Are Emotionally Intelligent Employees Less Likely to Hide Their Knowledge?

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/kpm.1532
• Author: M. Max Evans,Zoé Geofroy
• Published date: 01 April 2017
• Date: 01 April 2017

■Research Article

Are Emotionally Intelligent Employees

Less Likely to Hide Their Knowledge?

Zoé de Geofroy

1,2

and M. Max Evans

1

*

1

School of Information Studies, McGill University, Canada

2

Swiss Doctoral School in Affective Sciences, University of Geneva, Switzerland

In today’s knowledge-intensiveeconomy, organizations are constantlyfaced with new challengesto be more innovative

(Salaman & Storey, 2002). Therefore, they have increasingly viewed knowledge management (KM) as an important

strategy. Manyhave even implemented explicitknowledge sharing(KS) practices in an attemptto maintain their compet-

itive advantageand improve performance (Hsu,2008; Law & Ngai, 2008). However, much ofthe knowledge utilized by

the organization is out of its control since it is held and managed at the individual level. Moreover, employees often

choose to conceal this knowledge (Connelly et al.,2012; Peng, 2013; Connelly & Zweig, 2015; Demirkasimoglu, 2016) a

phenomenon knownas knowledge hiding (KH). This paper reviews the literatureon KH and on Emotional Intelligence

(EI) theory and practice, arguing thatthere is a potential connection between the two. Specifically, KH maybe reduced,

through increased teamwork,trust,andorganizational commitment, which are all outcomes of high EI in employees.

A narrative overview approach (Green et al., 2006) was used to find, synthesize, and review the literature. A search

of the available research literature was performed across some of the major digital library sources including the

Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), Emerald, Google Scholar and ProQuest databases. A meta-

synthesis was then used to integrate, evaluate, and interpret the findings. The resulting review provides a summary

of the current literature and offers a rationale for conducting future research. This paper is useful for both academics

and practitioners who are concerned with the incorporation of EI practices into their KM strategies. It could also

provide further insight into organizational KM strategy, specifically relating to hiring, training, and promoting KM

processes. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

INTRODUCTION

In the information age, organizations are constantly

faced with challenges to leverage the knowledge

available to them, in order to maintain competitive

advantage, improve company performance, and be

more innovative (Salaman & Storey, 2002; Riege,

2007; Hsu, 2008; Law & Ngai, 2008; Sathitsemakul

& Calabrese, 2013; Omotayo, 2015; Yeşil et al., 2013).

Properly managing organizational knowledge is in-

strumental to organizational success (Grant, 1996;

Davenport & Prusak, 1998; Argote & Ingram, 2000;

Karkoulian et al., 2010) and many organizations per-

ceive knowledge management (KM) practices as an

important part of their overall strategy.

Moreover, it has been argued that knowledge

sharing

1

(KS) is the most important process in KM

(Bouthillier & Shearer, 2002; Lee & Choi, 2003;

Gururajan & Fink, 2010; Olatokun & Nwafor, 2012)

and one of the quintessential components of KM

practices and initiatives (Alavi & Leidner, 2001).

Effective KS enhances organizational performance

by: 1) creating a space for innovation (Nonaka &

Takeuchi, 1995; Powell et al., 1996; Lee, 2000; Wang

& Noe, 2010); 2) improving sales growth; 3) reduc-

ing production costs (Huang, 2010); 4) enabling or-

ganizations to achieve best practices (Argote, 1999;

Lee, 2000); and 5) fostering shared learning (Nonaka

& Takeuchi, 1995; Argote, 1999; Lee, 2000). How-

ever, in many cases, employees choose not to pro-

vide access to their knowledge (Connelly et al.,

2012; Connelly et Zweig, 2015; Demirkasimoglu,

2016; Peng, 2013). This phenomenon is called

knowledge hiding (KH), which can be defined as

an “intentional attempt by an individual to with-

hold or conceal knowledge that has been requested”

(Connelly et al., 2012, p. 65). Needless to say, KH can

have dire consequences on KS outcomes, and in

turn, on organizational performance. Therefore, it

is important for researchers and practitioners to

*Correspondence to: M. Max Evans, School of Information

Studies, McGill University, Canada.

E-mail: max.evans@mcgill.ca

1

KS is defined as “the behavior by which an individual voluntar-

ily provides other members of the organization with access to his

or her knowledge and experiences”(Cyr & Choo, 2001, p. 825).

Knowledge and Process Management

Volume 24 Number 2 pp 81–95 (2017)

Published online 21 February 2017 in Wiley Online Library

(www.wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/kpm.1532

Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.