In recent years the term knowledge hiding has gained recognition in various research fields, such as psychology, management, and sociology (Connelly & Zweig, 2015; Connelly et al., 2019; Jahanzeb et al., 2019). Knowledge is a valuable resource for organizations, and knowledge hiding of employees can mitigate an organization’s value (Connelly et al., 2012). In this modern era of the knowledge economy, knowledge has surpassed land and capital to become a vital factor of production for organizations (Egbu, 2004). Endorsing knowledge transfer within organizations can maximize economic benefits (Argote et al., 2000), and employees’ knowledge activity is essential for knowledge circulation. Thus, how to kindle employees’ proactive knowledge activities (e.g., knowledge creation, sharing, transfer, and integration) and restrain malicious knowledge activities (e.g., knowledge hiding, embezzlement, avoidance, and retention) has increasingly become the focus of theoretical and practical knowledge management (Kumar & Varkkey, 2018; Peng, 2013).

Knowledge hiding denotes the knowledge owner’s deliberate behavior of not sharing relevant knowledge or of retaining some crucial knowledge when faced with others’ knowledge-seeking behavior (Connelly et al., 2012). Knowledge owners can use three strategies to hide knowledge: playing dumb (pretending not to possess pertinent knowledge), evasive hiding (providing inaccurate or incomplete knowledge, or making misleading promises), and rational hiding (declining to provide information on the grounds of confidentiality). As a novel concept in the knowledge management area, knowledge hiding has garnered considerable attention within academic and practical circles (Černe et al., 2014; Singh, 2019).

Several frameworks have been proposed to elucidate the knowledge-hiding phenomenon, such as psychological ownership theory, self-determination theory, self-perception theory, social learning theory, and resource conservation theory (Cai et al., 2016; Jiang et al., 2018; Peng, 2013; Xiao & Cooke, 2019). According to psychological ownership theory, if individuals experience a strong feeling of ownership over the knowledge they have acquired, created, controlled, and invested in their work, they will seek less interaction with others in order to protect and keep this knowledge to themselves (Pierce & Jussila, 2011; Pierce et al., 2001). Despite previous studies establishing that there is a correlation between knowledge-based psychological ownership and knowledge hiding (Singh, 2019), the mediating and moderating mechanisms underlying this relationship have not received much research focus, especially in the context of knowledge power theory. As such, this knowledge management theory has been neglected in attempts to elucidate knowledge-hiding motivation.

Knowledge contributors have reported experiencing a loss of authority or value when other individuals gain their knowledge (Moghavvemi et al., 2017), which means they may hoard, rather than share, knowledge to retain the benefits of sole possession. Greater psychological ownership of knowledge reinforces the likelihood of knowledge hiding. Thus, we anticipated that perceived loss of knowledge power would be a more significant parameter in knowledge hiding than would psychological ownership, and we examined loss of knowledge power as a mediator of the relationship between knowledge-based psychological ownership and knowledge hiding.

In addition, in the few studies of the role of emotional intelligence in knowledge hiding, higher emotional intelligence has been found to be associated with greater cognitive perspective transformation and a more positive perception of the value of knowledge transfer (de Geofroy & Evans, 2017; L. Wang et al., 2019). From this perspective, it can be inferred that emotional intelligence may alleviate the adverse impact of loss of knowledge power on knowledge hiding. Hence, we proposed that emotional intelligence would moderate the correlation between psychological ownership and knowledge hiding.

Overall, we sought to extend the existing literature by examining how and when knowledge hiding is associated with knowledge-based psychological ownership, with consideration given to the roles of knowledge power and emotional intelligence. This study will broaden Peng’s (2013) research framework on the link between psychological ownership and knowledge hiding, and also provide a new perspective for understanding knowledge hiding.

Literature Review and Hypothesis Development

Knowledge-Based Psychological Ownership and Knowledge Hiding

Psychological ownership depicts “a state in which individuals feel as though the target of ownership (e.g., a job or organization) is theirs” (Dawkins et al., 2017, p. 164). This state can be generated if a person is psychologically connected to an object, such that it becomes an extended part of the self (Avey et al., 2009; Y. Wang et al., 2019). Pierce et al.’s (2001) theory of psychological ownership states that possession is an integral component of psychological ownership. When a person invests significant time, energy, and attention in a target, close ties result.

