what goes around comes around: knowledge hiding, perceived motivational climate, and creativity

What goes around comes around: Knowledge hiding,

perceived motivational climate, and creativity

Journal: Academy of Management Journal

Manuscript ID: AMJ-2012-0122.R3

Manuscript Type: Revision

Keyword:

Creativity < Behavior < Organizational Behavior < Topic Areas,

Deviance/counterproductive behaviors < Behavior < Organizational Behavior < Topic Areas, Survey < Quantitative Orientation < Research Methods, Lab experiment < Quantitative Orientation < Research Methods, Multi-level (e.g., HLM, WABA, RCM) < Analysis < Research Methods, Motivation < Attitudes, Cognitions, and Affect < Organizational Behavior < Topic Areas

Abstract:

Knowledge hiding prevents colleagues from generating creative ideas, but it may also have negative consequences for the creativity of the knowledge hider. Drawing on social exchange theory, we propose that when employees hide knowledge, they trigger a reciprocal distrust loop in which coworkers are unwilling to share knowledge with them. We further suggest that these effects are contingent on the motivational climate such that the

negative effects of hiding knowledge on one’s own creativity are enhanced in a performance climate and attenuated in a mastery climate. A field study of 240 employees, nested into 34 groups, revealed a negative relationship between knowledge hiding and the knowledge hider’s creativity as well as the moderating role of a mastery climate. Study 2 replicated these findings in an experimental study of 132 undergraduate students, testing a reciprocal distrust loop and comparing it with an alternative intra-psychic explanatory process based on situational regulatory focus. Implications for practice and future research are discussed.

Academy of Management Journal

1

What Goes Around Comes Around: Knowledge Hiding,

Perceived Motivational Climate, and Creativity

MATEJ ČERNE The Centre of Excellence for Biosensors,

Instrumentation, and Process control - COBIK

Open Innovation Systems Lab Velika pot 22, Solkan, 5250, Slovenia

Tel: (+386) 31570-835 e-mail: [email protected]

CHRISTINA G. L. NERSTAD BI Norwegian Business School

Department of Leadership and Organizational Behaviour

Nydalsveien 37, Oslo, 0484, Norway Tel: (+47) 46410-758

e-mail: [email protected]

ANDERS DYSVIK BI Norwegian Business School Department of Leadership and

Organizational Behaviour Nydalsveien 37, Oslo, 0484, Norway


MIHA ŠKERLAVAJ Faculty of Economics University of Ljubljana Department of Management and Organisation

Kardeljeva ploščad 17, Ljubljana, 1000, Slovenia


We are grateful to Associate Editor Adam Grant and three anonymous reviewers for helpful developmental feedback and suggestions. We would also like to thank John Sumanth for a friendly review, and Marko Jaklič and the respondents from two companies for help with the field study. We are grateful to participants at the Faculty of Economics Ljubljana University (FELU) and Robert Kaše for help with the experimental study. We also thank all participants at FELU and BI research seminars, and AoM annual meeting 2012 attendees for their comments. We offer special thanks to Darija Aleksić, Sabina Bogilović and Ivan Župič for help with the creative requirement and creative output ratings. This work was supported by the European Union, European Regional Development Fund and Republic of Slovenia, Ministry of Education, Science, Culture and Sport, as The Centre of Excellence for Biosensors, Instrumentation and Process Control is an operation financed by these entities.

Page 1 of 52 Academy of Management Journal

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

2

ABSTRACT

Knowledge hiding prevents colleagues from generating creative ideas, but it may also have

negative consequences for the creativity of the knowledge hider. Drawing on social exchange

theory, we propose that when employees hide knowledge, they trigger a reciprocal distrust

loop in which coworkers are unwilling to share knowledge with them. We further suggest that

these effects are contingent on the motivational climate such that the negative effects of

hiding knowledge on one’s own creativity are enhanced in a performance climate and

attenuated in a mastery climate. A field study of 240 employees, nested into 34 groups,

revealed a negative relationship between knowledge hiding and the knowledge hider’s

creativity as well as the moderating role of a mastery climate. Study 2 replicated these

findings in an experimental study of 132 undergraduate students, testing a reciprocal distrust

loop and comparing it with an alternative intra-psychic explanatory process based on

situational regulatory focus. Implications for practice and future research are discussed.

Keywords: Knowledge hiding, creativity, mastery climate, performance climate

Page 2 of 52Academy of Management Journal

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

3

WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND: KNOWLEDGE HIDING, PERCEIVED MOTIVATIONAL CLIMATE, AND CREATIVITY

Scholars and practitioners share a strong interest in understanding factors that may help to

engage employees in creativity, formally defined as the generation of novel and potentially

useful ideas (Amabile, 1983; Shalley, 1991). Creativity has been established as a fundamental

driver that serves as a basis for individuals, groups, and organizations to pursue innovative

efforts. In turn, meta-analytic evidence and numerous studies identify innovation as crucial in

improving performance and achieving continuous competitive advantage (e.g., Liao & Rice,

2010; Rosenbusch, Brinckmann, & Bausch, 2011). How to stimulate creative behavior in the

workplace is therefore a highly relevant issue. Yet, understanding the factors that drive

creativity and their interplay remains a significant agenda for researchers (Shalley & Zhou,

2008).

In particular, the impact of knowledge sharing on employees’ creative behavior is a heavily

discussed topic within creativity research (e.g., Perry-Smith, 2006; Perry-Smith & Shalley,

2003). Employees must be motivated to share their knowledge in order to facilitate creative

processes with others (Perry-Smith, 2006), which explains why the majority of research to

date focuses on factors that might increase employees’ knowledge sharing. Although

knowledge sharing certainly represents a competitive asset in terms of creativity (Perry-

Smith, 2006), knowledge hiding—an intentional attempt to conceal or to withhold knowledge

that others have requested—may represent a threat to beneficial outcomes (Connelly, Zweig,

Webster, & Trougakos, 2012) such as creativity. Connelly et al. (2012) argue that knowledge

hiding is different from a lack of knowledge sharing because in addition to the omission of

knowledge sharing, it also incorporates an intent to withhold knowledge that someone else

has requested. Analogous to the fact that knowledge sharing enhances the creativity of


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

4

coworkers (e.g., Perry-Smith, 2006), intentionally hiding knowledge should inhibit the

creativity of coworkers.

To date, however, knowledge hiding processes and outcomes within specific situations

remain largely unexplored (Connelly et al., 2012). Specifically, it is unclear how knowledge

hiding will affect the creativity of the knowledge hider. Drawing on social exchange theory

(Blau, 1964), the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960), and the importance of interpersonal

dynamics for knowledge hiding (Connelly & Kelloway, 2003), we posit that a distrust loop

occurs between the knowledge hider and seeker. Namely, when employee A intentionally

hides knowledge from employee B (who has requested it and is hence aware of the fact that

hiding has occurred), this backfires on employee A. Due to the distrust created, employee B

wants to retaliate and also hides knowledge from employee A. This, in turn, inhibits the

creativity of the initial knowledge hider (employee A).

If knowledge hiding impedes employee creativity, organizations and managers need to

identify how to mitigate this effect. We propose that the extant criteria of success and failure

in the work environment, also conceptualized as the perceived motivational (mastery and

performance) climate (Ames, 1992a; Ames, 1992b; Nicholls, 1989), can affect the social

exchange patterns that develop in the distrust loop (Poortvliet & Giebels, 2012). For example,

employees who are placed in a motivational climate characterized by social comparison and

intra-team competition (i.e., performance climate) may reciprocate in response to knowledge

hiding in order to gain some competitive advantage for them, thereby hurting the initial

knowledge hider’s creativity. On the other hand, when placed in a motivational climate that

values employees’ efforts, self-development, cooperation, and learning (i.e., mastery climate),

employees may view reciprocal knowledge hiding as a destructive behavior that impedes the

mutual benefit of knowledge exchange and creativity in their work group. We therefore

propose that the creativity costs that the knowledge hider faces are more pronounced within a


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

5

performance climate and attenuated within a mastery climate. We test our hypotheses in two

studies using both field and experimental data.

Our theoretical point of view and empirical findings offer significant contributions to the

creativity and knowledge management literature, respectively. First, we aim to answer calls to

enrich knowledge about social influences on creativity (e.g., Grant & Berry, 2011; Perry-

Smith, 2006) by introducing a distrust loop mechanism to the knowledge hiding-creativity

relationship. The very actions deemed by knowledge hiders as self-protective can backfire in

undermining their own creativity. Second, the context has been deemed important for both

knowledge hiding (Connelly et al., 2012) and creativity (Byron, Khazanchi, & Nazarian,

2010; Hammond, Neff, Farr, Schwall, & Zhao, 2011; Hirst, Van Knippenberg, & Zhou, 2009;

Zhou, Hirst, & Shipton, 2012). We therefore explore how mastery and performance climates

may influence the distrust loop differently by affecting the social exchange patterns among

exchange partners (cf., Poortvliet & Giebels, 2012). In practice, our research should help to

explain why many creative initiatives in work organizations fail (Alencar, 2012) and what

management can do about it.

KNOWLEDGE HIDING AND CREATIVITY

Although it should be understood and examined as a complex and ambiguous concept

(Runco, 2008), creativity deals with idea generation or exploration as interpreted within a

particular social context (Shalley & Zhou, 2008). Next to its intrapsychic origins (e.g., Barron

& Harrington, 1981), creativity in itself is an important part of interpersonal processes

(Amabile, 1983; Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993). The generation of creative ideas is

often the result of grouping novel combinations of the varied perspectives and approaches to

which people are exposed via social interactions (Allen, 1977; Perry-Smith, 2006; Perry-

Smith & Shalley, 2003). Consequently, creativity is very much dependent on information and


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

6

knowledge sharing (Amabile, 1997) and thus may be crucially influenced by knowledge

hiding.

