Moderator Preceived Mastery Motivational Climate PDF

Academy of Management Journal
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
Creativity < Behavior < Organizational Behavior < Topic Areas,

Deviance/counterproductive behaviors < Behavior < Organizational
Behavior < Topic Areas, Survey < Quantitative Orientation < Research
Keyword: 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
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
Abstract: 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.
Page 1 of 52 Academy of Management Journal
1
1
2
3
4
5
6 What Goes Around Comes Around: Knowledge Hiding,
7 Perceived Motivational Climate, and Creativity
8
9
10
11
12
13 MATEJ ČERNE CHRISTINA G. L. NERSTAD
14
The Centre of Excellence for Biosensors, BI Norwegian Business School
15
16 Instrumentation, and Process control - Department of Leadership and Organizational
17 COBIK Behaviour
18 Open Innovation Systems Lab Nydalsveien 37, Oslo, 0484, Norway
19 Velika pot 22, Solkan, 5250, Slovenia Tel: (+47) 46410-758
20 Tel: (+386) 31570-835 e-mail: christina.g.l.nerstad@bi.no
21 e-mail: matej.cerne@ef.uni-lj.si
22
23 ANDERS DYSVIK MIHA ŠKERLAVAJ
24
BI Norwegian Business School Faculty of Economics University of Ljubljana
25
26 Department of Leadership and Department of Management and Organisation
27 Organizational Behaviour Kardeljeva ploščad 17, Ljubljana, 1000,
28 Nydalsveien 37, Oslo, 0484, Norway Slovenia
29 Tel: (+47) 46410-713 Tel: (+386) 15892-467
30 e-mail: anders.dysvik@bi.no e-mail: miha.skerlavaj@ef.uni-lj.si
31
32
33
34
35
36 We are grateful to Associate Editor Adam Grant and three anonymous reviewers for helpful
37 developmental feedback and suggestions. We would also like to thank John Sumanth for a
38 friendly review, and Marko Jaklič and the respondents from two companies for help with the
39 field study. We are grateful to participants at the Faculty of Economics Ljubljana University
40 (FELU) and Robert Kaše for help with the experimental study. We also thank all participants
41 at FELU and BI research seminars, and AoM annual meeting 2012 attendees for their
42 comments. We offer special thanks to Darija Aleksić, Sabina Bogilović and Ivan Župič for
43 help with the creative requirement and creative output ratings. This work was supported by
44
the European Union, European Regional Development Fund and Republic of Slovenia,
45
46 Ministry of Education, Science, Culture and Sport, as The Centre of Excellence for
47 Biosensors, Instrumentation and Process Control is an operation financed by these entities.
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Academy of Management Journal Page 2 of 52
2
1
2
3
4 ABSTRACT
5
6
Knowledge hiding prevents colleagues from generating creative ideas, but it may also have
7
8
9 negative consequences for the creativity of the knowledge hider. Drawing on social exchange
10
11 theory, we propose that when employees hide knowledge, they trigger a reciprocal distrust
12
13 loop in which coworkers are unwilling to share knowledge with them. We further suggest that
14
15 these effects are contingent on the motivational climate such that the negative effects of
16
17
18 hiding knowledge on one’s own creativity are enhanced in a performance climate and
19
20 attenuated in a mastery climate. A field study of 240 employees, nested into 34 groups,
21
22 revealed a negative relationship between knowledge hiding and the knowledge hider’s
23
24 creativity as well as the moderating role of a mastery climate. Study 2 replicated these
25
26
findings in an experimental study of 132 undergraduate students, testing a reciprocal distrust
27
28
29 loop and comparing it with an alternative intra-psychic explanatory process based on
30
31 situational regulatory focus. Implications for practice and future research are discussed.
32
33
34 Keywords: Knowledge hiding, creativity, mastery climate, performance climate
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
3
1
2
3
4 WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND: KNOWLEDGE HIDING, PERCEIVED
5 MOTIVATIONAL CLIMATE, AND CREATIVITY
6
7
8
Scholars and practitioners share a strong interest in understanding factors that may help to
9
10 engage employees in creativity, formally defined as the generation of novel and potentially
11
12 useful ideas (Amabile, 1983; Shalley, 1991). Creativity has been established as a fundamental
13
14 driver that serves as a basis for individuals, groups, and organizations to pursue innovative
15
16
efforts. In turn, meta-analytic evidence and numerous studies identify innovation as crucial in
17
18
19 improving performance and achieving continuous competitive advantage (e.g., Liao & Rice,
20
21 2010; Rosenbusch, Brinckmann, & Bausch, 2011). How to stimulate creative behavior in the
22
23 workplace is therefore a highly relevant issue. Yet, understanding the factors that drive
24
25 creativity and their interplay remains a significant agenda for researchers (Shalley & Zhou,
26
27
28 2008).
