As an inherent quality of humans, knowledge is not only an asset that can be owned and transferred, it is also an attribute that can partially define and differentiate individuals (Dulipovici & Baskerville, 2007). In the organizational context, knowledge serves as a valuable commodity, a personal competitive advantage, and a means to secure employment in uncertain environments (Jiang et al., 2025). Therefore, knowledge is not freely shared. The intentional and strategic concealment of either knowledge itself or the fact that one may possess relevant knowledge is defined as knowledge hoarding (Evans et al., 2015). In organizations, knowledge hoarding occurs when employees hide their knowledge from others for personal gain, with the knowledge possibly being shared later or not at all. Most organizations expect employees to share knowledge as a moral obligation; failing to do so is often viewed as a moral deficiency and likened to a disease within the organizational information ecosystem (Zada et al., 2022).

 

As contemporary enterprises undergo transformation through use of digital technology, artificial intelligence, big data, and the cloud, this reshapes the operations, decision making, customer engagement, and business model of the organization. In this environment, knowledge workers are increasingly becoming the backbone of corporate development. This shift has intensified internal competition among talented employees, further highlighting the issue of knowledge hoarding. In a review of the literature, Bilginoğlu (2019) demonstrated that knowledge hoarding can negatively impact organizations and poses significant threats. Specifically, hoarding reduces the amount of knowledge employees share with others, thereby undermining organizational goals related to knowledge sharing, information flow, and organizational learning (Argote et al., 2003; Silva de Garcia et al., 2022).

 

Knowledge hoarding also impedes effective knowledge management and hampers collective performance improvement (Al-Abbadi et al., 2020; Dash et al., 2023). Although knowledge hoarding is viewed negatively in organizational management practice, the decision about whether to share or to hoard knowledge is often rational and reasonable from an individual perspective. In an era in which knowledge has become a key organizational currency, it serves as bargaining capital for employees. This is particularly true in organizations where guiding and assisting others is not valued: Those who are given information and assisted by others who offer their expertise may subsequently act against the interests of the people who have provided them with the information or assistance. Therefore, it is necessary to explore in depth the antecedents of employee knowledge hoarding and its impact on individual outcomes. This will allow for a more comprehensive understanding of individual knowledge-hoarding behaviors, and will provide useful guidance for organizational knowledge-management practices.

 

We proposed a research model in which knowledge hoarding is viewed as an individual behavioral factor acting as a mediating variable (see Figure 1). Our aim was to explain when and why perceived social status positively or negatively affects knowledge-hoarding behavior, thereby clarifying the mechanism of the impact of perceived status on knowledge hoarding.

Employees at all levels in most organizations have a natural tendency to hoard knowledge, especially knowledge that is considered valuable (Ryan & Shinnick, 2010). In an organization with a competitive internal work environment, contributors to an idea may take on personal vulnerability by divulging the secrets of their competitive advantage, or they may choose to hoard rather than sharing what they know, for fear of loss of ownership, privileged status, and a sense of superiority (Baskerville & Dulipovici, 2006). Conversely, in a review of the literature, Bilginoğlu (2019) showed that for employees involved in knowledge-management programs, sharing knowledge had potential benefits for enhancing personal status. Therefore, we considered that perceived status may be an important antecedent of knowledge hoarding.

 

In the organizational context, perceived status refers to individual employees’ subjective evaluation of their relative position in the organization (Seeman & Berkman, 1988). It encompasses factors such as the degree of respect or admiration received from other members (Hays & Bendersky, 2015), reputation, influence, and level of support received within the organization (Anderson et al., 2001). According to social exchange theory (Cook et al., 2013), employees will be rewarded for their efforts in daily work; that is, they will gain respect and admiration from others, or will earn promotion from their position (Anicich et al., 2016). Status is bestowed by others, so that as their status increases people will become particularly concerned about maintaining this status, and those who perceive that they have high status will tend to behave in line with the expectations of others and prove that they are valuable to the organization (Tyler & Blader, 2003). Therefore, people with higher (vs. lower) perceived status would be more inclined to engage in knowledge-sharing behaviors and reduce knowledge hoarding. Thus, we proposed the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: Perceived status will be negatively related to knowledge hoarding, such that when perceived status is high, knowledge-hoarding behavior will be less common, whereas when perceived status is low, knowledge-hoarding behavior will be more common.

