Article Sidebar

Download PDF
Published: Nov 1, 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.12718
Issue: Vol. 51 No. 11 (2023)
Keywords:
coworker knowledge hiding, employee job crafting, employee’s sense of relative deprivation, supervisor developmental feedback

The curvilinear relation between coworker knowledge hiding and employee job crafting

Main Article Content

Jie Zhao

School of Public Administration, Northwest University

Dongyang Wang

School of Public Administration, Northwest University

Xiaocai Gao

School of Public Administration, Northwest University
Cite this article:  Zhao, J., Wang, D., & Gao, X. (2023). The curvilinear relation between coworker knowledge hiding and employee job crafting. Social Behavior and Personality: An international journal, 51(11), e12718.


Abstract
Full Text
References
Tables and Figures
Acknowledgments
Author Contact

Drawing on relative deprivation theory, we explored the mechanism for the influence of coworker knowledge hiding on employee job crafting and the moderating role of supervisor developmental feedback from the perspective of status competition. Thus, we tested the tripartite interpersonal interactions among knowledge-hiding individuals, knowledge-seeking employees, and supervisors. We conducted a two-wave time-lagged study on 354 employees who worked for Chinese owned and operated companies in China. We found that there was an inverted U-shaped relationship between coworker knowledge hiding and employee job crafting, in which an employee’s sense of relative deprivation played a mediating role. Furthermore, supervisor developmental feedback negatively moderated the relationship between coworker knowledge hiding and an employee’s sense of relative deprivation. To increase the level of employee job crafting, managers should pay attention to the degree of employee’s sense of relative deprivation and attempt to moderate that by providing supervisor developmental feedback.

Article Highlights

  • Coworker knowledge hiding had an inverted U-shaped effect on employee job crafting in a competitive workplace environment.
  • An employee’s sense of relative deprivation played a mediating role in the relationship between coworker knowledge hiding and employee job crafting.
  • Supervisor developmental feedback moderated the effect of coworker knowledge hiding on employee’s sense of relative deprivation.

To survive in a competitive workplace environment, knowledge may be the most valuable and least shared asset with peers (Garg et al., 2022). Knowledge hiding is defined as an intentional attempt by an individual to withhold or conceal knowledge that has been requested by another person (Connelly et al., 2012). Coworker knowledge hiding is widespread in organizations and greatly impairs the effectiveness of the knowledge management system (Connelly et al., 2019). Job crafting has been conceptualized as seeking resources and challenges, and reducing demands (Tims et al., 2012), which contributes to balancing the relationship between job demands and job resources, to ensure a good person–environment fit (D. Wang, 2022). However, there is much debate about whether coworker knowledge hiding is positive or negative for employees in the context of status competition. Whether or not coworker knowledge hiding promotes or inhibits employee job crafting behavior remains an open question and is an issue that researchers need to explore further.

In competitive corporate environments, given that resources within a team or organization are limited, and in order for employees to protect their individual interests and needs, employees compete with each other for limited job resources, such as challenging tasks, job discretion, career development opportunities, and so on (Dong et al., 2023). The dichotomous interaction between employees results in coworkers hiding their knowledge out of self-interest, which triggers employees to feel out of control over hidden resources, leading to discordant workplace relationships (Y. Wang et al., 2018). Employee job crafting is a resource expansion aimed at building individual strengths (Dong et al., 2023), which is also essentially a competition for resources (Bindl et al., 2019). Coworker knowledge hiding is likely to trigger a process of social comparison, in which employees may perceive coworkers as being in a more desirable and advantageous position to gain resources. This perception may lead to employees feeling a sense of relative deprivation (Dong et al., 2023) which in turn affects their job crafting behavior (Yeşiltaş et al., 2023).

Developmental feedback refers to the extent to which supervisors provide useful information to subordinates to enable the subordinates to learn, develop, and improve in their future work (Zhou, 2003). According to Su et al. (2019), when employees are driven by a vision based on developmental feedback from their supervisors, they are not limited to short-term gains and losses, which stimulates their interest in the work itself. Thus, employees are more motivated to work on their own initiative (Zhou, 1998) and complete their tasks with higher quality standards (Tierney & Farmer, 2004).