29
30 In particular, the impact of knowledge sharing on employees’ creative behavior is a heavily
31
32 discussed topic within creativity research (e.g., Perry-Smith, 2006; Perry-Smith & Shalley,
33
34 2003). Employees must be motivated to share their knowledge in order to facilitate creative
35
36
processes with others (Perry-Smith, 2006), which explains why the majority of research to
37
38
39 date focuses on factors that might increase employees’ knowledge sharing. Although
40
41 knowledge sharing certainly represents a competitive asset in terms of creativity (Perry-
42
43 Smith, 2006), knowledge hiding—an intentional attempt to conceal or to withhold knowledge
44
45 that others have requested—may represent a threat to beneficial outcomes (Connelly, Zweig,
46
47
48 Webster, & Trougakos, 2012) such as creativity. Connelly et al. (2012) argue that knowledge
49
50 hiding is different from a lack of knowledge sharing because in addition to the omission of
51
52 knowledge sharing, it also incorporates an intent to withhold knowledge that someone else
53
54 has requested. Analogous to the fact that knowledge sharing enhances the creativity of
55
56
57
58
59
60
4
1
2
3
4 coworkers (e.g., Perry-Smith, 2006), intentionally hiding knowledge should inhibit the
5
6
creativity of coworkers.
7
8
9 To date, however, knowledge hiding processes and outcomes within specific situations
10
11 remain largely unexplored (Connelly et al., 2012). Specifically, it is unclear how knowledge
12
13 hiding will affect the creativity of the knowledge hider. Drawing on social exchange theory
14
15 (Blau, 1964), the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960), and the importance of interpersonal
16
17
18 dynamics for knowledge hiding (Connelly & Kelloway, 2003), we posit that a distrust loop
19
20 occurs between the knowledge hider and seeker. Namely, when employee A intentionally
21
22 hides knowledge from employee B (who has requested it and is hence aware of the fact that
23
24 hiding has occurred), this backfires on employee A. Due to the distrust created, employee B
25
26
wants to retaliate and also hides knowledge from employee A. This, in turn, inhibits the
27
28
29 creativity of the initial knowledge hider (employee A).
30
31 If knowledge hiding impedes employee creativity, organizations and managers need to
32
33 identify how to mitigate this effect. We propose that the extant criteria of success and failure
34
35 in the work environment, also conceptualized as the perceived motivational (mastery and
36
37
38 performance) climate (Ames, 1992a; Ames, 1992b; Nicholls, 1989), can affect the social
39
40 exchange patterns that develop in the distrust loop (Poortvliet & Giebels, 2012). For example,
41
42 employees who are placed in a motivational climate characterized by social comparison and
43
44 intra-team competition (i.e., performance climate) may reciprocate in response to knowledge
45
46
hiding in order to gain some competitive advantage for them, thereby hurting the initial
47
48
49 knowledge hider’s creativity. On the other hand, when placed in a motivational climate that
50
51 values employees’ efforts, self-development, cooperation, and learning (i.e., mastery climate),
52
53 employees may view reciprocal knowledge hiding as a destructive behavior that impedes the
54
55 mutual benefit of knowledge exchange and creativity in their work group. We therefore
56
57
58 propose that the creativity costs that the knowledge hider faces are more pronounced within a
59
60
5
1
2
3
4 performance climate and attenuated within a mastery climate. We test our hypotheses in two
5
6
studies using both field and experimental data.
