, Cerne, Nerstad and Skerlavaj (2014) have examined the relationship between knowledge hiding and creativity in their study and came to the conclusion that in a mastery climate, the relationship is less negative. Mastery climates promote a sense of shared fate and supportive behavior, where individuals look out for each other and care about the interests of the coworkers (Cerne, Nerstad &Skerlavaj, 2014). Thus, employees are less likely to participate in knowledge hiding behavior in such a climate.
Researchers also found that performance climate enhances knowledge hiding behavior and the relationship between knowledge hiding and creativity is more negative in this climate (Cerne, Nerstad &Skerlavaj, 2014). In a performance climate, employees are more likely to focus on the aim to outperform their coworkers and to maximize their success relative to their coworkers (Cerne, Nerstad &Skerlavaj, 2014).Thus, individuals tend to protect their
knowledge and are reluctant to share knowledge in performance climates, in order to obtain a competitive advantage (Cerne, Nerstad &Skerlavaj, 2014).
Referring to the consequences of knowledge hiding behavior, there is not much research has been done so far. However, Cerne, Nerstad and Skerlavaj (2014) found that in case providing of knowledge is rejected, which an employee needs in order to be creative, this employee is more likely to hide knowledge from the initial knowledge hider. Thus,
knowledge hiding has a negative effect on the creativity of the knowledge hider.
2.3. Narcissistic Leadership and Knowledge Hiding
Nowadays, organizations are operating in an interconnected environment, where interpersonal skills, communication and sharing of knowledge is crucial for the successful performance of the organization. In other words, the cooperation of workers, teamwork, sharing of
knowledge/information and availability of feedbacks have major relevance for organizations. In order to achieve good transfer of knowledge and willingness of employees to share
knowledge, trust and good interpersonal relationships among employees are necessary.
However, narcissists tend to be poor listeners, are unwilling to compromise and are negatively related to interpersonal performance (Blair, Hoffman and Helland, 2008; Higgs, 2009). These characteristics are great obstacles for a good communication and knowledge transfer rather
9 than boosters.
In addition, narcissistic leaders lack of interpersonal skills and empathy, therefore it is difficult for them to empathize with others and develop close relationships with their
coworkers (Blair, Hoffman and Helland, 2008). The lack of positive and close relationships with coworkers can be an indicator for missing trust and understanding of each other. In case the relationships of employees and supervisors are not close or are unclear and the
subordinates are not sure whether they can trust their supervisors or not, they might decide to hide their knowledge instead of providing the knowledge that was requested from them. Moreover, narcissistic leader are less likely to enhance a climate of sharing in organizations and for that reason, subordinates might not only decline to share knowledge with their
supervisors but also with their coworkers.
Furthermore, narcissistic leaders are very sensitive to criticism and negative feedback, due to the aim to retain a grandiose self-image (McCullough et al. 2003). "In addition to being highly sensitive to the judgments of others, the narcissistic personality reacts aggressively to negative feedback or if they perceive a threat to the integrity" (Ouimet, 2010, p. 716). The fact that narcissistic leaders react sometimes even aggressively to feedbacks, might lead to
reservation of the followers in terms of speaking up, which also can be seen as knowledge hiding.
Morf and Rhodewalt (2001) state that narcissists "are unwilling to reciprocate the favors of others and are unempathetic and interpersonally exploitative" (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001, p. 177). This again suggests that it is hard for followers to build a relationship based on trust and understanding with narcissistic leaders. Social exchange theory and the norm of reciprocity, suggest that subordinates might show reciprocal behavior to their narcissistic leaders by hiding knowledge. However, researchers have also shown that narcissists
themselves show mistrust of others (McCullough et al. 2003). The existing distrust from both sides, the followers' but also the narcissistic leaders' side, may form a barrier for good
knowledge transfer. As mentioned before, distrust is a strong predictor for knowledge hiding behavior (Connelly et al. 2012).
Narcissism has been linked to the aim to display self-interested influence, which indicates the ignorance of the satisfaction of the needs of others (Ouimet, 2010). Connelly et al. (2012) suggest that the nature of relationship between two individuals will affect the sharing behavior. Thus, ineffective social exchange can predict knowledge hiding (Connelly et al., 2012). In addition, narcissistic leadership is associated with a toxic work atmosphere (Ouimet, 2010), which is less likely to enhance sharing of knowledge but rather may form a
10 barrier for knowledge sharing. These finding suggest that narcissistic leadership is positively related to knowledge hiding and therefore the following was hypothesized:
H1: Narcissistic leadership is positively related to the knowledge hiding behavior of followers.
