Search results

Academic knowledge work often presumes collaboration among interdependent individuals. However, this work also involves competitive pressures to perform and even outperform others. While knowledge hiding has not yet been extensively examined in the academic environment, this study aims to deepen the understanding of the personal (individual-level) and situational (job-related) factors that affect evasive knowledge hiding (EKH) within academia.

A field study was conducted on a nation-wide sample of 210 scholars from both public and private business schools in a European Union member state. A series of paired sample t-tests were followed by hierarchical regression analyses to test moderation using the PROCESS macro.

The results suggest that scholars hide more tacit than explicit knowledge. The findings also indicate a consistent pattern of positive and significant relationships between trait competitiveness and EKH. Furthermore, task interdependence and social support buffer the detrimental relationship between personal competitiveness and evasive hiding of explicit knowledge, but not tacit knowledge.

The research provides insights into several important antecedents of EKH that have not been previously examined. It contributes to research on knowledge transfer in academia by focusing on situations where colleagues respond to explicit requests by hiding knowledge. The moderating role of collaborative job design offers practical solutions on how to improve knowledge transfer between mistrusted and competitive scholars. The collaboration–competition framework is extended by introducing personal competitiveness and relational job design, and suggesting how to manage the cross-level tension of differing collaborative and competitive motivations within academia.

Drawing on role theory, the purpose of this paper is to investigate a curvilinear relationship between employee’s perceived overall time pressure and creativity. Apart from this, it explores a three-way interaction of perceived time pressure, satisfaction with work-family balance (SWFB), and leader-member exchange (LMX) on creativity.

The paper reports a quantitative study of 251 employees from a European company. An online survey was used to collect data. The proposed hypotheses were tested using moderated hierarchical regression analysis.

Results demonstrate a U-shaped curvilinear relationship between perceived time pressure and creativity. Results further confirm the proposed three-way interaction of perceived time pressure, SWFB, and LMX as joint predictors of creativity.

The cross-sectional research design limits the ability to demonstrate causality. Moreover, the data were collected from a single source causing concern for common method bias. Nonetheless, recent research suggests that common method bias cannot create an artificial interaction effect.

This study is one of the rare attempts to examine a curvilinear relationship between perceived time pressure and creativity. Moreover, it contributes to the work-family literature by providing the first empirical examination of the linkage between SWFB and creativity. Furthermore, the authors find a three-way interaction between time pressure, SWFB and LMX, and creativity. These findings broaden our understanding of how personal and contextual factors interact to foster creativity.

Although organizations expect employees to share knowledge with each other, knowledge hiding has been documented among coworker dyads. This paper aims to draw on social exchange theory to examine if and why knowledge hiding also occurs in teams.

Two studies, using experimental (115 student participants on 29 teams) and field (309 employees on 92 teams) data, explore the influence of leader-member exchange (LMX) on knowledge hiding in teams, as well as the moderating role of collective (team-level) prosocial motivation.

The results of experimental Study 1 showed that collective prosocial motivation and LMX reduce knowledge hiding in teams. Field Study 2 further examined LMX, through its distinctive economic and social facets, and revealed the interaction effect of team prosocial motivation and social LMX on knowledge hiding.

This study complements existing research on knowledge hiding by focusing specifically on the incidence of this phenomenon among members of the same team. This paper presents a multi-level model that explores collective prosocial motivation as a cross-level predictor of knowledge hiding in teams, and examines economic LMX and social LMX as two facets of LMX.

This study, which consists of two parts, investigates the influence of structure on the learning of individuals in organizational settings. This second paper (Part II) builds on the conceptual paper (Part I) and explores the relationships between three structural dimensions of individual work – formalization, specialization and standardization – on employee learning behavior.

Multiple regression analysis was used to test the proposed relationships. Data were gathered in a large multinational corporation; 90 employees from 12 units participated in the research.

The results offer support for some of the proposed hypotheses, showing that employee learning behavior varies depending on how activities are structured. Employees perceiving their work to be less structured, with lower formalization, standardization and specialization, rely on external sources of knowledge and experience double-loop learning, whereas employees with a more structured work are inclined to an individual learning style. Structure thus determines learning.

Because this exploratory study used a single-company research setting, the use of multiple companies from different industries and additional measures of learning behavior are proposed to increase generalizability. A quasi-experimental research design would add to causality claims.

Implications for broader organization design practice to stimulate learning are proposed. Managers should be aware of the distinct impacts different structures have on learning behavior.

This paper contributes to the discussion on the relationship between structure and the learning of individuals at work.

The purpose of this study, which consists of two parts, is to bring together literature on organizational design and learning of individuals in organizational settings. The literature suggests that learning takes place in organic and less-structured organizational designs, whereas empirical research provides conflicting evidence. This first part theorizes about the influence of mechanistic vs organic designs on three different aspects of employees’ learning behavior: knowledge sourcing, learning styles and learning loops.

This paper is built on previous research on the impact of structure on learning and theorizes about the relationship between mechanistic/organic design and specific learning behavior at work.

Four propositions are developed in this paper, regarding how a different structure leads to a different learning behavior. Mechanistic structure is associated with internal learning, independent learning and single-loop learning, whereas organic design leads to external learning, collaborative learning and double-loop learning.

Because the paper is conceptual in nature, the propositions are in need of empirical validation. Some directions for empirical testing are proposed.

For an organization design practice, managers should be aware of the distinct impact different structures have on individual learning at work. Furthermore, the appropriate organizational structure for learning must be considered in the broader context of contingencies.

This paper contributes to the organizational design literature and to the organizational learning theory by conceptualizing the relationship between structure and learning of individuals at work.

The belief that knowledge actually expands when it is shared has been deeply rooted in the mainstream knowledge management literature. Although many organizations and managers expect employees to share their knowledge with their colleagues, this does not always occur. This study aims to use the conservation of resources theory to explain why employees who experience greater time pressure are more likely to engage in knowledge hiding; it further considers how this behavior may be moderated by these employees’ prosocial motivation and perspective taking.

The paper uses quantitative multi-study research design as a combination of two-wave field study among 313 employees at an insurance company and a lab experimental study.

In the field study (Study 1), the authors find that perceived time pressure is positively related to knowledge hiding. Furthermore, this relationship is moderated by prosocial motivation: employees who perceive greater time pressure hide knowledge only when they are low in prosocial motivation. An experiment (Study 2) replicates these findings, and finds that perspective taking mediates the moderating effect of prosocial motivation on the relationship between time pressure and knowledge hiding.

Despite its many contributions, the present research is also not without limitations. Study 1 was a cross-lagged sectional field study with self-reported data (although the two-wave design does help alleviate common-method-bias concerns). Causality concerns were further alleviated by using additional experimental study.

The paper highlights important reasons why people hide knowledge at work (because of experienced time pressure) as well as identifies two interlinked potential remedies (prosocial motivation and perspective taking) to reduce knowledge hiding.

This paper contributes to expanding nomological network of knowledge hiding construct by extending the set of known antecedents and contingencies.