Insights into the use of theories in knowledge hiding studies: a systematic review

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this systematic literature review (SLR) is to examine the theoretical landscape of knowledge hiding (KH) research, identifies prevailing theories, the different ways KH is understood within these theories and the underlying assumptions that shape these views. Based on this, ideas for further research are derived to advance the theoretical basis of KH studies.

Design/methodology/approach

Using a theory-based SLR, the authors analysed 170 scientific papers from Scopus and Web of Science. This involved thematic analysis to categorise theories frequently applied in KH research and a detailed examination to link core assumptions to these theoretical perspectives.

Findings

The analysis revealed a reliance on 86 distinct theories, with a notable emphasis on social exchange theory and conservation of resources theory. KH is predominantly conceptualised as a negative, objective, reactive and relational behaviour rooted in social reciprocity and resource conservation. The review uncovers the multifaceted nature of KH, challenging the field to incorporate broader theoretical views that encompass positive aspects, subjective experiences, strategic intentions and non-relational determinants of KH.

Originality/value

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to systematically map and analyse the theoretical underpinnings of KH research. It offers a unique contribution by categorising the diverse theories applied in KH studies and explicitly linking these theories to their inherent assumptions about KH. This approach provides a comprehensive overview that not only identifies gaps in the current research landscape but also proposes alternative theoretical perspectives for exploring KH, thereby setting a new direction for future studies in this field.

Citation

Tokyzhanova, T. and Durst, S. (2024), "Insights into the use of theories in knowledge hiding studies: a systematic review", VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/VJIKMS-11-2023-0303

1. Introduction

Organisations’ effective use of knowledge as a key competitive advantage in dynamic business environments is widely recognised (Mahdi et al., 2019; Grant, 1996). In light of this understanding, knowledge hiding (KH) has emerged as a critical area in contemporary management research. Due to its impact on organisational creativity (Feng et al., 2022), performance (Zhang et al., 2022; Moin et al., 2022) and innovation (Chen et al., 2022a), it is increasingly relevant thus attracting the interest of scholars and practitioners alike (Duan et al., 2022; Xiong et al., 2021; Fong et al., 2018).

Despite the field's promising development and the increasing calls for more research to deepen our understanding (Haar et al., 2022; Donate et al., 2022), the rapid expansion of KH studies (Bernatović et al., 2022; He et al., 2021) also harbours a danger. This expansion, without adequate synthesis and consolidation, raises concerns about the quality and coherence of knowledge being generated in this area. To address this, we propose a systematic literature review (SLR) on KH's theoretical underpinnings, acknowledging that theories provide the foundation for most research endeavours, from question formulation to data interpretation (Rocco and Plakhotnik, 2009).

While recognising the valuable contributions of existing SLRs in KH, which have provided insights into KH in specific contexts (Fauzi, 2023; Zutshi et al., 2021; Xiao and Cooke, 2019) and identified key research streams (Anand et al., 2022; Siachou et al., 2021), we note that these studies predominantly focused on cataloguing theories without a deeper analytical synthesis. These studies have identified or constructed gaps in existing KH literature that need to be filled. These works, although valuable for mapping the landscape of KH research, often remain on the surface, focusing on visible aspects and thus, as Alvesson and Sandberg (2013, p. 45) argue, tend to “reproduce rather than challenge the assumptions that underlie existing theories and studies”. According to these authors, this traditional analysis risks neglecting the deeper underlying assumptions that fundamentally shape a field. These dominant assumptions, as Post et al. (2020) highlight, influence all stages of research, from the formulation of research questions to the design, analysis and interpretation of findings. Therefore, a systematic review and analysis of the theoretical bases underpinning KH research appear imperative. By doing so, we can uncover the assumptions guiding existing studies, thereby illuminating potential biases and paving the way for new directions in KH research. This refined focus could enhance our understanding of KH and challenge us to reconsider and potentially redefine our theories better to capture the complexities of knowledge dynamics within organisations.

Against this background, this SLR aims to examine the theories used in existing KH research, identify their underlying assumptions and conceptualisations and propose future research avenues that enhance and broaden the theoretical understanding of KH in business and management studies. Thus, we pose the following research questions:

RQ1.

What theories are currently used in research on KH?

RQ2.

How has KH been conceptualised in these theoretical perspectives?

RQ3.

What are the dominant assumptions in KH literature and how have they influenced the field's development?

In response to RQ1, we systematically review KH literature to identify and catalogue the theories in use. To address RQ2, we use content analysis to examine how KH is conceptualised within these theoretical perspectives, identifying the core assumptions that shape these conceptualisations. In answering RQ3, we synthesise the dominant assumptions across KH literature overall.

The paper is organised as follows. Firstly, in Section 2, we provide a short introduction to KH and its possible definition to set the frame of this paper. Then, in Section 3, we present the SLR approach used in this paper. Following that, we present the SLR results (Section 4). After this, we synthesise these findings, which form the basis for proposing future directions for further advancing KH as a field of study (Section 5). Section 6 ends this paper with a conclusion.

2. Knowledge hiding a short introduction to the term

To avoid confusion, it is essential that we clearly explain to an interested reader what they mean by their key concepts and constructs (Gourlay, 2006). In the following, we will briefly present our understanding of KH. A detailed discussion of the term is not part of this paper; however, this could be aimed for in future research.

