Management Science Letters 9 (2019) 61–72

Contents lists available at GrowingScience

Management Science Letters

Knowledge hoarding: A literature review

Elif Bilginoğlua*

aIstanbul, Turkey
CHRONICLE ABSTRACT

Article history: The main purpose of this study is to present a framework on the construct, knowledge hoarding by
Received: September 5, 2018 investigating and distinguishing it from related concepts such as knowledge sharing and knowledge
Received in revised format: Sep- hiding. Furthermore, it aims to strengthen our understanding of knowledge hoarding by defining
tember 8, 2018
the construct in detail while seeking answers to why employees hoard their knowledge. The present
Accepted: October 23, 2018
Available online: study contains a discussion of related research on knowledge hoarding and its implications for or-
October 23, 2018 ganizations, managers and employees. By integrating research from the fields of knowledge man-
Keywords: agement, human resources management and organizational behavior, this paper attempts to clarify
Organizational knowledge a number of issues about this concept and aims to offer a factual report on what research has to say
Knowledge management about it. Knowledge is not an individual, but an organizational asset. In today’s business environ-
Knowledge withholding ment, hoarding knowledge erodes one’s power rather than constituting a source of power. In order
Knowledge hoarding to remain competitive in the future, organizations will need to abandon their ideas of information
Knowledge as a source of hoarding and embrace knowledge management. Downsizing in organizations and the potential loss
power of employment due to the global economic crisis alerts the managers to be sensitive to the reasons
why the individuals avoid sharing their knowledge. The managerial level should attempt to break
the hoarding cycle and create new models for interaction and knowledge sharing. It is important to
examine why some employees would sometimes prefer to keep knowledge to themselves. Thus,
the present study seeks an answer to that area of under-investigated research.
© 2019 by the authors; licensee Growing Science, Canada

1. Introduction
Beginning with the 20th century, which may be viewed as “the century of the exponential growth of
knowledge” (Sammons, 2005, p. xiii), the global competitiveness rests on the knowledge and the skills
of the workforce (Kerrn & Nielsen, 2008, p. 47). The knowledge capital has become the critical resource
rather than the financial capital which is crucial in traditional firms to exploit economies of scale of
physical work, but less critical as a source of power (Drucker, 1993, p. 18; Hinds & Pfeffer, 2003, p. 3;
Huber, 2001, p. 72; Osterloh, 2007, p. 161). Thus, the managers now see knowledge management as the
most critical technology for achieving their corporate goals and the key driver to long term success for
their organizations (Guhl, 1999, p. 23; The Economist Intelligence Unit, 2005, p. 4). Knowledge man-
agement is a complex process that is driven by power equations within the organization (Andrews &
Delahaye, 2000, p. 803; Ipe, 2003, p. 355). A fundamental part in knowledge management is to spread
knowledge and make it accessible and usable between individuals as well as organizational units (Paulin
& Suneson, 2012, p. 81; Riege, 2007, p.63). In a similar vein, knowledge sharing is also a complex
* Corresponding author.
 
E-mail address: elifb@ada.net.tr (E. Bilginoğlu)

© 2019 by the authors; licensee Growing Science, Canada

 
 
   
 
62
 

process, in order that the knowledge holders have different perceptions about organizational or self-own-
ership of information (Jarvenpaa & Staples, 2001) and actively make decisions about what knowledge
they would share with whom and when. This is because, in the intensely competitive work environment,
knowledge is regarded as a valuable commodity that shall not be shared casually (Andrews & Delahaye,
2000, p. 803). It is a fact that the individuals cannot be compelled to share their individual knowledge
which resides in their brains and their bodily skills with others but can only do so willingly (Empson,
2001, p. 843; Lam, 2000, p. 491). So the willingness of individuals to share the knowledge that they have
when the organization needs it, is the key in knowledge sharing (Zyngier & Nagpal, 2015).

Acknowledging knowledge is considered as an individual’s private asset (McLure Wasko & Faraj, 2000),
as a central resource, a source of power (Bell, 1999, p. 128; Hislop, 2003, p. 185; Michailova & Husted,
2003, p. 61), wealth, social stature (Baskerville & Dulipovici, 2006, p. 5) and indispensability (Jain,
2012, p. 752; Pfeffer, 1992; Terrett, 1998, p. 68) as a critical tool. Thus as an individual’s competitive
advantage (Osterloh & Frey, 2000, p. 545); as a way to keep a job even in an uncertain environment; thus
as an insurance policy against redundancy, as necessary for one’s professional survival (Fuller, 2001, p.
65; Jain, 2012, p. 752; Terrett, 1998, p. 68), as a valuable commodity that shall not be shared casually
(Andrews & Delahaye, 2000, p. 803) or in other words “hoarding of knowledge” is one of the fundamen-
tal issues of modern organizations (von Krogh et al., 2000, p. 45; Welschen et al., 2012, p. 23). It is also
regarded as the evil twin of knowledge sharing (Hansen, 2011, p. 3). The present paper presents a theory
of knowledge hoarding and its implications for the organizations, managers and employees in order to
provide a basis for future research.
2. Literature Review
2.1. What is Knowledge Hoarding?
Knowledge is not just a type of property to be possessed and transferred, it is an innately human quality,
it is also an attribute that can partly define and distinguish one person from another (Dulipovici & Bas-
kerville, 2007, p. 189). Knowledge acquired during the course of one’s job belongs to the organization
rather than the individual. However, some individuals perceive it as their personal intellectual property
and do not share it with the others in their organizations. This phenomenon of not sharing knowledge by
amassing and protecting it as one might amass and protect other treasures (Bansal et al., 2009, p. 33;
Ford, 2008, p. 118) or an individual’s deliberate and strategic concealment of knowledge or the fact that
they may possess relevant knowledge is defined as “knowledge hoarding” (Evans et al., 2015, p. 495). It
is an unproductive remnant of era when workers are trained to play it close to the chest (Woods, 2001,
p. 30). Knowledge transfer is hindered by withholding the knowledge either by hiding or hoarding it.
Knowledge hiding is an intentional concealment of knowledge requested by another individual (Webster
et al., 2008, pp. 2-4) whilst hoarding is the accumulation of knowledge that may or may not be shared at
a later date (Hislop, 2003).
2.2. Who is the Knowledge Hoarder?
Nowak (2014, p. 78) defines the knowledge hoarder as the one who fears that the more he/she tells, the
more he/she gives his/her power away and the one who feels that the more he/she tells the others every-
thing, the less he/she will have power left at all so he/she withholds information. In a similar vein; Pat-
terson defines the knowledge hoarder as the one “who thinks it is necessary for them to keep certain facts
about a system or technology to themselves” and adds that we’ve all worked with a knowledge hoarder
(Northcutt, 2004). These individuals have exclusive control of key corporate knowledge and by blocking
the free exchange of knowledge, they use that fact to establish a position of power and constitute
knowledge monopolies in organizations. They may “rent” their expertise to accomplish a task or solve a
problem rather than selling their knowledge even at a high price, since their monopoly will cease to exist
once their knowledge is genuinely shared (Davenport & Prusak, 198, p. 43; Fuller, 2001, p. 65; Terrett,
1998, p. 68).
 E. Bilginoğlu / Management Science Letters 9 (2019) 63

