Rivals or allies: How performance‐prove goal orientation influences knowledge hiding
DOI | http://doi.org/10.1002/job.2372 |
Author | Yanghua Jin,Tingting Chen,Yue Zhu,Yongyue Wang,Mo Wang |
Date | 01 September 2019 |
Published date | 01 September 2019 |
SPECIAL ISSUE ARTICLE
Rivals or allies: How performance‐prove goal orientation
influences knowledge hiding
Yue Zhu
1
|Tingting Chen
2
|Mo Wang
3
|Yanghua Jin
4
|Yongyue Wang
1
1
Department of Human Resource
Management, Zhejiang Gongshang University,
Hangzhou, China
2
Department of Management, Lingnan
University, Hong Kong
3
Department of Management, Warrington
College of Business, University of Florida,
Gainesville, Florida
4
School of Business Administration, Zhejiang
Gongshang University, Hangzhou, China
Correspondence
Yongyue Wang, Department of Human
Resource Management, Zhejiang Gongshang
University, Hangzhou 310018, China.
Email: wyx2005@hotmail.com
Funding information
National Natural Science Foundation of China,
Grant/Award Number: 71502164
Summary
Previous research suggests that performance‐prove goal orientation is positively
related to knowledge hiding. However, we argue that this effect depends on the focus
of performance feedback (i.e., individual‐and group‐focused feedback), which shapes
the nature of the competitive expression of performance‐prove goal orientation (i.e.,
intragroup and intergroup oriented). We conducted three studies to test our theoret-
ical model. The results of Study 1 with time‐lagged data from 128 part‐time MBA stu-
dents showed that performance‐prove goal orientation was positively related to
knowledge hiding when performance feedback focused more (vs. less) on individual
performance but was negatively related to knowledge hiding when performance feed-
back focused more (vs. less) on group performance. Study 2 replicated these modera-
tion findings in an experimental study of 210 undergraduate students. Study 3 again
replicated the moderation effects using multisource data from 317 employees and
their supervisors. It also included creativity as an outcome of knowledge hiding and
illustrated the distal consequence of the moderation effects of individual‐and
group‐focused performance feedback. We then discussed the implications for the
theory and practice of performance‐prove goal orientation and knowledge hiding.
KEYWORDS
creativity, knowledge hiding, performance feedback, performance‐prove goal orientation
1|INTRODUCTION
Knowledge is a primary source of organizational innovation and com-
petitive advantage (Phelps, Heidl, & Wadhwa, 2012). Although compa-
nies strive to facilitate knowledge transfer, a considerable number of
employees intentionally hide knowledge when coworkers request for
it (Connelly, Zweig, Webster, & Trougakos, 2012). This phenomenon
has attracted increasing research attention (Černe, Hernaus, Dysvik,
&Škerlavaj, 2017; Černe, Nerstad, Dysvik, & Škerlavaj, 2014; Connelly
& Zweig, 2014; Rhee & Choi, 2017). Hiding the knowledge requested
by coworkers can destroy interpersonal relationships among
employees (Černe, Nerstad, Dysvik, & Škerlavaj, 2014; Connelly &
Zweig, 2014) and jeopardize the creativity of the hiders (Černe,
Nerstad, Dysvik, & Škerlavaj, 2014). In light of this situation,
researchers have devoted attention to exploring the antecedents of
knowledge hiding. The literature on knowledge hiding has focused
on relational factors, such as distrust and team–member exchange
(e.g., Connelly, Zweig, Webster, & Trougakos, 2012; Lin & Huang,
2010; Tsay, Lin, Yoon, & Huang, 2014). Recently, Webster et al.
(2008) called for research to investigate how individual differences
are related to knowledge hiding, which has important theoretical and
practical implications for understanding and reducing the incidence
of knowledge hiding.
Knowledge hiding is conceptualized as a goal‐directed behavior
(Webster et al., 2008, p. 15) that individuals strategically use to
achieve competitive advantage and maximize their own interests
(Toma & Butera, 2009). Drawing on this conceptualization, recent
research has incorporated goal orientation theory and revealed
performance‐prove goal orientation as a primary individual antecedent
of knowledge hiding (Rhee & Choi, 2017). The central tenet of
Received: 12 October 2017 Revised: 1 April 2019 Accepted: 16 April 2019
DOI: 10.1002/job.2372
J Organ Behav. 2019;40:849–868. © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/job 849
performance‐prove goal orientation is normative (social) comparison
(Elliot, 1999), which drives people to compete against and outperform
others (Dietz, van Knippenberg, Hirst, & Restubog, 2015). The
outperforming and social comparison motivation thus provides an
important account for why performance‐prove goal orientation
prompts knowledge hiding (Rhee & Choi, 2017).