A social exchange relationship between coworkers facilitates knowledge sharing (Wang &

Noe, 2010) and, in turn, enhances creative performance because mere exposure to diverse

alternatives can trigger the use of wider mental processes and generate more divergent

solutions (Kanter, 1988). In addition, such a relationship increases the ability to generate,

validate, and determine the appropriateness of potential solutions (Perry-Smith & Shalley,

2003) between trusting group members (Wang & Noe, 2010). A reduction in knowledge

sharing will lessen people’s ability to generate creative ideas (Bartol & Srivastava, 2002) and

to critically evaluate their value to the group and/or organization. Creativity requires

information about a problem and a certain degree of prior knowledge regarding the task at

hand (Amabile, 1983). Thus, knowledge hiding may prevent employees from collecting the

existing concepts they require to create new concepts (Reiter-Palmon & Illies, 2004). This

may have a critical damaging influence in contexts in which creativity is important. In this

way, it could embody a significant but thus far neglected explanation of why successful

creativity enhancement initiatives are lacking in organizations.

The aforementioned argument seems reasonable in cases in which others hide knowledge.

We argue, however, that the very same individual who exhibits higher levels of knowledge

hiding will experience a decrease in creativity. Nevertheless, like Connelly et al. (2012), who

allude to the importance of social relations for work in predicting knowledge hiding, we

explore this construct and its outcome in the form of dyadic creativity. The main explanatory

mechanism we propose for the knowledge-hiding creativity relationship is of an interpersonal

nature and is linked to social exchange and the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960) within

groups of people. Reciprocity is a moral norm, one of the universal principal components of

moral codes within social systems (Gouldner, 1960). Interactions between coworkers are


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

7

generally governed by an unspoken and inexplicit social exchange (Blau, 1964). Positive

relationships will draw on norms of reciprocity and expectations of trust, honesty, mutual aid,

and equal mutual exchange of privileges (Settoon, Bennett, & Liden, 1996). A person who

voluntarily and spontaneously engages in one positive behavior toward another person will

implicitly invoke a similar reciprocal behavior.

Naturally, negative reciprocity is also present within organizational settings. When a

person perceives negative behavior or misbehavior (cf., Vardi & Weitz, 2004), such as

intentional information withholding, he or she develops a basic mindset of distrust—that is, a

lack of confidence in the other and/or a concern that the other may act to harm him or her

(Grovier, 1994). Distrust toward one person in a dyad leads the other person to reciprocate the

behavior (Gouldner, 1960). Empirical evidence has shown that employees frequently engage

in reciprocating counterproductive work behavior because this simply makes them feel better

(Tepper, Mitchell, & Almeda, 2011) or to punish unfair actors in a social setting (Kahneman,

Knetsch, & Thaler, 1986). This refers to the fundamental need to believe in a just world and

to restore justice when norms or rules are violated (Lerner, 1980)—for example, when

coworkers hide knowledge. Connelly et al. (2012) suggest that the history of reciprocity

among colleagues may affect the likelihood of an employee’s engaging in hiding behaviors.

In other words, employees hide knowledge from those whom they distrust, which predicts

future intentions to withhold knowledge (Connelly et al., 2012). Consistent with the concept

of negative reciprocity, returning “harm” to those who are responsible for performing

negative acts helps to insure the stability of social systems (Gouldner, 1960) because it

discourages future negative actions.

We propose that the described reciprocal distrust loop applies to situations in which an

employee requires knowledge and information in order to facilitate or to enhance the creative

process—for example, new ideas, knowledge about some aspect of work processes, or further


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

8

insight or understanding of work-related phenomena. Individuals whose requests for

assistance in their creative quests are rejected should reciprocate and hide knowledge in

return. When a coworker is denied knowledge and he or she is able to recognize intentional

knowledge hiding, a feeling of distrust is induced. In turn, such acts within a coworker dyad

underlie ineffective social exchanges (Blau, 1964)—in other words, reciprocated rejections of

assistance or knowledge disclosure. The norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960) suggests that

knowledge seekers who experienced knowledge hiding are more likely to retaliate against the

knowledge hider. When the initial knowledge hider requires knowledge in order to be

creative, the initial knowledge seeker is more likely to withhold information. In turn, the

initial knowledge hider would be denied access to a portion of alternatives, example solutions,

or any potentially relevant ideas with which he or she would be more likely to make

connections that could lead to creativity (Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, & Herron, 1996).

The reciprocal distrust loop, an interpersonal mechanism related to dyadic interaction and

dyadic social exchange, is focal to our study and has also been mentioned and briefly

described by Connelly et al. (2012) as a salient factor for knowledge hiding. The reciprocal

distrust loop underlying our hypotheses 1 and 2 is shown in Figure 1.

Hypothesis 1. Knowledge hiding is negatively related to the knowledge hider’s creativity.

Hypothesis 2. Coworker’s distrust mediates the negative relationship between knowledge

hiding and the knowledge hider’s creativity.

---------------------------------- Insert Figure 1 about here

-----------------------------------

THE MODERATING ROLE OF PERCEIVED MOTIVATIONAL CLIMATE

The achievement context in which employees perform their everyday tasks plays an

essential role in an employee’s decision to hide or share knowledge (Connelly et al., 2012).


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

9

The motivational climate at work, as defined by traditional achievement goal theory (AGT;

Ames, 1992a; Nicholls, 1984, 1989), represents such a context in that it refers to employees’

shared perceptions of the extant criteria of success and failure emphasized through the

policies, practices, and procedures of the work environment (Nerstad, Roberts, & Richardsen,

in press). Such climate perceptions help employees to understand what behaviors (i.e.,

knowledge hiding and creativity) are expected and rewarded (Schulte, Ostroff, Shmulyian, &

Kinicki, 2009). The motivational climate consists of two dimensions: a mastery climate and a

performance climate. A mastery climate refers to situations that support effort and

cooperation, and it emphasizes learning, mastery, and skill development (Ames, 1992a;

Ames, 1992b; Nicholls, 1989). Such a climate has been found to promote more adaptive

behaviors such as better performance, higher levels of work engagement, additional effort,

and persistence in the face of difficulty (Nerstad et al., in press; Ntoumanis & Biddle, 1999;

Roberts, 2012).

In contrast, a performance climate refers to situations that emphasize normative criteria of

success (Nicholls, 1984, 1989; Roberts, 2012). In such a climate, normative ability, social

comparison, and intra-team competition are emphasized (Ames & Ames, 1984; Ntoumanis &

Biddle, 1999). Therefore, only those who are the best achievers are acknowledged as

successful (Ames, 1984). Individuals in such conditions of forced social comparison are

overwhelmed with comparative information [i.e., ability grouping, verbal comparisons]

(Ames & Ames, 1984; Levine, 1983). A negative interdependence among employees may

then develop because outperforming coworkers is their goal (Ames & Ames, 1984). A

performance climate has been found to promote maladaptive outcomes such as poorer

performance, performance anxiety, lower persistence, controlled motivation, and turnover

intentions (Abrahamsen, Roberts, & Pensgaard, 2008; Nerstad et al., in press; Ntoumanis &

Biddle, 1999). We propose that employees’ shared perceptions of a mastery climate or


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

10

performance climate are likely to influence how coworkers behave in social exchange

situations (c.f., Janssen & Van Yperen, 2004; Poortvliet & Giebels, 2012).

With respect to the relationship between knowledge hiding and creativity, our basic

premise is that a mastery climate may override the adherence to reciprocity norms that result

in coworkers’ distrust and consequent reciprocal knowledge hiding. In line with theory and

empirical findings on employees who are placed in cooperative situations (e.g., Beersma et

al., 2003), a mastery climate should create perceptions of a shared fate and promote

supportive behavior whereby each group member looks out for the interests of the coworkers

in addition to his or her own. Thus, insights and lessons that one member learns are shared so

that others can also benefit from their knowledge accumulation (Beersma et al., 2003;

Johnson et al., 2006). Employees in a mastery climate should not consider knowledge hiding a

beneficial option because such a behavior will not assist them in developing their capabilities

and in improving the quality of their knowledge (Swift, Balkin, & Matusik, 2010).

As knowledge sharing and information exchange are more likely to be supported in a

mastery climate, such a climate can reduce the motive for reciprocal knowledge hiding and

instead help to further stimulate creativity. In a mastery climate, even if a coworker hides

knowledge, the norms of information sharing and cooperation should prevent distrust and lead

employees to share knowledge anyway. While a mastery climate is based on cooperation,

information exchange (Ames & Archer, 1988), and an atmosphere of trust (Ommundsen,

Roberts, Lemyre, & Treasure, 2003), knowledge-hiding behavior may not be reciprocated

because negative reciprocity is not in line with the behavior required for success at work.

Succeeding in helping both others and themselves while developing skills and contributing to

knowledge enhancement at work (Matzler & Müller, 2011) is an important criteria of success

for employees that overrides the reciprocal norms in response to knowledge hiding. Thus, the

focus of self-improvement in a mastery climate may motivate individuals to cooperate with


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

11

coworkers in social exchange situations (Poortvliet & Giebels, 2012). Thus, a mastery climate

will likely attenuate the negative relationship between knowledge hiding and creativity. We

therefore hypothesize:

Hypothesis 3. A perceived mastery climate moderates the relationship between

knowledge hiding and creativity. The higher the perceived mastery climate, the less

negative the relationship.