2.4 Perceived interpersonal exploitation
The interest in the concept of exploitation or unfairly using others for the own benefit, is present since a long time among social and behavioral sciences (Brunell et al. 2013). Karl Marx's definition of exploitation refers to the labor theory of value: "Marxian exploitation is defined as the unequal exchange of labour for goods: the exchange is unequal when the amount of labour embodied in the goods which the worker can purchase with his income is less than the amount of labour he expended to earn that income" (Wolff, 1999, p.106). The main idea of Marx's definition is the unequal exchange of labor and goods. Obviously this
definition is not in line with the time and is in need of refinement. However, the main idea that the exploited person does not get back what he/she invests into any kind of
process/relationship and the idea of unequal exchange, can be adopted in the present time. Simmel stresses the importance of equal exchange by claiming that "all contacts among men rest on the scheme of giving and returning the equivalence" (cited in Gouldner, 1960, p.162).
Wolff (1999) shares the opinion that the definition of Karl Marx is in need of an adjustment and states that "there can be no doubt that the idea of exploitation is closely related to some notion of use, and so, as a start, exploiting someone is using someone" (Wolff, 1999, p.110). He also points out that the term "exploits" can be used in more than one way while referring to the inter-personal context. Therefore, Wolff (1999) makes a "distinction between exploiting someone's circumstances - that is, exploiting the power one has over another - and exploiting that person" (Wolff, 1999, p. 111). If someone exploits the circumstances of another individual by using his/her power, it does not simultaneously mean that the person is being exploited. However, in case the person is being exploited, it can be assumed that the circumstances are also being exploited (Wolff, 1999).
Exploitativeness is a trait of narcissists and this perspective has been codified in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (Brunell et al. 2013). Referring to Brennell et al. 2013, narcissists can be seen as interpersonally exploitative and therefore much of the interest in the research of exploitation has its roots in the research of narcissism.
11 2.5 Narcissistic Leadership, perceived interpersonal exploitation and knowledge hiding As described in previous paragraph, there is a distinction between the exploitation of
circumstances of an individual and the exploitation of the individual himself/herself. Narcissistic Leaders are more likely to use their power and prove their superiority to others (Nevicka et al. 2011). This indicates that narcissists do not hesitate to exploit the hierarchical subordination of their followers. Besides, narcissistic leaders have a sense of entitlement and egoism, which can end up in exploitative and/or unethical behavior (Nevicka et al. 2011). Due to their sense of entitlement, narcissists also tend to believe that they deserve a better
treatment or more positive outcomes relative to others (Campbell et al. 2011). This attitude can result in feelings of injustice and exploitation of the followers. Thus, followers facing a leader who abuses his/her power, is focused on his/her own interest and goals and uses followers to achieve these goals, are likely to perceive this attitude and behavior on part of their leader as interpersonal exploitation.
In addition, narcissistic leaders have difficulties with admitting their failures or poor performance and it is especially hard for them, to be responsible for this poor performance (McCullough et al. 2003). Therefore, they tend to justify their poor performance by making other people responsible for this and that is one of the reasons why they use their fellows as scapegoats. "For example, a narcissist might justify a poor athletic performance by believing that he or she would have performed better had he or she not been disappointed and hurt by so many people in life. Alternatively, narcissists might present their pasts as more hurtful than they actually were so that their accomplishments seem even more impressive" (McCullough et al. 2003, p. 886). Aside from the tendency to blame others for failure, narcissists tend to "take credit for success from others" (Campbell et al. 2011). As soon as the followers notice that they are being unjustly used as scapegoats for the justification of the poor performance of their leaders or the leader takes credit for the success of followers, it can lead to perceived interpersonal exploitation.
"Social exchange theory suggests that individuals who suffer harm are more likely to have negative reactions" (Liu et al. 2010, p.837). Hence, after experiencing unfair treatment and the feeling of being exploited by the supervisor, knowledge hiding might be seen by subordinates as their "payback" for the unethical treatment of the narcissistic leader. Moreover, Liu et al. 2010 state that revenge is a potential response of subordinates, who perceive their leader as harmful. Thus, subordinates might respond to perceived interpersonal exploitation by showing actions of revenge, which is in this case knowledge hiding behavior.
12 It stands to reason that perceived exploitation enhances distrust, which is an indicator for knowledge hiding behavior. Thus, perceived interpersonal exploitation can be considered as a potential mediator of the relationship of narcissistic leadership and knowledge hiding
behavior of the followers. The aforementioned arguments result in the following hypothesis:
H2: Perceived interpersonal exploitation mediates the relationship between narcissistic leadership and knowledge hiding behavior of the followers.
2.6 Individualistic organizational culture
Organizational culture is defined as "a pattern of basic assumptions, invented, discovered, or developed by a given group, as it learns to cope with its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, that has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore is to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think and feel in relation to those problems" (Schein, 1990, p. 111). The main idea of organizational culture is "based on the assumption that particular sets of values, norms, beliefs, and assumptions become internalized by an organization's members" (Robert & Wasti, 2002, p. 544). Schein (1990) claims that common assumptions provide guidance and stability to members of organizations, because they help to understand and predict situations happening in organizations. Besides, common assumptions or shared learning increase comfort and decrease anxiety concerning inability to deal with events happening in organizations (Schein, 1990).