From the standpoint of management, the impact of psychological ownership on organizational activities can be both positive and negative (M. Baer & Brown, 2012; Li et al., 2015). On the positive side, psychological ownership can enhance individual responsibility behaviors that benefit the company, such as ownership behavior and organizational citizenship behavior. In terms of negative effects, a sense of possession of the target can cause the employee to want to maintain absolute control over it, thus displaying behaviors that impede knowledge transfer, such as refusing to share information, being unwilling to authorize, and strong territoriality.

According to the theory of psychological ownership, individuals who desire exclusive control of a target experience psychological loss, confusion, and negative emotions when they witness the target being changed or used by others. Perceived personal ownership of knowledge prompts individuals to protect and defend this knowledge to prevent it being violated by others. In this way, when organizational members have a sense of personal ownership of knowledge, they may choose to hide this knowledge from others to avoid the negative effects of knowledge loss and the infringement of knowledge property. Thus, we formed the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: Knowledge-based psychological ownership will be positively related to knowledge hiding.

Role of Loss of Knowledge Power

Foucault (1980) suggested that knowledge inevitably generates power, and the operation of power must be accompanied by the existence of knowledge; thus, knowledge and power coexist and interconnect. Although these two concepts are inseparable, their connection has often been overlooked in the existing knowledge management literature. The sharing of knowledge between organizational members is accompanied by the transfer of power (Inkpen & Beamish, 1997; Mudambi & Navarra, 2015). Individuals with unique or indispensable knowledge of the organization hold bargaining power, which provides them with influence in relation to the organization’s decision-making processes.

Loss of knowledge power refers to a reduction in the perception of one’s power and unique value when knowledge is shared (Kankanhalli et al., 2005). Loss of knowledge power involves the psychological state of worry and fear because no longer being the exclusive holder of knowledge can result in reduced respect from others. Relevant studies have reported that perceived loss of knowledge power is a critical parameter and major constraint that affects employees’ willingness to share knowledge (Moghavvemi et al., 2017).

On the basis of psychological ownership theory, employees’ perception of personal ownership of knowledge signifies their strong control and domination of that knowledge and the expectation of the power it can bring. In the modern workplace environment, which is full of competition and uncertainties, individuals consider their unique knowledge as a vital source of job security (Michailova & Husted, 2003). Constant et al. (1994) claimed that the thoughts, inventions, and information possessed and controlled by individuals have crucial psychological significance for them. Unless a strong need for self-expression exists, sharing knowledge increases the psychological cost; thus, individuals usually fear losing knowledge ownership. Furthermore, S. G. Baer et al. (2012) established that employees with a high (vs. low) perception that knowledge is unique to individuals and a strong (vs. weak) expectation that their knowledge could be used by others have a greater sense of loss. Thus, we formed the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2: Loss of knowledge power will mediate the relationship between knowledge-based psychological ownership and knowledge hiding.

Role of Emotional Intelligence

Emotional intelligence is a person’s ability to realize their own and others’ emotions, and control, manage, and use these emotions to guide their thinking and behavior (de Geofroy & Evans, 2017). Emotional intelligence not only affects an individual’s perception and understanding of emotions but also influences their control and management of these emotions, resulting in differences in individual work attitudes and behaviors (Libbrecht et al., 2010). Barczak et al. (2010) highlighted that individuals with high (vs. low) emotional intelligence have a greater capacity for teamwork, are more perceptive, use prosocial strategies to solve interpersonal problems, are good at sharing, and are more willing to cooperate to avoid conflict. Other studies have established that people with greater emotional intelligence are perceived as being more reliable, more organizationally obligated, and stronger in teamwork contexts (Gujral & Ahuja, 2011; Knight et al., 2015), all of which should decrease knowledge-hiding behavior.

Although we assumed knowledge-based psychological ownership would exert a positive overall impact on knowledge hiding, the degree of this positive effect is likely to differ for individuals with different levels of emotional intelligence. Those with higher emotional intelligence are more willing to share knowledge due to their high levels of trust, team spirit, and organizational commitment, which reduce knowledge hiding. Conversely, individuals with lower emotional intelligence are relatively more likely to engage in knowledge hiding. Thus, we formed the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3a: Emotional intelligence will moderate the positive relationship between knowledge-based psychological ownership and knowledge hiding, such that higher emotional intelligence will reduce the strength of this relationship.