In a performance climate, success requires an inherent focus on outperforming coworkers

(Ames & Archer, 1988; Pensgaard & Roberts, 2002). As such behavior is signaled to be

expected, rewarded, and publicly recognized, employees should be more inclined to

reciprocally hide knowledge. This tendency toward reciprocity is possibly due to increased

motivation to maximize their own payoff relative to their coworkers (Poortvliet & Giebels,

2012), and they can achieve that by hiding knowledge. Because success is often evaluated via

social comparisons, hiding knowledge may give employees a competitive edge and a better

chance of winning, which, in a performance climate, is seen as the most important objective

(Cumming, Smoll, Smith, & Grossbard, 2007; Nicholls, 1989).

Therefore, in a performance climate, employees may be more prone to protecting their own

performance by withholding knowledge from others and thus impair the progress of

colleagues in an effort to gain positive competitive advantage (Beersma et al., 2003). In this

way, a performance climate strengthens adherence to reciprocity norms in response to

knowledge hiding. Because a performance climate is more likely to facilitate low concern for

coworkers’ outcomes (Poortvliet & Giebels, 2012), reciprocating knowledge-hiding behavior

may be perceived as a smart strategy for outperforming social exchange partners. In turn, this

results in even more adversely reciprocated knowledge hiding and, consequently, an inability

of the initial knowledge hider to obtain information relevant to his or her creative process at


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

12

work. Based on this enhancing effect of a perceived performance climate, we hypothesize the

following:

Hypothesis 4. A perceived performance climate moderates the relationship between

knowledge hiding and creativity. The higher the perceived performance climate, the

more negative the relationship.

We first test hypotheses 1, 3 and 4 in the field Study 1. To address the limitations of the

field study (Study 1) as well as to test the reciprocal distrust loop (examining a colleague’s

distrust as a mediator between knowledge hiding and one’s own creativity, Hypothesis 2)

using dyadic experimental data, we conduct an experimental Study 2. Figure 2 depicts the

relationships among the focal constructs tested in both studies.

---------------------------------- Insert Figure 2 about here -----------------------------------

STUDY 1: METHODS

Sample and Procedures

Empirical data were collected from 240 employees and their 34 direct supervisors in two

Slovenian companies in August, September, and October 2011. In order to avoid problems

with common method bias, data were collected using two separate questionnaires: one for the

employees and the other for their supervisors, who assessed employee creativity. A

translation-back translation procedure (Brislin, 1986) was used to translate the scales from

English to Slovenian and then back to English. It should be noted that our sample only

included employees who possess a job e-mail address and can be divided into teams with a

particular supervisor, not the production workers. The members of these groups are more

likely to produce creative ideas in the surveyed companies. All of the groups that met the

aforementioned criteria participated in the survey. The work process in these groups is such


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

13

that the members are encouraged to come up with creative ideas, which are later implemented

with the help of the group. Within the groups, creativity (i.e., generation of novel and useful

ideas) is usually carried out individually.

The first company is an aluminum manufacturer that employs about 800 people. Its motto

is to produce the “aluminum of the future,” and it manufactures foundries, evaporators, and

castings, but it is also becoming increasingly involved in designing power stations and

providing advanced laboratory measurement services. The second company functions within

the metal processing industry and employs about 2,200 people. It deals with modern-day

blacksmithing and is vested in producing innovative products made from raw metal. With

almost 100 years of experience, it has evolved from ironmongery and manufacturing metal

products to using modern materials and innovative technologies.

Examples of ideas rated as highly creative in these two companies included solar power

stations, a monitoring program for the discharge of effluents, innovative metal bike

handlebars, nano-based coatings for metal products, and radically redesigning the assembly

line to be more sustainable and eco-friendly. Examples of ideas rated less creative included

redesigning the casting model, optimizing a cooling system, developing a new functional

hand tool, adding a new hook to the hand tool to provide it with a new function, and

implementing a new quality assurance protocol.

The average response rate per group was 7.06 employees, whereas the number of direct

reports per group supervisor who answered ranged from three to 21. If we take into

consideration only the 34 groups that participated (not other employees in the companies), we

achieved a 55.3% response rate for supervisors’ direct reports (within-group response rates

ranged from 25% to 100%). About 65% of the participants were male, and about 45% were

between 35 years of age and 45 years of age (SD = 7.01). A total of 41% of respondents


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

14

reported having less than seven years of work experience (SD = 8.43), and 40% reported less

than three years of working with a particular supervisor (dyad tenure: SD = 5.43).

Measures

Unless otherwise noted, seven-point Likert-type scales ranging from 1 (“strongly

disagree”) to 7 (“strongly agree”) were used in this study.

Knowledge hiding. Knowledge hiding was self-reported and assessed with a 12-item scale

developed by Connelly et al. (2012)—α = .89. The scale opens with the following statement:

“In a specific episode in which a particular coworker requested knowledge from you and you

declined.” It further includes items such as “I pretended I did not know what s/he was talking

about.” A recent meta-analysis (Berry, Carpenter, & Barratt, 2012) showed that self-reported

counterproductive work behavior, such as knowledge hiding, actually captures a broader

subset of this behavior than other-reported behaviors do, which supports the use of self-

reported measures.

Creativity. Creativity was measured according to a 13-item questionnaire developed by

Zhou and George (2001)—α = .95, which includes items such as “He/she is not afraid to take

risks” and “He/she is a good source of creative ideas.” Supervisors reported on these items.

As identical behaviors may be considered innovative or creative in one organizational context

and unsettling or disruptive in another (Agars, Kaufman, & Locke, 2008), perceptual

measures were used because they enable the most relevant subjective assessments about

domain-specific creativity from the actors involved in the social setting in which the creativity

process is taking place.

Perceived motivational climate. The perceived motivational climate (mastery climate and

performance climate) was measured using a 14-item instrument developed by Nerstad et al.

(in press)—α = .79 for mastery climate and α =.84 for performance climate. The scale asks

how employees perceive the definition of success in their work situations and opens with the


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

15

following statement: “In my department/work group.” It then allows the respondents to assess

mastery (i.e., “Each individual’s learning and development is emphasized”) and performance

(i.e., “There exists a competitive rivalry among the employees”) climate. Mastery and

performance climate ratings from the subordinates who belonged to the same group were

aggregated at the group level and averaged to obtain a single score for each group.

To validate the aggregation of individual-level measures of mastery climate and

performance climate on the group level, we calculated the intraclass correlations (ICCs) and

multi-item within-group agreement (rwg(J)). The average rwg(6) for mastery climate (a slightly

skewed shape) was .83, ranging from .65 to .99, whereas ICC(1) was .16, and ICC(2) was .45

(F = 1.86, p = .012). The average rwg(8) for performance climate (also a slightly skewed shape)

was .84, ranging from .63 to .96, with ICC(1) at .21 and ICC(2) at .56 (F = 2.36, p = .001). As

James (1982) indicated, ICC(1) generally ranges from zero to .50 with a median of .12. The

values obtained in our study are above this median and indicate that significant between-

group variances exist in perceived motivational climate. However, no definite guidelines exist

for determining acceptable values. Even if no such thing as a critical cutoff exists for rwg(J)

estimates, the traditional heuristic cutoff recommended for aggregation is .70 (James,

Demaree, & Wolf, 1984; Lance, Butts, & Michels, 2006). Given our research question and

efforts to aggregate measures regarding the motivational climate in a group as perceived by

employees, we proceeded to create aggregate measures of a perceived mastery climate and

performance climate. Because a perceived group climate reflects employees’ shared

perceptions, an aggregated measure for climate may be the best way to examine its

relationship with knowledge hiding (Connelly et al., 2012).

Control variables. Not all jobs require the same amount of creative behavior and output.

Numerous studies argue in favor of the situational component of creativity (e.g., Amabile,

1988; Amabile et al., 1996; Unsworth, Wall, & Carter, 2005; Woodman et al., 1993). Thus,


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

16

we controlled for the creative requirement for a particular position. This is a variable that was

set up by an independent human resource management expert who was blind to the measures

and the purpose of our study. He did so by evaluating the creativity required in the

respondents’ different job types on a scale from “1 = not creative at all to 7 = very creative”

based on the job title, job description, and the job’s placement within the organizational

structure.

STUDY 1: RESULTS

Descriptive Statistics, Validity, and Reliability

Table 1 provides descriptive statistics for all variables analyzed in this study. We began by

observing the factor structure of the focal variables and thus conducted a multilevel

confirmatory factor analysis using AMOS 17 software with maximum likelihood estimation

procedures. The expected four-factor solution (creativity, knowledge hiding, mastery climate,

and performance climate) displayed adequate fit with the data (Chi-square [703] = 1594.88,

CFI = .975, SRMR = .039). The factor loadings ranged from .72 to .88 for the creativity

items, .65 to .89 for the knowledge-hiding items, .70 to .89 for the mastery climate items, and

.72 to .89 for the performance climate items.

---------------------------------- Insert Table 1 about here

----------------------------------

Multilevel Analysis Results

The dataset consisted of two hierarchically nested levels: 240 employees (level-1) nested

within 34 groups (level-2), which all had one group supervisor. We used hierarchical linear

modeling (random coefficient modeling) to test the following aspects of our multilevel model:

(1) the existence of a multilevel structure; (2) the level-1 relationship between knowledge

hiding and the knowledge hider’s creativity; (3) the cross-level effect of mastery and

performance climate on creativity; and (4) the interaction effects between knowledge hiding,


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

17

creativity, and the perceived motivational climate. Supervisory ratings of creativity violated

the independence assumption (that is, each supervisor provided ratings of creativity for

multiple employees). This justified our use of random coefficient modeling as an appropriate

strategy for analyzing the cross-level effects of various constructs on individual creativity.

To test our hypotheses, we developed a set of multilevel models based on theoretical

predictions by using the incremental improvement procedure that Hox (2010) demonstrated.

The fixed effects with robust standard errors for all models are presented in Table 2. We

started with the intercept-only model, which uses individual employee creativity as the

dependent variable (Model 1).