 

In the organizational setting, knowledge is the capital of personal competition. Especially in an uncertain organizational environment, knowledge can become a core resource necessary for a person’s professional survival (Jiang et al., 2025). Rationality motivates employees to hoard knowledge. For those seeking knowledge, their creativity is limited to a certain extent because they cannot obtain the information they need from colleagues who hoard knowledge. Similarly, on the basis of social exchange theory (Cook et al., 2013), those who are unwilling to share their knowledge experience a backlash because of their behavior, which has a negative impact on their creativity. Shin et al. (2012) showed that in communication and knowledge sharing contexts, individuals can continue to learn independently, thereby promoting a burst of creativity, whereas knowledge hoarding becomes a barrier to communication and exchange among colleagues, inhibiting individual creativity.

 

However, knowledge hoarding is not all bad for employees (Shukla et al., 2024). In-role performance is an important construct in the category of job performance, and it refers to the behavior of an employee in a specific job position to realize individual value and contribute to the organization through a series of direct activities such as knowledge, information, materials, and specific work (Tsui et al., 1997). We believed that knowledge hoarding could promote employees’ in-role performance as they strive to acquire knowledge in a changing organizational environment and increase the exclusivity of their personal knowledge. This accumulation of personal professional skills and knowledge helps to improve the individual’s in-role performance (Connelly et al., 2012). In addition, knowledge sharing is an expensive process that requires knowledge owners to invest time and energy (Husted & Michailova, 2002). When employees hoard knowledge, this saves them time and energy, which enhances their in-role performance. Therefore, we formed the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 2a: Knowledge hoarding will be negatively related to employee creativity.

Hypothesis 2b: Knowledge hoarding will be positively related to employees’ in-role performance.

 

Extending the above hypotheses, we believed that knowledge hoarding would have a mediating impact on the relationships between employees’ perceived status and their creativity and in-role performance.

Hypothesis 3a: Knowledge hoarding will mediate the relationship between employees’ perceived status and their creativity.

Hypothesis 3b: Knowledge hoarding will mediate the relationship between employees’ perceived status and their in-role performance.

 

Sorokin (1928) argued that status can take many different forms, including economic, political, informational, and social. In this study we focused on social status, which refers to a position of social standing and interpersonal influence (Bourdieu, 2018). The need for social status arises from the social system in which we live (Brown et al., 2011), because the higher the social status of the individual, the more resources and social benefits they obtain. Immorlica et al. (2012) showed that people may gain utility from behaviors that affect their perceived status, especially when the need for social status is prominent. Therefore, we considered that the need for social status may be a boundary condition that affects the relationship between perceived status and knowledge hoarding.

 

On one hand, individuals with a high need for social status desire to obtain a high status in society. In line with social exchange theory (Cook et al., 2013), this motivation to pursue high status will stimulate their interest in and sensitivity to perceived status. Compared to others who are less concerned about status, they will pay more attention to how others evaluate them and try to gain status recognition by exhibiting behaviors that are more altruistic (Flynn et al., 2006), thus reducing their knowledge hoarding. On the other hand, individuals with a low need for social status are not sensitive to their perceived status, their ability to promote group outcomes, or their commitment to group success (Willer, 2009). Thus, they are less likely to respond to the drawbacks of knowledge hoarding. In other words, the greater the need for social status, the stronger will be the negative relationship between perceived status and knowledge hoarding. Therefore, we proposed the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 4: Need for social status will positively moderate the relationship between perceived status and knowledge hoarding, such that the greater the need for social status, the stronger will be the negative relationship between perceived status and knowledge hoarding.

 

We integrated Hypotheses 1 to 4 to further develop a moderating mediation model describing how perceived status and need for social status jointly affect employees’ knowledge-hoarding behavior and subsequent job outcomes. The assumptions of the complete model were as follows:

Hypothesis 5a: Need for social status will positively moderate the indirect relationship between employees’ perceived status and their in-role performance through knowledge hoarding.

Hypothesis 5b: Need for social status will positively moderate the indirect relationship between employees’ perceived status and their creativity through knowledge hoarding.

All procedures performed were in accordance with the ethical standards for studies involving human participants set by the School of Business and Management at Shanghai International Studies University, and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments. We obtained informed consent from all individual participants included in the study.