Therefore, we hypothesized and tested a moderated mediation model to analyze the interaction mechanisms among coworker knowledge hiding, employee job crafting, employee’s sense of relative deprivation, and supervisor developmental feedback. We explored how coworker knowledge hiding affects employee job crafting and expanded the research on how knowledge hiding affects employee relationships within organizations.

Coworker Knowledge Hiding and Employee Job Crafting

Coworkers’ knowledge-hiding behavior sends a competitive signal to employees, triggering competition for status among them. When a person experiences resource losses, resource conservation theory highlights the necessity for increased resource seeking and investment to guarantee that resource gains are balanced against losses (Z. Wang et al., 2020). Indeed, job crafting is a way to accumulate resources at work (Dong et al., 2023). When the level of coworker knowledge hiding is moderate rather than high, it triggers employees to expand their personal resources through job crafting, but when it is high coworker knowledge hiding can instead lead to powerlessness and insecurity (Y. Wang et al., 2018). For instance, an atmosphere of excessive knowledge hiding can create interpersonal risks, reduce the effectiveness of internal communication, and subsequently inhibit psychological security of the team (Z. Wang et al., 2020). Thus, we believe excessive coworker knowledge hiding can weaken employees’ perception of the availability of resources in the organization, and when they feel that there are no resources available, they will stop job crafting. Hence, we proposed the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: There will be an inverted U-shaped relationship between coworker knowledge hiding and employee job crafting.

Mediating Effect of Employee’s Sense of Relative Deprivation

According to the relative deprivation theory, when people’s expectations for resources and goods are not satisfied, they may react in two different ways: by resisting depriving situations or by avoiding depriving stimuli (Crosby, 1984). As a result of coworker knowledge hiding, employees may be deprived of resources in the short term and may lose confidence in their coworkers in the long term. Employees experiencing relative deprivation can lead to a person–environment misfit (Kakkar & Sivanathan, 2022), which may affect employee job-crafting behaviors (Dong et al., 2023). Experiencing a moderate level of relative deprivation seems to be beneficial for people because this condition triggers envy towards the referent (Y. Wang et al., 2018). Although envy is perceived as a negative emotion in the workplace, it also stimulates learning from the envied subject, which in turn enhances self-efficacy (Zakariya & Bashir, 2021). Thus, we believe that when driven by envy, employees may become motivated to seek additional resources for self-improvement to narrow the gap between themselves and their coworkers. However, we argue that excessive relative deprivation is not beneficial or may even be negative for job crafting. Excessive hiding of coworker knowledge in an organization leads to a stronger sense of relative deprivation, resulting in employees being less willing to participate in the future activities of the firm (Zoogah, 2010), and shrinking the scope of their work (Li & Cheng, 2022). We suggest that employees developing excessive feelings of relative deprivation may reduce their job crafting behaviors. Employee initiative is necessary for spontaneous job crafting (Smith et al., 2012).
 
Therefore, we expect the curvilinear relationship between coworker knowledge hiding and employee job crafting can be explained through the mediating role of relative deprivation sense. Specifically, considering the adaptive and destructive conditions of experiencing relative deprivation, we believe that a moderate sense of relative deprivation will facilitate the development of employees’ adaptability to the work environment and stimulate a sense of competition to actively work on reinvention. Conversely, a transitional sense of relative deprivation will weaken employees’ work initiative and will not encourage effective work changes to coworker knowledge hiding. Hence, we proposed the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2: The sense of relative deprivation will mediate the relationship between coworker knowledge hiding and employee job crafting.

Moderating Role of Supervisor Developmental Feedback

Supervisor developmental feedback is an informative form of feedback (Su et al., 2019) that does not mandate employees to achieve specific goals (Su et al., 2022). The new perspectives and knowledge from superiors given via feedback helps employees to think creatively and encourages them to reshape their job roles (Su et al., 2022). Supervisor developmental feedback gives employees the expectation that leadership or the organization is concerned about their future development by conveying information about their future growth and development (Zhou, 1998). Driven by this vision of developmental feedback from supervisors, employees are not limited to short-term gains and losses, which stimulates their interest in the work itself, and employees are more motivated to use their initiative (Zhou, 1998) and complete their task with higher quality standards (Tierney & Farmer, 2004). Thus, we suggest that supervisor developmental feedback may have a positive impact on employee job crafting, and from this we proposed the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3: Supervisor developmental feedback will moderate the relationship between coworker knowledge hiding and employee job crafting.
 
