The Relationship Between Abusive

Supervision and Knowledge Hiding

TEAM MEMBERS
1.
2.
3.

REVIEW 1

1.Why it is important to study the selected topic? (500-600 Words- 5 Marks)

Knowledge is an important and critical organizational resource that gives organizations a
sustainable competitive edge in today’s volatility, uncertainty, complexity, ambiguity world
(Davenport and Prusak, 1998). Studies have stated that organizational performance and its
innovativeness can be dramatically improved by sharing of knowledge among the employees
(Arthur and Huntley, 2005; Lin, 2007). Employees are expected and even motivated to share
their knowledge (both tacit and explicit) with their fellow workers (Cabrera and Cabrera,
2002; Gagne´, 2009), and firms expend huge cost and effort in developing elaborate
knowledge management systems and by creating conducive environment of trust and
goodwill to facilitate this smooth transfer of knowledge (Wang and Noe, 2010).
Several organizations have introduced varied measures to facilitate knowledge transfer
among employees, such as developing reward systems (Bock et al., 2005) improving social
networks and strengthening interpersonal relationships at workplace (Kuvaas et al., 2012)
and by creating an organizational culture that promote knowledge sharing (Connelly and
Kelloway, 2003). Despite these constructive efforts by organization, employees are still
unwilling to share their knowledge with their co-workers. This reluctance to share their
knowledge with other members of the organization is a conscious choice on the part of the
employee and is triggered by various factors at work. Although, the extant literature in
knowledge management research is replete with knowledge sharing studies, there is a clear
and conspicuous dearth of counterproductive knowledge hiding behavior that explains why
employee’s hoard or hide knowledge.
2. What has been done in the broader area of the selected research topic? (500-600
Words- 5 Marks)
Knowledge hiding is highly prevalent in today’s competitive work settings. A study reported
an approximate loss of $31.5bn a year by Fortune 500 firms owing to failure in sharing of
knowledge (Babcock, 2004). The rampant nature of knowledge hiding can be judged from
another survey statistics in the USA, which reported a staggering 76 per cent of participants
admitting they once hid knowledge in some form or other (Connelly et al., 2012). In a similar
survey conducted in China, 46 per cent of the respondents have confessed that they have at
least once indulged in knowledge hiding behaviour at the workplace (Peng, 2012). This
suggests that knowledge hiding is a universal and widely pervasive phenomenon, which is
highly detrimental to organizational success irrespective of national culture and industry.
According to Connelly et al. (2012), knowledge hiding depends on various situational
factors, such as organizational policies, reward system, leadership, structure and culture, etc.
One important reason that influences one’s decision to share knowledge with others at work
is the interpersonal relationship and the way one is treated at work. The existing literature is
almost silent on how leadership especially dysfunctional leadership affects an employee’s
decision to hide knowledge from others (Srivastava et al., 2006). Consistent with this view,
we propose that one of the contextual factors that may influence knowledge hiding among
employees is abusive supervision. This supervisory mistreatment, which is defined as
“subordinates’ perceptions of the extent to which their supervisors engage in the sustained
display of hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors, excluding physical contact” (Tepper, 2000,
p. 178) may antagonize the abused employee so much that he/she thinks of getting even with
the supervisor by hiding critical knowledge at workplace.
To bolster our assumption, we invoke social exchange theory (SET) as the theoretical
underpinning to examine the predictive influence of abusive supervision on employee’s
knowledge hiding behavior. One of the important tenets of SET is that the relationship
between individuals depends on healthy and functional transactions and exchanges. These
exchanges are guided by certain norms or rules, which form the guidelines of any exchange
processes. So, when an employee perceives his/her supervisor to be abusive, feels the norms
of exchange has been violated, and thus, is compelled to act in a retributive manner
(Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005). In this case, the aggrieved employee resorts to hiding
critical information from the members of the organization to get even with the abusive
supervisor.