There are two ways that emotional intelligence may reduce the negative impact of loss of knowledge power: First, employees with high emotional intelligence can comprehend and realize others’ emotions from a more positive perspective. When sharing knowledge with colleagues, higher emotional intelligence allows employees to transform their cognitive perspectives, think about the value of knowledge transfer, and effectively alleviate the adverse impact of loss of knowledge power. Second, as emotional intelligence is described as the capacity for recognizing individuals’ feelings and managing emotions in relationships (Luca & Tarricone, 2001), it can be inferred that people with a high degree of emotional intelligence are reliable and engaged with their work, and offer a superior teamwork capability owing to their strong emotional control and management capabilities. When colleagues request knowledge, employees with higher (vs. lower) emotional intelligence can adjust their emotional state more quickly and effectively, allowing them to evade negative emotions, such as loss, sadness, and anger, and select appropriate coping styles, thereby further mitigating the loss of knowledge and power. However, for individuals with low emotional intelligence, the fear of loss of knowledge power may prevent knowledge transfer due to a strong sense of psychological ownership. Thus, we formed the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3b: Emotional intelligence will moderate the indirect impact of knowledge-based psychological ownership on knowledge hiding via the mediator of loss of knowledge power. That is, the indirect impact of knowledge-based psychological ownership on knowledge hiding via loss of knowledge power will be greater for employees with a low level of emotional intelligence than for those with a high level of emotional intelligence.

To examine our hypotheses we formed the conditional process model (Hayes, 2017) shown in Figure 1.

Method

Participants

All participants worked at high-technology enterprises in Nanjing, Changzhou, and Suzhou, China. We chose these workers as our target population because they engage in frequent knowledge exchanges. The sample comprised 310 participants (212 men, 98 women). Their average age was 33.71 years (SD = 3.89, range = 21–43) and their average organizational tenure was 4.20 years (SD = 3.44, range = 1–9). All respondents had a college degree or higher level of education. The sample included a variety of jobs, such as managers (14%), technologists (39%), engineers (13%), and professionals (34%).

Procedure

A three-wave online survey was used for data collection. The predictor variable, mediating and moderating variables, and relevant parameters were measured separately using temporal lag to minimize bias. Following Podsakoff et al. (2003), we set a 2-month lag between waves. At Time 1, we distributed to 520 potential respondents a questionnaire assessing demographic variables and knowledge hiding. Of these, 445 finished the survey (response rate = 85.58%). After 2 months (Time 2), respondents were assessed for knowledge-based psychological ownership and loss of knowledge power. There were 373 participants who completed the second-wave survey (response rate = 83.82%). After another 2 months (Time 3), the respondents rated their emotional intelligence. There were 310 participants who completed all three steps of the survey (response rate = 59.61%). A separate letter was included with each of the questionnaires to obtain informed consent and advise that all collected information would be kept confidential and used only for scholarly research purposes. This study was approved by the Changzhou University ethics committee.

Measures

Knowledge Hiding
We assessed knowledge hiding with the 12-item Knowledge-Hiding Questionnaire (Connelly et al., 2012), which comprises three dimensions with four items each: evasive hiding, playing dumb, and rationalized hiding. The items begin with the statement, “When coworkers ask for information…” and a sample second half of the item is “…I sometimes offer them other information instead of what they actually want.” Responses are made on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree). Results of a second-order confirmatory factor analysis showed that the three knowledge-hiding dimensions had acceptable loadings on the second-order knowledge-hiding structure, comparative fit index (CFI) = .90, Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) = .88, incremental fit index (IFI) = .91, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .08. In this study Cronbach’s alpha was .82.

Knowledge-Based Psychological Ownership
We used three items from Peng’s (2013) scale to measure knowledge-based psychological ownership. Peng revised these items from the original scale developed by Van Dyne and Pierce (2004) so that participants rate their feelings about the knowledge used in their work. A sample item is “I feel a very high degree of personal ownership of the knowledge.” Responses are made on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree), with higher scores reflecting a stronger sense of knowledge-based psychological ownership. In this study Cronbach’s alpha was .86.

Loss of Knowledge Power
We assessed loss of knowledge power by rewording the four-item scale established by Kankanhalli et al. (2005) so that the items measured the feeling of psychological loss or worry when individuals share their knowledge with colleagues. A sample item is “Disclosing or sharing my knowledge with colleagues leads to me losing my unique value in the organization.” Responses are made on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree), such that higher scores indicate greater loss of knowledge power. In this study Cronbach’s alpha was .79.