However, a review of the literature suggests that the relationship
between performance‐prove goal orientation and knowledge hiding
may be more complicated than is suggested; it is contingent on who
targets of comparison and competition are (e.g., others in the same
group or other groups; Dietz, van Knippenberg, Hirst, & Restubog,
2015). Different comparison or competition targets of employees with
a high performance‐prove goal orientation can become salient depend-
ing on the context. We argue that the focus of performance feedback
(i.e., individual‐or group‐focused feedback) can be a critical context
that shapes targets of comparison and competition and the competitive
expression of performance‐prove goal orientation (i.e., intragroup or
intergroup oriented; Van der Vegt, de Jong, Bunderson, & Molleman,
2010). Specifically, when employees perceive that feedback focuses
more (vs. less) on individual performance, those with a high
performance‐prove goal orientation direct their attention to personal
achievement and regard group members as proximal targets of social
comparison. In this case, performance‐prove goal orientation is posi-
tively related to knowledge hiding. By contrast, when employees per-
ceive that feedback focuses more (vs. less) on group performance,
they may focus their attention on group achievement and develop a
sense of “we”(Van der Vegt, de Jong, Bunderson, & Molleman, 2010).
As such, more (vs. less) group‐focused feedback leads employees with
a high performance‐prove goal orientation, that is, those who have an
innate drive to outperform others, to view other groups as targets to
outperform. These employees develop intragroup favoritism (Balliet,
Wu, & De Dreu, 2014) and reduce their tendency to hide knowledge
from group members. The present research aims to explore opposite
signs of the relationship between performance‐prove goal orientation
and knowledge hiding from group members under two foci of perfor-
mance feedback. This relationship is positive when feedback focuses
more (vs. less) on individual performance but becomes negative when
feedback focuses more (vs. less) on group performance.
Knowledge hiding can inhibit creativity because withholding infor-
mation is likely to result in less knowledge being acquired from others,
which is known to facilitate creativity (Perry‐Smith, 2006). Thus, we
investigate creativity as an outcome in order to demonstrate the
important implications of our research and illustrate the distal conse-
quence of the moderation effects of individual‐and group‐focused
performance feedback. This study makes three contributions to the lit-
erature. First, we revisit the relationship between performance‐prove
goal orientation and knowledge hiding. Unlike the positive relationship
theorized and found in the literature (Rhee & Choi, 2017), we argue
that this relationship can be either positive or negative, depending
on the contextual contingencies highlighting different targets of com-
parison and competition. Second, by examining the extent to which
feedback focus alters the relationship between performance‐prove
goal orientation and knowledge hiding, we advance the understanding
of the complex relationship between performance‐prove goal orienta-
tion and interpersonal behavior and underscore the importance of
considering feedback content in uncovering these complex relation-
ships (Poortvliet & Darnon, 2010). Finally, by theorizing and testing
opposite signs of the mediated relationship between performance‐
prove goal orientation and creativity through knowledge hiding under
the two foci of performance feedback, we answer the call to delineate
the processes underlying the equivocal relationship between
performance‐prove goal orientation and creativity and the boundary
conditions involved (e.g., Hirst, Van Knippenberg, Chen, & Sacra-
mento, 2011; Hirst, Van Knippenberg, & Zhou, 2009). Figure 1 depicts
our theoretical model.
2|LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES
2.1 |Social comparison perspective on
performance‐prove goal orientation
Goal orientation reflects one's goal preferences in achievement situa-
tions (Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Payne, Youngcourt, & Beaubien, 2007;
VandeWalle, Brown, Cron, & Slocum, 1999). Literature has identified
three types of goal orientation according to the differences in
competence‐relevant striving (DeShon & Gillespie, 2005; Elliot,
1999; Payne, Youngcourt, & Beaubien, 2007; VandeWalle, 1997).
Learning goal orientation focuses on the development of competence,
performance‐prove goal orientation is directed toward proving one's
competence and comparing one's competence with those of others,
and performance‐avoid goal orientation aims to avoid the demonstra-
tion of incompetence (Elliot & Church, 1997; VandeWalle, 1997). Goal
orientation can be a chronic disposition affected by personality or
early life experiences as well as a psychological state that is malleable
to situational influence and can be primed or evoked by situational
cues (Payne, Youngcourt, & Beaubien, 2007). According to goal orien-
tation theory, also labeled as achievement goal theory, goal orienta-
tion can influence individuals' interpretation of and reaction to
achievement situations (DeShon & Gillespie, 2005). Researchers have
linked goal orientation to various motivational processes (e.g., intrinsic
motivation and persistence) and performance outcomes (for a meta‐
analysis, see Payne, Youngcourt, & Beaubien, 2007). However, these
studies have largely focused on intrapersonal processes, ignoring that
most achievement settings are socially relevant (Sommet, Darnon, &
Butera, 2015), where people must work with or against others to excel
(Poortvliet, 2013). As expected, a burgeoning interest exists in study-
ing the relationships between goal orientation and interpersonal pro-
cesses (Poortvliet & Darnon, 2010; Sommet, Darnon, & Butera, 2015).
Our research focuses on performance‐prove goal orientation as a
critical antecedent of knowledge hiding (Rhee & Choi, 2017). We argue
that the interpersonal perspective is critical in understanding the rela-
tionship between performance‐prove goal orientation and knowledge
hiding because “social comparison is an inherent component of
performance‐prove goal orientation”(Dietz, van Knippenberg, Hirst,
& Restubog, 2015, p. 2). According to Elliot and Moller (2003), social
850 ZHU ET AL.
To continue reading
Request your trial