2.3 Why Do the Employees Hoard their Knowledge?

The natural inclination of employees at every level in almost every organization is to hoard knowledge,
especially knowledge that is deemed valuable (Liao, 2008, p. 1884; Ryan & Shinnick, 2011, p. 246,
Tiwana, 2000, p. 37). Maybe that’s because hoarding is in the genes of the human beings. The human
ego, the desire to directly or indirectly dominate others on the basis of knowledge, financial incentives,
the competitive work culture, discontent or frustration with the company and the old fashioned bureau-
cratic organizational structures hinder the free flow of knowledge and constitute several thrusts against
knowledge management. In brief; the problem of knowledge hoarding arises when the employees conceal
their knowledge from others for obtaining personal gains (Michailova & Husted, 2003, p. 61) and pursue
strategies to make themselves indispensable in their work environments (Jain, 2012, pp. 751-752; Leon-
ard, 2014). Another reason that knowledge hoarding often occurs is that there are no proper platforms
for effective knowledge sharing. Knowledge management, which can provide these knowledge sharing
platforms and technologies, can be used as a catalyst to drive a new economy mindset in an organization,
through facilitation of transparency and openness thus creating a culture of knowledge sharing (Du Ples-
sis, 2005, p. 200; 2006, p. 22). In the absence of an organized knowledge management initiative, hoarding
often also takes place within functional silos in the organization, especially where competition exists
between various areas of the business. In organizations with a competitive internal work environment,
the contributor of an idea may be assuming a great deal of personal vulnerability by revealing the secrets
of their own competitive edge by considering it necessary for their professional survival and may feel
they are better off hoarding rather than sharing what they know. They may be reluctant to share crucial
knowledge for fear of losing ownership, a position of privilege, superiority. They may resent not being
adequately rewarded for sharing hard won success and over time they will come to believe that it is in
their own interest to hoard knowledge. This way, the knowledge is always available and they do not need
to compete with the other employees or chase around the organization for a particular piece of infor-
mation. They will not share their knowledge in order not to make themselves vulnerable to job loss and
therefore hoard their knowledge as an insurance policy against redundancy, protect their personal value,
decrease their substitutability, become indispensable within the organization (Barson et al., 2000; Bas-
kerville & Dulipovici, 2006, p. 5; Byrne, 2001, p. 44; Cabrera & Cabrera, 2002, p. 694; Davenport et al.,
1992, p. 54; Du Plessis, 2006, pp. 21-22; Fuller, 2001, p. 65; Gray, 2001; Hargadon & Sutton, 2000;
Husted & Michailova, 2002a, p. 4; Lengnick-Hall & Andrad, 2008, p. 61; Michael, 2003, p. 24; Szulan-
ski, 1996, p. 31; Terrett, 1998, p. 68; Trauth, 1999; Wang, 2004, p. 380) or they will simply not be
unwilling to devote time and resources to support the transfer (Szulanski, 1996, p. 31). In the uncertain
and insecure business environment, a common stereotype is that older workers hoard knowledge because
they are more insecure and feel threatened by younger workers (Empson, 2001, p. 844; Oye, Salleh &
Noorminshah, 2011, p. 71).

According to Foucault (1980, p. 52) “it is impossible for knowledge not to engender power” as it is “not
possible for power to be exercised without knowledge”. As a resource it becomes strategic due to its
shortage instead of its ubiquity (Cairo et al., 2009, p. 152) and rarity may make all the difference to the
value of given knowledge (Davenport & Prusak, 1997, p. 120), knowledge gives the owner bargaining
power (Willman et al., 2001, p. 900). Chow et al. (2000, p. 90) assert that both the propensity to hoard
knowledge and the motivational factors behind such behavior depend on the nature of the knowledge to
be shared, employees’ national culture, the relationships among employees and the culture of the organ-
ization. Accordingly “knowledge is power” culture differs in different parts of the world regarding the
labor market. In the developed world, knowledge is shared more freely and openly, whilst in the devel-
oping world knowledge is hoarded to a greater extent. It is probably because there is an oversupply of
labor in some of the countries in the developing world and the labor market is fiercely competitive. In
the developed world, knowledge is shared more freely and openly as the feeling is that knowledge sharing
builds a person’s reputation as a specialist in a specific area taking into account that the knowledge, skills
and experience are what sets an individual apart from others and ensures that they can obtain a position
64
 