---------------------------------- Insert Table 2 about here -----------------------------------

First, we added knowledge hiding as a level-1 predictor of creativity. The results show

(supporting Hypothesis 1) that knowledge hiding is negatively and significantly related to

creativity (Model 2: γ = -.21, SE = .04, p < .01). Creativity required for position, a control

variable in the model, was also significantly related to creativity (Model 2: γ = .52, SE = .04,

p < .01). For multilevel model estimation, although this is difficult to assess precisely in

cross-level models, we report Snijders and Bosker’s (1999) overall pseudo R2 for each model.

These estimates are based on a proportional reduction of level 1 and level 2 errors owed to

predictions in the model. We also report deviance estimations for all models.

To test the cross-level main effects of motivational climate, we added both mastery and

performance climate (Model 3). We examined the coefficients of corresponding parameters

estimated in the models. Model 4 deals with the interaction effects of motivational climate

types and knowledge hiding on employee creativity. We examined interaction effects between

knowledge hiding and a mastery climate to see whether a mastery climate might soften the

negative effect of knowledge hiding on creativity. The results revealed a significant positive


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

18

interaction between knowledge hiding and a mastery climate (γ = .17, SE = .08, p < .05).

These effects are shown in Figure 3 and indicate that in groups in which employees perceive

higher levels of a mastery climate, the slope demonstrating the relationship between

knowledge hiding and employee creativity is less negative. To test this interpretation, we

statistically compared the slopes of both lines to zero. Knowledge hiding predicted lower

levels of creativity when the mastery climate was low (γ = -.39, SE = .09, t = -2.99, p < .01)

but not when it was high (γ = -.01, SE = .08, t = -.03, ns), thus supporting Hypothesis 3.

---------------------------------- Insert Figure 3 about here -----------------------------------

Also in Model 4, we examined the interaction effect between knowledge hiding and a

performance climate. The interaction effect was only marginally significant (γ = -.12, SE =

.06, p = .07). The interaction effects between knowledge hiding and a performance climate on

employee creativity are nevertheless shown in Figure 4. The depicted pattern indicates that

within groups in which employees perceive higher levels of a performance climate, the slope

demonstrating the relationship between knowledge hiding and employee creativity is more

negative. The statistical comparison of the slopes of both lines to zero revealed that they were

both significantly different from zero (ώ = -.14, SE = .07, t = -2.38, p < .05 for high

performance climate and ώ = -.10, SE = .06, t = -1.99, p < .05 for low performance climate).

These results provide marginal support for Hypothesis 4.1


1 When the creative requirement control variable is omitted from the analyses, all of the hypothesized main and interaction effects in the models increase, but their statistical significance levels remain the same. We also conducted an exploratory three-way interaction analysis of the interaction among knowledge hiding, a mastery climate, and a performance climate in predicting creativity, which was not significant (Model 5: three-way interaction term = .01, SE = .00, ns). We also examined the creativity scale’s idea generation and idea implementation items (Zhou & George, 2001) separately in the analyses; the results are not significantly different.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

19

-----------------------------------

STUDY 1: DISCUSSION

A couple of factors and limitations need to be taken into account when interpreting the

results of Study 1. First, as Connelly et al. (2012) state, knowledge hiding may be a relatively

under-reported low-base-rate event. It might also be obvious to the respondents that

knowledge hiding is not a desirable behavior and thus may be underreported on questionnaire

surveys. Any other-reported survey would not be accurate, however, as it is difficult to ask

supervisors or coworkers to assess an employee’s knowledge-hiding behaviors when, by

definition, the actions involved would be concealed (Connelly et al., 2012). Besides, meta-

analytical data suggest that other-reported assessments of counterproductive work behavior do

not capture unique and valid incremental variance beyond self-reporting and even assess such

behavior more narrowly (Berry et al., 2012).

Second, not only is the relationship between knowledge hiding and creativity dependent

upon motivational climate but also perceived mastery and performance climates may act as

antecedents to knowledge hiding. Furthermore, reverse causality between knowledge hiding

and creativity is also plausible; less creative employees may be more inclined to hide

knowledge since they have more difficulty with generating novel and useful ideas.

Third, the perception of creativity might differ among employees who conduct tasks that

require varying levels of creative behaviors (Hennessey & Amabile, 2010). One task might

require a great amount of creative behavior, whereas another might require none. We

controlled for the expertise that undeniably plays a role in perceptions of creativity as well as

for creativity required in a position but could not effectively control for the influence of tasks

as such (cf., Wood, 1986).


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

20

Fourth, the social explanatory mechanism of the reciprocal distrust loop depends heavily

on dyadic interaction among coworkers. We were not able to collect sequential data on one

employee’s knowledge hiding, subsequent distrust of his or her coworker, and whether or not

this is the factor that predicts the first employee’s diminished levels of creativity. We also

could not assess perceived knowledge hiding and adequately test the proposed distrust loop,

nor did we compare this mediator with other mechanisms of a more intrapsychic nature that

can also be important in explaining the basic relationship between knowledge hiding and

creativity.

Connelly et al. (2012) declared that the motivations for knowledge hiding mostly lie in

their interpersonal ties and in the nature of preceding relations with coworkers. However,

other motivations might also be valid. For example, an employee may engage in knowledge

hiding to protect themselves when the employee’s ideas are highly novel and could be subject

to criticism or even ridicule or simply in an attempt to preserve his or her advantage relative

to coworkers based on the specific knowledge he or she possesses. In both cases, the

employee would decide to intentionally hide knowledge and activate a prevention focus. This

is a regulatory focus that originates from the survival need for security and self-protection,

whose desired end state is safety (Higgins, 1997). When hiding knowledge, an individual

might feel safer because his or her coworkers would not be able to discover and exploit his or

her weaknesses if all information was disclosed. Thus, the employee’s coworkers would not

be able to use the knowledge that the employee possesses for their own advantage and against

that employee in a competitive work environment. In turn, prevention focus is known to

decrease creativity (cf. Baas, De Dreu, & Nijstad, 2008). Individuals in prevention focus are

focused on safety (Lanaj, Chang, & Johnson, 2012); as creativity is risky and holds potentially

negative outcomes, they would avoid being creative. Based on this logic, prevention focus


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

21

acts as an alternative mechanism in mediating the knowledge hiding-creativity relationship,

which we expect to offer unique insight into the examined relationship without prevailing

over the social mediating mechanism of a reciprocal distrust loop.

STUDY 2: METHODS

To strengthen causal inferences and to rule out alternative explanations, as well as to

address the four limitations of Study 1, we conducted an experimental study in which

participants generated creative ideas to solve a business problem. Drawing upon the results of

our first study, the goal of our second study was to test the results we obtained using a

different method, controlling for the task, and to use multiple experts to rate the creative

outcome. Most importantly, we wanted to test the proposed distrust loop and compare this

explanatory mechanism for the relationship between knowledge hiding and creativity with

other more intrapsychic mediators in moderated mediation analyses. We independently

manipulated mastery and performance climates as well as manipulated knowledge hiding in

order to mitigate the effect of underreporting this undesirable behavior.

Sample, Design, and Procedures

We conducted an experiment with 132 second-year undergraduates within an HRM course

at a Slovenian university. The age of the participants ranged from 20 years to 28 years, and

the mean age was 22.2 years (SD = 1.25). Approximately 65% were female, of which roughly

70% had some work experience such as student or summer jobs. They were given extra points

for participation. The experiment used a three-by-two (mastery climate/performance

climate/no climate induced Χ knowledge hiding, low/high) between-subjects factorial design.

The participants were randomly assigned to three classrooms prior to the course. We

introduced the study by explaining that we were interested in studying how people solve

business problems. The experiment began by presenting a marketing scenario to the


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

22

participants. The participants were assigned the role of the company’s marketing managers. In

the scenario, the organization had developed a new product and a project team of two students

was assembled (thus, the students were asked to form dyads, as dyadic interaction is where

knowledge hiding tends to most significantly influence its outcomes [Connelly et al., 2012])

to introduce the product into the market successfully. The scenario consisted of two stages (15

minutes each). Each stage represented a specific phase of the product-launching process.

Motivational climate manipulation. Prior to beginning the first stage, we introduced our

manipulations of a mastery climate and performance climate, each in one classroom. The

manipulation consisted of two coherent aspects from which a specific motivational climate

was derived—that is, a performance climate in the first classroom and a mastery climate in

the second, which the instructor induced using teaching strategies consistent with Ames

(1992a)—and the members were given instructions that corresponded with a particular

climate. For a mastery climate, these instructions included the following:

During the task, you are encouraged to cooperate and exchange thoughts and ideas. Each

individual plays a very important role in this process. Cooperation and mutual exchange of

knowledge is desired and will be commended. You should work together to try to find new

solution methods and learn something throughout this process.

In addition, the teacher also repeated these instructions . Conversely, we induced a

performance climate using the following instructions:

During the task, you should keep in mind that your colleagues are actually your competitive

rivals. Work accomplishments will be assessed based on comparisons with other participants, so

you should try as hard as you can and perform better than others. This includes your team-mate

in the dyad as well.

In the third classroom, the control group, no inducement regarding motivational climates

was provided.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

23

Knowledge-hiding manipulation. Half of the participants in each classroom were given

special instructions about knowledge hiding (i.e., a sign “Hide your knowledge and

information” written on the instruction sheet in each of the stages). Knowledge hiding was

also randomly assigned within each classroom. Thus, dyads could consist of two, one, or no

knowledge hiders.

First stage of the experimental task. The first stage included one of the team members’

assuming the role of a strategy planner and the other the role of a sales channels designer.

Each had relevant information about the other’s role. For example, the strategy planner had

information about the sales channels designer (explanations of what this particular domain is

supposed to mean and what goals they might be expected to achieve):

A sales channel designer should consider options about which sales channels we can market our

product through and choose the best while also exploring some of the more unconventional

channels. What are sales channels? For example, Internet (in all forms and shapes), phone sales,

sales representatives, our stores, door-to-door sales, or anything else you come up with.