Moreover, organizational culture is a tool, which provides expectations and norms to employees and helps to characterize work environment, explain priorities and define the way how work is done (Glisson, 2015). Chatman and Cha (2003) state that strong cultures enhance organizational performance by energizing employees and shaping employees' behavior. In order to energize and engage employees, culture has to address higher ideals and values of employees (Chatman & Cha, 2003). According to Lok and Crawford (2004), organizational culture influences the way employees consciously and subconsciously think, set their goals, execute tasks and use resources to achieve their goals.
Researchers identified "cultural syndromes", which are organized around themes, such as values, norms, beliefs and assumptions (Gelfand & Christakopoulou, 1999; Robert & Wasti, 2002). A variety of different syndromes have been identified, however, individualism and collectivism have received the most attention from researchers (Gelfand &
13 people are autonomous individuals or embedded in their groups"( Gelfand &
Christakopoulou, 1999, p. 251). This study focuses only on organizational individualistic culture and therefore, subsequently only aspects of individualism will be discussed.
Scott, Ciarrochi and Deane (2004) characterize individualism by "an independent self-construal, emotional independence, and behaviour regulated by the individual's attitudes" (Scott, Ciarrochi & Deane, 2004, p. 143). Individualistic culture focuses on personal goals and needs, autonomy and development of one's own potential and preferences (Gelfand & Christakopoulou, 1999; Robert & Wasti, 2002). Gelfand and Christakopoulou (1999) argue that individualistic culture promotes the idea of separation from others and stimulates self-reliance and privacy. Moreover, the authors claim that individualism fosters cognition of inner attributes of individuals and distinction from others. Therefore, the individuals from
individualistic culture have a better understanding of their personal abilities, preferences and personal characteristics than of members of the group, to which they belong (Gelfand & Christakopoulou, 1999). In contrast to collectivistic views, individualistic culture does not emphasize social harmony and avoidance of conflict, but rather emphasizes "the rights and privileges of the individual and expect their members to assert and stand up for these rights" (Forbes et al. 2009, p. 24). Forbes et al. (2009) claim that individualistic culture is positively associated with interpersonal aggression, due to its characteristics such as tolerance for conflict, individualistic values and interpersonal competitiveness.
2.7. The moderating role of individualistic organizational culture
Individualistic culture stimulates the prioritization and maximization of individuals' goals and the reward system is based on individual's achievements (Chatman & Barsade, 1995). The tendency of narcissistic leaders to focus on their personal goals and show exploitative behavior while doing so, might be sensitized by this individualistic view. Since the reward system focuses only on individual's achievement and not on the achievement of the whole group, narcissistic leaders might be encouraged by this system to exploit others in order to maximize their own reward. Cerne, Nerstad and Skerlavaj (2015) argue that performance climate, which focuses on individual's achievements just as individualistic culture does, is positively associated with knowledge hiding. Due to similar characteristics of performance climate and individualistic culture, it is reasonable to assume that individualistic culture will show similar results. Besides, the interest and concerns for others are limited in individualistic culture (Gelfand & Christakopoulou, 1999). As mentioned above, organizational culture has
14 the potential to influence they way individuals think and act. Therefore, the lack of concern and responsibility for others might be another indicator for exploitative and selfish behavior of narcissistic leaders.
Individualism can be characterized by "social and emotional separation" (Scott, Ciarrochi & Deane, 2004, p.144). This characterization is associated with lack of social support (Scott, Ciarrochi & Deane, 2004). Due to the lack of cohesion, interest for others and social support, group members of an individualistic culture might not even try to hinder or stop narcissistic leaders to show exploitative behavior. The lack of social support and
cohesion in an individualistic culture might be a potential booster for exploitative behavior of narcissistic leaders. Grijalva and Newman (2015) underpin this view by arguing that in societies high on collectivism, narcissism has a weaker relationship with counterproductive work behavior. "Collectivist cultures place great emphasis on norms of reciprocity and are less likely to tolerate the social exchange violations of the DT [dark triad]. Manipulation of coworkers, self-promotion, and antisocial behavior are interpreted as disloyalty to the ingroup and sanctioned accordingly" (Grijalva & Newman, 2015, p.97).
Moreover, Foster, Campbell and Twenge (2003) found that individualistic thinking is positively associated with narcissism. To be more specific, the authors ascertained that "regional individualism differences appear related to regional differences in reported narcissism, with high individualism associated with greater reported narcissism" (Foster, Campbell &Twenge, 2003, p. 482). This finding is another indicator for a stronger effect of narcissistic leadership on perceived exploitation in a culture high on individualism than in a culture low on individualism. Hence, resulting from previous arguments, the following is hypothesized:
H3: Narcissistic leadership has a stronger effect on perceived interpersonal exploitation in a culture high on individualism than in a culture low on individualism.