in an organization and retain it (du Plessis, 2006, p. 22). In organizations where expertise is highly re-
garded, but mentoring and assisting others is not, rational people may be less likely to share their exper-
tise and accordingly their power in which those who are receiving the information and expertise may use
it against the interests of the person providing it. This leads to the fact that, paradoxically, organizations
in which knowledge has become the key organizational “currency”, it becomes too valuable for the em-
ployees to just give away. This reinforces a tendency of the individual hoarding knowledge from others
in the organization. In order to make information-based organizations successful, companies need to
harness the power of politics and allow the employees to negotiate the use and definition of knowledge,
just as the exchange of other currencies are negotiated (Davenport et al., 1992, p. 53; Hinds & Pfeffer,
2003, p. 12; Husted & Michailova, 2002a, p. 21; Leonard & Sensiper, 1998, p. 123).
2.4 Why is Knowledge Hoarding Considered as a Negative Act in Organizations?
As Robin Morgan (1994, p. 194) quotes “Knowledge is power. Information is power. The secreting or
hoarding of knowledge or information may be an act of tyranny camouflaged as humility.” Knowledge
hoarding takes place due to a “knowledge is power” syndrome in most organizations (Du Plessis, 2005,
p. 200). This wholly irrational and unfounded mindset places the value of knowledge to the individual
ahead of its value to the company (Lilleoere & Hansen, 2011, p. 128; Kluge et al., 2001, p. 35; Terrett,
1998, p. 68). Because the ethical expectation for employees is to share knowledge (Wang, 2004, p. 380),
the knowledge hoarding appears as a moral failure and the knowledge hoarder as the one who needs to
be taught greater concern for his/her colleagues (Fuller, 2001, p. 65). It is often considered as a disease
within the information ecosystem of an organization and thus negative in terms of knowledge manage-
ment practices and the informational capabilities of an organization (Hansen, 2011, p. 3). The decision
to share or hoard tacit knowledge is largely individual. Whilst the decision to hoard knowledge is often
rational and well justified from the perspective of the individual, it is destructive from an organizational
point of view (Husted & Michailova, 2002b, p. 65).
2.5 What are the Potential Consequences of Knowledge Hoarding?
For employees who are participating in knowledge management initiatives, sharing knowledge has the
potential benefits of improving a person’s status as well as creating opportunities for the development of
new knowledge. It also has the risk that it involves employees giving away the source of their expertise,
status, and power (Hislop, 2005, p. 54). In knowledge hoarding, critical knowledge is centered in or
controlled by just one person and cannot be obtained except through that person. Thus, it has the ad-
vantage that it may protect an individual’s expertise. However, it also constitutes a threat to the continuity
of the organization’s knowledge base and productivity. In the case that the knowledge hoarder leaves the
organization, the knowledge is lost because there is no backup source. In some cases, the hoarded
knowledge is not the knowledge itself but how that knowledge can be accessed, filtered, or organized.
Either way, the consequence of lost knowledge is the same. If the knowledge hoarder does not leave,
many who could profit from the knowledge have no easy way to access it or may not know it exists and
so must either do without the knowledge, squander valuable time trying to find it, or generate it from
scratch as if it did not exist. Because the free flow of knowledge increases its value, knowledge hoarding
reduces the worth of the knowledge asset, lessens the likelihood of its enhancement, and prevents its
widest utilization by the greatest number of employees because it runs the risk that the importance of the
knowledge hoarder’s knowledge may not be recognized and rewarded (Beazley et al., 2002, p. 60; Hislop,
2005, p. 54).
2.6 Why Should the Employees Share Their Knowledge rather than Hoarding it?
Successful knowledge management programs rely on sharing, not hoarding (Kluge et al., 2001, p. 35).
Thus, the management should make the employees understand that there is more value in sharing
knowledge than in hoarding it. The employees shall recognize that they build their own knowledge as an
asset for themselves, to increase their visibility and make themselves more marketable. Sharing one’s
knowledge with others shows the others what one knows and in the specialist environment they work,
 E. Bilginoğlu / Management Science Letters 9 (2019) 65

the others ask for his/her knowledge. That also creates a culture of openness, transparency and innovation
among the employees. Thus, the most powerful individuals in the future of an organization will be those
who do the best job of transferring knowledge to others (Du Plessis, 2006, p. 84; Peters, 1993).
2.8 What should be done in order to Prevent Employees from Hoarding Their Knowledge?
In order to encourage effective knowledge sharing and abandon knowledge hoarding by creating a
knowledge sharing organizational culture; effective knowledge sharing strategies should be applied.
First; the right environment should be established by encouraging natural sharing to achieve individual
and organizational objectives, by integrating knowledge sharing practices into strategic business objec-
tives, human resources practices and the organization’s culture. Knowledge should be treated as a cor-
porate resource that cannot be hoarded by any particular subsidiary or business unit and thus knowledge
hoarding should be banned (Davenport et al., 1998, p. 43; Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000, p. 79; Hall &
Sapsed, 2005; Hawamdeh et al., 2010, p. 11, Kulkarni & Freeze, 2011, p. 1093; Milne, 2007, p. 28;
O’Neill & Adya, 2007, p. 430; Riege, 2007, p. 53; Tiwana, 2000, p. 58). Second; since knowledge is
perceived as power, the employees should be convinced that the benefits of sharing outweigh the cost of
losing the power (Hawamdeh et al., 2010, p. 11). Third; the top management should believe that power
comes from sharing knowledge and not from hoarding it (Ryan & Shinnick, 2011, p. 246; Stewart, 1991,
p. 47; Tiwana, 2000, p. 58). Although the employees are most commonly rewarded for what they know,
not what they share in most cases (Dalkir, 2005, pp. 132), they should be appreciated for their knowledge
contribution and be acknowledged as the true owner of knowledge (Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000, p. 79;
Rechberg & Syed, 2013, p. 839). The management needs to convince the employees to reject the old
school thinking that they are being measured by what they know and do individually so hoarding their
knowledge does not give them a competitive advantage (Milne, 2007, p. 28; Woods, 2001, p. 20). Alt-
hough the “knowledge is power” belief may have been true in times when knowledge obsolescence used
to take years and when hoarders created leverage and power bases by hanging into what they knew;
today, when knowledge is perishable and the shelf life of expertise is limited due to the new technologies,
products, and services continually pouring into the marketplace, it does not hold or increase its worth
over time; instead it may quickly become obsolete or inaccurate. Thus, there is nothing less powerful
than hanging on to knowledge whose time has expired (Allee, 1997a, p. 10; 1997b, p. 71; Goman, 2013;
Weiss, 1999, p. 63). Actually in today’s knowledge society, hoarding knowledge ultimately erodes one’s
power. Today, the most powerful ones are those who become a source of knowledge by sharing what
they know (Allee, 1997a, p. 10; Bozarth, 2014; Dalkir, 2005, p. 186; Greco, 1999, p. 19; Merrill, 2012;
Pan, 2001, p. 433; Woods, 2001, p. 20). The management should create a knowledge sharing culture,
where knowledge sharing is the norm, not the exception, where people are encouraged to work together,
to collaborate and share, and where they are rewarded for doing so (Dalkir, 2005, p. 186). The successful
management of this power relationship overall is therefore predicated on effective and consensual man-
agement, based on a legitimate exercise of authority which can then result in the development of an
overall environment of trust (Kelly, 2007, p. 136).

