A cultural perspective on knowledge hiding: the role of organisational justice, distrust and cultural intelligence
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
Extant research has established knowledge hiding as one of the potential barriers to positive individual and organisational performance. This study aims to expand the empirical research on knowledge hiding by studying its manifestation in a multicultural context, where intercultural differences can further aggravate knowledge hiding. We investigate the relationship between organisational justice and knowledge hiding behaviour through the underlying mechanism of distrust. Furthermore, cultural differences can impact the perceptions of justice creating distrust, which in turn can lead to undesirable employee behaviours such as knowledge hiding. We also examine the moderating role of cultural intelligence (CQ) as an effective mechanism to mitigate the organisational justice-knowledge hiding relationship. The findings of this research revealed a negative relationship between organisational justice and knowledge hiding. In addition, distrust partially mediated the relationship between organisational justice and knowledge hiding. The results also indicated the moderating effect of CQ on the organisational justice-knowledge hiding relationship.
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 | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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