 

The sample comprised 905 employees in 250 working teams at enterprises located in Chanyanggu Industrial Park, eastern China. To ensure the reliability of data sources, the enterprises involved in the survey included finance, communication, manufacturing, and other industries. In the first wave of the survey (March 2024), we investigated employees’ perceived status and need for social status. We conducted the second wave of the survey 1 month later (April 2024), assessing employees’ knowledge hoarding, creativity, and in-role performance. The two-stage survey was completed by team members and team leaders.

 

After excluding incomplete responses, the final sample consisted of 885 employees and 250 leaders in 250 teams. There were 501 (58.6%）women and 354 (41.4%）men. As regards age, 87 (10.2%) of the participants were under 25 years, 404 (47.3%) were between 25 and 35 years, 261 (30.5%) were between 36 and 45 years, and 103 (12%) were 46 years and over. In terms of education, 249 (29.1%) participants held a high school diploma or lower qualification, 380 (44.5%) had a junior college degree, 191 (22.3%) had a bachelor’s degree, and 35 (4.1%) had a master’s degree or above. Among the participants, 513 (60%) had a tenure of more than 3 years with their team, 127 (14.9%) had between 1 and 3 years, and 215 (25.1%) had been with their team for less than 1 year. Regarding leader tenure, 396 (46.3%) of the employees had worked with their current leader for more than 3 years, 347 (40.6%) for between 1 and 3 years, and 112 (13.1%) for less than 1 year. There were 583 (68.2%) participants who worked between 40 and 49 hours per week, 165 (19.3%) who worked between 50 and 60 hours per week, and 107 (12.5%) worked more than 60 hours each week. Grassroots employees made up 47.7% of the employee group, 29.3% were supervisors, and 23.0% were middle-level or higher managers. Finally, 451 (52.8%) of the teams consisted of between six and eight members, 131 (15.3%) of the teams consisted of four or five members, and 273 (31.9%) teams had fewer than three members.

The survey was composed of items adopted from measures originally developed in English, all of which we translated into Chinese by using back-translation (Brislin, 1986) to ensure accuracy. Unless stated otherwise, items were rated on a 7-point Likert scale that ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).

 

Employees responded to three items from a scale developed by Lee et al. (2022) to measure perceived status. A sample item is “I am highly regarded by my group members.” Cronbach’s alpha in our study was .72.

 

We adopted Flynn et al.’s (2006) five-item scale to assess need for social status. Employees were the respondents. A sample item is “Being a highly valued member of my social group is important to me.” Cronbach’s alpha in our study was .85.

 

We adopted a four-item scale developed by Evans et al. (2015) to indicate employees’ level of knowledge hoarding. A sample item is “I keep news about what I am doing secret from others until the appropriate time.” Cronbach’s alpha in our study was .98.

 

Employee creativity was assessed with four items rated by the team leader (Tierney et al., 1999). A sample item is “Tries new ideas or methods first.” Cronbach’s alpha in our study was .95.

 

We used a five-item scale developed by Tsui et al. (1997) to measure employees’ in-role performance. A sample item is “This employee shows the ability to perform core job tasks.” All items were evaluated by the team leader, and a higher score indicated better performance. Cronbach’s alpha in our study was .74.

Consistent with previous studies (Tsui et al., 1997), in this study we controlled for age, gender, level of education, job tenure, organization tenure, leader tenure, and hours of work each week.

To support the use of path analysis to test our hypotheses, we first confirmed the model’s factor structure and construct validity by comparing a five-factor structure with four alternative measurement models. As shown in Table 1, the hypothesized five-factor measurement model in which all items loaded onto their assumed construct offered the best fit to the data. As such, items within each construct were averaged into a single composite value and treated as an observed variable.

The means, standard deviations, and correlation coefficients of the main variables are shown in Table 2. Knowledge hoarding was negatively correlated with employee creativity, knowledge hoarding was positively correlated with in-role performance, and perceived status was negatively correlated with knowledge hoarding. These results are consistent with Hypotheses 1, 2a, and 2b.

We used SPSS 27.0 software for data processing, and the results of a regression analysis are shown in Table 3. Consistent with our expectations, perceived status was negatively correlated with knowledge hoarding, supporting Hypothesis 1. Further, knowledge hoarding was negatively correlated with employee creativity, and positively correlated with in-role performance. Results of a parametric bootstrapping analysis (5,000 resamples) with a confidence interval (CI) of 95% showed that the indirect effect of perceived status on employees’ creativity through knowledge hoarding was significant, effect = .01, 95% CI [0.01, 0.03]. Thus, Hypothesis 2a was supported. The result for the indirect effect of perceived status on in-role performance through knowledge hoarding was significant, effect = −.02, 95% CI [−0.03, −0.01]. Therefore, Hypothesis 2b was supported.