After common barriers to knowledge sharing are identified, the managers can then work to develop ways
to manage and improve the knowledge sharing process in order to lessen (or even eliminate) the greatest
barriers. This action could unlock vast organizational potential by improving the efficiency of knowledge
sharing within an organization (Lindsey, 2011, p. 58). While overcoming knowledge barriers, organiza-
tions should give enough consideration to the barriers human nature poses to information sharing and
suggest them that they should share their knowledge rather than trying to hoard something that can be
easily acquired (Merrill, 2012). However, knowledge sharing constitutes a major challenge in the field
of knowledge management and too often, actual knowledge sharing does not just fall below executives’
expectations. Unfortunately, it does not even match the perceptions about the extent to which knowledge
is being shared within their organizations. It is certain that creating an environment in which employees
are willing to participate in knowledge management initiatives by abandoning knowledge hoarding and
embracing knowledge sharing is the key to success (Giles & Hancy, 1998, p. 423; Greengard, 1998;
Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000, p. 71). Because hoarding often leads to negative consequences such as
66
 

empire building, reinvention of the wheel, feelings of isolation, and resistance to ideas from outside an
organization (Dalkir, 2005, p. 133).

3. Review of Related Studies

In their research which analyzed the perception of the concept of knowledge management of Australian
industry sector areas; Ionescu et al. (2006) found that 91% of the respondents had confirmed that
“knowledge is power”. Patel and Ragsdell (2011) explored the ethical concerns raised about the sharing
of knowledge by academics in two faculties at a British university, and the influence of those concerns
on the willingness of academics to share their knowledge with the help of a pilot study. Of the 20 re-
spondents, 16 agreed or strongly agreed with the adage “Knowledge is a source of power”. When the
respondents were asked whether the hoarding of knowledge was an unacceptable practice, 13 of the 20
respondents strongly agreed. The findings of Muhenda and Lwanga (2014) revealed that 76% of the
respondents agreed that knowledge is power and it is always advantageous to be a source of knowledge.
However, the study could not find out how knowledge is considered as a source of power because the
respondents could not clearly articulate how knowledge makes them feel powerful.

In the study conducted by Ford (2008, p. 128), 8 of a total of 28 knowledge workers stated that they
might not be sharing their knowledge in order to protect themselves (knowledge is power and control,
fear of a missed opportunity, credit stealing). The findings of the study of Garfield (2006) revealed that
one of the knowledge sharing barriers is that the people are rewarded for not doing it. He added that they
hoard their knowledge and thus get people to beg for their help, or they receive rewards, recognition, or
promotions based on doing other tasks. The solution he presented for this barrier is to work with all
managers in the organization to encourage them to reinforce the desired behaviors and stop rewarding
the wrong behaviors. In their qualitative study, Ford and Staples (2008) established that knowledge shar-
ing and withholding are separate but related behaviors. Their study distinguished between six different
combinations of high and low sharing and hoarding, ranging from full knowledge sharing with minimal
hoarding to active knowledge hoarding with minimal sharing. The study of Otto and van den Hoof (2014)
revealed that a lack of ability to share (both cognitive and situational), various motivations to hoard
knowledge (related to rewards, safety and enjoyment) and a lack of awareness of what to share, with
whom to share, why to share and how to share are the three factors affecting knowledge hoarding. Their
findings also revealed that these three main reasons for knowledge hoarding are influenced by the organ-
izational culture, the organizational structure, the management of the organization and the information
and communications technology infrastructure of the organization.

The findings of the study of Hansen (2011) revealed that within the context investigated, the distribution,
handling and quality of knowledge depend on the structures governing the environment. The study also
concluded that although within the context in question knowledge hoarding is predominantly negative,
it is also possible that certain positive elements come from a very knowledge hostile environment poten-
tially outweighing the negatives and creating new opportunities and competitive advantages for the or-
ganization. The findings of the study of Zyngier (2002) revealed that knowledge hoarding is one of the
obstacles faced in the development and execution of a knowledge management strategy. The findings of
the study of Holten et al. (2016) revealed that knowledge hoarding was both an antecedent and a conse-
quent of negative acts. First, over time, knowledge hoarding was indirectly related to negative acts me-
diated by trust and justice. Second, negative acts were both directly and indirectly related to knowledge
hoarding over time. The study thus points to the existence of a vicious circle of negative acts, psycho-
logical states of trust and justice, and knowledge hoarding behaviors, which presumably will affect both
individual and organizational outcomes negatively. The study of Andolšek (2011) explores knowledge
sharing and hoarding processes in the organizations through social exchange theory. The findings of the
study of Cong et al. (2007) indicated that in the Chinese public sector, employees tend not to share what
they know and the norm is knowledge hoarding rather than knowledge sharing. To change the existing
knowledge hoarding culture and encourage people to get involved actively in the knowledge management
 E. Bilginoğlu / Management Science Letters 9 (2019) 67