On the contrary, the sales channels designer had the information about the strategy planner,

for example:

A strategy planner should consider how the project can achieve optimal marketing results with

minimal resources. This includes balancing and coordinating sales channels with marketing

activities. He or she should come up with a holistic and rounded plan that would connect all

marketing efforts into one unified whole. Strategy usually is usually directed either toward

differentiation or cost efficiency. Marketing segmentation and target segments should also be

considered.

After they completed the task, we assessed the perceived knowledge hiding of the other

person in the dyad using Connelly et al.’s (2012) scale, which we adapted for this particular

task to measure others’ knowledge hiding instead of the subject’s (α = .93). The other person


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

24

also provided a score of their distrust in the first one (“Please rate your level of distrust in

another team member you felt during the task,” with anchors “1 = trusted completely, 7 =

distrusted completely”).

Second stage of the experimental task. The second stage represented an extension of the

first. One of the dyad members was asked to generate at least three slogans for the new

marketing campaign, while the other was in charge of the advertising. Again, the first person

had information about the other on the instruction sheet, and vice versa:

Your team member who is in charge of advertising should come up with creative ideas for

advertisements, be it television, newspaper ads, magazine ads, billboards, flyers, etc. It is

desired that he or she thinks outside the box to come up with unusual places for these ads and

interesting ideas for the content of the advertisements.

Slogans for a new marketing campaign:

Your teammate who deals with a new marketing campaign should come up with at least three

slogans that are as creative as possible. Our company will market our product in commercials or

any promotional materials using these slogans. A slogan is a motto, or a short line, that is easy

on the ears and can be quickly remembered. It can briefly and effectively express the purpose or

an idea of a product.

After the participants completed the task, we assessed the knowledge hiding of the other

individual in the dyad (reciprocated knowledge hiding). This was self-reported using

Connelly et al.’s (2012) scale—α = .92. Each individual’s creative ideas were assessed by two

independent raters (experts in the field of creativity) on a scale from “1 = not at all creative”

to “7 = very creative.” The two raters’ reliability (ICC2 = .83) and agreement (single item rwg

= .80) were within conventional guidelines (LeBreton & Senter, 2008). We thus averaged


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

25

their ratings into a measure of the overall creativity of the first and second individual’s second

stage of the task outcome.

After completing both tasks, all participants also answered questions regarding perceived

mastery and performance climates. We adapted the scale by substituting the word

“employees” with “participants” (α = .86 for mastery and .82 for performance climate),

whereas the participants on whom we manipulated knowledge hiding also self-reported this

phenomenon during the entire task (the same scale used by Connelly et al., 2012—α = .84).

These responses (climates and knowledge hiding) served as manipulation checks. The

participants also assessed an alternative mediator: the prevention focus (nine items from

Lockwood, Jordan, & Kunda, 2002) general regulatory focus measure (GRFM) that was

modified to measure their temporary psychological states during the experiment—α = .96.

STUDY 2: RESULTS

Means and standard deviations for each condition are shown in Table 3. Random

coefficient modeling was used in HLM 7 (we used this approach because our dyadic

experimental data violate the observation independence assumption in terms of creativity),

first for manipulation checks. It showed the expected main effects of the motivational climate

manipulation on the perceived mastery climate (γ = -.49, SE = .18, p < .01), the perceived

performance climate (γ = .18, SE = .08, p < .05), and the expected main effect of the

knowledge hiding manipulation on self-reported knowledge hiding (γ = .68, SE = .25, p <

.01).

Turning to creativity as the dependent variable, in support of Hypothesis 1, Table 3

presents creativity means of knowledge hiders in differential knowledge-hiding conditions.

All means for creativity were significantly different from one another except for two: no

knowledge hiding/performance climate condition and knowledge hiding/mastery climate


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

26

condition; and no knowledge hiding/mastery climate condition and knowledge hiding/mastery

climate condition. The knowledge hiding manipulation significantly decreased one’s own

creativity (γ = -.26, SE = .06, p < .01)2.

A random coefficient modeling analysis also revealed a significant interaction effect of the

knowledge hiding and motivational climate manipulations on one’s own creativity (γ = -.17,

SE = .08, p < .05; Figure 5). Supporting Hypothesis 3, simple effects showed that knowledge

hiding decreased participants’ creativity in performance climate conditions (ώ = -.34, SE =

.14, p < .05) and where no climate was induced (ώ = -.21, SE = .09, p < .05), but not in

mastery climate conditions (ώ = -.14, SE = .08, ns). A comparison of slopes depicting the

knowledge hiding-creativity relationship shows that the slopes in performance climate

conditions and in the control group are significantly different from one another (p < .05). The

effect of knowledge hiding on creativity is more negative in the performance climate group

than in the control group. The slope within mastery climate conditions is also significantly

different from that of the other two conditions (p < .05 when compared with the control group

and p < .01 when compared with the performance climate condition).

---------------------------------- Insert Table 3 about here

-----------------------------------


-----------------------------------

Supplementary Analyses

The first set of supplementary analyses is concerned with contrasting the creativity scores

for the dyads with no knowledge hiders, versus one, versus two. Creativity means (no

knowledge hiders: 4.54, one knowledge hider: 3.43, and two knowledge hiders: 3.20) were 2 Knowledge hiding of the first individual is also significantly related to creativity of his/her partner in the dyad (γ = -.29, SE = .08, p < .01).


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

27

significantly different in the dyad type with no knowledge hiders as compared with the other

two dyad types (p<.01), whereas the creativity means were not significantly different in dyads

with one knowledge hider as compared with dyads featuring two knowledge hiders.

Next, to test the reciprocal distrust loop and to establish distrust as a mediator in the

knowledge-hiding creativity relationship, we examined the three-path mediation effect

(knowledge hiding by A � distrust by B � knowledge hiding by B � creativity of A). We

used a random coefficient modeling analysis in MPlus 6 and adopted the joint significance

test (MacKinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman, West, & Sheets, 2002; Taylor, MacKinnon, & Tein,

2008), which requires a separate test for each of the mediated paths. The results show that

each of the three paths was significantly nonzero3, thus providing evidence of three-path

mediation. This allows us to proceed with examining distrust as an explanatory mechanism in

the moderated mediation analyses.

Next, we used Bauer et al.’s (2006) multilevel moderated mediation procedures to first

examine whether participants’ reports of distrust (second individual) and prevention focus

(first individual) mediated the effect of the knowledge-hiding manipulation on creativity. We

began by conducting multilevel moderated regression analyses that predicted distrust. The

interaction between the mastery climate and knowledge hiding in predicting distrust was

significant (γ = -.17, SE = .08, p < .05). The relationship between knowledge hiding and

distrust was positive in the performance climate condition (γ = .31, SE = .11, p < .01) and in

the control group (γ = .24, SE = .07, p < .01), whereas it was negative but not significant,

according to traditional significance standards, in the mastery climate condition (γ = -.11, SE

= .06, p < .10). Next, we tested whether distrust predicted creativity when knowledge hiding,

mastery climate, and their interaction were controlled for. Distrust was a significant predictor,

3 The 95% confidence intervals of these paths included knowledge hiding by A � distrust by B (.19, .35), distrust by B � knowledge hiding by B (.24, .48), and knowledge hiding by B � creativity of A (-.30, -.08).


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

28

and the coefficient on the interaction term (knowledge hiding Χ mastery climate) decreased

below statistical significance (from .21 to .10). To examine whether this was a significant

decrease, we constructed 95% bias-corrected confidence intervals around the indirect effects

of both levels of motivational climate (Bauer et al., 2006). The confidence interval for the

indirect effect of knowledge hiding on creativity through distrust excluded zero for the

mastery climate condition (.01, .13), for the performance climate condition (.13, .36), and in

the control group (.04, .27), indicating that distrust mediated the relationship between

knowledge hiding and creativity in all motivational climate conditions.

We compared these results with an alternative mediator, prevention focus. Knowledge

hiding and mastery climate do interact in predicting this intrapsychic mediator (γ = -.20, SE =

.09, p < .05). The relationship between knowledge hiding and prevention focus was positive

in the performance climate condition (γ = .44, SE = .16, p < .01) and in the control group (γ =

.35, SE = .13, p < .01), whereas it was negative but not significant in the mastery climate

condition (γ = -.01 SE = .11, ns). Next, we tested whether prevention focus predicted

creativity when knowledge hiding, mastery climate, and their interaction were controlled for.

Prevention focus was a significant predictor, and the coefficient on the interaction term

(knowledge hiding Χ mastery climate) decreased to below statistical significance (from .21 to

.11). To examine whether this was a significant decrease, we constructed 95% bias-corrected

confidence intervals around the indirect effects of both motivational climate conditions (Bauer

et al., 2006). The confidence interval for the indirect effect of knowledge hiding on creativity

through prevention focus excluded zero for the mastery climate condition (.0019, .15), for the

performance climate condition (.09, .25), and in the control group (.03,18), indicating that

prevention focus mediated the relationship between knowledge hiding and creativity in all

motivational climate conditions. We thus found empirical support for the distrust loop

(supporting a colleague’s distrust as a mediator in the relationship between knowledge hiding


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

29

and own creativity). This social explanatory mechanism is valid even after examining the

impact of an alternative intrapsychic mediator, prevention focus, which also uniquely explains

the relationship between knowledge hiding and creativity. Thus, interpersonal (social) and

intrapsychic mechanisms represent different sides of the same coin in explaining the

relationship between knowledge hiding and creativity.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

We have drawn on social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) and the norm of reciprocity

(Gouldner, 1960) to argue that when a co-worker is denied knowledge needed in order to be

creative, in turn, this same person is likely to reciprocate knowledge hiding to the initial

knowledge hider. This behavior would successively impede the knowledge hider’s creativity,

as both of our studies support. The results from both field and experimental data also

demonstrated that a mastery climate buffers the detrimental effect of knowledge hiding on the

knowledge hider’s creativity. On the other hand, in high-performance climate conditions, the

association between knowledge hiding and creativity was even more negative.