3. What is the need of doing additional research on the selected topic? (500-600 Words-
5 Marks)
Although there is a logical association between abusive supervision and subordinate’s
knowledge hiding behaviour, the mechanism, which explains this relationship is far from
being investigated. Thus, the study also strives to explore the possible mediators that may
explain the relationship between these two dysfunctional workplace behaviours, i.e. abusive
supervision and knowledge hiding behaviours of subordinates. We propose that when an
employee perceives his/her supervisor to be abusive, the individual employee blames either
the supervisor or the organization or both the parties for the mistreatment and as the desire to
retaliate is very high, he/she searches for a safe target at work to get even.
In this case, as an overt and direct action against the perpetrator (abusive supervisor) is not
possible owing to uneven power distribution, so the abused employee resort to covert and
safer ways to punish the supervisor by engaging in counterproductive work behaviour such as
knowledge hiding. In this study, we suggest that the beleaguered employee blame both the
supervisor and the organization for the ill treatment, and thus, decides to hide knowledge
from other members of the organization. In this regard, we propose psychological contract
violation and supervisor directed aggression as two possible mediational routes that explain
the association between the two focal constructs of this study.

4. What is the purpose and contribution of the selected research in the existing
literature? (500-600 Words- 5 Marks)
Our research makes two important contributions to the field of abusive supervision and
knowledge management. One, it empirically tests the positive association between abusive
supervision and subordinate’s knowledge hiding behaviours. Most of the previous studies,
have investigated the relationship between supervisory abuse and knowledge sharing
behaviours (Kim et al., 2016; Wu and Lee, 2016; Lee et al., 2017), which is clearly different
from knowledge hiding behaviour (Connelly et al., 2012) in terms of intention and
motivation of the employee. In this study, knowledge hiding behaviour has been
conceptualized as a beleaguered employee’s covert retaliation in response to supervisory
abuse. Homans (1961) also suggested that when the aggrieved individual has less (positional)
power than the source of abuse (either organization or supervisor) he/she will resort to covert
and subtle retaliatory tactics than overt and direct retaliation. Thus, instead of focussing on
direct and violent retaliation, which is just the tip of iceberg, the study investigates
knowledge hiding behaviours of the employees, which generally goes undetected but
adversely affects the effective functioning of the organization.

Second, the study investigates whom the individual employee blames for the supervisory
abuse, which leads to employee’s knowledge hiding behaviour. The study considers the
assertion that the victim will either blame the organization for not doing enough to safeguard
his/her interest or blame the supervisor who is actually the real source of abuse. To explain
the indirect effect between abusive supervision and knowledge hiding behaviour, the study
identified two mediators from extant literature that explains whether the abused employee
blames the organization (namely, psychological contract violation) or blames the supervisor
(namely, supervisor directed aggression) for the abuse at work.
 REVIEW 2

DEFINITIONS
Since Tepper’s (2000) seminal work, abusive supervision has been investigated as an
antecedent to several negative workplace outcomes (Martinko et al., 2013; Pradhan and Jena,
2017). One such job outcome that is detrimental to organizational goals is subordinate’s
knowledge hiding behaviour. There is a common misperception among scholars and
practitioners that knowledge hiding and knowledge sharing are the two opposite ends of the
same continuum. However, in reality, the two are distinct constructs having different
antecedents and having different underlying motivations and mechanisms (Connelly et al.,
2012; Ford and Staples, 2010). Although, the extant literature has ample studies discussing
the why, how and when people share their knowledge but it is almost silent on why, how and
when people hide their knowledge.

Knowledge hiding is defined as “an intentional attempt by an individual to withhold or

conceal task information, ideas, and know-how that has been requested by another person”
(Connelly et al., 2012, p. 65). While, knowledge sharing is defined as an “act of making
knowledge available to others within the organization” and “involves some conscious action
on the part of the individual who possesses the knowledge” (Ipe, 2003,, p. 341). As it is
beyond the scope of the current study to further differentiate and elaborate between
knowledge sharing and knowledge hiding, which clearly have different genesis, the present
Kstudy focusses on the relationship between abusive leadership and dysfunctional knowledge
hiding intentions at work (refer to Wang and Noe, 2010; Gagne et al., 2019 for detailed
discussion on Knowledge sharing and knowledge hiding).

Abusive supervision and knowledge hiding

Connelly et al. (2012) has identified several individual and situational antecedents of
knowledge hiding such as perception of distrust and injustice, knowledge complexity,
knowledge sharing culture and leadership style, etc. Previous studies discuss the role
leadership plays in motivating and facilitating employees’ knowledge sharing behaviours at
workplace. Transformational leaders are known to encourage their followers to continuously
learn from others and to share their knowledge with others for the purpose of mutual
improvement (Han et al., 2016). Similarly, Xue et al. (2011) in their empirical study of US
student samples reported empowering leadership to positively influence team members’
knowledge sharing behaviours. In addition, Srivastava et al. (2006) also reported empowering
leadership to be positively related to employee’s knowledge sharing behaviours. Although,
previous studies clearly suggest positive relationship between functional leadership style and
follower’s knowledge sharing behaviours, but studies fail short in explaining how
dysfunctional and toxic leadership can also elicit negative and destructive work behaviours,
such as knowledge hiding or knowledge hoarding behaviours (Khalid et al., 2018).