process of knowledge sharing in public sector, they suggested several ways such as building a formal
recognition and reward system to compensate the knowledge sharing behaviors of the public employees,
both for sharing knowledge with others and using other’s knowledge, not necessarily in monetary terms
and embedding knowledge sharing into daily activities.
4. Methodology
The reason this paper has focused on knowledge hoarding is that, the downsizing in organizations and
the potential loss of employment due to the global economic crisis, alerts the organizations to be sensitive
to the reasons why the individuals avoid sharing their knowledge. The managerial level is attempting to
break the hoarding cycle and create new models for interaction and knowledge sharing. Whereas Otto
and van den Hoof (2014, p. 196) stress that there is a surprising lack of attention to knowledge hoarding,
Witherspoon et al. (2013, p. 269) also stated that research on knowledge hoarding is almost entirely
gleaned from a small number of case studies and anecdotes from managers and practice and so the con-
struct. The study is also governed by the question of Stauffer (1999) “Why people hoard knowledge?”
as well as Webster et al.’s (2008, p. 3) call that it is important to examine why some employees would
sometimes prefer to keep knowledge to themselves. This paper therefore seeks an answer to that area of
under-investigated research (Witherspoon et al., 2013, p. 269).
5. Discussion
Knowledge hoarding by which an employee centers in or controls critical knowledge and does not let
anyone except him/her obtain it in order to protect his/her individual expertise, constitutes a threat to the
continuity of the organization’s knowledge base and productivity. Hence, it is important for the managers
to determine the potential barriers that hinder knowledge sharing and among them, especially the reasons
that lead the employees sometimes to prefer to keep their knowledge and their expertise to themselves.
Knowledge hoarders are those who gather and guard knowledge for personal preservation and future use.
They believe that their jobs are directly related to their expertise and in order to protect their job in times
of downsizing when firings or layoffs occur, they prefer to keep what they know and do not share it with
the others. This is their insurance plan. Preventing knowledge sharing hampers the ability for the em-
ployees to learn and grow. It also stands in the way of the organization’s success as well as the success
of the knowledge hoarder. As long as the knowledge hoarder does not share what he/she knows, no one
can recognize what they know and the importance of this knowledge. This will decrease their visibility.
In order to encourage effective knowledge sharing, the managerial level should attempt to break the
hoarding cycle and create new models for interaction and knowledge sharing. This can only be achieved
by letting the employees know that knowledge is not an individual, but an organizational asset and that
there is more value in sharing knowledge than hoarding it. It should be kept in mind that in today’s
business environment, hoarding knowledge erodes one’s power rather than constituting a source of
power. The organizations should show their employees that they embrace knowledge sharing by empha-
sizing positive relationships and trust among employees, by explaining the mutual benefits of the em-
ployees in sharing their knowledge and by making knowledge sharing a part of the organizational culture.
The organizations should include professional development courses as part of their corporate learning
and development training. This may not only provide employees with the opportunity to sharpen their
skills, but also boost their confidence. The managers should recognize and reward not only the ones who
skillfully do their job, but the ones who are also good at teaching the others how to do the same. Because
there is not any knowledge management system or process change which can enhance knowledge man-
agement capabilities if the organizational culture discourages sharing and instead, promotes hoarding. In
conclusion, organizational culture, the management of the organization and trust among employees are
the three factors which play an important role in knowledge management and determine whether the
employees share their knowledge with others or prefer to hoard it from them. The researcher hopes that
this paper could be beneficial to providing some insight on the reasons which can trigger protecting
knowledge from other employees, as well as the reasons which lead to knowledge hoarding in the organ-
izations. In practical terms, one development implication that follows from the present paper is that in
68
 

the organizations, the paradigm has to shift from “knowledge is power” to “sharing knowledge is more
powerful”. This is only possible by creating and developing an organizational culture that facilitates
knowledge sharing and encourages the employees to share their expertise with others.

6. Limitations and Future Research

The present paper is limited to contain a discussion of related research on knowledge hoarding and its
implications for organizations, managers and employees. Studies were limited to the ones which are
reported in English. The present review undoubtedly missed some articles in this field. However, the
researcher believes that the present search strategy yielded an unbiased sample of recent relevant studies.
While making a literature review on this construct, the researcher has found out that there are only com-
paratively few validated measures developed to capture knowledge withholding (e.g. Lin & Huang, 2010;
Peng, 2012; Stenius et al., 2016) and knowledge hiding (e.g. Connelly et al., 2012). There only two
knowledge hoarding given in Holten et al. (2016, p. 220) and Muhenda and Lwanga (2012, p. 283). In
the study of Holten et al. (2016) knowledge hoarding was measured by one item targeting the occurrence
of information withholding among employees (“Do employees withhold information from each other?”).
And in the study of Muhenda and Lwanga (2012) knowledge hoarding was measured by 11 items that
were adapted from prior research. Because the researcher could not find an adequate or appropriate ex-
isting scale to measure this important construct, further research may focus on developing a new scale.

7. Practical Implications

To the researcher’s knowledge this is the first published comprehensive literature review on the construct
of knowledge hoarding. The contribution of this paper lies in the creation of a framework that explains
what knowledge hoarding is and why it occurs in organizations and its suggestions on preventing
knowledge hoarding in organizations.