Emotional Intelligence
We used the 16-item Wong and Law Emotional Intelligence Scale (Wong & Law, 2002) to assess emotional intelligence. The scale dimensions, each of which contains four items, are self-emotion appraisals, other emotion appraisals, regulation of emotion, and use of emotion. Sample items are “I have a good understanding of the emotions of people around me” and “I have a good understanding of my own emotions.” Items are rated using a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree), such that higher scores indicate a higher degree of emotional intelligence. A confirmatory factor analysis revealed that all dimensions had acceptable loadings on the second-order emotional intelligence structure, CFI = .93, TLI = .89, IFI = .92, RMSEA = .07. In this study Cronbach’s alpha was .84.

Data Analysis

Descriptive statistics and correlations for the study variables were calculated using SPSS 25.0. To analyze the correlations of knowledge-based psychological ownership, knowledge hiding, loss of knowledge power, and emotional intelligence, we developed a conditional process model with loss of knowledge power as a mediator and emotional intelligence as a moderator, and tested it using the PROCESS macro for SPSS (Hayes, 2017). For this conditional process model we first conducted a mediation analysis to test the mediating effect of loss of knowledge power. Next, we tested the moderated mediation model to assess the moderating impact of emotional intelligence, via bootstrapping analysis with 5,000 resamples and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Significance is established if zero is not observed within the 95% CIs.

Results

Descriptive Analyses and Intercorrelations Between Variables

Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics and correlations for each parameter. Knowledge-based psychological ownership was significantly and positively correlated with knowledge hiding and loss of knowledge power. Hence, Hypothesis 1 was supported. Furthermore, emotional intelligence was negatively correlated with knowledge-based psychological ownership, knowledge hiding, and loss of knowledge power.

Mediation Model Test

We conducted a simple mediation model test to assess the impact of knowledge-based psychological ownership on knowledge hiding through loss of knowledge power. The results in Table 2 show that the correlation between knowledge-based psychological ownership and knowledge hiding was partially explained through loss of knowledge power. Hence, Hypothesis 2 was supported.

Conditional Process Analysis

The moderation model results show that both loss of knowledge power (β = .34, p < .05) and emotional intelligence (β = −.24, p < .05) predicted knowledge hiding. Furthermore, the relationship between knowledge-based psychological ownership and knowledge hiding was moderated by emotional intelligence, given that the interaction term of knowledge-based psychological ownership × emotional intelligence was significant (β = −.07, p < .05). Thus, Hypothesis 3a was supported. These interactions are depicted in Figure 2.

Furthermore, the conditional indirect impact analysis results show that the mediating effect of loss of knowledge power in the correlation between knowledge-based psychological ownership and knowledge hiding was moderated by emotional intelligence, given the index of moderated mediation was significant. That is, knowledge-based psychological ownership exerted a positive and significant impact on knowledge hiding through loss of knowledge power for employees with low emotional intelligence, as well as medium emotional intelligence. Conversely, we found no mediating effect in the correlation between knowledge-based psychological ownership and knowledge hiding for employees with high emotional intelligence. Hence, Hypothesis 3b was supported. Thus, the indirect impact of knowledge-based psychological ownership on knowledge hiding via loss of knowledge power held only for low and moderate, but not high, levels of emotional intelligence.

Discussion

We designed a conditional process model to examine the essential mechanisms underlying the relationship between knowledge-based psychological ownership and knowledge hiding. We found that the impact of knowledge-based psychological ownership on knowledge hiding was mediated by loss of knowledge power and that emotional intelligence moderated the positive correlation between knowledge-based psychological ownership and knowledge hiding. A conditional process analysis further suggested that emotional intelligence attenuated the indirect impact of knowledge-based psychological ownership on knowledge hiding through loss of knowledge power.

Corroborating previous study findings, we established that there was a positive correlation between knowledge-based psychological ownership and knowledge hiding. Our results indicate that the feeling of ownership of knowledge was a proximal parameter for predicting knowledge hiding. Constant et al. (1994) claimed that when an individual perceives that knowledge belongs to them, the knowledge is internalized as part of self-expression, and the transfer of knowledge is rejected; thus, to avoid loss, the individual engages in knowledge hiding. Peng (2013) argued that because knowledge is attained, controlled, or generated, people feel that the knowledge is their psychological feature, and subsequently like to withhold it. Thus, it is reasonable to expect that experienced psychological ownership over knowledge will be positively related to knowledge hiding. This finding provides further support for the positive correlation between knowledge-based psychological ownership and knowledge hiding from the perspective of psychological ownership theory.