7
8
9 Our theoretical point of view and empirical findings offer significant contributions to the
10
11 creativity and knowledge management literature, respectively. First, we aim to answer calls to
12
13 enrich knowledge about social influences on creativity (e.g., Grant & Berry, 2011; Perry-
14
15 Smith, 2006) by introducing a distrust loop mechanism to the knowledge hiding-creativity
16
17
18 relationship. The very actions deemed by knowledge hiders as self-protective can backfire in
19
20 undermining their own creativity. Second, the context has been deemed important for both
21
22 knowledge hiding (Connelly et al., 2012) and creativity (Byron, Khazanchi, & Nazarian,
23
24 2010; Hammond, Neff, Farr, Schwall, & Zhao, 2011; Hirst, Van Knippenberg, & Zhou, 2009;
25
26
Zhou, Hirst, & Shipton, 2012). We therefore explore how mastery and performance climates
27
28
29 may influence the distrust loop differently by affecting the social exchange patterns among
30
31 exchange partners (cf., Poortvliet & Giebels, 2012). In practice, our research should help to
32
33 explain why many creative initiatives in work organizations fail (Alencar, 2012) and what
34
35 management can do about it.
36
37
38 KNOWLEDGE HIDING AND CREATIVITY
39
40 Although it should be understood and examined as a complex and ambiguous concept
41
42 (Runco, 2008), creativity deals with idea generation or exploration as interpreted within a
43
44 particular social context (Shalley & Zhou, 2008). Next to its intrapsychic origins (e.g., Barron
45
46 & Harrington, 1981), creativity in itself is an important part of interpersonal processes
47
48
49 (Amabile, 1983; Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993). The generation of creative ideas is
50
51 often the result of grouping novel combinations of the varied perspectives and approaches to
52
53 which people are exposed via social interactions (Allen, 1977; Perry-Smith, 2006; Perry-
54
55 Smith & Shalley, 2003). Consequently, creativity is very much dependent on information and
56
57
58
59
60
6
1
2
3
4 knowledge sharing (Amabile, 1997) and thus may be crucially influenced by knowledge
5
6
hiding.
7
8
9 A social exchange relationship between coworkers facilitates knowledge sharing (Wang &
10
11 Noe, 2010) and, in turn, enhances creative performance because mere exposure to diverse
12
13 alternatives can trigger the use of wider mental processes and generate more divergent
14
15 solutions (Kanter, 1988). In addition, such a relationship increases the ability to generate,
16
17
18 validate, and determine the appropriateness of potential solutions (Perry-Smith & Shalley,
19
20 2003) between trusting group members (Wang & Noe, 2010). A reduction in knowledge
21
22 sharing will lessen people’s ability to generate creative ideas (Bartol & Srivastava, 2002) and
23
24 to critically evaluate their value to the group and/or organization. Creativity requires
25
26
information about a problem and a certain degree of prior knowledge regarding the task at
27
28
29 hand (Amabile, 1983). Thus, knowledge hiding may prevent employees from collecting the
30
31 existing concepts they require to create new concepts (Reiter-Palmon & Illies, 2004). This
32
33 may have a critical damaging influence in contexts in which creativity is important. In this
34
35 way, it could embody a significant but thus far neglected explanation of why successful
36
37
38 creativity enhancement initiatives are lacking in organizations.
39
40 The aforementioned argument seems reasonable in cases in which others hide knowledge.
41
42 We argue, however, that the very same individual who exhibits higher levels of knowledge
43
44 hiding will experience a decrease in creativity. Nevertheless, like Connelly et al. (2012), who
45
46
allude to the importance of social relations for work in predicting knowledge hiding, we
47
48
49 explore this construct and its outcome in the form of dyadic creativity. The main explanatory
50
51 mechanism we propose for the knowledge-hiding creativity relationship is of an interpersonal
52
53 nature and is linked to social exchange and the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960) within
54
55 groups of people. Reciprocity is a moral norm, one of the universal principal components of
56
57
58 moral codes within social systems (Gouldner, 1960). Interactions between coworkers are
59
60
7
1
2
3
4 generally governed by an unspoken and inexplicit social exchange (Blau, 1964). Positive
5
6
relationships will draw on norms of reciprocity and expectations of trust, honesty, mutual aid,
7
8
9 and equal mutual exchange of privileges (Settoon, Bennett, & Liden, 1996). A person who
10
11 voluntarily and spontaneously engages in one positive behavior toward another person will
12
13 implicitly invoke a similar reciprocal behavior.