References

Allee, V. (1997a). The Knowledge Evolution. Expanding Organizational Intelligence. USA: Butter-
worth-Heinemann.
Allee, V. (1997b). 12 principles of knowledge management. Training & Development, 51(11), 71-74.
Andolšek, D. M. (2011). Knowledge hoarding or sharing. In Proceedings of the Management, Knowledge
and Learning International Conference.
Andrews, K. M., & Delahaye, B. L. (2000). Influences on knowledge processes in organizational
learning: The psychosocial filter. Journal of Management studies, 37(6), 797-810.
Bansal, G., Malani, P., & Popl, S. (2009). Knowledge hoarding, ISB Insight, 33, 33-35.
Barson, R. J., Foster, G., Struck, T., Ratchev, S., Pawar, K., Weber, F., & Wunram, M. (2000, October).
Inter-and intra-organisational barriers to sharing knowledge in the extended supply-chain. In
Proceedings of the eBusiness and eWork (pp. 18-20).
Baskerville, R., & Dulipovici, A. (2006, January). The Ethics of Knowledge Transfers and Conversions:
Property or Privacy Rights?. In System Sciences, 2006. HICSS'06. Proceedings of the 39th Annual
Hawaii International Conference on (Vol. 7, pp. 144b-144b). IEEE.
Beazley, H., Boenisch, J., & Harden, D. (2002). Continuity management: preserving corporate
knowledge and productivity when employees leave. John Wiley & Sons.
Bell, D. (1999). The Coming of Post-industrial Society. New York: Basic Books.
Bozarth, J. (2014). Show Your Work: The Payoffs and How-To’s of Working Out Loud. SanFrancisco:
Wiley.
Byrne, R. (2001). Employees: capital or commodity?. The Learning Organization, 8(1), 44-50.
Cabrera, A., & Cabrera, E. F. (2002). Knowledge-sharing dilemmas. Organization studies, 23(5), 687-
710.
 E. Bilginoğlu / Management Science Letters 9 (2019) 69

Cairó, O., Lozada, A., & Escobedo, J. (2009). Knowledge management vs. IT: What is the only
sustainable source of competitive advantage nowadays?. In Proceedings of the European Conference
on Knowledge Management, ECKM (pp. 150-156).
Chow, C. W., Deng, F. J., & Ho, J. L. (2000). The openness of knowledge sharing within organizations:
A comparative study of the United States and the People's Republic of China. Journal of Management
Accounting Research, 12(1), 65-95.
Cong, X., Li-Hua, R., & Stonehouse, G. (2007). Knowledge management in the Chinese public sector:
empirical investigation. Journal of Technology Management in China, 2(3), 250-263.
Connelly, C. E., Zweig, D., Webster, J., & Trougakos, J. P. (2012). Knowledge hiding in organizations.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(1), 64-88.
Dalkir, K. (2005). Knowledge management in theory and practice.. UK: Elsevier.
Davenport, T.H., Eccles, R.G., & Prusak, L. (1992). Information politics, Sloan Management Review,
34(1), 53- 65.
Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1997). Information ecology: Mastering the information and knowledge
environment. Oxford University Press on Demand.
Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know.
Harvard Business Press.
Davenport, T. H., De Long, D. W., & Beers, M. C. (1998). Successful knowledge management projects.
Sloan management review, 39(2), 43-57.
Drucker, P. (1993). Post-capitalist society. Butterworth-Heineman Ltd.
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.
du Plessis, M. (2005). Drivers of knowledge management in the corporate environment. International
Journal of Information Management, 25(3), 193-202.
Du Plessis, M. (2006). The impact of organisational culture on knowledge management. Elsevier.
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.
Evans, J. M., Hendron, M. G., & Oldroyd, J. B. (2014). Withholding the ace: The individual-and unit-
level performance effects of self-reported and perceived knowledge hoarding. Organization Science,
26(2), 494-510.
Ford, D. P. (2008, May). Disengagement from knowledge sharing: the alternative explanation for why
people are not sharing. In ASAC (Vol. 29, No. 5).
Ford, D. P., & Staples, D. S. (2008). What is knowledge sharing from the informer's perspective?.
International Journal of Knowledge Management (IJKM), 4(4), 1-20.
Foucault, M. (1980). Prison Talk'in C. Gordon, ed. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and other
writings by Michel Foucault, 1972-1977, 37-54.
Fuller, S. (2001). KNOWLEDGE RIP? Resurrecting knowledge requires rediscovering the university.
Tamara: Journal for Critical Postmodern Organization Science, 1(1), 60-68.
Garfield, S. (2006). 10 reasons why people don’t share their knowledge. Knowledge Management
Review, 9(2), 10-11.
Giles, P., Hancy, A. (1998) Alternative Organization Options: Moving From Lines of Hierarchy To Net-
works of Alliances, In John Gattorna (Ed.). Strategic Supply Chain Alignment: Best Practice in Supply
Chain Management (pp. 410-425) USA: MPG Books.
Goman, C.K. (2013, October 28). A halloween story for leaders: Ghost-busting in the workplace, Forbes,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/carolkinseygoman/2013/10/28/a-leadership-halloweeen-story-ghost-
busting-in-the-workplace/#2676ab4a5080 [Retrieved January 25, 2017]
Gray, P. H. (2001). The impact of knowledge repositories on power and control in the workplace.
Information Technology & People, 14(4), 368-384.
Greco, J. (1999). Knowledge is power. Journal of Business Strategy, 20(2), 19-22.
Greengard, S. (1998). Storing, Shaping and Sharing Collective Wisdom. Workforce, 77(10), 82-87.
Guhl, S. (1999). Knowledge Management. Deutschland: Diplomica Verlag GmbH.
70
 