Regarding the role of loss of knowledge power, we found that this variable mediated the correlation between knowledge-based psychological ownership and knowledge hiding, revealing an essential underlying mechanism of the connection. Our findings contribute to the existing literature in two main respects: First, this research extends knowledge of the correlation between mental ownership and knowledge hiding. We examined the intermediary mechanism in the relationship of psychological ownership and knowledge hiding. Thus, this study enriches understanding of this framework. Second, we have uncovered the crucial role of loss of knowledge power and provided a new perspective for interpreting the phenomenon of knowledge hiding. Our findings enhance understanding of why employees refuse to share knowledge.

Conservation of resources theory can explain the mediating role of the loss of knowledge power (Hobfoll et al., 2000). Organizational members accumulate knowledge through years of work experience; thus, knowledge can give them more opportunities for wage increases and promotions, as well as affording them greater respect and social status among colleagues. As such, knowledge is a crucial resource for them. Knowledge power itself highlights the asymmetry of holding knowledge resources, and each employee’s unique knowledge system is part of their resources. Per Hobfoll et al.’s (2000) resource preservation theory, when an individual incurs a loss of resources or an imbalance between resource input and return, this creates immense pressure on the individual. Thus, the individual has an instinctive motivation to protect and maintain their resources. Further, when individuals face equivalent gains and losses, they have a natural tendency to avoid losses (Kahneman et al., 1991). Reluctance to share knowledge with others can occur because employees fear losing their unique value, decreasing their status, and weakening their power base in the organization; thus, they tend to choose knowledge retention or hiding over knowledge sharing (Empson, 2001).

The moderating effects analysis results suggest that emotional intelligence buffered the direct impact of knowledge-based psychological ownership on knowledge hiding. Further, the conditional process analysis results show that emotional intelligence attenuated the indirect impact of knowledge-based psychological ownership on knowledge hiding via the mediator of loss of knowledge power. That is, loss of knowledge power mediated the impact of knowledge-based psychological ownership on knowledge hiding when emotional intelligence was low or medium, but not when it was high. A possible explanation for this result is that emotional intelligence is the capacity for recognizing individuals’ feelings and managing emotions in relationships (Luca & Tarricone, 2001). Therefore, it can be inferred that people with a high degree of emotional intelligence are more reliable, more engaged with their organization, and show superior teamwork, which can reduce knowledge hiding (de Geofroy & Evans, 2017; Peng, 2013). Thus, organizations should include emotional intelligence tests in their knowledge-management programs.

This study reveals a need for empirical assessment of both direct and indirect correlations between emotional intelligence and knowledge hiding in the organizational context. These empirical evaluations will not only extend previous research in the knowledge-management and knowledge-sharing fields, but also enhance understanding of emotional intelligence and knowledge management. As a further contribution, the recognition of emotional intelligence as a significant moderator of the direct and indirect impacts of knowledge-based psychological ownership on knowledge hiding adds to the still-limited evidence of the processes connecting psychological ownership to knowledge hiding.

Our findings regarding how and when knowledge-based psychological ownership affects knowledge hiding have multiple practical implications. First, we found a positive correlation between knowledge-based psychological ownership and knowledge hiding. Thus, organizations could attenuate knowledge hiding by focusing on management strategies to reduce the self-perception of knowledge possession. Second, analysis from the perspective of knowledge power offers a new way to study individual knowledge activities. For example, organizations could establish a knowledge file, confirming the source of crucial knowledge and providing relevant incentive measures (e.g., rewards and promotions) for individuals who contribute significant knowledge, to ensure these contributors are treated fairly and impartially, which will help to reduce their knowledge-hiding behavior. Third, promoting employees’ emotional intelligence is essential to motivate knowledge transfer and buffer knowledge-hiding behavior. Thus, social and emotional learning strategies could be put in place to develop emotional intelligence at both the individual and organizational levels.

