Understanding counterproductive knowledge behavior: antecedents and consequences of intra-organizational knowledge hiding
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to explore antecedents and consequences of intra-organizational knowledge hiding. Design/methodology/approach A model was developed and tested with data collected from 691 knowledge workers from 15 North American credit unions. Findings Knowledge hiding and knowledge sharing belong to unique yet possibly overlapping constructs. Individual employees believe that they engage in knowledge hiding to a lesser degree than their co-workers. The availability of knowledge management systems and knowledge policies has no impact on intra-organizational knowledge hiding. The existence of a positive organizational knowledge culture has a negative effect on intra-organizational knowledge hiding. In contrast, job insecurity motivates knowledge hiding. Employees may reciprocate negative knowledge behavior, and knowledge hiding promotes voluntary turnover. Practical implications Managers should realize the uniqueness of counterproductive knowledge behavior and develop proactive measures to reduce or eliminate it. Originality/value Counterproductive knowledge behavior is dramatically under-represented in knowledge management research, and this study attempts to fill that void.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it