In addition, supervisor developmental feedback helps to enhance employees’ positive emotions (Liu & Long, 2021), therefore we believe that supervisor developmental feedback can help reduce employees' relative deprivation caused by coworker knowledge hiding. According to social support theory, supervisor support can mitigate the adverse effects of negative external shocks on employees’ emotions and health (Whitaker et al., 2007). For instance, a study showed that employees can be reenergized when they receive developmental feedback from their supervisors in the face of resource depletion (Boyar et al., 2014). Considering the emotionally supportive function of supervisor developmental feedback, we believe that such feedback can relieve inner tension and anxiety when employees are competing for unfavorable status. Hence, we proposed the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 4: Supervisor developmental feedback will moderate the relationship between coworker knowledge hiding and an employee’s sense of relative deprivation.
 
This study examines a theoretical research model as shown in Figure 1.

Table/Figure
Figure 1. The Proposed Research Model
Note. H = Hypothesis; T = Time

Method

Participants and Procedure

We entered all survey scales into the Questionnaire Star website (https://www.wjx.cn/) to create an online questionnaire and sent a link to the participating employees’ WeChat text messaging service. We administered two surveys with a 2-week lag on March 1 and March 15, 2023. At Time 1 (T1), we measured coworker knowledge hiding, relative deprivation, supervisor developmental feedback, and collected demographic data; At Time 2 (T2), we measured employee job crafting.

We selected more than 30 technology companies in the northwest and southeast coastal regions of China and distributed 355 questionnaires to employees. At T1 354 employees completed the first survey, and at T2 we collected 341 valid questionnaires, with a response rate of 96%. In this sample, 191 (53.95%) were from men and 163 (46.05%) were from women. Participants’ ages ranged from 20 to 62 years (M = 37.44, SD = 11.20), 140 (39.55%) were 20–29 years old, 76 (21.47%) were 30–39 years old, 67 (18.93%) were 40–49 years old, 70 (19.77%) were 50–59 years old, and 1 (0.28%) was over 60 years old. Regarding participant education level, 6 (1.69%) had a level below high school, 21 (5.93%) were high school or technical secondary school graduates, 62 (17.51%) were junior college graduates, 192 (54.24%) had a bachelor’s degree, and 74 (20.90%) had a master’s degree or above.

Measures

We measured all variables using well-established, publicly available scales, and used 5-point Likert scales ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). We invited three professional Chinese-English translation researchers to first translate the already selected English scale items into Chinese according to the Chinese cultural context, then we had three employees from different companies take the test to find any ambiguously worded or very difficult to understand items. We completed necessary revisions then the measurement questions were widely distributed to collect data.

To measure knowledge hiding we adopted the scale developed by Connelly et al. (2012), which includes 12 items, such as, “When a colleague asks me for knowledge, I will superficially agree to help them, but I do not intend to actually help them.” The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient in this study was 0.96 indicating the scale was reliable.

To measure job crafting we adopted the scale developed by Tims et al. (2012), which includes 21 items, such as, “I make sure that I use my capacities to the fullest.” The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient in this study was 0.98 indicating the scale was reliable.

To measure sense of relative deprivation we adopted the scale developed by Callan et al. (2011), which includes five items, such as, “I feel deprived when I think about what I have compared to what other people like me have.” The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for this scale in this study was 0.84 indicating the scale was reliable.

To measure supervisor developmental feedback we adopted the scale developed by Zhou (2003), which includes three items, such as, “While giving me feedback, my supervisor focuses on helping me to learn and improve.” The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient in this study was 0.83 indicating the scale was reliable.

Control Variables

To prevent over-control of variables, only the age and gender of employees were used as control variables in this study.

Analysis Tools

We used SPSS version 23.0 and Mplus 8.0 for data processing.