This study has some limitations. First, although we sought to reduce common method variance (Podsakoff et al., 2003) by acquiring data from employees in three waves, all data were self-reported. Our findings could be validated in the future through experimental tests. Second, we cannot draw causal inferences because of the cross-sectional research design. To address this, again our model could be examined using an experimental design. Third, our data were collected online. We were unable to control the process of answering the questionnaire or reply to possible questions from the respondents at any time. In future research, there is a need to communicate with enterprise managers and employees in order to grasp more reliable and rich information. Furthermore, the dependent variable was measured before the independent variable and the mediator and moderator. Nevertheless, considering that we used a three-wave survey with a temporal lag and measured the variables separately, the potential for bias was minimized.

Argote, L., Ingram, P., Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (2000). Knowledge transfer in organizations: Learning from the experience of others. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 1–8.
https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2000.2883

Avey, J. B., Avolio, B. J., Crossley, C. D., & Luthans, F. (2009). Psychological ownership: Theoretical extensions, measurement and relation to work outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(2), 173–191.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.583

Baer, M., & Brown, G. (2012). Blind in one eye: How psychological ownership of ideas affects the types of suggestions people adopt. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 118(1), 60–71.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.01.003

Baer, S. G., Heneghan, L., & Eviner, V. T. (2012). Applying soil ecological knowledge to restore ecosystem services. In D. H. Wall, R. D. Bardgett, V. Behan-Pelletier, J. E. Herrick, T. H. Jones, K. Ritz, … W. H. van der Putten (Eds.), Soil ecology and ecosystem services (pp. 377–393). Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199575923.003.0032

Barczak, G., Lassk, F., & Mulki, J. (2010). Antecedents of team creativity: An examination of team emotional intelligence, team trust and collaborative culture. Creativity and Innovation Management, 19(4), 332–345.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2010.00574.x

Cai, H.-R., Li, M., & Guan, P.-P. (2016). Fostering managers’ knowledge-sharing behavior: The impact of the employee–organization relationship. Social Behavior and Personality: An international journal, 44(4), 669–677.
https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2016.44.4.669

Černe, M., Nerstad, C. G. L., 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.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.0122

Connelly, C. E., Černe, M., Dysvik, A., & Škerlavaj, M. (2019). Understanding knowledge hiding in organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(7), 779–782.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2407

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.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2014.931325

Connelly, C. E., Zweig, D., Webster, J., & Trougakos, J. P. (2012). Knowledge hiding in organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(1), 64–88.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.737

Constant, D., Kiesler, S., & Sproull, L. (1994). What’s mine is ours, or is it? A study of attitudes about information sharing. Information Systems Research, 5(4), 400–421.
https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.5.4.400

Dawkins, S., Tian, A. W., Newman, A., & Martin, A. (2017). Psychological ownership: A review and research agenda. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(2), 163–183.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2057

de Geofroy, Z., & Evans, M. M. (2017). Are emotionally intelligent employees less likely to hide their knowledge? Knowledge and Process Management, 24(2), 81–95.
https://doi.org/10.1002/kpm.1532

Egbu, C. O. (2004). Managing knowledge and intellectual capital for improved organizational innovations in the construction industry: An examination of critical success factors. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 11(5), 301–315.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09699980410558494

Empson, L. (2001). Fear of exploitation and fear of contamination: Impediments to knowledge transfer in mergers between professional service firms. Human Relations, 54(7), 839–862.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726701547003

Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972-1977. Pantheon Books.

Gujral, H. K., & Ahuja, J. (2011). Impact of emotional intelligence on teamwork – A comparative study of self-managed and cross functional teams. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 1(6), 178–185.

Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.

Hobfoll, S. E., Shirom, A., & Golembiewski, R. (2000). Conservation of resources theory. In R. Golembiewski (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 57–80). Marcel Dekker, Inc.

Inkpen, A. C., & Beamish, P. W. (1997). Knowledge, bargaining power, and the instability of international joint ventures. Academy of Management Review, 22(1), 177–202.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1997.9707180263

Jahanzeb, S., Fatima, T., Bouckenooghe, D., & Bashir, F. (2019). The knowledge hiding link: A moderated mediation model of how abusive supervision affects employee creativity. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 28(6), 810–819.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2019.1659245

Jiang, Z., Hu, X., Wang, Z., & Jiang, X. (2018). Why do employees struggle to thrive at work? A look at the impact of knowledge hiding. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2018(1), Article 11849.
https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2018.11849abstract

Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1991). Anomalies: The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 193–206.
https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.5.1.193

Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B. C. Y., & Wei, K.-K. (2005). Contributing knowledge to electronic knowledge repositories: An empirical investigation. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 113–143.
https://doi.org/10.2307/25148670

Knight, J. R., Bush, H. M., Mase, W. A., Riddell, M. C., Liu, M., & Holsinger, J. W. (2015). The impact of emotional intelligence on conditions of trust among leaders at the Kentucky Department for Public Health. Frontiers in Public Health, 3, Article 33.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2015.00033

Kumar, J. J., & Varkkey, B. (2018). Are you a cistern or a channel? Exploring factors triggering knowledge-hiding behavior at the workplace: Evidence from the Indian R&D professionals. Journal of Knowledge Management, 22(4), 824–849.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-02-2017-0048

Li, J., Yuan, L., Ning, L., & Liying, J. (2015). Knowledge sharing and affective commitment: The mediating role of psychological ownership. Journal of Knowledge Management, 19(6), 1146–1166.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-01-2015-0043

Libbrecht, N., Lievens, F., & Schollaert, E. (2010). Measurement equivalence of the Wong and Law Emotional Intelligence Scale across self and other ratings. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 70(6), 1007–1020.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164410378090

Luca, J., & Tarricone, P. (2001). Does emotional intelligence affect successful teamwork? Proceedings of the 18th Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education, 2001, 367–376. https://bit.ly/3hKsmOn

Michailova, S., & Husted, K. (2003). Knowledge-sharing hostility in Russian firms. California Management Review, 45(3), 59–77.
https://doi.org/10.2307/41166176

Moghavvemi, S., Sharabati, M., Paramanathan, T., & Rahin, N. M. (2017). The impact of perceived enjoyment, perceived reciprocal benefits and knowledge power on students’ knowledge sharing through Facebook. The International Journal of Management Education, 15(1), 1–12.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2016.11.002

Mudambi, R., & Navarra, P. (2015). Is knowledge power? Knowledge flows, subsidiary power and rent-seeking within MNCs. In J. Cantwell (Ed.), The eclectic paradigm (pp. 157–191). Palgrave Macmillan.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-54471-1_7

Peng, H. (2013). Why and when do people hide knowledge? Journal of Knowledge Management, 17(3), 398–415.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-12-2012-0380

Pierce, J. L., & Jussila, I. (2011). Psychological ownership and the organizational context: Theory, research evidence, and application. Edward Elgar Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.4337/9780857934451

Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T., & Dirks, K. T. (2001). Toward a theory of psychological ownership in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 298–310.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2001.4378028

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

Singh, S. K. (2019). Territoriality, task performance, and workplace deviance: Empirical evidence on role of knowledge hiding. Journal of Business Research, 97, 10–19.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.12.034

Van Dyne, L., & Pierce, J. L. (2004). Psychological ownership and feelings of possession: Three field studies predicting employee attitudes and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(4), 439–459.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.249

Wang, L., Law, K. S., Zhang, M. J., Li, Y. N., & Liang, Y. (2019). It’s mine! Psychological ownership of one’s job explains positive and negative workplace outcomes of job engagement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(2), 229–246.
https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000337

Wang, Y., Han, M. S., Xiang, D., & Hampson, D. P. (2019). The double-edged effects of perceived knowledge hiding: Empirical evidence from the sales context. Journal of Knowledge Management, 23(2), 279–296.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-04-2018-0245

Wong, C.-S., & Law, K. S. (2002). The effects of leader and follower emotional intelligence on performance and attitude: An exploratory study. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(3), 243–274.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00099-1

Xiao, M., & Cooke, F. L. (2019). Why and when knowledge hiding in the workplace is harmful: A review of the literature and directions for future research in the Chinese context. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 57(4), 470–502.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1744-7941.12198

This paper was supported by the National Social Science Foundation of China (17BTJ012)

the Project of the Advanced Catalysis and Green Manufacturing Collaborative Innovation Center

Changzhou University (ACGM2017-05)

and the General Project of Philosophy and Social Science Research in Colleges and Universities in Jiangsu Province (2020SJA1208).

Min Zhou, School of Management, China University of Mining and Technology, No. 1 Daxue Road, Xuzhou, Jiangsu 221126, People’s Republic of China. Email: [email protected], or Qilong Cao, School of Business, Changzhou University, No. 21 Gehu Road, Changzhou, Jiangsu 213164, People’s Republic of China. Email: [email protected]