 

To test the proposed moderating effect, we first centered the independent variables and the moderating variables, then constructed the interaction terms (see Table 3). Model 3 shows that the need for social status had a significant moderating effect on the relationship between perceived status and knowledge hoarding. Thus, Hypothesis 4 was supported.

The moderating effect of need for social status is depicted in Figure 2. There was a strong negative relationship between perceived status and knowledge hoarding when individuals’ need for social status was high (β = −.17, p < .01), whereas this relationship was weak but still negative when individuals’ need for social status was low (β = −.09, p < .01).

We then manipulated high (M + 1 SD) and low (M − 1 SD) levels of need for social status for comparison purposes. The relevant results are shown in Table 4. The indirect impact of perceived status on employee creativity through knowledge hoarding was significant under the condition of high, but not low, need for social status, and the estimates of the two mediating effects were significantly different (see Table 4). The indirect effect of perceived status on in-role performance through knowledge hoarding was significant under the condition of high, but not low, need for social status. The estimates of mediating effects were significantly different (see Table 4). Thus, Hypotheses 5a and 5b were supported. In other words, as the need for social status increased, the indirect influence of perceived status on employee creativity and in-role performance became stronger through knowledge hoarding.

In this study we found that the higher the perceived status of our participants, the less they felt the need to hoard knowledge, thus improving their creativity, but also resulting in a decline in their in-role performance. This relationship was fully mediated by knowledge hoarding. In addition, need for social status positively moderated the negative relationship between perceived status and knowledge hoarding: The greater the employee’s need for social status, the stronger was the negative relationship between perceived status and knowledge hoarding.

First, this study has enriched research on the consequences of knowledge hoarding by investigating its dual impact on employees’ in-role performance and creativity. The findings are grounded in social exchange theory and reveal a double-edged sword effect of knowledge-hoarding behavior on professional development, in that knowledge hoarding enhanced employees’ in-role performance, while simultaneously inhibiting their creative capacity. Through our comprehensive dialectical examination of the personal impacts of knowledge hoarding, we have responded to academic appeals for methodological integration (Al-Abbadi et al., 2020), effectively overcoming the limitations inherent in single-perspective interpretations. The balanced approach adopted in the current study not only reconciles previous contradictory findings but also provides a nuanced framework for understanding knowledge-management dynamics in the organizational context.

 

Second, we explored the reasons behind knowledge-hoarding behavior from the perspective of status, providing theoretical support for the negative impact of perceived status on knowledge hoarding. It seems reasonable for employees to refuse to share their knowledge (Webster et al., 2008). When individuals hoard professional knowledge that benefits themselves, knowledge ceases to be an organizational advantage and becomes an individual asset for improving in-role performance. However, we found that employees with higher (vs. lower) perceived status were more inclined to share knowledge, reducing knowledge-hoarding behavior to gain higher organizational status. This finding aligns with scholars’ calls to view the employee knowledge-hoarding phenomenon objectively, and also enriches understanding of the antecedents of knowledge-hoarding behavior (Bock et al., 2005), providing theoretical references for future researchers.

 

Third, our results highlight the moderating role of social-status needs in the relationship between perceived status and knowledge-hoarding behaviors. This validates the positive role of social-status needs; specifically, the higher the need for social status, the more inclined employees are to share knowledge when they perceive that they have high social status. This mechanism is the key to mitigating employees’ self-serving behavior in today’s utilitarian culture. The finding that employees who perceive having a high (vs. low) status are more inclined to share their knowledge also aligns with previous studies emphasizing the negative effects of knowledge hoarding and holds significant implications for research on discouraging and eliminating employee behaviors that contradict organizational ethical expectations (Anaza & Nowlin, 2017).

This study has significant implications for management practice. Our results suggest that employees’ perception of their status affects their knowledge-hoarding behavior. Managers can enhance employees’ objective perception of their organizational status by publicizing promotion standards and giving regular feedback on career-development paths. They can reduce the tendency of knowledge hoarding caused by status uncertainty by, for example, including the degree of contribution of knowledge sharing in the promotion-evaluation index, so that knowledge flow and career status promotion form a positive cycle.

