Literature review assignment (approx. 1000 words)
Name: Chele Ana Maria
1/2
1. Introduction
This literature review aims to present the phenomenon of knowledge hiding that has been gaining
systematically more research in recent years. Knowledge hiding is generally viewed as harming
organizations, and in this particular literature review the focus will be on knowledge hiding performed by
employees in an organization. Most of the research aims to be a call to action for managers and
organizations alike to recognize the patterns of knowledge hiding and develop environments that facilitate
knowledge sharing.
2. Literature review
An organization is like an organism whose flow of information is imperative for its functioning. Whether
that flow is facilitated by informational systems or between the organization's workers, everything must
be connected and shared at the right time. According to Anand and Hassan (2019), due to the volatility
and uncertainty of the business environment, knowledge sharing is valuable because of the competitive
advantage it can provide. However, as stated by Connelly and Zweig (2015), many workers are reluctant
to share their knowledge with their colleagues despite the organizational benefits of knowledge sharing
among employees.
As has been established, knowledge hiding is an intentional attempt by an individual to withhold
knowledge (Connelly et al., 2012). Connelly and Zweig (2015) state that even though employees
recognize it is advantageous to exchange information, a significant number of workers are reluctant to do
it due to perceived personal costs it might have. Thus, Anand and Hassan (2019) summarize the three
types of knowledge hiding which were recognized by Connelly et al. (2012): a) rationalized hiding, in
which the employee provides justifications for the unavailability of information; b) evasive hiding,
withholding essential information from another person; and c) playing dumb, i.e., showing a false lack of
knowledge on the subject.
It soon becomes clear that it is not as easy as it may seem initially. Although Connelly et al. (2012)
establish that people are likely to hide knowledge from people they distrust, this behavior is also
connected to the perception the perpetrator has about the context of the situation. For example, according
to the paper by Connelly and Zweig (2015), although understandably, people are more likely to share
knowledge when the organizational climate supports it, workers are more likely to be evasive when there
is a complex problem or question. Rather than some of the research before that, they established that
knowledge hiding is not always intended to harm the individual or organization. They claim that it is a
typical human response to a given situation. Even more so than that, Connelly and Zweig (2015)
hypothesized that people who hid knowledge still viewed themselves as "honest, competent and altruistic"
and did not credit their behaviors to the harm done to the interpersonal relationships within a team. Their
field studies proved that hypothesis wrong. Perpetrators were consciously aware of the deceptive nature
of knowledge hiding, but could justify it if there was a perceived personal gain. This claim was disputed
in the study by Issac and Baral (2018), who stated that there actually exists a reluctance from the workers
to trade required information even when rewarded for that behavior.
Most researchers agree that the organization's environment plays a massive role in people's willingness
to share necessary information. A detailed up-close look at the environment that affects knowledge
sharing has been done by Farooq and Sultana (2021), who have established a link between abusive
supervisors and the employees’ tendency to hide knowledge. Due to the mistrust and stress factors
associated with abusive workplace environments, employees are more likely to reciprocate with negative
behaviors. This study presents the idea that workers are willing to be open, improve their productivity and
be more creative when their leaders are democratic. In contrast, when the employees see the
management as toxic, they are more likely to hide information. They argue that it all depends heavily on
the trust between supervisor and subordinate.
Furthermore, Zhao et al. (2016) examined the relationship between knowledge hiding and workplace
ostracism. According to the dictionaries, ostracism refers to intentionally not including someone in a social
2/2
activity. Thus, Zhao et al. (2016) collected data from service workers and hypothesized that when
individuals believe they are treated badly, they also respond negatively. Similarly, in such a situation, they
start believing that ethical standards do not apply to them in the context. Thus, altogether they are most
likely to participate in evasive hiding of information and playing dumb. The research done by Zhao et al.
(2016) and Ruparel and Choubisa (2020) propose that there should be innovative ways to encourage
transparency in organizations. According to Zhao et al. (2016), if employees feel ostracized, they should
be given psychological counseling and integrated more into the organization's activities so that they do
not feel the need to respond negatively when information sharing is required. Ruparel and Choubisa
(2020) suggest that a low task interdependence and more individual ability to make decisions would allow
employees to feel comfortable enough to be open in the workplace environment.
3. Conclusion
To conclude, the literature review presented an overview of prominent research in knowledge hiding.
Overall, it is believed that psychological factors, individual perceptions, relationships with the supervisors
and workplace environments are all sensitive factors that must be balanced to facilitate healthy
knowledge sharing. Although, a weakness of the research lies in the generalization of the strategies
presented. Thus, it is up to each organization to decide how they will integrate their employees and avoid
knowledge hiding.
4. Resources:
Anand, P., & Hassan, Y. (2019). Knowledge hiding in organizations: Everything that managers need to
know. Development and Learning in Organizations: An International Journal, 33(6), 12–15.
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.
Farooq, R., & Sultana, A. (2021). Abusive supervision and its relationship with knowledge hiding: The
mediating role of distrust. International Journal of Innovation Science, 13(5), 709–731.
Issac, A. C., & Baral, R. (2018). Dissecting knowledge hiding: A note on what it is and what it is not.
Human Resource Management International Digest, 26(7), 20–24.
Ruparel, N., & Choubisa, R. (2020). Knowledge hiding in organizations: A retrospective narrative review
and the way forward. Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, 9(1), 5-22.
Zhao, H., Xia, Q., He, P., Sheard, G., & Wan, P. (2016). Workplace ostracism and knowledge hiding in
service organizations. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 59, 84–94.