14
15 Naturally, negative reciprocity is also present within organizational settings. When a
16
17
18 person perceives negative behavior or misbehavior (cf., Vardi & Weitz, 2004), such as
19
20 intentional information withholding, he or she develops a basic mindset of distrust—that is, a
21
22 lack of confidence in the other and/or a concern that the other may act to harm him or her
23
24 (Grovier, 1994). Distrust toward one person in a dyad leads the other person to reciprocate the
25
26
behavior (Gouldner, 1960). Empirical evidence has shown that employees frequently engage
27
28
29 in reciprocating counterproductive work behavior because this simply makes them feel better
30
31 (Tepper, Mitchell, & Almeda, 2011) or to punish unfair actors in a social setting (Kahneman,
32
33 Knetsch, & Thaler, 1986). This refers to the fundamental need to believe in a just world and
34
35 to restore justice when norms or rules are violated (Lerner, 1980)—for example, when
36
37
38 coworkers hide knowledge. Connelly et al. (2012) suggest that the history of reciprocity
39
40 among colleagues may affect the likelihood of an employee’s engaging in hiding behaviors.
41
42 In other words, employees hide knowledge from those whom they distrust, which predicts
43
44 future intentions to withhold knowledge (Connelly et al., 2012). Consistent with the concept
45
46
of negative reciprocity, returning “harm” to those who are responsible for performing
47
48
49 negative acts helps to insure the stability of social systems (Gouldner, 1960) because it
50
51 discourages future negative actions.
52
53 We propose that the described reciprocal distrust loop applies to situations in which an
54
55 employee requires knowledge and information in order to facilitate or to enhance the creative
56
57
58 process—for example, new ideas, knowledge about some aspect of work processes, or further
59
60
8
1
2
3
4 insight or understanding of work-related phenomena. Individuals whose requests for
5
6
assistance in their creative quests are rejected should reciprocate and hide knowledge in
7
8
9 return. When a coworker is denied knowledge and he or she is able to recognize intentional
10
11 knowledge hiding, a feeling of distrust is induced. In turn, such acts within a coworker dyad
12
13 underlie ineffective social exchanges (Blau, 1964)—in other words, reciprocated rejections of
14
15 assistance or knowledge disclosure. The norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960) suggests that
16
17
18 knowledge seekers who experienced knowledge hiding are more likely to retaliate against the
19
20 knowledge hider. When the initial knowledge hider requires knowledge in order to be
21
22 creative, the initial knowledge seeker is more likely to withhold information. In turn, the
23
24 initial knowledge hider would be denied access to a portion of alternatives, example solutions,
25
26
or any potentially relevant ideas with which he or she would be more likely to make
27
28
29 connections that could lead to creativity (Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, & Herron, 1996).
30
31 The reciprocal distrust loop, an interpersonal mechanism related to dyadic interaction and
32
33 dyadic social exchange, is focal to our study and has also been mentioned and briefly
34
35 described by Connelly et al. (2012) as a salient factor for knowledge hiding. The reciprocal
36
37
38 distrust loop underlying our hypotheses 1 and 2 is shown in Figure 1.
39
40
41 Hypothesis 1. Knowledge hiding is negatively related to the knowledge hider’s creativity.
42
43 Hypothesis 2. Coworker’s distrust mediates the negative relationship between knowledge
44
45 hiding and the knowledge hider’s creativity.
46
47 ----------------------------------
48
49 Insert Figure 1 about here
50 -----------------------------------
51
52
53 THE MODERATING ROLE OF PERCEIVED MOTIVATIONAL CLIMATE
54
55 The achievement context in which employees perform their everyday tasks plays an
56
57 essential role in an employee’s decision to hide or share knowledge (Connelly et al., 2012).
58
59
60
9
1
2
3
4 The motivational climate at work, as defined by traditional achievement goal theory (AGT;
5
6
Ames, 1992a; Nicholls, 1984, 1989), represents such a context in that it refers to employees’
7
8
9 shared perceptions of the extant criteria of success and failure emphasized through the
10
11 policies, practices, and procedures of the work environment (Nerstad, Roberts, & Richardsen,
12
13 in press). Such climate perceptions help employees to understand what behaviors (i.e.,
14
15 knowledge hiding and creativity) are expected and rewarded (Schulte, Ostroff, Shmulyian, &
16
17
18 Kinicki, 2009). The motivational climate consists of two dimensions: a mastery climate and a
19
20 performance climate. A mastery climate refers to situations that support effort and
21
22 cooperation, and it emphasizes learning, mastery, and skill development (Ames, 1992a;
23
24 Ames, 1992b; Nicholls, 1989). Such a climate has been found to promote more adaptive
25
26
behaviors such as better performance, higher levels of work engagement, additional effort,
27
28
29 and persistence in the face of difficulty (Nerstad et al., in press; Ntoumanis & Biddle, 1999;
