Knowledge is widely considered to be a critical resource for an organization’s success, and the importance of knowledge transfer in supporting knowledge management initiatives is acknowledged (Jasimuddin, 2005; Jasimuddin et al., 2012; Zhang and Jasimuddin, 2015; Ruparel and Choubisa, 2020). Knowledge transfer is emphasized as a strategic issue for sustainable competitive advantage of an organization (Zhang and Jasimuddin, 2008; Jasimuddin and Zhang, 2009; Jasimuddin and Zhang, 2011). Contrarily, knowledge hiding is a counter-productive workplace behavior that has significant negative consequences on organizational performance (Huo et al., 2016; Jiang et al., 2019; Ellmer and Reichel, 2021; Xiong et al., 2021). Knowledge hiding was negatively associated with creativity of an organization (Černe et al., 2014; Rhee and Choi, 2017; Xiong et al., 2021). For example, in 2018, the losses associated with such behavior were reported to cost American organizations up to US$ 47 million in productivity (Nguyen et al., 2022). There is a tendency to hide knowledge, perhaps through fear of losing power or through uncertainty over job security (Jasimuddin et al., 2006). Resonate with this, Keong and Al-Hawamdeh (2002) observe that knowledge is power and no one is willing to give it away freely.

Knowledge hiding has been relatively a new topic of management research. The fact that prior knowledge management literature has focused mostly on knowledge sharing (Islam et al., 2018), and less on knowledge hiding (Arain et al., 2020a). Parallel to this, a limited literature is available in this domain (Xiao and Cooke, 2019; Arain et al., 2020b,2021; Ruparel and Choubisa, 2020). However, the studies pertaining to the top management role in creating a culture that helps discourage employees to hide knowledge are scant. Despite the general inclination of companies to have knowledge sharing culture, most employees attempt to conceal their knowledge (Ruparel and Choubisa, 2020). There is an ingrained policy prescribed by top management to encourage knowledge sharing practices. In general, employees refrain from practicing this in their workplace (Xiong et al., 2021). To the best of the authors’ knowledge, there is no research into the top management support in creating a culture to stop withholding knowledge within an organization. The study seeks to address the question of how top management actions help to create a culture that change knowledge hiding behavior of its employees.

Therefore, the paper attempts to explore the top management role in creating a culture that discourages knowledge hiding in an organization. The study offers several useful theoretical and managerial implications of the management support in discouraging knowledge hiding in organizations. The findings of the study may be useful particularly to managers and practitioners. For managers, this paper presents some important organizational factors that can be nurtured to create a knowledge-hiding-free culture in the organization. Interestingly, some novel constructs (e.g., patent rights, conference presentations etc.) have evolved from this study. These can encourage top management take into account to change knowledge hiding behavior of their employees.

The structure of the paper is as follows. First, the existing literature is reviewed so as to develop a theoretical basis for this research. Next, the methodology adopted in this study is outlined. The analysis of results are then presented, followed by the discussion of the empirical findings of the research. The paper concludes by reflecting on some of the implications of its findings for the theory and practice. Finally, the study limitations and future research direction are articulated.

Knowledge sharing is a popular topic in knowledge management research (Jasimuddin, 2006; Jasimuddin et al., 2013). Knowledge hoarding and knowledge hiding are relatively new and under-researched topic (Connelly et al., 2012; Holten et al., 2016; Arain et al., 2020a). Recently, the phenomenon of knowledge hiding has increased the interest in researchers who have explored it in different views (Xiong et al., 2021). Several scholars treat it as deception (Takala and Urpilainen, 1999), knowledge withholding behaviors (Connelly et al., 2012) or counterproductive behaviors (Pearson et al., 2004; Xiong et al., 2021). Connelly et al. (2012) defined knowledge hiding as “an intentional attempt by an individual to withhold or conceal what has been requested by another person.” For the purpose of this study, knowledge hiding and knowledge hoarding are used synonymously.

A couple of review papers surrounding knowledge hiding is available. Ruparel and Choubisa (2020) systematically reviewed the relevant papers on knowledge hiding published between 2008 and 2018, arguing that these studies focus on the its antecedents as well as the consequences. Arain et al. (2020a) examines the consequences for innovative work behavior of top-down knowledge hiding – that is, supervisors’ knowledge hiding from supervisees. Similarly, Arain et al. (2021) identify the consequences of supervisor knowledge hiding in organizations based in Saudi Arabia. He et al. (2021) also provide another review of articles addressing the topic of knowledge hiding in organizations, showing that the central research themes of knowledge hiding include five clusters: concept and dimensions, antecedents, consequences, theories, and influence mechanisms.

Drawing on these reviewed articles, it is to be noted that the extant literature surrounding knowledge hiding is now enriched with the research that emphasizes on identifying its antecedents and exploring its negative consequences (Connelly et al., 2012, 2017; Černe et al., 2014; Fang, 2017; Butt, 2019; Butt et al., 2020). Parallel to this, (Butt et al., 2020) support this, stating that these studies mostly focuses on the antecedents and the consequences of knowledge hiding.