 

Additionally, considering the positive moderating effect of need for social status that we found in our study, managers can focus on the optimization of knowledge-management systems within the organization, and can show understanding of employees’ need for social status. They can establish open and effective communication channels to promote knowledge sharing. At the same time, leadership training should be strengthened to make managers aware of the importance of employees’ status perception, so that they can make corresponding dynamic adjustments to management strategies, because employee needs may change.

There are some limitations to this study. First, data were collected only in the context of Chinese organizations, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. Because the power-distance orientation of employees differs between Chinese and Western environments, future researchers could consider the universality of employees’ perceived status and need for social status in other cultural environments, so as to improve the external effectiveness of this study. Second, employees evaluated their own knowledge-hoarding behavior. This behavior is often perceived as unhelpful to the organization, dishonest, or even unethical (Steinel et al., 2010); thus, out of self-interest or because of prosocial tendencies (Umphress & Bingham, 2011; Webster et al. 2008), employees may not have been truthful when responding to these items. Although the end result was supported, some unmeasurable bias may have been produced. Future research could have the team leader or colleagues evaluate employees’ knowledge-hoarding behavior. Finally, the data in this study were cross-sectional. Although we adopted phased measurement to reduce common method bias, other approaches could be used to test the hypotheses in the future, such as longitudinal data or experimental methods.

Al-Abbadi, L., Alshawabkeh, R., & Rumman, A. A. (2020). Knowledge management processes and innovation performance: The moderating effect of employees’ knowledge hoarding. Management Science Letters, 10(7), 1463–1472. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2019.12.021

 

Anaza, N. A., & Nowlin, E. L. (2017). What’s mine is mine: A study of salesperson knowledge withholding & hoarding behavior. Industrial Marketing Management, 64, 14–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2017.03.007

 

Anderson, C., John, O. P., Keltner, D., & Kring, A. M. (2001). Who attains social status? Effects of personality and physical attractiveness in social groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(1), 116–132. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.81.1.116

 

Anicich, E. M., Fast, N. J., Halevy, N., & Galinsky, A. D. (2016). When the bases of social hierarchy collide: Power without status drives interpersonal conflict. Organization Science, 27(1), 123–140. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2015.1019

 

Argote, L., McEvily, B., & Reagans, R. (2003). Managing knowledge in organizations: An integrative framework and review of emerging themes. Management Science, 49(4), 571–582. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.49.4.571.14424

 

Baskerville, R., & Dulipovici, A. (2006). The ethics of knowledge transfers and conversions: Property or privacy rights? In R. H. Sprague, Jr. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 144b–144b). Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2006.465

 

Bilginoğlu, E. (2019). Knowledge hoarding: A literature review. Management Science Letters, 9(1), 61–72. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2018.10.015

 

Bock, G. W., Zmud, R. W., Kim, Y. G., & Lee, J. N. (2005). Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing: Examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces, and organizational climate. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 87–111. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148669

 

Bourdieu, P. (2018). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. In C. Counihan, P. Van Esterik, & A. Julier (Eds.), Food and culture (pp. 141–150). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315680347-10

 

Brislin, R. W. (1986). The wording and translation of research instruments. In W. J. Lonner & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Field methods in cross-cultural research (pp. 137–164). Sage Publications, Inc.

 

Brown, P. H., Bulte, E., & Zhang, X. (2011). Positional spending and status seeking in rural China. Journal of Development Economics, 96(1), 139–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2010.05.007

 

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

 

Cook, K. S., Cheshire, C., Rice, E. R. W., & Nakagawa, S. (2013). Social exchange theory. In J. DeLamater & A. Ward (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 61–88). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6772-0_3

 

Dash, D., Farooq, R., & Upadhyay, S. (2023). Linking workplace ostracism and knowledge hoarding via organizational climate: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Innovation Science, 15(1), 135–166. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJIS-05-2021-0080

 

Dulipovici, A., & Baskerville, R. (2007). Conflicts between privacy and property: The discourse in personal and organizational knowledge. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 16(2), 187–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2007.05.007

 

Evans, J. M., Hendron, M. G., & Oldroyd, J. B. (2015). Withholding the ace: The individual- and unit-level performance effects of self-reported and perceived knowledge hoarding. Organization Science, 26(2), 494–510. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2014.0945