30
31 Roberts, 2012).
32
33 In contrast, a performance climate refers to situations that emphasize normative criteria of
34
35 success (Nicholls, 1984, 1989; Roberts, 2012). In such a climate, normative ability, social
36
37
38 comparison, and intra-team competition are emphasized (Ames & Ames, 1984; Ntoumanis &
39
40 Biddle, 1999). Therefore, only those who are the best achievers are acknowledged as
41
42 successful (Ames, 1984). Individuals in such conditions of forced social comparison are
43
44 overwhelmed with comparative information [i.e., ability grouping, verbal comparisons]
45
46
(Ames & Ames, 1984; Levine, 1983). A negative interdependence among employees may
47
48
49 then develop because outperforming coworkers is their goal (Ames & Ames, 1984). A
50
51 performance climate has been found to promote maladaptive outcomes such as poorer
52
53 performance, performance anxiety, lower persistence, controlled motivation, and turnover
54
55 intentions (Abrahamsen, Roberts, & Pensgaard, 2008; Nerstad et al., in press; Ntoumanis &
56
57
58 Biddle, 1999). We propose that employees’ shared perceptions of a mastery climate or
59
60
10
1
2
3
4 performance climate are likely to influence how coworkers behave in social exchange
5
6
situations (c.f., Janssen & Van Yperen, 2004; Poortvliet & Giebels, 2012).
7
8
9 With respect to the relationship between knowledge hiding and creativity, our basic
10
11 premise is that a mastery climate may override the adherence to reciprocity norms that result
12
13 in coworkers’ distrust and consequent reciprocal knowledge hiding. In line with theory and
14
15 empirical findings on employees who are placed in cooperative situations (e.g., Beersma et
16
17
18 al., 2003), a mastery climate should create perceptions of a shared fate and promote
19
20 supportive behavior whereby each group member looks out for the interests of the coworkers
21
22 in addition to his or her own. Thus, insights and lessons that one member learns are shared so
23
24 that others can also benefit from their knowledge accumulation (Beersma et al., 2003;
25
26
Johnson et al., 2006). Employees in a mastery climate should not consider knowledge hiding a
27
28
29 beneficial option because such a behavior will not assist them in developing their capabilities
30
31 and in improving the quality of their knowledge (Swift, Balkin, & Matusik, 2010).
32
33 As knowledge sharing and information exchange are more likely to be supported in a
34
35 mastery climate, such a climate can reduce the motive for reciprocal knowledge hiding and
36
37
38 instead help to further stimulate creativity. In a mastery climate, even if a coworker hides
39
40 knowledge, the norms of information sharing and cooperation should prevent distrust and lead
41
42 employees to share knowledge anyway. While a mastery climate is based on cooperation,
43
44 information exchange (Ames & Archer, 1988), and an atmosphere of trust (Ommundsen,
45
46
Roberts, Lemyre, & Treasure, 2003), knowledge-hiding behavior may not be reciprocated
47
48
49 because negative reciprocity is not in line with the behavior required for success at work.
50
51 Succeeding in helping both others and themselves while developing skills and contributing to
52
53 knowledge enhancement at work (Matzler & Müller, 2011) is an important criteria of success
54
55 for employees that overrides the reciprocal norms in response to knowledge hiding. Thus, the
56
57
58 focus of self-improvement in a mastery climate may motivate individuals to cooperate with
59
60
11
1
2
3
4 coworkers in social exchange situations (Poortvliet & Giebels, 2012). Thus, a mastery climate
5
6
will likely attenuate the negative relationship between knowledge hiding and creativity. We
7
8
9 therefore hypothesize:
10
11 Hypothesis 3. A perceived mastery climate moderates the relationship between
12
13 knowledge hiding and creativity. The higher the perceived mastery climate, the less
14
15 negative the relationship.
16
17
18 In a performance climate, success requires an inherent focus on outperforming coworkers
19
20
21 (Ames & Archer, 1988; Pensgaard & Roberts, 2002). As such behavior is signaled to be
22
23 expected, rewarded, and publicly recognized, employees should be more inclined to
24
25 reciprocally hide knowledge. This tendency toward reciprocity is possibly due to increased
26
27 motivation to maximize their own payoff relative to their coworkers (Poortvliet & Giebels,
28
29
2012), and they can achieve that by hiding knowledge. Because success is often evaluated via
30
31
32 social comparisons, hiding knowledge may give employees a competitive edge and a better
33
34 chance of winning, which, in a performance climate, is seen as the most important objective
35
36 (Cumming, Smoll, Smith, & Grossbard, 2007; Nicholls, 1989).