Most specifically, Xiong et al. (2021) did research into the antecedents of knowledge hiding and the social factors that trigger the relate behavior. Similarly, Butt et al. (2020) studied how knowledge hiding adversely affect buyer–supplier relationships, identifying the factors (i.e., limited interaction, mutual loyalty, and lack of interpersonal trust) that influence business relationship between managers of buying and supplying firms, when they conceal knowledge from each other.

Holten et al. (2016) investigated whether and how knowledge hoarding, functions as antecedent and consequence of work related negative acts, as a measure of bullying, with the use of mediation of trust and justice. Resonate with this, Arain et al. (2020b) examine the direct and indirect—via distrust in supervisor—relationships between supervisor knowledge hiding (SKH) and supervisee organizational citizenship behavior directed at the supervisor (OCB-S) in the context of the Middle East. They suggest that supervisees’ distrust in their supervisors mediates the significant and negative relationship between SKH and supervisees’ OCB-S. Parallel to this, Nguyen et al. (2022) show that role conflict, job insecurity, and cynicism positively impact knowledge hiding behavior, arguing that such behavior mediates the antecedents of knowledge hiding on job performance, and that transformational leadership moderated the impact of role conflict on knowledge hiding.

Issac and Baral (2018) argue that knowledge hiding is not meant to harm any other employee in the organization. But such action may lead to harm the company when it fails to get right knowledge at the right time in the right place to solve a problem or resolve a critical issue. The pervading culture of the case organization under study is not one in which employees feel the need to protect their jobs by hiding their knowledge. It is to be noted that the motivation of the knowledge contributor to provide knowledge is less straightforward (Jasimuddin, 2012). The top management definitely has a role to motivate employees to be so open and cooperative in sharing their knowledge with other organizational members. Hence, it is crucial to explore the top management support in creating a culture to stop withholding knowledge. As mentioned earlier, the study intends to fill this research gap by addressing the question of how top management actions help to create a culture that change knowledge hiding behavior of its employees. This paper investigates the management role underlying this phenomenon.

This research was carried out as an exploratory case study, which allowed to observe the phenomenon in a natural setting. Such an approach is widely used within the interpretive research paradigm, and is appropriate to explore social phenomena or contemporary events (Yin, 2004). The data collection and analysis procedure within in-depth qualitative research was based on the approach proposed by Miles and Huberman (1994). The research involved an in-depth case study of knowledge hiding practices in a United Kingdom-based laboratory within a high-tech global corporation.

The case organization, which is the one of the world’s biggest computer manufacturer, is responsible for numerous inventions, and regards knowledge sharing as an important part of its work. Respondents in the case organization report that organizational members are not worried about giving away knowledge to each other. Rather it appears that knowledge transfer is voluntary and spontaneous. In this study, data has been collected from interviews and observations. The interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed. The transcripts were coded to extract themes from the data. The themes were then interpreted to give a greater understanding of the case phenomena, as recommended by Miles and Huberman (1994). A sample of 30 interviewees was chosen purposively as Kuzel (1999) recommended that qualitative samples should be purposive rather than random. The employees based at the research laboratory requires to regularly collaborate with colleagues based in sites across the United States, France and the rest of the world to accomplish their assigned tasks. These interviews were more focused and theory-driven with what Miles and Huberman (1994) called “a well-bounded sample of persons”.

The empirical data has been analyzed to explore the top management actions to discourage knowledge hiding among employees within an organization. Knowledge hiding in the workplace is harmful. Organizations often make significant efforts to encourage employees to share knowledge (Xiong et al., 2021).

Knowledge transfer is widely recognized as crucial for an organization’s survival (Argote et al., 2000; Jasimuddin et al., 2015; Islam et al., 2017). Whereas knowledge hiding is diminishes the creativity of an organization (Černe et al., 2014; Rhee and Choi, 2017). Organizations often make significant efforts to encourage employees to share knowledge. The fact that employees engage in knowledge hiding behavior to preserve their indispensability and career prospects (Butt et al., 2020). Parallel to this, Serenko and Bontis (2016) comment that knowledge hiders’ narrow-minded intentions urge them to intentionally hide knowledge from their colleagues. Whereas the most powerful employees in the future of an organization will be those who do the best job of transferring knowledge to others (Bilginoğlu, 2019). The management’s active support is essential to encourage organization members to engage in knowledge transfer activities and to create a culture that is conducive to knowledge transfer (Gupta and Govindaranjan, 2000; Nielsen and Ciabuschi, 2003; Islam et al., 2015). Nielsen and Ciabuschi, 2003), for example, contend that the management actively participates to encourage employees to engage in knowledge transfer. In this regard, Tang et al. (2015) argue that perceptions of employees about a leader being ethical keep employees from hiding knowledge.

