Leader–member exchange, organizational identification, and knowledge hiding: The moderating role of relative leader–member exchange

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/job.2359
• Published date: 01 September 2019
• Date: 01 September 2019

SPECIAL ISSUE ARTICLE

Leader–member exchange, organizational identification,

and knowledge hiding: The moderating role of relative

leader–member exchange

Hongdan Zhao

1,2

|Weiwei Liu

1

|Jie Li

1,2

|Xiaoyu Yu

1,2

1

School of Management, Shanghai University,

Shanghai, China

2

SHU Center for Innovation and

Entrepreneurship, Shanghai University,

Shanghai, China

Correspondence

Jie Li, School of Management, Shanghai

University, No. 99 Shangda Road, Shanghai

200444, China.

Email: mgmtli@i.shu.edu.cn

Funding information

National Natural Science Foundation of China,

Grant/Award Numbers: 71772116, 71702095

and 71772117; The Program for Professor of

Special Appointment (Young Eastern Scholar)

at Shanghai Institutions of Higher Learning,

Grant/Award Number: QD2016015

Summary

In this article, we sought to identify a new interpersonal antecedent of knowledge

hiding, namely, leader–member exchange (LMX). Drawing on the group engagement

model (an extension of social identity theory within the group/organization context),

we built a theoretical model linking LMX and knowledge hiding. This model focuses

on the mediating role of organizational identification and the moderating role of rela-

tive LMX in influencing the mediation. Using two time‐lagged studies (Study 1:

n= 317; Study 2: n= 248) conducted in China, we examined our research model.

Study 1 provided support for the proposed hypotheses for evasive hiding and playing

dumb but not for rationalized hiding. Study 2 replicated and extended our findings.

Results revealed that (a) LMX was negatively related to evasive hiding and playing

dumb but not to rationalized hiding; (b) organizational identification mediated the

influence of LMX on evasive hiding and playing dumb but not on rationalized hiding;

and (c) relative LMX not only moderated the relationship between LMX and organiza-

tional identification but also reinforced the indirect effect of LMX on evasive hiding

and playing dumb but not on rationalized hiding (via organizational identification).

The implications, limitations, and future research directions are also discussed.

KEYWORDS

knowledge hiding,knowledge sharing, LMX, organizational identification, relative LMX

1|INTRODUCTION

In the era of the knowledge economy, more and more enterprises

invest a great deal of time and money into knowledge management

activities to promote knowledge transfer among organizational

members (Zhao, Xia, He, Sheard, & Wan, 2016). However, a significant

number of employees are still reluctant to share knowledge and even

intentionally conceal the knowledge requested by their coworkers

(Connelly, Zweig, Webster, & Trougakos, 2012). This phenomenon is

called knowledge hiding (Connelly et al., 2012). Accordingly, scholars

have shown great interest in knowledge hiding (Černe, Hernaus,

Dysvik, & Škerlavaj, 2017; Černe, Nerstad, Dysvik, & Škerlavaj, 2014;

Connelly et al., 2012; Kumar Jha & Varkkey, 2018; Serenko & Bontis,

2016). Prior research has indicated the harmfulness of knowledge

hiding, such as destructing creativity (Černe et al., 2014; Černe et al.,

2017), impeding the transmission and development of new

knowledge (Černe et al., 2014), and increasing turnover intention

(Connelly et al., 2012).

However, compared with research on the negative outcomes of

knowledge hiding, studies examining the antecedents of knowledge

hiding are relatively limited (Connelly et al., 2012). Among the few

studies that explore the predictors of knowledge hiding, interpersonal

antecedents are considered to be the key factors (Connelly et al.,

2012). Indeed, studies on the interpersonal antecedents of knowledge

hiding have mainly focused on the quality of the relationship between

coworker dyads (e.g., interpersonal distrust and workplace ostracism;

Received: 1 December 2017 Revised: 5 December 2018 Accepted: 28 January 2019

DOI: 10.1002/job.2359

834 © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J Organ Behav. 2019;40:834–848.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/job