Theoretical Contributions

Theory and recent research on organizational creativity emphasize the importance of

creating favorable work environments in stimulating individual creativity (e.g., Amabile,

1983; Woodman et al., 1993; Zhou et al., 2012), including knowledge sharing (Perry-Smith,

2006; Perry-Smith & Shalley, 2003). To date, however, limited attention has been paid to

knowledge hiding as an individual-level contingency that can explain the failure of creativity

enhancement initiatives in organizations beyond the lack of knowledge sharing. Therefore,

this study’s first theoretical contribution to the creativity literature is its establishment of the

existence of a distrust loop between knowledge hiding and creativity. We have shown that this

interpersonal mechanism involves a colleague’s reciprocal knowledge hiding, which, in turn,


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

30

is related to the diminished creativity of the initial knowledge hider. This process is based on

the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960) and social exchange theory (Blau, 1964). We were

able to test the distrust loop and all of its elements via a two-stage experimental design in

Study 2. We even found support for our proposed interpersonal mechanism when comparing

its role with prevention focus as a representative of an intrapsychic mediator. Employees

engage in knowledge hiding to protect themselves, thus activating a prevention focus and

behavioral avoidance, which, in turn, decreases creativity.

Our second contribution to the creativity literature is the introduction of the moderating

role of the motivational climate. Across two studies using both field and experimental data,

we find that a mastery climate overrides the reciprocity norms underlying the social exchange

in the knowledge hiding-creativity relationship. A mastery climate influences social exchange

patterns by facilitating more constructive exchange relationships among coworkers, thereby

preventing negative actions from resulting in negative consequences. It does so by reducing

the likelihood that intentionally concealing or withholding knowledge from exchange partners

will lead to distrust and reciprocal knowledge hiding and subsequently result in inhibited

employee creativity. By introducing the motivational climate as a relevant moderator, we

facilitate the possibility of not simply considering the individual in terms of his or her

personal dispositions (e.g., Matzler & Müller, 2011; Swift et al., 2010) but rather considering

the individual in his or her context (Johns, 2006). In short, and in support of previous findings

(e.g., Hirst et al., 2009; Zhou et al., 2012), shared work climate perceptions are important

since they enable organizations and their managers to take corrective and preventive actions

(i.e., actionability; cf., Pearce & Huang, 2012) by facilitating an adequate motivational

climate.

In contrast, in high-performance climate conditions, the association between knowledge

hiding and creativity was even more negative (albeit this interaction was only marginally


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

31

significant in Study 1). This aligns well with previous research showing that competition and

social comparison do not encourage creativity enhancement initiatives (e.g., Johnson et al.,

2006; Roberts, Treasure, & Conroy, 2007). Reward structures in a performance climate are

typically based on comparative information (i.e., verbal comparison of coworkers). Our

findings indicate that since employees perceive that outperforming coworkers is expected,

rewarded, and supported behavior in their work situation, they become motivated to impair

the progress of others by intentionally hiding their own knowledge in an effort to gain

personal positive advantage (cf., Beersma et al., 2003). Still, because consistent results across

our two studies are lacking, this finding should be interpreted with caution, and future

research is warranted.

Our findings also contribute to research on help-seeking, help-giving, and creativity.

Mueller and Kamdar’s (2011) recent research in this field shows that seeking help from co-

workers results in increased personal creativity. On the other hand, people who seek help also

tend to reciprocate in giving help, which negatively relates to personal creativity and

attenuates the mediated relationship between intrinsic motivation and creativity via help-

seeking (Mueller & Kamdar, 2011). Our study adds to this line of research by supporting the

positive effects gained from obtaining knowledge and information a person needs for

creativity, either through lower levels of reciprocated knowledge hiding or through increased

help-seeking. In addition, a mastery climate environment can apparently override norms of

self-interest (cf., Grant & Patil, 2012) toward reciprocal help-giving. Our findings extend the

findings of Mueller and Kamdar (2011) in that we find positive gains in giving knowledge

and information to others in the form of personal creativity. Mueller and Kamdar (2011), on

the other hand, found that providing help equals reciprocation costs in terms of less time to

work on creative ideas individually. It should be emphasized that their study explicitly

focused on seeking and giving help, while our two studies examined knowledge and


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

32

information hiding. As such, the examined concepts are not completely the same, which could

affect the comparison of findings.

Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

The results from our two studies should be interpreted in light of several potential

limitations. First, by focusing on the perceived motivational climate, we decided to include a

limited number of factors mitigating the knowledge hiding-creativity relationship. For

example, the ability of a mastery climate to reverse the negative relationship between

knowledge hiding and creativity could also be dependent upon other factors, such as

perceived supervisor support, decision autonomy, goal orientation, and other job-related

variables that have been found to influence creativity (e.g., Amabile, Schatzel, Moneta, &

Kramer, 2004; Hirst et al., 2009; Zhou, 1998). Further research in exploring work situations

that stimulate or hinder the negative relationship between knowledge hiding and creativity

within the extant motivational climate is required.

Second, a potential limitation of our experimental Study 2 is that the mastery climate

manipulation may have confounded cooperation and learning by including instructions that

may not be clearly distinct from the knowledge-hiding manipulation. Nonetheless, people

have discretion about what knowledge to share, making it possible that although participants

are encouraged to learn and share knowledge and that they understand the important role each

individual plays in the process, the hiding manipulation may cause them to withhold some

information. Since we manipulated knowledge hiding and climate independently, our data do

speak to their interactive effects. Future research should nonetheless focus on ruling out these

potential confounds and produce even cleaner manipulations of the three mastery climate

dimensions (cooperation, the important role each individual plays, and learning). Another

limitation related to our manipulation is that rating distrust after the first stage of the


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

33

experimental task may have affected the participants’ behavior during the second stage of the

experimental task. Future studies can address this issue by varying the measurement order.

In addition, another limitation related to our random assignment exists; even if we did

randomly assign students to the different motivational climate conditions and knowledge

hiding to dyad members, the participants were not randomly assigned to dyads but rather were

asked to form dyads with their neighbors in the classroom. Nevertheless, the effects of this

limitation are probably not so severe because the groups were not permanent (throughout the

school year or in other courses), which is why permanent mini-groups of students who would

constantly sit together likely did not form. Nonetheless, some students might have known

each other beforehand and could have chosen to sit together, resulting in another limitation of

our experimental Study 2.

Given the cross sectional field data in Study 1, reverse causality cannot be excluded when

interpreting the results. Nonetheless, we were able to address this concern by adding another

experimental study in which we found support for causal relationships and tested our main

explanatory mechanism, the reciprocal distrust loop. The participants in the experimental

study were somewhat homogeneous, as we used a student sample. Consequently, a potential

threat to the generalizability of the findings associated with the experiment does exist, but the

findings do serve to strengthen the causal claims of the survey-based Study 1. Furthermore, as

Highhouse and Gillespie (2009) noted, the use of student samples is only problematic when

the behavior studied is specific to one demographic or occupational group. Because

knowledge hiding, as well as creativity, may be relevant for all workers, including students,

this population constituted a reasonable sample for further testing our hypotheses. In general,

our two-study, multi-method approach addresses generalizability concerns and indicates that

knowledge hiding negatively predicts creativity and that this relationship is dependent upon

its interaction with the perceived motivational climate.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

34

Practical Implications

In increasingly dynamic and uncertain work environments, organizations depend on

creative ideas from employees (George, 2007). Our studies indicate how knowledge hiding

negatively influences the knowledge hider’s creativity and how managers can mitigate this

effect by inducing particular motivational climate conditions at work. Our findings support a

mastery climate as a suitable work environment for stimulating creative behaviors when faced

with knowledge hiding. In addition, the need for self-protection seems to decrease in such

environments, while a mastery climate fosters trust rather than distrust among employees.

Managers must be aware, however, that stimulating a performance climate (i.e., emphasizing

competition and goal achievement at any cost) leads to even worse scenarios. Under such

conditions, knowledge hiding has an even more negative influence on employee creativity.

Providing incentives for employees to “betray” their coworkers (i.e., inducing a performance

climate) should be avoided, as this negatively impacts creativity. This serves as a powerful

explanation for the potential failures of creativity enhancement initiatives based on

competition instead of on collaboration.

The second practical implication of this paper entails the employees in organizations who

intentionally and actively hide knowledge from their peers. In light of our findings, they

should reconsider and be careful about hiding knowledge from their coworkers because as our

two studies have shown, what goes around comes around. More specifically, employees who

intentionally hide more knowledge seem bound to receive such selfish behavior in return from

their co-workers, which will ultimately hurt them and decrease their creativity. This could

also be described using the metaphor of “shooting yourself in the foot.” The existence of such

a reciprocal distrust loop is somewhat in contrast with the findings of the literature on

unforgiveness as a coping strategy (Worthington Jr & Wade, 1999), which suggests that

employees gain more if they withhold negative reciprocity. It is apparent, however, that


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

35

human nature is not inclined toward this type of restraint. People would rather reciprocate

negatively, gaining a short-term feeling of satisfaction (Tepper et al., 2011), even if they

could lose more in the long term. Therefore, employees should engage in less knowledge-

hiding behavior in order to facilitate their own creative processes.