I argue in this study that individuals who experience exploitative behavior by their supervisors are more likely to show knowledge hiding behavior. In addition, I claim that perceived
interpersonal exploitation has a stronger effect on knowledge hiding behavior in a culture high on individualism for several reasons. First, the reward system in an individualistic culture, which is based on individual's achievements, boosts competitiveness among members
(Chatman & Barsade, 1995; Scott, Ciarrochi & Deane, 2004). Beside the fact that individuals who experience unfair treatment tend to show negative reactions, the sense of competitiveness
15 might also encourage individuals to show knowledge hiding behavior. In order t deliver superior performance relative to others and maximize reward, subordinates might hide knowledge from their coworkers even when it requires sacrificing harmony or relationships (Michailova & Hutching, 2006). Ardichvili et al. 2006 illustrate that competitiveness is a great barrier to knowledge sharing by providing the following example: "When people acquire new knowledge, they believe that it is the key to their success and are likely to guard it instead of sharing it" (Ardichvili et al. 2006, p. 101).
In addition, as mentioned above, individualistic culture lacks social support and cohesion (Scott, Ciarrochi & Deane, 2004). Hence, subordinates who have the feeling that they are being exploited and who's coworkers do not appear to show any support, might hide knowledge from their coworkers in order to demonstrate their resentment. Moreover,
individualistic culture does not teach its members to care about others and consider the needs and interests of others (Gelfand & Christakopoulou, 1999). The accentuation on
individualistic behavior and self-interested orientation is less likely to encourage individuals to cooperate with each other and share their knowledge. Besides, Chatman and Barsade (1995) argue that individuals behave and respond, based on their expectations of how others will behave. In an individualistic culture, employees are less likely to expect cooperative and sharing behavior. Instead, it is easier to assume that avoidance of cooperation, communication and sharing will take place. Thus, the expectation of rejection to cooperation and sharing knowledge, will most likely lead to knowledge hiding behavior. The aforementioned arguments lead to the following hypothesis:
H4: Perceived interpersonal exploitation has a stronger effect on knowledge hiding behavior in a culture high on individualism than in a culture low on individualism.
3. Research Method
The following section presents the research method that was used to execute the current study and explains the individual steps taken.
3.1. Procedure
A cross sectional survey design was used for this quantitative research, which was under the supervision of two professors from the HRM department of the University of Amsterdam.
16 Two separate self-administered questionnaires, one for a supervisor and one for a subordinate, were developed by five students. In order to be able to link the two different questionnaires, matching codes were provided to the participants. The group of students distributed the questionnaire online as well as a paper-and-pencil version was provided to employees from a variety of different backgrounds, hierarchical levels and functions. Besides the appeal to the personal networks of contacts, companies but also individual workers were contacted by our group, in order to achieve a satisfying number of responses. The majority of respondents were employees from lower hierarchical levels and sectors such as gastronomy, retail or hospitality. Due to the challenging access to organizations and potential participants, convenience
sampling was used. The students have achieved response from a variety of different countries, including the Netherlands, Germany, United States of America, Brazil and Belgium.
The data collection process started in the beginning of March and after sending out several reminders, it was closed by the end of April. The whole process of data collection took place anonymously and it was made clear to the participants that the data would be treated confidentially and only used for research purposes. The questionnaires contained an introduction, which provided all the necessary information for the participants, such as the length of the survey and the aim of the research. Appendix A illustrates the introduction of the survey.
The scales for the survey were adopted from English studies and had to be translated into Dutch. Our group used the back-translation technique to translate the scales and provide a Dutch version of the questionnaires.
3.2. Sample
The sample consisted of international employees working on a full time basis for their organizations. The educational background, work experience and sectors of work of the participants are diverse. The data was collected within industries such as retail (16.3%), hospitality (15.3%) and health care (2.6%). In total, 450 individuals have received an invitation to participate in the survey. However, only 258 filled in the survey, resulting in a response rate of 57,3%. Some of the participants did not fill in the questionnaire completely or only the supervisor/subordinate participated in the survey, which lead to the consequence of unusable data. In case some data was missing, the affected cases were excluded listwise, which means that only cases are included that have full data on all the variables. This procedure has reduced the sample from 258 to 246 participants (123 dyads). From the 246
17 respondents, 122 filled out the paper-and-pencil format (49,6%), the rest of the participants used the online format.
The exact age was not asked in the survey, the participants rather had to mark an age box. Therefore, the age distribution was as follows: 12.5% of the supervisor respondents were between 18 and 24 years old, 35.8% were between 25 and 34 years old, 21.7% were between 35 and 44 years old, 22.5% were between 45 and 54 years old and 7.5% were between 55 and 64 years old. The majority of the involved supervisors possess at least a higher vocational education degree (67.5%). 62 men (50,4%) and 56 women (45,5 %) (5 not reported) have participated in the survey for the supervisors. The majority of subordinates and supervisors have daily contact (60.8%), 38.3% of the supervisors indicated that they have weekly contact with their subordinates and only 0.8% have monthly contact. Job tenure varied greatly among the supervisors, ranging from less than a year to 35 years (M = 8.5, SD = 6.3). The amount of time that a supervisor was in charge of the subordinate ranged from less than a year to 30 years (M = 4.4, SD = 4.8).