Data Analysis

The level of coworker knowledge hiding was expressed by averaging the team employee knowledge hiding scores. Given that coworker knowledge hiding is a team-level variable, and the statistics are derived from individual employees, this study required data aggregation tests for employee knowledge hiding to confirm the intra-group consistency and intergroup variability of the variables. We used the intragroup consistency index rwg value and intragroup correlation index (ICC) value to test the internal consistency of the data. It was found that the ICC(1) value of coworker knowledge hiding was .87 and the ICC(2) value was .98, which was greater than .7, and rwg was greater than .7. This indicates that the aggregation of individual-level knowledge hiding to coworker level is reasonable and valid.

Results

Confirmatory Factor Analyses

To check whether knowledge hiding, sense of relative deprivation, supervisor developmental feedback, and job crafting could be mutually discriminated, this study used Mplus 8.0 to conduct confirmatory factor analyses (see Table 1). The results show that the hypothesized four-factor model fitted better with the data, and significantly better than the three-factor, the two-factor, and the single-factor model. Hence, the discriminant validity of this study was good and suitable for subsequent hypotheses testing.

Table 1. Results of Confirmatory Factor Analyses

Table/Figure

Note. N = 354; CFI = confirmatory factor analysis; TLI = Tucker–Lewis index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual. a Knowledge hiding, Supervisor developmental feedback, Sense of relative deprivation, Job crafting. b Knowledge hiding, Supervisor developmental feedback + Sense of relative deprivation, Job crafting. c Knowledge hiding + Supervisor developmental feedback + Sense of relative deprivation, Job crafting. d Knowledge hiding + Supervisor developmental feedback + Sense of relative deprivation + Job crafting.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Analyses

Table 2 shows the results of descriptive statistics and correlational analyses, including means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations among the variables studied. There was a significant correlation between all the main study variables, which provides initial support for Hypothesis 1, Hypothesis 2, Hypothesis 3, and Hypothesis 4. Table 2 reports the results of descriptive statistics.

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Coefficients of Variables

Table/Figure
Note. N = 354.
* p < .05. ** p < .01.

Hypothesis Testing

Direct Effects Testing

Table 3 shows the multilevel regression results of the main study variables. As Model 4 shows, the influence coefficient of coworker knowledge hiding on employee job crafting is significantly positive (γ = 7.79, p < 0.01), but the coefficient of the squared term of coworker knowledge hiding on employee job crafting is significantly negative (γ = –1.28, p < 0.001).

Table 3. Results of Hierarchical Regression Analyses

Table/Figure
Note. N = 354. CKH = coworker knowledge hiding; SDF = supervisor developmental feedback; ESRD = employee’s sense of relative deprivation; EJC = employee job crafting. The numbers in parentheses are t values.
* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

The results show that coworker knowledge hiding has an inverted U-shaped effect on employee job crafting (see Figure 2). Specifically, this relationship initially shows a positive correlation (upward stage), which then becomes negative (decline stage); the curve starts with the upward stage, where the strengthening of coworker knowledge hiding stimulates employees to increase their level of job crafting, and when a certain optimal moment is exceeded, the curve enters the decline stage, where the strengthening of coworker knowledge hiding causes employees job crafting to start decreasing. Therefore Hypothesis 1 was supported.

Table/Figure

Figure 2. The Inverted U-shaped Relationship Between Coworker Knowledge Hiding and Employee Job Crafting

In Model 2 (M2), the influence coefficient of coworker knowledge hiding on employee’s sense of relative deprivation was also significantly positive, γ = 0.70, p < .001. Additionally, the influence coefficient of employee’s sense of relative deprivation on employees job crafting in Model 5 (M5) was significantly positive, γ = 2.97, p < .001, but the coefficient of the squared term of employee’s sense of relative deprivation on employee job crafting was significantly negative, γ = –3.26, p < .001, indicating an inverted U-curve relationship between employees’ relative deprivation and job crafting (see Figure 3). Hence, Hypothesis 2 received initial support.

Table/Figure

Figure 3. The Inverted U-Shaped Relationship Between Employee’s Sense of Relative Deprivation and Employee Job Crafting

Mediation Effect Testing

We also verified the nonlinear mediation of employee’s sense of relative deprivation between coworker knowledge hiding and employee job crafting. Hayes and Preacher (2014) argued that the traditional way of testing a linear mediation effect is not applicable to test the curvilinear mediation effect and defined this nonlinear mediation effect as the instantaneous indirect effect. In accordance with their suggestion, we used the SPSS macro provided by Preacher and Hayes (2008) for the bias checked mediation effect test with a confidence interval set at 95%, and the results are shown in Table 4.