Previously published reviews (Anand et al., 2022; Siachou et al., 2021) suggest that scholars studying KH have reached a consensus on the definition of KH. It seems as if the definition of Connelly et al. (2012) has prevailed. These authors defined KH as “an intentional attempt by an individual to withhold or conceal task information, ideas, and know-how that another person has requested” (p. 65). As far as the perception of KH is concerned, it has been argued that it is not necessarily intended to harm a person or an organisation, but it is rather a response to a specific situation (Connelly and Zweig, 2015; Koay and Lim, 2022; Xiong et al., 2021). According to Connelly et al. (2012), knowledge hiders may pretend that they do not possess the knowledge that is requested (playing dumb), provide incomplete or incorrect information with the promise of complete information in the future (evasive hiding) or explain failing to provide information or blame another party (rationalised hiding). Existing research also reports that KH is considered as a counter-productive knowledge behaviour in organisations (Shirahada and Zhang, 2022; Afshar-Jalili et al., 2021; Singh, 2019; Serenko, 2019; Rhee and Choi, 2017; Serenko and Bontis, 2016).

This study will follow the definition proposed by Connelly et al. (2012).

3. Methodology

Following our study purpose, we adopted a SLR method, which facilitates the systematic identification, selection and analysis of relevant literature, ensuring a comprehensive synthesis of existing knowledge in the field (Hiebl, 2023; Williams et al., 2021). The approach chosen followed a set of predetermined procedures as proposed by Tranfield et al. (2003) and Kraus et al. (2020). We applied Tranfield et al. (2003)'s approach to ensure our review was transparent and replicable, enhancing the quality and reliability of our findings (Crossan and Apaydin, 2010). Kraus et al.'s methodology complements this by offering a more recent perspective on conducting SLRs in business and management fields, by providing an updated blueprint for executing SLRs. Our review followed a structured three-step procedure:

1. planning the review;

2. carrying out the review; and

3. reporting the review.

The first two steps are detailed in the following subsections. The final step is presented in Section 4.

3.1 Planning the review

Initially, we outlined a research plan by listing the research questions, the selected databases, the relevant keywords and the studies' inclusion and exclusion criteria.

To answer our research questions: What theories are currently used in research on KH? And how has the use of theories changed over the years, if at all? The two most widespread databases, Scopus and Web of Science (WoS) were selected to search relevant KH literature. A thorough overview of the WoS and Scopus databases and their content has been produced by Birkle et al. (2020) for WoS and Thelwall and Sud (2022) for Scopus.

The main search string consisted of the keyword “knowledge hiding”. We also used keywords such as “knowledge withholding”, “knowledge hoarding” or “counterproductive knowledge behaviour”, as we wanted our initial sample to be as complete as possible, i.e. the majority of relevant papers should be covered (Search syntax in KH).

Search syntax in KH

Search terms

TITLE-ABS-KEY (“Knowledge Hiding” OR “Hiding Knowledge” OR “Knowledge Hoarding” OR “Knowledge Withholding” OR “counterproductive knowledge behav*”)

Source: Table by authors

As for the inclusion criteria, we included documents such as articles and early access reviews that were published in English, fell under the business and management categories and were featured in leading peer-reviewed journals, particularly in leading knowledge management (KM) journals. Conversely, we excluded articles published in journals, grey literature such as reports, non-academic research and documents in languages other than English.

3.2 Conducting the review

Firstly, we found 553 articles from WoS and 660 from Scopus based on the abstract, title and keywords. In the second step, we narrowed the results to only the business and management research areas. It yielded 323 papers published in the WoS and 391 in Scopus databases. In Step 3, we only included articles published in scholarly journals to focus on research of high quality. As a result, 310 publications were identified in WoS and 367 in Scopus. In Step 4, articles published in languages other than English have been removed, leaving 310 papers from WoS and 365 in Scopus. In Step 5, only articles published in leading peer-reviewed journals were selected for further examination. Thus, the WoS data set was reduced to 201 and Scopus to 213 articles. In Step 6, 211 duplicate articles (i.e. those indexed in both databases) were excluded from consideration, leaving 203 articles. In Step 7, we screened the titles, keywords and abstracts of all remaining papers and excluded those that did not deal with KH despite prior filtering. As a result, after the screening process, the sample consisted of 170 articles. Figure 1 displays the search and selection processes performed on the 10 October 2023.

3.3 Methods

We applied several research methods to answer the research questions. Firstly, we identified and examined the theories or theoretical perspectives that underpin KH studies. Our theoretical coding was based solely on the explicit text provided in each article to ensure that our interpretations were as objective as possible. Following the identification of relevant theories we conducted a thematic analysis for theories mentioned in at least two studies, following Braun and Clarke's (2006) guidelines. This approach enabled us to systematically uncover, analyse and document recurring themes within the data, providing insights into how KH is conceptualised across various theoretical frameworks. To ensure rigour and comprehensiveness in our analysis, each article was thoroughly examined for instances of the theoretical application to KH. Codes were generated for segments of text that directly contributed to our understanding of how KH is framed within each theoretical context. These codes were then aggregated into themes, each representing a significant conceptual strand across the data set. This iterative process of coding, theme identification and synthesis culminated in a coherent mapping of the theoretical landscape surrounding KH, shedding light on its dynamic and varied conceptualisation within scholarly research. To address the identification of core assumptions in KH research, we incorporated an analytical approach informed by Alvesson and Sandberg (2011). This involved careful reading and analysis of how authors discuss KH – its antecedents and outcomes – within the theoretical framework they uded. These assumptions often appear as undisputed “facts” or “truths” about KH, its impact and its nature within organisational settings. Therefore, this perspective was aimed at uncovering potential biases and blind spots in existing research prompted by uncritical adherence to these assumptions.