Knowledge transfer culture is a precondition for successful knowledge management initiatives in organizations (Leidner, 1999; Jasimuddin and Zhang, 2014; Hasnain et al., 2016). The majority of the interviewees at the case organization report that they are engaged in transferring knowledge spontaneously. Almost all respondents mention that the company do have a strong knowledge-sharing culture. The organization under study has a culture where employees are directly discouraged to hide knowledge. The respondents consider knowledge transfer as being an important part of their job. The tasks and sub-tasks at the organization are interlinked in the sense that people cannot do their job properly without the help of other members of the organization. For example, a developer needs other developers’ technical help when he (she) engaging in writing software code. The interesting point is that the respondents view the corporate culture is very much knowledge sharing, collaborative and discussion-oriented.

The employees interviewed at the research site are found to be quite collaborative and open. Ipe (2003) reinforces this point of view by suggesting that “organizational values, such as openness, influence knowledge transfer activities”. Several other researchers (e.g., Hislop, 2005; Hasnain and Jasimuddin, 2012; Jasimuddin et al., 2014; Hasnain et al., 2016) also support this view by reporting that knowledge related values such as trust and openness have influence on knowledge transfer. The respondents report that they maintain very good relationships with their colleagues.

Discouraging its employees to participate in knowledge hiding is considered by the respondents as an important initiative of top management. New recruits are made aware of the negative impact of withholding knowledge from others. Several authors (Gupta and Govindaranjan, 2000; Jasimuddin, 2014) reinforce this point of view by suggesting that there is the relationship between knowledge sharing and incentives. Rather they are involved in knowledge transfer and, in turn, gives reward for doing so. This relationship between incentives and knowledge sharing is also further supported by Ipe (2003, p. 348) who argues that real and perceived reward and penalties for individuals come from sharing and hiding knowledge, respectively. Surprisingly, there is no direct penalty as an outcome for knowledge hiding at the case organization. However, management recognizes the value of knowledge sharing; one of the reported criteria for promotion at the organization under study is knowledge sharing.

Drawing on an empirical work in a large high-tech corporation, this paper identifies top management actions that helps avoid knowledge hiding. This supports the findings of Bilginoğlu (2019), who suggests that management should make the employees understand that there is more value in sharing knowledge than in hoarding it (Bilginoğlu, 2019). The study reveals that the top management role is important in creating a culture to stop withholding knowledge. This paper has taken a step toward the empirical identification of management actions, which might be seen as motivators to discourage knowledge hiding. The paper identifies management actions that helps avoid knowledge hiding behavior. Interestingly, some novel constructs (e.g., patent rights, conference presentations etc.) have evolved from this study. Top management gives recognition and promote to senior position if an employee can bring new idea, design and product, and then apply for a patent. The management provides logistic and financial support to make sure its employees can attend the conference and present a paper. These actions can encourage top management of other companies to take into account to change knowledge hiding behavior of their employees.

The paper is useful to managers and practitioners. Overall, this paper helps practitioners, particularly employers, in understanding the notion of knowledge hiding along with their role to discourage knowledge hiding behavior of employees. Most specifically, for managers, this study presents some important organizational factors that can be nurtured to create a knowledge-sharing culture in the organization. Having knowledge about the management support to discourage knowledge hiding may provide guidelines for working practices within an organization. It will help other companies to take these actions as a lesson. They can also take these lessons into practice to create culture that will change knowledge hiding behavior of their employees.

Although the existing literature has stressed the causes and consequences of knowledge hiding, the management actions to discourage the knowledge hiding behavior of employees has not been fully or centrally addressed. This paper has filled this gap by exploring the top management support to create a culture to stop knowledge hiding tendency among employees, conducting research in a multinational corporation’s laboratory based in the United Kingdom. This paper reports that management has a role to create a culture that discourages knowledge hiding.

However, this study also has some limitations. Although the case organization is representative of a typical, mature high-tech multinational industry, the paper is based on insights from the existing literature along with the findings drawn from the single research setting. Hence, the results may not be generalized. As with other qualitative research approaches, the emphasis of this research is on the perceptions of the respondents. Although every effort is made to validate these, such a research approach is always open to multiple interpretations. To overcome this limitation, comparing the constructs of interest in other organizations from different industries would be a fruitful area for future studies. In addition, it might also be fruitful to consider comparative studies that may shed further light on the role of contextual features of organizations, such as size, culture and norms, which potentially can also influence on knowledge hiding. The fact that comparison with similar studies in other organizations will help to generalize in broader terms and explore similarities and differences between management actions against knowledge hiding practices. This paper lays some groundwork for future research particularly through further field studies in understanding the management actions in creating a culture that will discourage employees to hide knowledge within the organization.

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Both authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and intellectual contribution to the work, and approved it for publication.

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.