The survey for subordinates has been filled in by 47 men and 71 women (57,7%) ( 5 not reported). 39% of the subordinates were between 18 and 24 years old, 42.3% were between 25 and 34 years old, 11.4% were between 35 and 44 years old, 4.1% were between 45 and 54 years old and 3.3% were between 55 and 64 years old. 58.5% of the subordinates have achieved at least a higher vocational education degree. Job tenure varied greatly among the subordinates aswell, ranging from less than a year to 33 years (M = 8.5, SD = 6.3).
3.3 Measures
Due to the fact that the questionnaires were designed for five different master theses, they include variables, which were not used for this master thesis. The following section addresses variables, relevant for this study. The control variables of the subordinate questionnaire include age, gender, education, organizational tenure and working branch. The survey for the supervisors includes control variables as follows: age, gender, education, organizational tenure, period of employment as a supervisor of current subordinate and frequency of contact with current subordinate. The above mentioned control variables are measured with single items, namely "What is your age?", "What is your gender?", "What is your highest
education?", "How many years have you been working for your current employer?", "How many years have you worked for this company?", "In which branch does the company you work for operate?", "How many years have you been supervisor of your employee?" and
18 "How often do you have personal contact with your employee?". The other set of items are HR-related constructs, which are rated on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). All scales are adopted from the existing literature and the relevant scales for this master thesis can be found in Appendix B.
Narcissistic Leadership is measured with a 18-item scale adopted from Back et al. (2013). The authors developed a model, which distinguishes two dimensions of narcissism, namely admiration and rivalry. One example of the items addressing the admiration side, is as follows: "I deserve to be seen as a great personality". An item, which measures the rivalry side of narcissism is for instance: "I can barely stand it of another person is at the center of events". The reliability for the admiration dimension is α=.84 and for rivalry dimension α=.80. The reliability for the overall score is also very good (α=.80).
To measure perceived leader interpersonal exploitation, a 6-item scale was utilized based on Brunell et al. (2013). Cronbach's alpha for this scale is α=.87. The participants are asked for example to indicate whether they agree or disagree with the following statement: "My manager is perfectly willing to profit at the expense of others".
The measure of knowledge hiding was composed of 12 items based on Connelly et al. (2012). Cronbach's alpha exceeds .70 of all knowledge hiding dimensions, which indicates an acceptable level of internal consistency. An example item of this scale is "told him/her that I would help him/her out later but stalled as much as possible".
Finally, organizational individualistic culture was measured using the 6-item scale adopted from Robert and Wasti (2002) (α=.71). The scale includes "Each worker is
encouraged to realize his or her own unique potential" and "People with good ideas make sure management knows the idea was theirs".
4. Data analysis and results
The subsequent section describes in detail the steps taken while analyzing the collected data. Besides, the tests of hypotheses are explained and the results are presented in current section.
4.1. Data analysis
The collected data was reviewed and analyzed with the help of the software IBM Statistical Package for Social Science version 22. There were no counter-indicative items included in the conceptual framework, therefore the items did not have to be re-coded.
19 Subsequently, scale reliability analysis was run for the variables Narcissistic
Leadership, Perceived Interpersonal Exploitation, Knowledge Hiding and Individualistic Culture, in order to exam whether the instruments are reliable or not and to examine the consistency of measurements. Cronbach's alpha coefficients indicate that the tested scales are reliable. The values are: 0.91 for Knowledge Hiding, 0.92 for Perceived Interpersonal
Exploitation, 0.89 for Narcissistic Leadership and 0.66 for Individualistic Culture. After taking a look at the column, which indicates the Cronbach's alpha after deleting an item, it was clear that item 6 of Individualistic Culture had to be removed, in order to increase Cronbach's alpha. After the adjustment, the new value of Cronbach's alpha of Individualistic culture is 0.71. Additional deletion of items from other scales was not undertaken, since it would not lead to a positive influence on the scales. The Corrected Item-Total Correlation of all items of Narcissistic Leadership, Perceived Interpersonal Exploitation, Knowledge Hiding and Individualistic Culture are above 0.3, which indicates that all items are good and can be used. In order to be able to test the hypothesis later on, scale means have been computed by averaging the items corresponding to each scale.
