The mediating role of perceived team member exchange in the relationship between work engagement and knowledge manipulation and 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
Knowledge provides employees with a strategic advantage. Thus, while organisations may encourage employees to share their knowledge, individuals may choose to manipulate or hide knowledge to maintain this advantage. By drawing from the broaden-and-build theory, this study examines the indirect effect of work engagement on knowledge manipulation and knowledge hiding via individual perceived team member exchange. In a time-separated field study (n = 128), results show that individual perceived team member exchange fully mediates the relationship between work engagement and knowledge manipulation and knowledge hiding, and that job tenure moderates the relationship between individual perceived team member exchange and knowledge manipulation, but not between individual perceived team member exchange and knowledge hiding. This paper contributes to the existing body of research on knowledge hiding and the growing literature on knowledge manipulation by uncovering affective and relational mechanisms as well as boundary conditions that impact these behaviours.
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 | 0.035 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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