Table 4. Results of the Test for Instantaneous Mediated Effects

Table/Figure

Note. N = 354. CKH = coworker knowledge hiding; CI = confidence interval. LL = lower level, UL = upper level. IIE = instantaneous indirect effect.

As can be seen from Table 4, the instantaneous mediating effect (nonstandardized) of employee’s sense of relative deprivation gradually decreases from 1.06 to –0.75 as the value of coworker knowledge hiding increases from –1 standard deviation to the mean and then from the mean to +1 standard deviation. All confidence intervals do not contain zero, indicating that employee’s relative deprivation has a nonlinear mediating effect in the relationship between coworker knowledge hiding and employee’s job crafting, and this instantaneous mediating effect gradually changes from positive to negative as coworker knowledge hiding increases. Therefore, Hypothesis 4 was supported.
 

Moderating Effect Testing

To test whether supervisor developmental feedback served as a moderator for the relationship between coworker knowledge hiding and employee job crafting, we adopted procedures for justifying a moderating effect. In Table 3, the results of Model 7 (M7) show that the effect of the interaction term of both coworker knowledge hiding (squared) and supervisor developmental feedback on employee job crafting was not significant, γ = –0.17, p > 0.05, which means that supervisor developmental feedback does not moderate the curvilinear relationship between coworker knowledge hiding and employee job crafting. Thus, Hypothesis 3 was not supported.
 
The results of Model 2 (M2) show that the effect of the interaction term of both coworker knowledge hiding (squared) and supervisor developmental feedback on employee’s sense of relative deprivation was significant, γ = –0.25, p < .05, which means that supervisor developmental feedback negatively moderated the effect of coworker knowledge hiding on employee’s sense of relative deprivation. To demonstrate this moderating effect more intuitively, the mean value of supervisor developmental feedback was further added and subtracted by one standard, and the sample data were divided into two groups: high supervisor developmental feedback and low supervisor developmental feedback. The results showed that the slope of the effect of coworker knowledge hiding on employee’s sense of relative deprivation was lower in the high supervisor developmental feedback condition, γ = 0.25, p < .001, and higher in the low supervisor developmental feedback condition, γ = 0.31, p < .001, as presented in Figure 4. Thus, Hypothesis 4 was supported.

Table/Figure

Figure 4. The Moderating Effect of Supervisor Developmental Feedback

Discussion


We tested a moderated mediation model to explore how coworker knowledge hiding affected employee job crafting. Below, we discuss how these findings contribute to research and practice.

Theoretical Contribution

First, the status competition perspective is one of the innovative points of this study. Previously, few studies have examined the effect of knowledge hiders on knowledge seekers’ behavior, for example, how employee knowledge hiding stimulates coworkers’ creativity (Zakariya & Bashir, 2021). We explored the tripartite interaction mechanism of coworker knowledge hiding based on the relative deprivation theory. This study has expanded the research perspective of knowledge hiding and reveals the motivational factors behind knowledge-hiding behaviors.

Second, the results of this study are particularly valuable in terms of the mediating role of employee relative deprivation. Our study elucidates the process of employee relative deprivation in coworker knowledge hiding and the resulting impact on employee job crafting behaviors. It provides insight for future scholars to explore how employee relative deprivation affects individual behavior in organizations.

Third, supervisor developmental feedback as a boundary condition is an innovative point. We found that supervisor developmental feedback moderated the relationship between coworker knowledge hiding and employee’s sense of relative deprivation. This finding further enriches and argues for Tims et al.’s (2022) view of the future trend of job crafting based on the team perspective.