Gupta, A. K., & Govindarajan, V. (2000). Knowledge management's social dimension: Lessons from
Nucor Steel. MIT Sloan Management Review, 42(1), 71-81.
Hall, J. & Sapsed, J. (2005). Influences of knowledge sharing and hoarding in project-based firms. In P.
Love, P.S.W. Fong & Z. Irani (Eds.). Management of Knowledge in Project Environments (pp. 57-
80). Oxford, United Kingdom: Elsevier.
Hawamdeh, S., Srikantaiah, T.K., Koenig, M.E.D. (2010). Convergence of Project Management and
Knowledge Management: An Overview. In T. K. Srikantaiah, M.E D. Koenig & S. Hawamdeh (Eds.)
Convergence of Project Management and Knowledge Management. (3-20). UK: Scarecrow Press, Inc.
Hansen, D.D. (2011). Knowledge hoarding and knowledge sharing as dimensions of information work
- A comparative case, Copenhagen Business School http://studenttheses.cbs.dk/bitstream/han-
dle/10417/2927/deniz_d_hansen.pdf?sequence=1, [Retrieved April 14, 2017].
Hargadon, A., & Sutton, R. I. (2000). Building an innovation factory. Harvard Business Review, 78(3),
157-66.
Hinds, P. J., & Pfeffer, J. (2003). Why organizations don’t “know what they know”: Cognitive and
motivational factors affecting the transfer of expertise. In M.S. Ackerman, V. Pipek & V. Wulf (Eds.).
Beyond Knowledge Management: Sharing Expertise (pp. 3-26). Sharing expertise: Beyond knowledge
management, 3-26. MIT Press.
Hislop, D. (2003). Linking human resource management and knowledge management via commitment:
A review and research agenda. Employee relations, 25(2), 182-202.
Hislop, D. (2005). Knowledge Management in Organizations. Oxford University Press.
Holten, A. L., Robert Hancock, G., Persson, R., Marie Hansen, Å., & Høgh, A. (2016). Knowledge
hoarding: antecedent or consequent of negative acts? The mediating role of trust and justice. Journal
of knowledge management, 20(2), 215-229.
Huber, G. P. (2001). Transfer of knowledge in knowledge management systems: unexplored issues and
suggested studies. European Journal of Information Systems, 10(2), 72-79.
Husted, K., & Michailova, S. (2002a). Knowledge sharing in Russian companies with Western
participation. Management International, 6(2), 17-28
Husted, K., & Michailova, S. (2002b). Diagnosing and fighting knowledge-sharing hostility.
Organizational dynamics, 31(1), 60-73.
Ionescu, L. M., Burstein, F., & Zyngier, S. (2006). Knowledge management strategies in Australia
(Technical Report 01/2006).
Ipe, M. (2003). Knowledge sharing in organizations: A conceptual framework. Human Resource
Development Review, 2(4), 337-359.
Jain, N. (2012). Knowledge hoarding: a bottleneck to organizational success. Indian Journal of Industrial
Relations, 47, 750-752.
Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Staples, D. S. (2001). Exploring perceptions of organizational ownership of
information and expertise. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1), 151-183.
Kelly, C. (2007, March). Managing the relationship between knowledge and power in organisations. In
Aslib Proceedings (Vol. 59, No. 2, pp. 125-138). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Kerrn, M. & Nielsen, J. (2008). Japanese Knowledge Management–From Japanese traditions to an
American IT project-management tool. Otago Management Graduate Review, 6, 47-64.
Kluge, J., Stein, W. & Licht, T. (2001). Knowledge Unplugged: The McKinsey & Company Global Sur-
vey on Knowledge Management. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kulkarni, U., & Freeze, R. (2011). Measuring knowledge management capabilities. In Schwartz & D.
Te’eni (Ed.) Encyclopedia of knowledge management (pp. 605-613). IGI Global.
Lam, A. (2000). Tacit knowledge, organizational learning and societal institutions: An integrated
framework. Organization Studies, 21(3), 487-513.
Lengnick-Hall, M. L., & Andrade, L. S. (2008). Talent staffing systems for effective knowledge
management. In V. Vaiman & C. M. Vanc (Eds.) Smart Talent Management-Building Knowledge
Assets for Competitive Advantage (33-65). Edward Elgar.
Leonard, D. (2014). How to prevent experts from hoarding knowledge. Harvard Business Review.
 E. Bilginoğlu / Management Science Letters 9 (2019) 71