The methodological rigour applied in our SLR was maintained through standardised coding sheets and iterative research team discussions to resolve discrepancies. The synthesis of our findings was supported by quantitative data extracted from the articles, summarised and presented in various visual formats such as tables and figures to enhance clarity and facilitate comprehension.

4. Results

Section 4 presents a comprehensive analysis of the theoretical foundations of KH research. We begin in Section 4.1 by detailing the variety of theories applied in the study of KH, identifying 86 distinct theories across 170 articles. Subsequently, in Section 4.2, we identify the four different ways KH is understood within these theoretical perspectives. Finally, in Section 4.3, we undertake an examination of the dominant assumptions underpinning KH research.

4.1 Theories used in knowledge hiding research

We have identified 86 distinct theories used across 170 articles. Social exchange theory (SET) is the most frequently used theory, with 49 articles. This theory serves as a basis for understanding the reciprocal nature of social interactions, possibly explaining why people may engage in KH to balance social reciprocity. The conservation of resources (COR) theory closely follows, which appears in 38 articles. This theory contributes by framing knowledge as a finite resource that individuals might strive to conserve, manifesting KH tendencies. Social learning theory (SLT) is another theoretical lens used in 13 studies, which offers insights into how KH behaviours may be socially learned and perpetuated within organisational settings. Psychological ownership theory (POT) has been invoked in ten articles, suggesting that a sense of ownership over knowledge can significantly influence an individual's decision to withhold it. Social cognitive theory (SCT), featured in nine articles, explores the cognitive processes that could mediate KH within social contexts. Furthermore, social comparison theory and self-determination theory (SDT), each employed in seven articles, provide avenues for investigating the emotional and motivational aspects underpinning KH. Social information processing (SIP) theory and social identity theory (SIT) are less frequent; they have been used in six and five articles, respectively. These theories examine how social contexts shape knowledge-processing behaviours and how in-group versus out-group dynamics might contribute to KH. Table 1 provides an overview of the theories.

4.2 Conceptualisations of knowledge hiding

This section presents the findings of our review reflecting the four conceptualisations of KH that emerged from the data. Figure 2 provides an overview of our findings. Next, the articles reviewed are discussed under the four main categories.

4.2.1 Category 1: knowledge hiding as a social behaviour (N = 99).

The majority of articles view KH as social behaviour characterised by a reciprocal interchange where the causes or effects of an action are influenced by or directly involve the behaviour of others (Baum, 2017). This exploration draws heavily on the reciprocity highlighted in SET (Blau, 1964), where relationships among colleagues are built based on interpersonal transactions in the workplace. For instance, positive leader/supervisor behaviour, e.g. leader–member exchange (He et al., 2022; Babič et al., 2019), supervisor support (Kmieciak, 2023), humble leadership (Al Hawamdeh, 2023) and empowering leadership (Lin et al., 2020) motivates followers/supervisees to reciprocate positive behaviour by decreasing their KH until a perceived balance of exchange is reached. Employers who invest more in their employees’ development by offering superior high-performance work systems (Haar et al., 2022), promoting shared goals (Nadeem et al., 2020) and organisational support (Alnaimi and Rjoub, 2021) encourage more positive behaviours and lower KH climate. Interactions with co-workers are also crucial, e.g. team-member exchange (Tan et al., 2022) and perceived co-worker support (Batistič and Poell, 2022) are negatively related to KH. However, individuals may reciprocate not only positive actions but also negative ones. Following the SET, reviewed research suggests that negative leader/supervisor behaviour, such as exploitative leadership (Moin et al., 2022) and abusive supervision (Offergelt and Venz, 2023; Khalid et al., 2020; Pradhan et al., 2020), encourage followers to negatively reciprocate by decreasing their KH behaviour. When employees experience uncivil treatment or bullying, the social exchange process assumes that both parties further exchange in a mutually hostile manner by exhibiting negative behaviour, such as KH (Anand et al., 2023; Venz and Mohr, 2023; Bari et al., 2023a; Chaker et al., 2021; Arshad and Ismail, 2018).

The second conceptualisation in Category 1 assumes that KH is a learnt behaviour from the social environment, drawing from SLT, SCT and SIP theory. According to SLT, the behaviour of individuals within an organisation, including practices around KH, is largely learned through observation of others, particularly those in leadership positions (Bandura, 1977, 1986). For instance, ethical leadership (Xie et al., 2023; Ali et al., 2023; Koay and Lim, 2022; Men et al., 2020) and empowering leadership (Lin et al., 2020) are modelled as exemplary behaviours, promoting a culture of openness and knowledge sharing. Conversely, witnessing knowledge withholding by supervisors (Zulfiqar et al., 2023; Offergelt and Venz, 2023; Arain et al., 2022a, 2020; Offergelt et al., 2019) or engaging in self-serving leadership (Peng et al., 2019) can signal to employees that KH is an acceptable, or even strategic, behaviour under certain conditions.