37
38 Therefore, in a performance climate, employees may be more prone to protecting their own
39
40
41 performance by withholding knowledge from others and thus impair the progress of
42
43 colleagues in an effort to gain positive competitive advantage (Beersma et al., 2003). In this
44
45 way, a performance climate strengthens adherence to reciprocity norms in response to
46
47 knowledge hiding. Because a performance climate is more likely to facilitate low concern for
48
49
coworkers’ outcomes (Poortvliet & Giebels, 2012), reciprocating knowledge-hiding behavior
50
51
52 may be perceived as a smart strategy for outperforming social exchange partners. In turn, this
53
54 results in even more adversely reciprocated knowledge hiding and, consequently, an inability
55
56 of the initial knowledge hider to obtain information relevant to his or her creative process at
57
58
59
60
12
1
2
3
4 work. Based on this enhancing effect of a perceived performance climate, we hypothesize the
5
6
following:
7
8
9 Hypothesis 4. A perceived performance climate moderates the relationship between
10
11 knowledge hiding and creativity. The higher the perceived performance climate, the
12
13 more negative the relationship.
14
15
16 We first test hypotheses 1, 3 and 4 in the field Study 1. To address the limitations of the
17
18 field study (Study 1) as well as to test the reciprocal distrust loop (examining a colleague’s
19
20
21 distrust as a mediator between knowledge hiding and one’s own creativity, Hypothesis 2)
22
23 using dyadic experimental data, we conduct an experimental Study 2. Figure 2 depicts the
24
25 relationships among the focal constructs tested in both studies.
26
27
28 ----------------------------------
30
31 -----------------------------------
32
33 STUDY 1: METHODS
34
35 Sample and Procedures
36
37 Empirical data were collected from 240 employees and their 34 direct supervisors in two
38
39 Slovenian companies in August, September, and October 2011. In order to avoid problems
40
41
42 with common method bias, data were collected using two separate questionnaires: one for the
43
44 employees and the other for their supervisors, who assessed employee creativity. A
45
46 translation-back translation procedure (Brislin, 1986) was used to translate the scales from
47
48 English to Slovenian and then back to English. It should be noted that our sample only
49
50
included employees who possess a job e-mail address and can be divided into teams with a
51
52
53 particular supervisor, not the production workers. The members of these groups are more
54
55 likely to produce creative ideas in the surveyed companies. All of the groups that met the
56
57 aforementioned criteria participated in the survey. The work process in these groups is such
58
59
60
13
1
2
3
4 that the members are encouraged to come up with creative ideas, which are later implemented
5
6
with the help of the group. Within the groups, creativity (i.e., generation of novel and useful
7
8
9 ideas) is usually carried out individually.
10
11 The first company is an aluminum manufacturer that employs about 800 people. Its motto
12
13 is to produce the “aluminum of the future,” and it manufactures foundries, evaporators, and
14
15 castings, but it is also becoming increasingly involved in designing power stations and
16
17
18 providing advanced laboratory measurement services. The second company functions within
19
20 the metal processing industry and employs about 2,200 people. It deals with modern-day
21
22 blacksmithing and is vested in producing innovative products made from raw metal. With
23
24 almost 100 years of experience, it has evolved from ironmongery and manufacturing metal
25
26
products to using modern materials and innovative technologies.
27
28
29 Examples of ideas rated as highly creative in these two companies included solar power
30
31 stations, a monitoring program for the discharge of effluents, innovative metal bike
32
33 handlebars, nano-based coatings for metal products, and radically redesigning the assembly
34
35 line to be more sustainable and eco-friendly. Examples of ideas rated less creative included
36
37
38 redesigning the casting model, optimizing a cooling system, developing a new functional
39
40 hand tool, adding a new hook to the hand tool to provide it with a new function, and
41
42 implementing a new quality assurance protocol.