Leonard, D., & Sensiper, S. (1998). The role of tacit knowledge in group innovation. California
management review, 40(3), 112-132.
Liao, L. F. (2008). Knowledge-sharing in R&D departments: A social power and social exchange theory
perspective. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(10), 1881-1895.
Lilleoere, A. M., & Hansen, E. H. (2011). Knowledge‐sharing Practices in Pharmaceutical Research and
Development—a Case Study. Knowledge and Process Management, 18(3), 121-132.
Lin, T. C., & Huang, C. C. (2010). Withholding effort in knowledge contribution: The role of social
exchange and social cognitive on project teams. Information & Management, 47(3), 188-196.
Lindsey, K. L. (2011). Barriers to Knowledge Sharing. In Encyclopedia of Knowledge Management,
Second Edition (pp. 49-61). IGI Global.
McLure Wasko, M., Faraj, S. (2000). “It is what one does”: Why people participate and help others in
electronic communities of practice, The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 9(2-3), 155-173.
Michael, S. (2003, April 28). Knowledge hoarding, Federal Computer Week, 17, 24-25.
Merrill, D. (2012, October 1). Knowledge is power? Those days are long gone, Forbes.
Michailova, S., & Husted, K. (2003). Knowledge-sharing hostility in Russian firms. California
Management Review, 45(3), 59-77.
Milne, P. (2007). Motivation, incentives and organisational culture. Journal of knowledge management,
11(6), 28-38.
Morgan, R. (1994). The word of a woman: Feminist dispatches. W.W. Norton
Muhenda, M. B., & Lwanga, E. K. (2014). Knowledge Hoarding among Academic Staff in Higher
Education Institutions in Uganda: Risk or Strategy. World Review of Business Research, 4(2), 279-
290.
Northcutt, S. (2004). IT Ethics Handbook: Right and Wrong for IT Professionals. Syngress Publishing,
Inc.
Nowak, A. (2014). Infectious: How to Connect Deeply and Unleash the Energetic Leader Within. All-
worth Press.
O'Neill, B. S., & Adya, M. (2007). Knowledge sharing and the psychological contract: Managing
knowledge workers across different stages of employment. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(4),
411-436.
Osterloh, M. (2007). Human resources management and knowledge creation. Knowledge creation and
management. New challenges for managers, 158-175.
Osterloh, M., & Frey, B. S. (2000). Motivation, knowledge transfer, and organizational forms.
Organization science, 11(5), 538-550.
Otto, C. & van den Hooff, B. (2014). To Have and To Hoard: Reasons for Not Sharing Knowledge in
Organisations. In J. Alegre, R. Chiva, A. Fernandez-Mesa & J.L. Ferreras-Mendez (Eds.) Shedding
New Lights on Organisational Learning, Knowledge and Capabilities (pp. 195-220). UK: Cambridge
Scholars Publishing.
Oye, N. D., Salleh, M., & Noorminshah, A. (2011). Knowledge sharing in workplace: Motivators and
demotivators. International journal of managing information technology, 3(4), 71-84.
Pan, S. L. (2001). Organizing global knowledge management in a dispersed organization. In Knowledge
management and business model innovation (pp. 426-441). IGI Global.
Patel, M., & Ragsdell, G. (2011). To share or not to share knowledge: An ethical dilemma for UK
academics. Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, 12(2).
Paulin, D., & Suneson, K. (2012). Knowledge transfer, knowledge sharing and knowledge barriers–three
blurry terms in KM. The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 10, 81-91.
Peters, T. (1993, March 29). The new management imperative: Start chatting and get to work!, Chicago
Tribune, http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1993-03-29/business/9303290150_1_global-coordina-
tion-buckman-laboratories-director-of-knowledge-management [Retrieved February 14, 2017].
Pfeffer, J. (1992). Managing with power: Politics and influence in organizations. Harvard Business
Press.
Rechberg, I., & Syed, J. (2013). Ethical issues in knowledge management: conflict of knowledge
ownership. Journal of Knowledge Management, 17(6), 828-847.
72
 

Riege, A. (2007). Actions to overcome knowledge transfer barriers in MNCs. Journal of knowledge
management, 11(1), 48-67.
Ryan, G., & Shinnick, E. (2010). Economic Incentives and the Knowledge Economy. Encyclopedia of
Knowledge Management, 240-248
Sammons, P. (2018). Buying Knowledge: Effective Acquisition of External Knowledge. Routledge.
Stauffer, D. (1999). Why people hoard knowledge. Across the board, 36(8), 16-21.
Stenius, M., Hankonen, N., Ravaja, N., & Haukkala, A. (2016). Why share expertise? A closer look at
the quality of motivation to share or withhold knowledge. Journal of Knowledge Management, 20(2),
181-198.
Stewart, T.A. (1991). Brainpower, Fortune, 123, pp. 44-60.
Szulanski, G. (1996). Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within
the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 27-43.
The Economist Intelligence Unit (2005). Know how managing knowledge for competitive advantage -
An economist intelligence unit white paper sponsored by Tata Consultancy Services.
http://www.eiu.com/site_info.asp?info_name=eiu_TCS_know_how [Retrieved, January 24, 2017]
Terrett, A. (1998). Knowledge management and the law firm. Journal of Knowledge Management, 2(1),
67-76.
Tiwana, A. (2000). The knowledge management toolkit: practical techniques for building a knowledge
management system. Prentice Hall PTR.
Trauth, E. M. (1999, April). Who owns my soul? The paradox of pursing organizational knowledge in a
work culture of individualism. In Proceedings of the 1999 ACM SIGCPR conference on Computer
personnel research (pp. 159-163). ACM.
Von Krogh, G., Ichijo, K., & Nonaka, I. (2000). Enabling knowledge creation: How to unlock the mystery
of tacit knowledge and release the power of innovation. Oxford University Press.
Wang, C. (2004). The influence of ethical and self-interest concerns on knowledge sharing intentions
among managers: An empirical study, International Journal of Management, 21(3), 370-381.
Webster, J., Brown, G., Zweig, D., Connelly, C. E., Brodt, S., & Sitkin, S. (2008). Beyond knowledge
sharing: Withholding knowledge at work. In Research in personnel and human resources
management (pp. 1-37). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Weiss, L. (1999). Collection and connection: The anatomy of knowledge sharing in professional service
firms, Organization Development Journal; Chesterland, 17, 61-77.
Welschen, J., Todorova, N., & Mills, A. M. (2012). An investigation of the impact of intrinsic motivation
on organizational knowledge sharing. International Journal of Knowledge Management (IJKM), 8(2),
23-42.
Willman, P., O’Creevy, M. P. F., Nicholson, N., & Soane, E. (2001). Knowing the risks: Theory and
practice in financial market trading. Human Relations, 54(7), 887-910.
Woods, B. (2001). Sharing the intellectual wealth. Chief Executive, 20-23.
Witherspoon, C. L., Bergner, J., Cockrell, C., & Stone, D. N. (2013). Antecedents of organizational
knowledge sharing: a meta-analysis and critique. Journal of Knowledge Management, 17(2), 250-277.
Zyngier, S. M. (2002). Knowledge management obstacles in Australia. ECIS 2002 Proceedings, 141.
Zyngier, S., & Nagpal, A. (2015, January). Knowledge Management Ethics: located within a governance
framework. In System Sciences (HICSS), 2015 48th Hawaii International Conference on (pp. 3990-
3999). IEEE.

© 2019 by the authors; licensee Growing Science, Canada. This is an open access article
distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-
BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).