Building upon SLT, SCT emphasises the reciprocal relationship and interaction among the environment, personal characteristics and behaviours (Bandura, 1986). Environmental cues, such as a mastery climate (Wang et al., 2022), can positively impact perceived status within an organisation, whereas corporate hypocrisy (Zhao and Liu, 2022) can affect moral identity, both of which can then affect employee KH. Negative workplace behaviours, such as leader KH (Zhao et al., 2023), perception of organisational politics (Arain et al., 2022b) and negative workplace gossip (Khan et al., 2021) initiate moral disengagement by lowering the moral self-standard and increasing KH. SIP theory (Salancik and Pfeffer, 1978) further elucidates the process by which individuals interpret and respond to the social cues in their environment, influencing their KH behaviours. Leaders and those with high levels of power influence employees' perceptions of the workplace. If employees perceive their supervisors to practise self-serving leadership (Peng et al., 2019), treat them unfairly in a team setting (Liao et al., 2023), or withhold knowledge (Abdelmotaleb et al., 2022), they may interpret this as a negative signal and engage in KH behaviours. Conversely, when employees feel valued and appreciated through servant leadership (Usman et al., 2022), supervisor support (Usman et al., 2023) and appropriate HR practices (El-Kassar et al., 2022), they may be less likely to engage in KH behaviours.

The third conceptualisation in Category 1 refers to the impact of the social environment on self-concept. SIT unveils that employees with a strong identification with their team or organisation display a diminished inclination towards KH (Strik et al., 2021; Zhao et al., 2019). In cases where employees disagree with prevailing practices, such as organisational injustice, they may intentionally withhold requested knowledge from their colleagues to assert the distinctiveness of their identity (Jahanzeb et al., 2021). This discourse is further enriched by social comparison (Festinger, 1954) and relative deprivation theories, which suggest that employees' perceptions of their qualifications and relative standing within the organisation can catalyse KH (Wu et al., 2023; Li et al., 2022; Khan et al., 2023a; Yeşiltaş et al., 2023). The differentiation in leader–member relationships, traversing the spectrum from empowering to abusive supervision, shapes interpersonal dynamics and fosters environments ripe for KH as individuals navigate the treacherous waters of “self versus others” comparisons (Weng et al., 2020; Lin et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2021). This differentiation fosters negative “self versus others” comparisons, which results in engaging in acts such as KH.

4.2.2 Category 2: knowledge hiding as a defensive behaviour (N = 52).

COR theory is the second most frequently used theory, used in 38 articles. This research shows that when employees are subjected to abusive and unethical leadership, they can experience emotional exhaustion (Hao et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2021), psychological unsafety (Agarwal et al., 2022a), a lack of respect (Sarwar et al., 2021), feel insecure about their job (Feng and Wang, 2019) and have relational identification issues and psychological distress (Qin et al., 2023) in the workplace. The COR theory suggests this can trigger self-protective behaviours like KH to conserve resources. Targets who experience social stressors such as negative workplace gossip (Cheng et al., 2023; Khan et al., 2023b; Yao et al., 2020a), workplace ostracism (Bhatti et al., 2023) and bullying (Yao et al., 2020b) may engage in KH to protect their remaining resources. Similarly, KH can also serve as a defence mechanism against emotional resource depletion (De Clercq et al., 2022a) and relational conflicts (Nguyen et al., 2022). Other factors like organisational justice (Khan et al., 2023c), dysfunctional organisational politics (De Clercq et al., 2022b; Kaur and Kang, 2023), excessive time pressure (Zhang et al., 2022; Škerlavaj et al., 2018) and significant work pressures (Sofyan et al., 2023a, 2023b) may also promote KH as a resource conservation behaviour. However, fear of reprisal or task delay may deter KH despite work overload.

POT (n = 10) postulates that individuals are possessive towards something they consider their own (Pierce et al., 2001). This sense of ownership is particularly strong when it comes to knowledge. Accordingly, they will proactively establish a protection mechanism to hide that knowledge (Wu and Liu, 2023; Guo et al., 2022a; Duan et al., 2022; Singh, 2019; Abubakar et al., 2019; Huo et al., 2016; Peng and Pierce, 2015; Peng, 2013). However, if employees view the organisation as a target of ownership, they may perceive that the knowledge is common to the organisation. This could weaken the KH behaviours in the organisation (Wu and Liu, 2023). Territoriality theory (n = 4) suggests that an individual's psychological ownership of an object can lead them to treat it as their own territory, resulting in a desire to defend and protect it (Brown et al., 2005). From such a viewpoint, KH is a behavioural expression of territoriality that motivates the holder to engage in territorial guarding to maintain their advantageous position (David and Shih, 2023; Gustina and Sitalaksmi, 2023; Chen et al., 2022b; Peng, 2013).