CONCLUSION

An unfortunate fact of organizational life is that employees sometimes intentionally

withhold knowledge from their coworkers. Although knowledge hiding is a relatively low-

base-rate event, its consequences are likely to be devastating to organizational creativity,

innovation, and performance. Specifically, knowledge hiders end up hurting their own

creativity by intentionally withholding information from their colleagues. These coworkers

retaliate by reciprocating knowledge hiding via an interpersonal distrust loop. However,

managers have the ability to mitigate this process by facilitating a mastery climate. On the

other hand, by solely inducing a performance climate, they could attain the contrary effect.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

36

REFERENCES

Agars, M. D., Kaufman, J. C., & Locke, T. R. 2008. Social influence and creativity in

organizations: A multilevel lens for theory, research, and practice. In M. D. Mumford, S. T.

Hunter & K. E. Bedell-Avers (Eds.), Multi-level issues in organizational innovation (pp. 3-

61). Amsterdam, NL: JAI Press.

Alencar, E. 2012. Creativity in Organizations: Facilitators and Inhibitors. In M. D. Mumford

(Ed.), Handbook of Organizational Creativity (pp. 87-111). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.

Allen, T. J. 1977. Managing the flow of technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Amabile, T. M. 1983. The social-psychology of creativity - a componential conceptualization.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45: 357-376.

Amabile, T. M. 1988. A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in

Organizational Behavior, 10: 123-167.

Amabile, T. M. 1997. Motivating creativity in organizations: On doing what you love and

loving what you do. California Management Review, 40(1): 39-58.

Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. 1996. Assessing the work

environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5): 1154-1184.

Amabile, T. M., Schatzel, E. A., Moneta, G. B., & Kramer, S. J. 2004. Leader behaviors and the

work environment for creativity: Perceived leader support. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(1):

5-32.

Ames, C. 1984. Competitive, cooperative, and individualistic goal structures: A cognitive-

motivational analysis. In C. Ames & A. R.E. (Eds.), Research on motivation in education

(vol. 1, pp. 177-207). Gainesville, FL: Florida Academic Press.

Ames, C. 1992a. Achievement goals, motivational climate, and motivational processes. In G. C.

Roberts (Ed.), Motivation in sport and exercise (pp. 161-176). Champaign, IL: Human

Kinetics Books.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

37

Ames, C. 1992b. Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 84: 261-271.

Ames, C., & Ames, R. 1984. Systems of student and teacher motivation: Toward a qualitative

definition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(4): 535-556.

Ames, C., & Archer, J. 1988. Achievement goals in the classroom: Students' learning strategies

and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3): 260-267.

Baas, M., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Nijstad, B. A. 2008. A meta-analysis of 25 years of mood-

creativity research: Hedonic tone, activation, or regulatory focus? Psychological Bulletin,

134(6): 779-806.

Barron, F., & Harrington, D. 1981. Creativity, intelligence, and personality. Annual Review of

Psychology, 32(1): 439-476.

Bartol, K. M., & Srivastava, A. 2002. Encouraging knowledge sharing: The role of

organizational reward systems. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9(1): 64-

76.

Bauer, D. J., Preacher, K. J., & Gil, K. M. 2006. Conceptualizing and testing random indirect

effects and moderated mediation in multilevel models: new procedures and

recommendations. Psychological Methods, 11(2): 142-163.

Beersma, B., Hollenbeck, J. R., Humphrey, S. E., Moon, H., Conlon, D. E., & Ilgen, D. R.

2003. Cooperation, competition, and team performance: Toward a contingency approach.

Academy of Management Journal, 46(5): 572-590.

Berry, C., Carpenter, N., & Barratt, C. 2012. Do other-reports of counterproductive work

behavior provide an incremental contribution over self-reports? A meta-analytic comparison.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(3): 613-636.

Blau, P. M. 1964. Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: Wiley.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

38

Brislin, R. 1986. The wording and translation of research instruments. In W. Lonner & J. Berry

(Eds.), Field methods in cross-cultural research. Cross-cultural research and methodology

series. (vol. 8, pp. 137-164). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Byron, K., Khazanchi, S., & Nazarian, D. 2010. The relationship between stressors and

creativity: A meta-analysis examining competing theoretical models. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 95(1): 201-212.

Connelly, C. E., & Kelloway, E. K. 2003. Predictors of employees' perceptions of knowledge

sharing cultures. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 24(5): 294-301.

Connelly, C. E., Zweig, D., Webster, J., & Trougakos, J. P. 2012. Knowledge hiding in

organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(1): 64–88.

Cumming, S. P., Smoll, F. L., Smith, R. E., & Grossbard, J. R. 2007. Is winning everything?

The relative contributions of motivational climate and won-lost percentage in youth sports.

Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 19(3): 322-336.

George, J. M. 2007. Creativity in organizations. In J. Walsh & A. VBrief (Eds.), Academy of

Management Annals (vol. 1, pp. 439-477). New York, NY: Erlbaum.

Gouldner, A. W. 1960. The norm of reciprocity. American Sociological Review, 25(2): 161-

178.

Grant, A., & Patil, S. 2012. Challenging the Norm of Self-Interest: Minority Influence and

Transitions to Helping Norms in Work Units. Academy of Management Review, 37(4): 547-

568.

Grant, A. M., & Berry, J. W. 2011. The Necessity of Others is the Mother of Invention: Intrinsic

and Prosocial Motivations, Perspective Taking, and Creativity. Academy of Management

Journal, 54(1): 73-96.

Grovier, T. 1994. An epistemology of trust. International Journal of Moral and Social

Studies, 8(2): 155-174.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

39

Hammond, M. M., Neff, N. L., Farr, J. L., Schwall, A. R., & Zhao, X. 2011. Predictors of

individual-level innovation at work: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity,

and the Arts, 5(1): 90-105.

Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. 2010. Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 61(1):

569-598.

Higgins, E. T. 1997. Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52(12): 1280.

Highhouse, S., & Gillespie, J. Z. 2009. Do samples really matter that much? In C. E. Lance &

R. Vandenberg (Eds.), Statistical and methodological myths and urban legends: Doctrine,

verity and fable in the organizational and social sciences (pp. 247-267). New York, NY:

Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

Hirst, G., Van Knippenberg, D., & Zhou, J. 2009. A cross-level perspective on employee

creativity: Goal orientation, team learning behavior, and individual creativity. Academy of

Management Journal, 52(2): 280-293.

Hox, J. J. 2010. Multilevel analysis. Techniques and applications, (2nd ed.). New York, NY:

Routledge.

James, L. R. 1982. Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 67(2): 219-229.

James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. 1984. Estimating within-group interrater reliability

with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(1): 85-98.

Johnson, M. D., Hollenbeck, J. R., Humphrey, S. E., Ilgen, D. R., Jundt, D., & Meyer, C. J.

2006. Cutthroat cooperation: Asymmetrical adaptation to changes in team reward structures.

Academy of Management Journal, 49(1): 103-119.

Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. 1986. Fairness and the assumptions of

economics. Journal of Business, 59(4): 285-300.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

40

Kanter, R. M. 1988. When a Thousand Flowers Bloom: Structural, Collective and Social

Conditions for Innovation in Organization. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10: 169-

211.

Lanaj, K., Chang, C. H., & Johnson, R. E. 2012. Regulatory Focus and Work-Related

Outcomes: A Review and Meta-Analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138(5): 998–1034.

Lance, C. E., Butts, M. M., & Michels, L. C. 2006. The sources of four commonly reported

cutoff criteria. Organizational Research Methods, 9(2): 202-220.

LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. 2008. Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and

interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11(4): 815-852.

Lerner, M. J. 1980. The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. New York, NY:

Plenum Press.

Levine, J. 1983. Social comparison and education. In J. Levine & M. Wang (Eds.), Teacher and

student perceptions: Implications for learning (pp. 29-55). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Liao, T., & Rice, J. 2010. Innovation investments, market engagement and financial

performance: A study among Australian manufacturing SMEs. Research Policy, 39(1): 117-

125.

Lockwood, P., Jordan, C. H., & Kunda, Z. 2002. Motivation by positive or negative role

models: Regulatory focus determines who will best inspire us. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 83(4): 854-864.

MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. 2002. A

comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects.

Psychological methods, 7(1): 83-104.

Matzler, K., & Müller, J. 2011. Antecedents of Knowledge Sharing - Examining the Influence

of Learning Orientation and Performance Orientation on Knowledge Sharing. Journal of

Economic Psychology, 32(3): 317-329.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

41

Mueller, J. S., & Kamdar, D. 2011. Why seeking help from teammates is a blessing and a curse:

A theory of help seeking and individual creativity in team contexts. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 96(2): 263-276.

Nerstad, C. G. L., Roberts, G. C., & Richardsen, A. M. in press. Achieving success at work: The

development and validation of the motivational climate at work questionnaire (MCWQ).

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, forthcoming.

Nicholls, J. G. 1984. Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience,

mastery choice and performance. Psychological Review, 91(3): 328-346.

Nicholls, J. G. 1989. The competitive ethos and democratic education. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Ntoumanis, N., & Biddle, S. J. H. 1999. A review of motivational climate in physical activity.

Journal of Sports Sciences, 17(8): 643-665.

Ommundsen, Y., Roberts, G., Lemyre, P., & Treasure, D. 2003. Perceived motivational climate

in male youth soccer: Relations to social–moral functioning, sportspersonship and team norm

perceptions. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 4(4): 397-413.

Pearce, J. L., & Huang, L. 2012. The decreasing value of our research to management

education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(2): 247-262.

Pensgaard, A.-M., & Roberts, G. C. 2002. Elite athletes' experiences of the motivational

climate: The coach matters. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports, 12:

54-60.

Perry-Smith, J. E. 2006. Social yet creative: The role of social relationships in facilitating

individual creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 49(1): 85-101.