 

Flynn, F. J., Reagans, R. E., Amanatullah, E. T., & Ames, D. R. (2006). Helping one’s way to the top: Self-monitors achieve status by helping others and knowing who helps whom. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(6), 1123–1137. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.6.1123

 

Hays, N. A., & Bendersky, C. (2015). Not all inequality is created equal: Effects of status versus power hierarchies on competition for upward mobility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108(6), 867–882. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000017

 

Husted, K., & Michailova, S. (2002). Diagnosing and fighting knowledge-sharing hostility. Organizational Dynamics, 31(1), 60–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-2616(02)00072-4

 

Immorlica, N., Kranton, R., & Stoddard, G. (2012, June). Striving for social status. Proceedings of the 13th Association for Computing Machinery Conference on Electronic Commerce, 2012, 672. https://doi.org/10.1145/2229012.2229063

 

Jiang, Z., Huo, M.-L., Jones, J., Cheng, Z., Manoharan, A., & Spoehr, J. (2025). Thriving in future work: Knowledge management and innovation perspectives. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 23(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/14778238.2024.2344347

 

Lee, J., Oh, S.-H., & Park, S. (2022). Effects of organizational embeddedness on unethical pro-organizational behavior: Roles of perceived status and ethical leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 176(1), 111–125. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04661-8

 

Ryan, G., & Shinnick, E. (2010). Economic incentives and the knowledge economy. In D. Schwartz & D. Te’eni (Eds.), Encyclopedia of knowledge management (2nd ed., pp. 240–248). IGI Global.

 

Seeman, T. E., & Berkman, L. F. (1988). Structural characteristics of social networks and their relationship with social support in the elderly: Who provides support. Social Science & Medicine, 26(7), 737–749. https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(88)90065-2

 

Shin, J., Taylor, M. S., & Seo, M.-G. (2012). Resources for change: The relationships of organizational inducements and psychological resilience to employees’ attitudes and behaviors toward organizational change. Academy of Management Journal, 55(3), 727–748. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0325

 

Shukla, M., Tyagi, D., & Mishra, S. K. (2024). “You reap what you sow”: Unraveling the determinants of knowledge hoarding behavior using a three-wave study. Journal of Knowledge Management, 28(4), 1074–1095. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-10-2022-0856

 

Silva de Garcia, P., Oliveira, M., & Brohman, K. (2022). Knowledge sharing, hiding and hoarding: How are they related? Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 20(3), 339–351. https://doi.org/10.1080/14778238.2020.1774434

 

Sorokin, P. A. (1928). Contemporary sociological theories. Harper.

 

Steinel, W., Utz, S., & Koning, L. (2010). The good, the bad and the ugly thing to do when sharing information: Revealing, concealing and lying depend on social motivation, distribution and importance of information. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 113(2), 85–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.07.001

 

Tierney, P., Farmer, S. M., & Graen, G. B. (1999). An examination of leadership and employee creativity: The relevance of traits and relationships. Personnel Psychology, 52(3), 591–620. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1999.tb00173.x

 

Tsui, A. S., Pearce, J. L., Porter, L. W., & Tripoli, A. M. (1997). Alternative approaches to the employee-organization relationship: Does investment in employees pay off? Academy of Management Journal, 40(5), 1089–1121.https://journals.aom.org/doi/full/10.5465/256928

 

Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2003). The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7(4), 349–361. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0704_07

 

Umphress, E. E., & Bingham, J. B. (2011). When employees do bad things for good reasons: Examining unethical pro-organizational behaviors. Organization Science, 22(3), 621–640. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0559

 

Webster, J., Brown, G., Zweig, D., Connelly, C. E., Brodt, S., & Sitkin, S. (2008). Beyond knowledge sharing: Withholding knowledge at work. In J. J. Martocchio (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 27, pp. 1–37). Emerald Group. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-7301(08)27001-5

 

Willer, R. (2009). Groups reward individual sacrifice: The status solution to the collective action problem. American Sociological Review, 74(1), 23–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240907400102

 

Zada, S., Khan, J., Saeed, I., Jun, Z. Y., Vega-Muñoz, A., & Contreras-Barraza, N. (2022). Servant leadership behavior at workplace and knowledge hoarding: A moderation mediation examination. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 888761. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.888761