4.2.3 Category 3: knowledge hiding as an individual-driven behaviour (N = 15).

This category, representing the smaller subset of the literature, focuses on KH as behaviour driven by individual factors. At the core of this exploration is SDT (Deci and Ryan, 1985), which frames KH within the context of unmet psychological needs. SDT suggests that when individuals feel disconnected from their work, dissatisfied with their performance, or deprived of job autonomy, they might resort to KH as a means to navigate these deficits (Shirahada and Zhang, 2022; Peng et al., 2022). Similarly, motivation theory delineates the dual role of motivation in shaping KH. It posits that while financial incentives might inadvertently encourage KH by fostering controlled motivation, intrinsic motivations tied to social aspects of work could deter such behaviour (Zhang and Min, 2021; Gagné et al., 2019; Stenius et al., 2016; Ma et al., 2020).

Complementing the insights from SDT, the theory of planned behaviour provides a basis for understanding KH through the lenses of attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control. This approach underscores the complexity of KH as influenced by individual attitudes and the normative pressures of the organisational environment, explored across varied settings such as international entrepreneurial firms and R&D teams (Jafari-Sadeghi et al., 2022; Xiong et al., 2021; Shirahada and Zhang, 2022; Chang et al., 2020).

The narrative then shifts to the ego depletion theory, which posits that self-control and willpower draw upon a limited pool of mental resources that can be depleted over time (Baumeister et al., 1998). When individuals face demanding or stressful situations, they consume these resources and their capacity for self-control diminishes. This potentially leads to behaviours they might otherwise resist, such as KH (Yeşiltaş et al., 2023; Khan et al., 2023c). Continuing on the internal state of the individual, the cognitive-affective personality system theory shows how individuals' unique cognitive and emotional patterns interact with specific situations to produce consistent behaviours over time (Mischel and Shoda, 1995). Building upon this perspective, the cognitive pathways that exist between time pressure (Zhang et al., 2022), negative workplace gossip (Yao et al., 2020a), workplace bullying (Yao et al., 2020b) and KH are studied.

4.2.4 Category 4: other conceptualisations (N = 14).

Job characteristics theory suggests that job complexity and task interdependence can motivate employees to hide knowledge, impacting organisational outcomes (Chatterjee et al., 2021; Qin et al., 2023; Černe et al., 2017; Zhang and Min, 2019). Affective events theory indicates that workplace events trigger emotions that mediate behaviours like KH, where positive events may reduce KH, whereas negative events increase it (Xia et al., 2022; Good et al., 2023; Lin et al., 2023; Peng et al., 2020). Contextual theory highlights how organisational settings and factors such as HR systems and relational climates moderate KH's occurrence and its antecedents (Batistič and Poell, 2022; Banagou et al., 2021). Psychological contract theory posits that breaches in perceived organisational obligations can lead to KH, influenced by individual personality traits and work motivations (Rousseau, 1989; Kmieciak, 2023; Pan et al., 2018). Finally, equity theory explains how imbalances in perceived inputs and outcomes lead to negative emotions and increased KH, with equity sensitivity influencing individual responses to these imbalances (Adams, 1965; Khan et al., 2023b; Jahanzeb et al., 2019).

4.3 Identifying dominating assumptions

In this section, we delve into the dominant assumptions underpinning KH research, drawing on an analytical approach informed by Alvesson and Sandberg (2011). This analysis focuses on unveiling the underlying premises that have shaped the trajectory and focus of KH studies. By examining how assumptions linked to various theoretical lenses influence the conceptualisation of KH, we aim to provide a clearer understanding of the foundational beliefs guiding this field. This endeavour not only highlights the implicit “facts” or “truths” accepted within the KH discourse but also sets the stage for exploring how these assumptions affect the development and direction of KH research.

4.3.1 Knowledge hiding is negative.

One of the most prevailing assumptions in the reviewed papers is that KH is detrimental to individuals and organisations. This perspective is bolstered by a substantial body of research indicating that KH negatively affects individual in-role performance (Akhtar et al., 2022; Garg et al., 2021; Singh, 2019), organisational citizenship behaviour (Burmeister et al., 2019), employee identification (Abdelmotaleb et al., 2022), creativity (Feng et al., 2022; Černe et al., 2017) and innovative behaviour (Chen et al., 2022b; Donate et al., 2022). At the team and firm levels, KH is associated with impeding innovation (Zhang and Min, 2022; Haar et al., 2022) and overall performance (Haar et al., 2022; Zhang and Min, 2019). Thus, conventional wisdom seems to be that managers should actively discourage KH and foster an environment conducive to knowledge sharing (Liao et al., 2023; Nadeem et al., 2020; Zhu et al., 2019).

However, some studies suggest that KH can also have positive implications. For instance, evasive KH can enhance short-term innovation performance as knowledge becomes more valuable and relevant to individual employees (Khoreva and Wechtler, 2020). Similarly, the act of playing dumb, a form of KH, can alleviate psychological strain at the end of the workday, offering immediate stress relief (Venz and Nesher Shoshan, 2022). Moreover, rationalised hiding has been linked to increased feelings of empowerment among employees (Offergelt et al., 2019).