Practical Implications

First, the inverted U-shaped effect of coworker knowledge hiding on employee job crafting in a competitive workplace environment suggests that managers should maintain knowledge hiding within an appropriate range by improving the interpersonal environment within the organization. Effective human resource practices are beneficial for improving the organizational environment (Haar et al., 2022). Specifically, in an organizational environment with high levels of knowledge hiding, managers should establish a sharing and collaborative atmosphere and keep the effect of coworkers’ knowledge hiding on employees’ job crafting in a moderate range, so as to increase employees’ behavior and willingness to craft their jobs. Second, this study found that coworker knowledge hiding can trigger an employee’s sense of relative deprivation, which in turn affects their job crafting. Therefore, managers should not ignore the impact of negative emotions such as employee’s sense of relative deprivation on job crafting. Managers should communicate with employees in a timely manner to understand their true emotions and core demands towards colleagues and supervisors. In addition, managers should guide employees to correctly regulate negative emotions, thereby improving their job crafting level and ensuring the effectiveness of knowledge management. Third, based on our findings that supervisor developmental feedback moderated the effect of coworker knowledge hiding on employee’s sense of relative deprivation, managers should make full use of opportunities to interact with employees to encourage and support their creative achievements. Managers should observe and develop employees’ personal strengths, which helps to stimulate employees’ self-confidence and improve their ability to engage in self-development. In addition, an important way of improving supervisor developmental feedback is for companies to provide employees with adequate job resource support (Liu & Long, 2021).

Limitations and Future Directions

First, the data in this study come from Chinese technology companies, so our research conclusions are influenced by geography and both national and industry culture. Future researchers can conduct research in different countries and companies from different industries, to try to draw more universal research conclusions. Second, this study was conducted using two-wave survey data to reduce common method bias, but the data were all individual evaluations, which has limitations in the study of interactions. Future studies can further examine the tripartite interaction between supervisors, employees, and coworkers using a combination of self-evaluation, employee mutual evaluation, and scale measures. Third, there is a relative lack of research on the effect of knowledge hiding in the existing literature, and we only explored the relationship between coworker knowledge hiding and employee job crafting. Future research can explore the psychological mechanisms of knowledge hiding and other boundary conditions in individual and team levels based on multilevel theory.

 

Bindl, U. K., Unsworth, K. L., Gibson, C. B., & Stride, C. B. (2019). Job crafting revisited: Implications of an extended framework for active changes at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(5), 605–628.
 
Boyar, S. L., Campbell, N. S., Mosley, D. C. Jr., & Carson, C. M. (2014). Development of a work/family social support measure. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29(7), 901–920.
 
Callan, M. J., Shead, N. W., & Olson, J. M. (2011). Personal relative deprivation, delay discounting, and gambling. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(5), 955–973.
 
Connelly, C. E., Černe, M., Dysvik, A., & Škerlavaj, M. (2019). Understanding knowledge hiding in organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(7), 779–782.
 
Connelly, C. E., Zweig, D., Webster, J., & Trougakos, J. P. (2012). Knowledge hiding in organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(1), 64–88.
 
Crosby, F. (1984). Relative deprivation in organizational settings. Research in Organizational Behavior, 6, 51–93.
 
Dong, Y., Zhang, L., Wang, H.-J., & Jiang, J. (2023). Why is crafting the job associated with less prosocial reactions and more social undermining? The role of feelings of relative deprivation and zero-sum mindset. Journal of Business Ethics, 184, 175–190.
 
Garg, N., Kumar, C., & Ganguly, A. (2022). Knowledge hiding in organization: A comprehensive literature review and future research agenda. Knowledge and Process Management, 29(1), 31–52.
 
Haar, J., O’Kane, C., & Cunningham, J. A. (2022). Firm-level antecedents and consequences of knowledge hiding climate. Journal of Business Research, 141, 410–421.
 
Hayes, A. F., & Preacher, K. J. (2014). Statistical mediation analysis with a multicategorical independent variable. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 67(3), 451–470.
 
Kakkar, H., & Sivanathan, N. (2022). The impact of leader dominance on employees’ zero-sum mindset and helping behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(10), 1706–1724.
 
Li, Z., & Cheng, Y. (2022). Supervisor bottom-line mentality and knowledge hiding: A moderated mediation model. Sustainability, 14(2), Article 586.
 
Liu, H., & Long, J. (2021). The influence mechanism of supervisor developmental feedback on the enactment of employees’ creative ideas: A moderated chain mediation model based on psychological empowerment. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 696034.
 
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891.
 
Smith, H. J., Pettigrew, T. F., Pippin, G. M., & Bialosiewicz, S. (2012). Relative deprivation: A theoretical and meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16(3), 203–232.
 
Su, W., Lin, X., & Ding, H. (2019). The influence of supervisor developmental feedback on employee innovative behavior: A moderated mediation model. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 1581.
 