Employees share critical resources with other members of the organization for organizational
success when they perceive their supervisor or managers to be authentic and
transformational, whereas when employees perceive their immediate authorities to be toxic
and destructive, they are reluctant to share their knowledge and demonstrate knowledge
hiding behaviours (Khalid et al., 2018). Abusive supervision is one such negative leadership
construct, which leads to several harmful and deleterious work outcomes at both individual
and organizational level (Martinko et al., 2013; Tepper, 2007). Previous studies have
reported that employees who perceive their supervisors to be abusive retaliate to such ill-
treatment in different ways and to varying degrees. Employee retaliation in response to
sustained supervisory abuse is inspired by a need to restore fairness by targeting the accused
i.e. their abusive supervisor. As this retaliation happens in response to perceived abuse, the
beleaguered employee considers this tit for tat behaviour to be fair and just (Bies and Tripp,
2005; Tripp and Bies, 1997). Generally, the intention behind retaliation is to punish the guilty
or penalize the one whom the employee perceives to be the source of abuse. However, an
overt and direct retaliation may not be in the best interest of the employee considering
restraining factors, such as organizational hierarchy and positional power difference. Thus,
the aggrieved employee resorts to covert retaliation, which serves the purpose of restoring
fairness without being identified and punished (Arnold et al., 2011; Bies and Tripp, 1998).

We find theoretical support to our assertion, from SET (Blau, 1964), which suggests that
abusive supervision predicts knowledge hiding. SET refers to those individual actions that
are inspired by a certain return that the individual seeks. For example, an employee going
beyond the line of duty expects the organization to acknowledge the contribution and
reward, which it deems fit (Gouldner, 1960). The social exchange is guided by the
reciprocity norm that determines the appropriate way the involved parties should behave.
The reciprocity norm can be both positive and negative. Positive reciprocity involves
positive response to positive treatment, whereas, negative reciprocity involves the tendency
to respond negatively to negative treatment (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005). So, when the
individual employee perceives he/she is treated in an unfavourable way, then the individual
will behave in an unfavourable way as a form of reciprocity.

Knowledge hiding behaviours are such subtle reciprocative behaviours that may be concealed
in the form of ignorance and may not attract punitive actions from the supervisor. When an
employee perceives the supervisor to be abusive and understands that overt and direct form of
retaliation or paying back is not wise will resort to such covert ways. Covert retaliatory
behaviors are easy to conceal, and their intent can go undetected, as a result, subtle and
clandestine form of retaliation provides a unique opportunity for a lower power employee to
get even with the wrongdoer (Tepper et al., 2012).

Thus, we propose:

H1. Abusive supervision will be positively related with employee’s knowledge hiding
behaviour.
No Title Aim/Purpose Design/Methodology Findings Authors-
Journal-
Publisher
1 The The purpose of this study To test the proposed Results showed Sajeet
Relationship is to test the relationship hypotheses, the study that abusive Pradhan,
Between between abusive draws cross-sectional supervision is Aman
Abusive supervision and data from Indian IT positively related Srivastava
Supervision employee’s knowledge employees working in to employee’s and
and hiding behaviour among various IT firms in knowledge hiding Dharmesh
Knowledge Indian information India. Data were behaviours. Also, K. Mishra
Hiding technology (IT) collected at two time both psychological
employees. The paper points (T1 and T2) contract violation Journal of
also strives to separated by one and supervisor Knowledge
theoretically discuss and month to counter the directed aggression Management
then seek empirical priming effect and partially mediates J Vol. 24
evidence to the two neutralize any threat the abusive No. 2 2020,
mediational paths of common method supervision- Pp. 216-234,
(namely, psychological bias. The final sample knowledge hiding
contract violation and of 270 valid and behaviour linkage
supervisor directed complete responses © Emerald
aggression) that explain was analysed using Publishing
the focal relationship SmartPLS 3 to test the Limited
between abusive hypotheses.
supervision and
knowledge hiding.
2

10

REVIEW 3