The negative view of KH may arise from a managerial perspective where knowledge is viewed as a key resource that should circulate freely among individuals. These views are deeply rooted in theories such as SET and COR theory. SET suggests that healthy organisational dynamics rely on reciprocal exchanges of knowledge. In this light, KH is seen as a breach of the norm of reciprocity (Guo et al., 2022b; Donate et al., 2022). By hiding knowledge, individuals disrupt the balance of give and take, eroding trust and collaboration and thus is considered detrimental to effective organisational exchange (Chaker et al., 2021; Bari et al., 2020). COR theory contributes to the negative perception of KH by illustrating how efforts to hide knowledge can initiate negative resource spirals, as Hobfoll (2001) outlined. The logic of negative resource spirals suggests that the act of concealing knowledge (a resource) can lead to further losses, such as missed opportunities for career advancement (De Clercq et al., 2022b) and decreased well-being (Agarwal et al., 2022b).

4.3.2 Knowledge hiding is objective.

KH is generally recognised as a behaviour identifiable through specific actions within organisational settings, a view supported by an objectivist epistemology. This perspective treats KH as a phenomenon that can be quantified and observed systematically. Commonly employed theories such as SET, COR theory and SDT suggest that rational, measurable decisions in diverse organisational contexts drive KH.

SET, for instance, offers a structured basis for predicting KH by suggesting that the principles of reciprocity and interpersonal transactions influence individuals' decisions to hide or share knowledge. Similarly, the POT suggests that KH actions are rational responses to the sense of ownership individuals feel over their knowledge, with empirical studies by Wu and Liu (2023) and Duan et al. (2022) supporting that personal ownership leads to protective KH behaviours. SDT adds to this by indicating that KH stems from deliberate decisions when basic psychological needs are unmet (Shirahada and Zhang, 2022; Peng et al., 2022). These theories frame knowledge as a valuable commodity which can be “acquired, modelled, and expressed most accurately in the most objective and explicit terms possible” (Cook and Brown, 1999, p. 384). In these cases, individuals are seen to exert control over their knowledge, deciding when and with whom to share.

This predominant focus on KH as an objective behaviour is contrasted by a relatively sparse body of empirical research exploring the subjective experiences of individuals involved in KH scenarios. Using a construal lens, Connelly and Zweig (2015) revealed that targets of KH do not always view the behaviour as detrimental or warranting retaliation. Xiong et al. (2021) examined knowledge hiders' attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control over KH within the cultural contexts of international R&D teams by using a constructivist approach.

4.3.3 Knowledge hiding is immediate reactive.

KH is predominantly assumed as a reactive behaviour, frequently informed by social-based and defensive mode-based theories. The reliance on these theories underscores a prevailing assumption within KH research: hiding knowledge is often an immediate, reflexive action triggered in response to various social stimuli or stressors. For example, leader behaviour (Offergelt and Venz, 2023; Usman et al., 2023; Khalid et al., 2020), peer dynamics (Cheng et al., 2023; Batistič and Poell, 2022) or organisational culture (Khan et al., 2023a; El-Kassar et al., 2022; Chatterjee et al., 2021) can trigger individuals to hide knowledge as a protective or retaliatory measure, aiming to safeguard their interests. This interpretation is supported by most studies highlighting how KH serves as a mechanism to counteract detrimental cues, reinforcing the view of KH as predominantly reactive.

A few studies suggest that KH behaviour emerges from a complex interplay of individual traits, motivations and perceptions, challenging the simplistic view of it as a defensive reaction to negative stimuli or a protective mechanism. Drawing on mixed motives and trait-activation theory, Hernaus and Černe (2022) underscore the significance of individual traits like competitiveness and prosocial motivation in KH. Garg et al. (2021), using the theory of reasoned action, demonstrate that performance motivation and territoriality can motivate KH as a strategic pursuit of academic excellence, suggesting that individual ambitions can drive KH beyond social or defensive contexts.

It is also imperative not to confine SET's applicability to understanding only immediate, reactive behaviours within KH research, as the theory's versatility extends to actions taken in anticipation of future outcomes. For instance, using SET, Issac et al. (2023) explore how personal power dynamics, including potential losses and gains, can strategically motivate KH. This approach suggests that individuals engage in KH not solely as a reflexive mechanism to immediate exchanges but as part of a broader strategy to secure future positional advantages within the organisational hierarchy.

4.3.4 Knowledge hiding is mostly relational.

KH is frequently conceived as an informal, relational dynamic that unfolds within the interpersonal spaces of organisational life. At its core, this view acknowledges that the quality of interpersonal relationships and the social climate within the organisation significantly influence the decision to hide or share knowledge. For instance, studies have shown that positive leader–member exchanges and supervisor support significantly decrease KH behaviours by fostering a culture of reciprocity and trust within the organisation (He et al., 2022; Babič et al., 2019; Kmieciak, 2023). Conversely, negative leadership behaviours, such as exploitative or abusive supervision, have been found to encourage KH as employees reciprocate negatively to such treatment (Moin et al., 2022; Offergelt and Venz, 2023; Khalid et al., 2020; Pradhan et al., 2020).