Perry-Smith, J. E., & Shalley, C. E. 2003. The social side of creativity: A static and dynamic

social network perspective. Academy of Management Review, 28(1): 89-106.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

42

Poortvliet, P. M., & Giebels, E. 2012. Self-improvement and cooperation: How exchange

relationships promote mastery-approach driven individuals’ job outcomes. European

Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 21(3): 392-425.

Reiter-Palmon, R., & Illies, J. J. 2004. Leadership and creativity: Understanding leadership

from a creative problem-solving perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(1): 55-77.

Roberts, G. C. 2012. Motivation in sport and exercise from an achievement goal theory

perspective: After 30 years, where are we? In G. C. Roberts & D. Treasure (Eds.), Advances

in motivation in sport and excercise (vol. 3, pp. 5-58). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Roberts, G. C., Treasure, D. C., & Conroy, D. E. 2007. Understanding the dynamics of

motivation in sport and physical activity. In G. Tenenbaum & R. C. Eklund (Eds.),

Handbook of Sport Psychology (3rd ed.). New Jersey, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Rosenbusch, N., Brinckmann, J., & Bausch, A. 2011. Is innovation always beneficial? A meta-

analysis of the relationship between innovation and performance in SMEs. Journal of

Business Venturing, 26(4): 441–457.

Runco, M. A. 2008. Creativity research should be a social science. In M. D. Mumford, S. T.

Hunter & K. E. Bedell-Avers (Eds.), Multi-level Issues in Creativity and Innovation (vol. 7,

pp. 75-94). Amsterdam, NL: Elsevier.

Schulte, M., Ostroff, C., Shmulyian, S., & Kinicki, A. 2009. Organizational climate

configurations: Relationships to collective attitudes, customer satisfaction, and financial

performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3): 618-634.

Settoon, R. P., Bennett, N., & Liden, R. C. 1996. Social exchange in organizations: Perceived

organizational support, leader-member exchange, and employee reciprocity. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 81(3): 219-227.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

43

Shalley, C., & Zhou, J. 2008. Organizational creativity research: A historical overview. In J.

Zhou & C. Shalley (Eds.), Handbook of organizational creativity (pp. 3-31). New York,

NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Shalley, C. E. 1991. Effects of productivity goals, creativity goals, and personal discretion on

individual creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(2): 179-185.

Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J. 1999. Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and

advanced multilevel modeling. London, UK: Sage publications Ltd.

Swift, M., Balkin, D. B., & Matusik, S. F. 2010. Goal orientations and the motivation to share

knowledge. Journal of Knowledge Management, 14(3): 378-393.

Taylor, A. B., MacKinnon, D. P., & Tein, J. Y. 2008. Tests of the three-path mediated effect.

Organizational Research Methods, 11(2): 241-269.

Tepper, B., Mitchell, M., & Almeda, M. 2011. Examining Negative Exchange from a

Relational Perspective: Consequences of Reciprocating Downward Hostility in Supervisor-

Subordinate Relationships. Paper presented at the Israel Organizational Behavior

Conference, Tel Aviv, IS.

Unsworth, K. L., Wall, T. D., & Carter, A. 2005. Creative Requirement: A neglected construct

in the study of employee creativity? Group & Organization Management, 30(5): 541-560.

Vardi, Y., & Weitz, E. 2004. Misbehavior in Organizations: Theory, Research, and

Management. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Wang, S., & Noe, R. A. 2010. Knowledge sharing: A review and directions for future research.

Human Resource Management Review, 20(2): 115-131.

Wood, R. E. 1986. Task complexity: Definition of the construct. Organizational Behavior and

Human Decision Processes, 37(1): 60-82.

Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. 1993. Toward a theory of organizational

creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18(2): 293-321.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

44

Worthington Jr, E. L., & Wade, N. G. 1999. The psychology of unforgiveness and forgiveness

and implications for clinical practice. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 18(4):

385-418.

Zhou, J. 1998. Feedback valence, feedback style, task autonomy, and achievement orientation:

Interactive effects on creative performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2): 261-276.

Zhou, J., & George, J. 2001. When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: Encouraging the

expression of voice. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4): 682-696.

Zhou, Q., Hirst, G., & Shipton, H. 2012. Context matters: Combined influence of participation

and intellectual stimulation on the promotion focus–employee creativity relationship.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(7): 894–909.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

45

Table 1: Means, standard deviations, and correlationsa,b

an=242. b Coefficient alphas are on the diagonal in parentheses. * p<.05, ** p<.01

Variable Mean s.d. 1 2 3 4 5

1 Creativity 5.34 1.06 (.95)

2 Knowledge hiding 1.94 .85 -.18* (.89)

3 Creativity required for position 4.12 1.31

.73**

-.34**

-

4 Mastery climate 4.56 .89 .23** .04 -.14* (.79)

5 Performance climate 3.74 .92 .08 -.03 -.01 -.03 (.84)


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

46

Table 2: Multilevel analysis results for creativity as the dependent variablea, b

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5

Level 1

Intercept 5.41** (.11) 5.44**(.06) 5.44**(.06) 5.45**(.06) 5.43**(.06)

Creativity required for position .52** (.05) .52** (.05) .47** (.04) .51** (.04)

Knowledge hiding -.21** (.08) -.21** (.04) -.20** (.06) -.21** (.07)

Level 2

Mastery climate .01 (.05) .01 (.05) .01 (.05)

Performance climate -.01 (.06) -.02 (.05) -.03 (.06)

Interaction effects

Knowledge hiding Χ Mastery climate .17* (.07) .17* (.08) Knowledge hiding Χ Performance climate -.14† (.07) -.13† (.06) Knowledge hiding Χ Mastery climate Χ Performance climate .03 (.02)

Pseudo R2 .27 .28 .37 .38

Deviance 639.93 457.29 464.01 450.00 457.70

n (level 1) 34 34 34 34 34

n (level 2) 240 240 240 240 240 a Entries are estimations of fixed effects with robust standard errors. b Results were substantively unchanged after accounting for age, gender, expertise, dyad

tenure, company, task variety, task interdependence, mastery goal orientation, performance goal orientation, and team size as control variables, which were all

found not to be significantly related to creativity. **p<.01, *p<.05, †p<.10


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

47

Table 3: Means and standard deviations by conditiona

Condition Creativity Performance

climate

Mastery

climate

Distrust Prevention

focus

Knowledge

hiding

No knowledge hiding, performance climate (n = 22)

4.36 (1.49) 4.59 (1.18) 4.14 (1.36) 1.68 (1.94) 2.32 (1.04) 1.73 (1.45)

Knowledge hiding, performance climate (n = 22)

2.86 (.83) 5.45 (1.34) 4.27 (1.35) 5.32 (.96) 5.41 (1.40) 4.86 (1.83)

No knowledge hiding, mastery climate (n = 22)

4.84 (1.89) 2.86 (1.81) 5.64 (1.56) 2.53 (1.78) 3.53 (1.39) 1.32 (.48)

Knowledge hiding, mastery climate (n = 22)

4.5 (.91) 2.91 (1.15) 5.86 (1.04) 5.09 (.97) 4.73 (1.67) 2.27 (1.03)

No knowledge hiding, no climate induced (n = 22)

3.24 (1.79) 2.71 (1.79) 4.05 (2.29) 1.57 (1.21) 2.76 (.96) 1.52 (.68)

Knowledge hiding, no climate induced (n = 22)

2.52 (1.04) 2.95 (1.26) 4.35 (1.75) 4.78 (1.24) 4.74 (1.14) 2.61 (1.27)

a Standard deviations are in parentheses


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

48

Figure 1: Reciprocal distrust loop illustrating the knowledge hiding-creativity relationship

1st individual

Knowledge hiding

Creativity

2nd individual

Distrust

Reciprocated knowledge hiding

Perceived knowledge hiding


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

49

Figure 2: Relationships between our focal constructs

Knowledge hiding (ind 1)

Creativity (ind 1)

Mastery climate Performance climate

Distrust (ind 2)

Prevention focus (ind 1)

H1-

H2

H3 H4


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

50

Figure 3: The moderating effect of perceived mastery climate on the knowledge hiding-creativity relationship


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

51

Figure 4: The moderating effect of perceived performance climate on the knowledge hiding-creativity relationship


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

52

Biographical Sketches

Matej Černe ([email protected]) is an assistant for scientific research at The Centre of Excellence for Biosensors, Instrumentation and Process Control (COBIK), and a teaching assistant and late Ph.D. student at the Faculty of Economics Ljubljana University in Slovenia. A focus on non-technological innovation, creativity, leadership, and multi-level issues in management are overarching themes of his research.

Christina G. L. Nerstad ([email protected]) is a postdoctoral fellow at BI Norwegian Business School. She recently received her Ph.D. from BI Norwegian Business School. Her research activities are in the areas of organizational behavior, human resource management, and occupational health psychology, focusing on the motivational determinants of achievement, health and well-being at work. Dr. Nerstad has particularly focused on how work climates affect employee motivation, performance and well-being, as well as the antecedents of work climates.

Anders Dysvik ([email protected]) is an associate professor of organizational psychology at BI Norwegian Business School. He received his Ph.D. from BI Norwegian Business School. His research interests include human resource management (training and development, pay systems, performance management, supportive HR practices, temporary employment), organizational behavior (motivation, stressors, work performance, helping behaviors, turnover, knowledge sharing) and leadership (perceived supervisor support, LMX).

Miha Škerlavaj ([email protected]) is an assistant professor of management at the Faculty of Economics Ljubljana University in Slovenia and an adjunct associate professor of organizational behavior at BI Norwegian Business School in Oslo, Norway. He received his Ph.D. from Faculty of Economics University of Ljubljana. His current research is focused on creativity, innovation, learning and knowledge in organizations.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

what goes around comes around: knowledge hiding, perceived motivational climate, and creativity

Documents