After this, a normality check was done by analyzing skewness and kurtosis
coefficients and by visual inspection of the histograms. The variable Narcissistic Leadership has a skewness of 0.27 (SE=0.22) and a kurtosis of 0.31 (SE=0.44). Perceived Interpersonal Exploitation has a skewness of 0.75 (SE=0.22) and a kurtosis of -0.32 (SE=0.44). The variable Individualistic Culture has a skewness of -0.46 (SE=0.22) and a kurtosis of 0.23 (SE=0.44). Knowledge Hiding has a skewness of 0.73 (SE=0.22) and a kurtosis of -0.28 (SE=0.44). The visual inspection and the normality check did not provide desirable outcomes and indicated that the data is not normally distributed. However, the outliers were not deleted, since it would not make a significant change for the analysis. Relatively high scores were obtained on the scale for Individualistic Culture. On the other hand, the normality check has shown that relatively low scores were obtained on the scales for Perceived Interpersonal Exploitation and Knowledge Hiding . In contrast to other scales, Narcissistic Leadership is approximately normally distributed.
Bivariate correlation and regression analysis are used in this study to test the above mentioned hypothesis. Correlation analysis can be seen as a tool, which helps to understand the strengths of the relationships between the variables of the research model. This tool is additionally used to investigate whether multicollinearity exists or not.
20 4.2 Results
Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, correlations and reliabilities scores. The correlations of all variables are lower than 0.70, which means that all variables can be used for the regression analysis. A test for multicollinearity, showed that multicollinearity does not occur in this case. The outcome of data analysis shows that subordinates from our sample indicate a high level of individualistic culture (M=5.21), but on the other hand low levels on knowledge hiding behavior (M=2.07) and perceived exploitation (M=2.37). The supervisors indicate a medium level on narcissistic leadership (M=3.45).
The results in Table 1, show that Individualistic Culture has a small correlation with the variables Knowledge Hiding and Narcissistic Leadership (r < 0.29) and nearly no
correlation with Perceived Exploitation (r < 0.1) (Cohen 1988 cited in Pallant 2011, p.134). In line with the assumption that narcissistic leadership is positively associated with knowledge hiding behavior of the subordinates, Table 1 indicates that hypothesis 1(r = 0.191, p < 0.05) is supported. Besides, the results illustrate that Perceived Exploitation correlates with
Knowledge Hiding (r = 0.483, p < 0.01) and Narcissistic Leadership (r = -0.240, p < 0.01). The correlation of the three above mentioned variables is necessary in order to achieve a mediating role of perceived interpersonal exploitation. The proposed mediation and moderation effect were tested separately and will be discussed below.
Table 1: Means, standard deviations, correlations and reliabilities scores
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1. Gender (Supervisor) 2. Gender (Subordinate) .365** 3. Age (Supervisor) 32.50 1.16 -.067 -.100 4. Age (Subordinate) 24.72 0.98 .067 -.090 .384** 5. Narcissistic Leadership 3.45 0.82 -.055 -.076 -.091 .160 (.885) 6. Individualistic Culture 5.21 0.73 -.078 -.268** .203* .103 .109 (.712) 7. Knowledge Hiding 2.07 0.99 -.047 -.169 .067 .165 .191* -.143 (.908) 8. Perceived exploitation 2.37 1.16 -.087 -.104 -.024 .131 .240** -.075 .483 (.920)
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
21 4.2.1 Hypothesis testing - Hierarchical regression
For the examination of the relation between the predictor (Narcissistic Leadership), the dependent variable (Knowledge hiding) and the mediation effect of Perceived Interpersonal Exploitation, a hierarchical regression analysis was performed. Table 2 provides an overview of the regression results. In Step 1, Narcissistic Leadership was included as the predictor for Knowledge Hiding. Narcissistic Leadership significantly predicts Knowledge Hiding (ß= 0.198, p < 0.05) and explains 3,9% of the variance in Knowledge Hiding. This finding supports Hypothesis 1. In Step 2, Perceived Interpersonal Exploitation was included as predictor of Knowledge Hiding. This analysis showed, that 23,7% of the total variance in Knowledge Hiding is explained by the model as a whole and that Perceived Interpersonal Exploitation significantly predicts Knowledge Hiding (ß= 0.457, p< 0,01). The insertion of Perceived Interpersonal Exploitation explains an additional 19.7% in Knowledge Hiding. Besides, Step 2 indicates that as soon as Perceived Interpersonal Exploitation is included in the model, the effect of Narcissistic Leadership is not significant no more (ß=0.092, p
=0.266). However, the effect of Perceived Interpersonal Exploitation is significant (ß=0.457, p<0.01) which means that Perceived Interpersonal Exploitation mediates the relationship between Narcissistic Leadership and Knowledge Hiding. Hypothesis 2 is therefore supported by this finding.