Su, W., Qi, Q., & Yuan, S. (2022). A moderated mediation model of academic supervisor developmental feedback and postgraduate student creativity: Evidence from China. Behavioral Sciences, 12(12), Article 484.
 
Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2004). The Pygmalion process and employee creativity. Journal of Management, 30(3), 413–432.
 
Tims, M., Bakker, A. B., & Derks, D. (2012). Development and validation of the job crafting scale. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(1), 173–186.
 
Tims, M., Twemlow, M., & Fong, C. Y. M. (2022). A state-of-the-art overview of job-crafting research: Current trends and future research directions. Career Development International, 27(1), 54–78.
 
Wang, D. (2022). Daily work engagement and positive emotions in the workplace: Job crafting as a mediator. Social Behavior and Personality: An international journal, 50(4), Article e11200.
 
Wang, Y., Han, M. S., Xiang, D., & Hampson, D. P. (2018). The double-edged effects of perceived knowledge hiding: Empirical evidence from the sales context. Journal of Knowledge Management, 23(2), 279–296.
 
Wang, Z., Zhao, S., & Yang, J. (2020). The causes and consequences of multi-level knowledge hiding behavior: A perspective from status competition. Advances in Psychological Science, 28(6), 893–903.
 
Whitaker, B. G., Dahling, J. J., & Levy, P. (2007). The development of a feedback environment and role clarity model of job performance. Journal of Management, 33(4), 570–591.
 
Yeşiltaş, M., Arici, H. E., Sormaz, Ü. (2023). Does perceived overqualification lead employees to further knowledge hiding? The role of relative deprivation and ego depletion. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 35(5), 1880–1900.
 
Zakariya, R., & Bashir, S. (2021). Can knowledge hiding promote creativity among IT professionals. VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, 51(5), 693–712.
 
Zhou, J. (1998). Feedback valence, feedback style, task autonomy, and achievement orientation: Interactive effects on creative performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 261–276.
 
Zhou, J. (2003). When the presence of creative coworkers is related to creativity: Role of supervisor close monitoring, developmental feedback, and creative personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 413–422.
 
Zoogah, D. B. (2010). Why should I be left behind? Employees’ perceived relative deprivation and participation in development activities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 159–173.

Table/Figure
Figure 1. The Proposed Research Model
Note. H = Hypothesis; T = Time

Table 1. Results of Confirmatory Factor Analyses

Table/Figure

Note. N = 354; CFI = confirmatory factor analysis; TLI = Tucker–Lewis index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual. a Knowledge hiding, Supervisor developmental feedback, Sense of relative deprivation, Job crafting. b Knowledge hiding, Supervisor developmental feedback + Sense of relative deprivation, Job crafting. c Knowledge hiding + Supervisor developmental feedback + Sense of relative deprivation, Job crafting. d Knowledge hiding + Supervisor developmental feedback + Sense of relative deprivation + Job crafting.


Table 2. Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Coefficients of Variables

Table/Figure
Note. N = 354.
* p < .05. ** p < .01.

Table 3. Results of Hierarchical Regression Analyses

Table/Figure
Note. N = 354. CKH = coworker knowledge hiding; SDF = supervisor developmental feedback; ESRD = employee’s sense of relative deprivation; EJC = employee job crafting. The numbers in parentheses are t values.
* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

Table/Figure

Figure 2. The Inverted U-shaped Relationship Between Coworker Knowledge Hiding and Employee Job Crafting


Table/Figure

Figure 3. The Inverted U-Shaped Relationship Between Employee’s Sense of Relative Deprivation and Employee Job Crafting


Table 4. Results of the Test for Instantaneous Mediated Effects

Table/Figure

Note. N = 354. CKH = coworker knowledge hiding; CI = confidence interval. LL = lower level, UL = upper level. IIE = instantaneous indirect effect.


Table/Figure

Figure 4. The Moderating Effect of Supervisor Developmental Feedback


Xiaocai Gao, School of Public Administration, Northwest University, No. 1 Xue Fu Avenue, Chang’an, Xi’an, Shaanxi 710127, People’s Republic of China. Email: [email protected]

Article Details

© 2023 Scientific Journal Publishers Limited. All Rights Reserved.