Although not many studies have expanded the investigation of KH beyond relational dynamics, those that do highlight the significant role of non-relational factors. For instance, Arias-Pérez and Vélez-Jaramillo (2022) use transaction cost theory to illustrate how technological turbulence and awareness of AI and robotics influence KH, proposing that the costs associated with transactions in knowledge exchanges are affected by technological advancements. Zhang and Ji (2023) draw on the appraisal theory of empathy to connect increased information and communication technology use with a rise in KH, suggesting that digital communication's lack of empathetic exchanges fosters an environment conducive to KH.

Xia et al. (2022) use both affective events theory and emotion appraisal theory to explore how politeness in knowledge requests impacts KH, implying that emotional reactions to events in the workplace can influence KH behaviours. Ma et al. (2020), through the lens of motivation theory, investigate different corporate social media usage patterns and their effects on KH, highlighting how intrinsic and extrinsic motivations shape individuals' knowledge behaviours. The effectiveness of reward systems on KH is analysed by Zhang and Min (2021) and Stenius et al. (2016) using SDT, indicating that the type of rewards (financial vs non-financial) can fulfil or thwart employees' intrinsic motivations to share or hide knowledge. El-Kassar et al. (2022) apply SIP theory to understand the impact of HR practices on KH, suggesting that individuals adapt their knowledge-sharing behaviours based on the social cues and information available in their work environment.

5. Discussion and future research directions

Our review of the theories used in KH research (RQ1) demonstrates a predominant reliance on theories such as SET and COR, contrasted by the less frequent application of SDT and POT. Furthermore, our investigation into how KH has been conceptualised across these theories (RQ2) underscores the varied interpretations of KH – from a defensive mechanism triggered by resource conservation needs to a learned behaviour influenced by social interactions and individual perceptions. However, we should note that KH is mostly seen as a response to imbalances in social reciprocity or as a defensive mechanism to conserve personal resources, underpinning the bulk of the research in this field. Building on the insights from the first two research questions, our analysis then delves into the core assumptions underpinning KH research, as identified in RQ3. This exploration highlights the prevailing view of KH as negative, objective, reactive and relational. By acknowledging the underlying assumptions, we pave the way for exploring and expanding upon future research directions, offering new perspectives on KH within organisations. Table 2 presents key areas for further exploration in KH research, presenting potential research questions and suggesting relevant theories for each area.

The primary conceptualisation of KH as a negative phenomenon has been instrumental in understanding its detrimental effects. Although the adverse effects on performance, innovation, and organisational climate are well-documented, emerging evidence suggests potential positive aspects, such as stress relief and short-term innovation boosts. Empirical studies focusing on the positive aspects and strategic use of KH can provide a counter-narrative to the dominant view of KH as detrimental, thereby enriching the discourse with a more balanced understanding of its role within organisations. Research questions could delve into the conditions under which KH fosters innovation, both at individual and organisational levels, and investigate KH as a mechanism for employee stress relief and well-being enhancement. In addition, understanding the role of KH in building personal reputation and expertise, as well as its contribution to safeguarding sensitive information, could provide insights into its strategic use.

The characterisation of KH as an objective behaviour, readily observable and quantifiable, has directed much of the empirical research in the field. Shifting the focus towards understanding KH as a subjective behaviour introduces a complementary perspective. This shift in perspective calls for a deeper exploration into the individualised reasons behind KH, moving beyond mere quantification to understanding the lived experiences, personal motivations and the emotional and cognitive underpinnings that lead individuals to hide knowledge. Future research could explore the subjective experiences that lead individuals to engage in KH, focusing on the personal motivations and emotional states that drive these actions. By exploring the subjective nature of KH, scholars can uncover the complex psychological processes involved, such as the role of emotions and trust, and how individuals' perception of the uniqueness or value of knowledge influences their decision to hide it. This approach allows for a richer, more comprehensive exploration of KH, highlighting the diversity of individual experiences and the various factors that influence this behaviour.

Similarly, the conventional understanding often frames KH as a reactive behaviour primarily influenced by immediate external stimuli or organisational dynamics. This viewpoint may limit our grasp of KH's strategic dimensions, where individuals deliberately use KH for personal career advancement or to protect intellectual assets. Recognising KH as a strategic behaviour necessitates exploring the long-term impacts of such actions on both the individual and the organisation. Future inquiries could investigate the decision-making processes behind strategic KH, examining how individuals weigh the potential risks and benefits. This exploration would shed light on KH as a calculated, strategic choice rather than merely an impulsive reaction, offering new insights into its implications for personal growth and organisational outcomes.

Finally, although KH is often seen through the lens of relational dynamics within organisations, expanding the focus to include non-relational determinants can provide a more comprehensive understanding of why and how KH occurs. This broader perspective acknowledges that factors such as technological advances, workspace design and external pressures like market competition and regulatory changes can significantly influence KH behaviours. By exploring these non-relational aspects, research would illuminate the varied and complex environments in which KH takes place, offering insights into the multifaceted nature of this phenomenon. This shift could lead to more targeted strategies for managing KH, taking into account a wider array of influences beyond interpersonal relationships.