Table2: Hierarchical Regression Model of Knowledge Hiding
R R2 R2 Change B SE β Step 1 .198 .039* .039 Narcissistic Leadership .243 .110 .198 Step 2 .486 .237** .197** Narcissistic Leadership .113 .101 .092 Perceived Interpersonal Exploitation .391 .071 .457** Statisticalsignificance: *p <.05; **p <.01
4.2.2 Hypotheses testing - Testing the moderating effect
In the last step, the moderating role of Individualist Culture is tested. After centering Narcissistic Leadership and Individualistic Culture and computing the product of them, the two predictors and the interaction were entered into a regression model. The same procedure was done for Perceived Interpersonal Exploitation. Results indicate that Narcissistic
22 Leadership (b = .350, SEb = .128, β = .245, p < .01) significantly predicts Perceived
Interpersonal Exploitation, however, Individualistic Culture (b = -.168, SEb = .142, β = -.105, p > .05) has no significant contribution. The interaction of the two variable is also not
significant (b = -.152, SEb = .175, β = -.077, p > .05), suggesting that Individualistic Culture has no moderating effect. After centering Perceived Interpersonal Exploitation and running the second step of the analysis, the results showed that the product of Perceived Interpersonal Exploitation and Individualistic Culture do not have a significant contribution on Knowledge Hiding (b = -.035, SEb = .079, β = -.036, p > .0.05). This step showed again that
Individualistic Culture has no moderating effect on either the relationship between
Narcissistic Leadership and Perceived interpersonal exploitation or that between Perceived interpersonal exploitation and Knowledge hiding.
Table 3: Interaction Variables
Statistical significance: *p <.05; **p <.01
Interaction Variables
B SE B t ß
Individualistic Culture -.168 .142 -1.180 -.105
Narcissistic Leadership .350 .128 .2.743** .245
Perceived Interpersonal Exploitation .378 .069 5.500** .442
Individualistic Culture X Narcissistic Leadership -.152 .175 -.868 -.077
Individualistic Culture X Perceived Interpersonal Exploitation
23 Table 4: Analysis of the moderating Effect of Knowledge Hiding
Model Summary R R² F df1 df2 P Step 1: Narcissistic Leadership & Individualistic Culture .255 .065 4.139 2.000 119.000 .018 Step 2: Perceived Interpersonal Exploitation & Individualistic Culture .466 .217 16.913 2.000 112.000 .000
R-square increase due to interaction(s): R²-change F df1 df2 P Narcissistic Leadership X Individualistic Culture 0.006 3.005 1.000 118.000 .387 Perceived Interpersonal Exploitation X Individualistic Culture .001 11.264 1.000 121.000 .663 5. Discussion
The purpose of this study was to extend the literature on the dark side of leadership by determining the extent to which narcissistic leadership was related to perceived interpersonal exploitation and knowledge hiding behavior. To be more specific, it was proposed that narcissistic leadership would be positively related to perceived interpersonal exploitation and knowledge hiding behavior. Besides, it was proposed that individualistic culture would moderate the relationships between narcissistic leadership and perceived interpersonal exploitation, and perceived interpersonal exploitation and knowledge hiding behavior.
In line with the expectations, the data analysis revealed that narcissistic leadership plays a role in influencing knowledge hiding behavior of subordinates, by being positively related to knowledge hiding behavior. Furthermore, it was found that perceived interpersonal exploitation mediates the relationship between narcissistic leadership and knowledge hiding
24 behavior. However, in contrast to the expectations, there is no evidence found for the
moderating role of organizational individualistic culture neither on the relationship between narcissistic leadership and perceived interpersonal exploitation, nor on the relationship between perceived interpersonal exploitation and knowledge hiding.
Research suggests that the transfer of knowledge and the willingness of employees to share their knowledge is crucial for organizations, because knowledge is a valuable resource which can lead to effectiveness and competitive advantage (Liu & DeFrank, 2013; Trong Tuan, 2012). Therefore, I suggest that understanding what influences knowledge hiding behavior of employees is very important, since transfer of knowledge has the potential to influence the prosperity of any organization. Instead of focusing on the booster of knowledge sharing and effective leadership style, this study examined the dark side of leadership in order to obtain a better understanding of potential obstacles of positive knowledge transfer. Existing research tends to focus its attention on the positive drivers of knowledge sharing and effective leadership styles. However, the barriers for knowledge sharing and the dark side of leadership are neglected. Thus, the findings of this study have important theoretical and practical
implications and make a significant contribution to existing research.
5.1 Theoretical implications and directions for future research
The empirical support for the direct relationship between narcissistic leadership and knowledge hiding behavior of subordinates, is one of the contributions of this study to the existing literature. Therefore, this paper supports the theoretical link of narcissistic leadership and negative interpersonal relationships, which can lead to knowledge hiding behavior (Blair, Hoffman & Helland, 2008; Campbell et al. 2011; Connelly et al. 2012). Research suggests that negative characteristics of narcissists, such as the tendency to exploit others in order to achieve personal goals, sense of entitlement and the propensity to dominate others can lead to dysfunctional relationships with followers (Blair, Hoffman & Helland, 2008; Sweet, 2012). Since narcissistic leaders tend to enhance negative relationships with their followers, it is less likely that the relationship of narcissistic leaders and their followers is based on trust
(Campbell et al. 2011; Blair, Hoffman & Helland, 2008; Sweet, 2012). According to Connelly et al. 2012, distrust is one of the main indicators for knowledge hiding behavior. This
illustrates one of the links of narcissistic leadership and knowledge hiding behavior of followers.
It would be interesting to extend this research further and identify other direct links to knowledge hiding behavior. Future research should investigate other direct relationships of
25 different types of leadership styles and knowledge hiding behavior. Besides, current study focused only on knowledge hiding behavior of subordinates, which does not mean that supervisors do not hide knowledge. Connelly and Zweig (2015), suggest that it would be interesting to "examine how subordinates construe knowledge hiding from the supervisors, and how these construals are affected by the supervisors' leadership styles. For example, when transformational leaders hide knowledge, this may lead to less negative consequences than if a transactional leader engages in this behavior" (Connelly & Zweig, 2015, p.488).
Regarding the mediating effect of perceived interpersonal exploitation, the study shows a significant mediation in hypothesized relationship. Thus, perceived interpersonal exploitation mediates the relationship between narcissistic leadership and knowledge hiding behavior. The literature on narcissistic leadership states that narcissists possess the
characteristic of exploitativeness (Campbell et al. 2011). This study strengthens this fact, by providing evidence that subordinates perceive their narcissistic leaders as interpersonally exploitative. Narcissistic leaders do not hesitate to use their power and show their superiority to subordinates in order to achieve personal goals (Nevicka et al. 2011; Campbell et al. 2011). Moreover, some narcissistic leaders tend to use others as scapegoats for their poor
performance (McCullough et al. 2003). Obviously, this behavior can lead to perceived interpersonal exploitation, which this study proves to be true.
Future research can identify and investigate other insights of the "black box" between dark leadership styles and knowledge hiding behavior. It is very interesting to understand what other predictors of knowledge hiding behavior are. This study identified a negative consequence of narcissistic leadership, namely perceived interpersonal exploitation, as a predictor for knowledge hiding behavior. However, Connelly et al. 2012 suggest that
knowledge hiding is not necessarily a bad behavior and the motives to hide knowledge might not always be negative. Some individuals might hide knowledge in order to protect their coworkers, the interests of their organization or their personal interests (Connelly et al. 2012). Therefore, it is interesting to identify positive predictors of knowledge hiding behavior and different intentions of individuals who hide knowledge.
In contrast to the expectations, this study did not provide evidence for the moderating effect of individualistic culture on the relationships of narcissistic leadership and perceived interpersonal exploitation, and the relationship of perceived interpersonal exploitation and knowledge hiding behavior. Overall, existing research suggests that individualistic culture emphasizes self-centered views, which can encourage individuals to pursue and maximize personal goals while considering other individuals as potential resources (Chatman &
26 Barsade, 1995; Hofstede, 1994; Robert & Wasti, 2002). Narcissistic leaders who tend to exploit others and pursue personal goals might be encouraged by this culture to show even more exploitative and selfish behavior. Moreover, individualistic culture emphasizes self-actualization and reward system that is based on individual accomplishments (Chatman & Barsade, 1995; Hofstede, 1994). This individualistic view, can therefore encourage
individuals to hide knowledge in order to achieve greater accomplishments relative to others. Despite the theoretical indication for a moderating effect of individualistic culture and high means of individualistic culture found in this study, no proof was found for the moderating effect of individualistic culture of the hypothesized relationships.
One possible explanation for this phenomenon can be the fact that the data collection mostly occurred in low hierarchical levels and the pressure of individualism might be in low hierarchical levels not as high as in high hierarchical levels. Although results indicate high means of individualistic culture, individuals in low hierarchical levels might be less ambitious to pursue high goals and therefore the individualistic culture shows less effect on them. In high hierarchical levels, individuals tend to be ambitious and try to achieve great goals. Therefore, employees in high hierarchical levels might be more effected by individualistic culture and show greater ambitious to use others in order maximize their own profit.
Another explanation for the lack of a moderation role of organizational individualistic culture, can be the fact that the data was mostly collected in countries high on individualism. Individuals who live in a country high on national individualistic culture, might have a different perception of organizational individualistic culture, than individuals who live in countries high on collectivism. The moderation effect of organizational individualistic culture might be weaker on individuals from countries high on individualism, because they are used to this culture and are less affected by it in organizations. The effect and perception of organizational culture might be different for individuals from different national cultures and this potential difference is in need of closer examination.
Moreover, future research is in need of closer investigation of different climates and cultures of organizations and their potential moderating role on the relationship between narcissistic leadership and knowledge hiding behavior. This examination should take different hierarchical levels into consideration. Other potential aspects that can increase negative consequences of narcissistic leadership or enhance knowledge hiding behavior, should also not be neglected by future research.