6. Conclusion

In this review, we have systematically analysed the theories underpinning KH research, delving into the range of theoretical perspectives used (RQ1) and how KH has been conceptualised within these theories (RQ2). This foundational analysis extends into addressing the core assumptions identified through RQ3, uncovering prevalent perceptions of KH as predominantly negative, objective, reactive and relational. By revisiting these assumptions, we open up avenues for future research to explore the positive, subjective, strategic and non-relational dimensions of KH, enriching both the academic and practical understanding of this complex phenomenon.

Scholars exploring KH are urged to extend beyond traditional views that predominantly focus on its negative impacts. Future research should also explore KH's potential positive outcomes, its strategic dimensions for career advancement or protection of intellectual assets, as well as the subjective experiences that drive individuals to engage in KH. In addition, considering non-relational determinants such as technological advances and external pressures could provide a fuller understanding of KH's multifaceted nature. Embracing a broader array of theories, including those less frequently applied, such as construal level theory and expectancy theory, could enrich the discourse and highlight the complex interplay between individual motivations and organisational dynamics in KH.

Practitioners, such as managers or entrepreneurs, are encouraged to develop and execute KM strategies that consider KH's complexities. These strategies include recognising legitimate reasons for KH while promoting an organisational culture that supports knowledge-sharing. By finding a balance between promoting knowledge sharing and respecting individual autonomy and privacy, organisations can reduce KH's detrimental impacts and capitalise on its potential advantages. In addition, embracing a broader understanding of the factors influencing KH can guide the development of targeted interventions that address specific drivers of KH within different organisational contexts.

This review acknowledges its limitations, including the scope of the literature search and the types of publications considered. Future studies could broaden this scope to capture a wider array of insights on KH. As the field progresses, it is essential to continue challenging and refining our understanding of KH, ensuring that both theoretical explorations and practical applications evolve to address the dynamic nature of KM in organisations.

Figures

Figure 1.

Search and selection processes

Figure 2.

Used theories and KH conceptualisations

Table 1.

Frequently used theories in KH research

Theories	Count	Articles (examples)
Social exchange theory	49	Bari et al. (2023b), Donate et al. (2022), Haar et al. (2022), Feng et al. (2022), Al Hawamdeh (2023), Chaker et al. (2021), Lin et al. (2020), Arain et al. (2020), Jiang and Xu (2020)
Conservation of resources theory	38	Agarwal et al. (2023), Khan et al. (2023c), Zhang et al. (2022), De Clercq et al. (2022a), Nguyen et al. (2022), Chatterjee et al. (2021), Qin et al. (2023), Feng and Wang (2019)
Social learning theory	13	Ali et al. (2023), Arain et al. (2022c), Koay and Lim (2022), Offergelt and Venz (2023), Peng et al. (2019)
Psychological ownership theory	10	Wu et al. (2023), Guo et al. (2022b), Duan et al. (2022), Oubrich et al. (2021), Singh (2019)
Social cognitive theory	9	Zhao et al. (2023), Akhtar et al. (2022), Wang et al. (2022)
Social comparison theory	7	Li et al. (2022), Pandey et al. (2021), Peng et al. (2020)
Self-determination theory	6	Shirahada and Zhang (2022), Peng et al. (2021), Zhang and Min (2021), Gagné et al. (2019)
Social information processing theory	6	Usman et al. (2023), Liao et al. (2023), Abdelmotaleb et al. (2022)
Social identity theory	5	Pandey et al. (2021), Strik et al. (2021), Zhao et al. (2019)

Source: Table by authors

Table 2.

Areas for further exploration in KH research

Research focus	Potential research questions	Potential theories
Expanding understanding of KH's effects	1. Under what conditions does KH contribute to individual or organisational innovation? 2. In what ways does KH serve as a coping mechanism for employees, potentially leading to improved well-being or stress reduction? 3. In what scenarios does KH contribute to building an individual’s reputation or perceived expertise within an organisation? 4. Can KH facilitate the protection of sensitive or proprietary information, enhancing organisational security and intellectual property protection? 5. What role does KH play in managing interpersonal dynamics and conflicts within teams?	Expectancy theory, impression management theory, information gap theory, boundary spanning theory, intellectual capital theory
Exploring subjective experiences of KH	1. How do personal values and beliefs influence an individual's decision to hide knowledge?  2. In what ways does the perception of KH vary among different cultures or organisational contexts? 3. How do individuals rationalise or justify KH to themselves, and what subjective processes are involved in these rationalisations? 4. Can the subjective value or perceived uniqueness of the knowledge influence the decision to hide it?	Construal level theory, narrative identity theory, self-categorisation theory, action identification theory
Investigating strategic aspects of KH	1. How do individuals use KH as a strategy for career advancement or protecting intellectual assets?  2. What are the long-term outcomes of strategic KH for both the individual and the organisation? 3. How do individuals assess the risks and benefits of KH in strategic decision-making processes?	Game theory. prospect theory, competence motivation theory, expectancy theory
Understanding non-relational influences on KH	1. How do technological advancements and digital work environments influence employees' propensity to engage in KH? 2. Can physical workspace design contribute to the occurrence of KH among employees? 3. To what extent do external pressures, such as market competition or regulatory changes, drive KH behaviours in organisations? 4. Are there industry-specific determinants that significantly influence the prevalence of KH practices?	Socio-technical systems theory, cultural schema theory, contingency theory, institutional theory

Source: Table by authors