43
44 The average response rate per group was 7.06 employees, whereas the number of direct
45
46
reports per group supervisor who answered ranged from three to 21. If we take into
47
48
49 consideration only the 34 groups that participated (not other employees in the companies), we
50
51 achieved a 55.3% response rate for supervisors’ direct reports (within-group response rates
52
53 ranged from 25% to 100%). About 65% of the participants were male, and about 45% were
54
55 between 35 years of age and 45 years of age (SD = 7.01). A total of 41% of respondents
56
57
58
59
60
14
1
2
3
4 reported having less than seven years of work experience (SD = 8.43), and 40% reported less
5
6
than three years of working with a particular supervisor (dyad tenure: SD = 5.43).
7
8
9 Measures
10
11 Unless otherwise noted, seven-point Likert-type scales ranging from 1 (“strongly
12
13 disagree”) to 7 (“strongly agree”) were used in this study.
14
15
16 Knowledge hiding. Knowledge hiding was self-reported and assessed with a 12-item scale
17
18 developed by Connelly et al. (2012)—α = .89. The scale opens with the following statement:
19
20 “In a specific episode in which a particular coworker requested knowledge from you and you
21
22 declined.” It further includes items such as “I pretended I did not know what s/he was talking
23
24
25 about.” A recent meta-analysis (Berry, Carpenter, & Barratt, 2012) showed that self-reported
26
27 counterproductive work behavior, such as knowledge hiding, actually captures a broader
28
29 subset of this behavior than other-reported behaviors do, which supports the use of self-
30
31 reported measures.
32
33
34
Creativity. Creativity was measured according to a 13-item questionnaire developed by
35
36 Zhou and George (2001)—α = .95, which includes items such as “He/she is not afraid to take
37
38 risks” and “He/she is a good source of creative ideas.” Supervisors reported on these items.
39
40 As identical behaviors may be considered innovative or creative in one organizational context
41
42 and unsettling or disruptive in another (Agars, Kaufman, & Locke, 2008), perceptual
43
44
45 measures were used because they enable the most relevant subjective assessments about
46
47 domain-specific creativity from the actors involved in the social setting in which the creativity
48
49 process is taking place.
50
51 Perceived motivational climate. The perceived motivational climate (mastery climate and
52
53
54
performance climate) was measured using a 14-item instrument developed by Nerstad et al.
55
56 (in press)—α = .79 for mastery climate and α =.84 for performance climate. The scale asks
57
58 how employees perceive the definition of success in their work situations and opens with the
59
60
15
1
2
3
4 following statement: “In my department/work group.” It then allows the respondents to assess
5
6
mastery (i.e., “Each individual’s learning and development is emphasized”) and performance
7
8
9 (i.e., “There exists a competitive rivalry among the employees”) climate. Mastery and
10
11 performance climate ratings from the subordinates who belonged to the same group were
12
13 aggregated at the group level and averaged to obtain a single score for each group.
14
15 To validate the aggregation of individual-level measures of mastery climate and
16
17
18 performance climate on the group level, we calculated the intraclass correlations (ICCs) and
19
20 multi-item within-group agreement (rwg(J)). The average rwg(6) for mastery climate (a slightly
21
22 skewed shape) was .83, ranging from .65 to .99, whereas ICC(1) was .16, and ICC(2) was .45
23
24 (F = 1.86, p = .012). The average rwg(8) for performance climate (also a slightly skewed shape)
25
26
was .84, ranging from .63 to .96, with ICC(1) at .21 and ICC(2) at .56 (F = 2.36, p = .001). As
27
28
29 James (1982) indicated, ICC(1) generally ranges from zero to .50 with a median of .12. The
30
31 values obtained in our study are above this median and indicate that significant between-
32
33 group variances exist in perceived motivational climate. However, no definite guidelines exist
34
35 for determining acceptable values. Even if no such thing as a critical cutoff exists for rwg(J)
36
37
38 estimates, the traditional heuristic cutoff recommended for aggregation is .70 (James,
39
40 Demaree, & Wolf, 1984; Lance, Butts, & Michels, 2006). Given our research question and
41
42 efforts to aggregate measures regarding the motivational climate in a group as perceived by
43
44 employees, we proceeded to create aggregate measures of a perceived mastery climate and
45
46
performance climate. Because a perceived group climate reflects employees’ shared
47
48
49 perceptions, an aggregated measure for climate may be the best way to examine its
50
51 relationship with knowledge hiding (Connelly et al., 2012).
52
53 Control variables. Not all jobs require the same amount of creative behavior and output.
54
55 Numerous studies argue in favor of the situational component of creativity (e.g., Amabile,
56
57
58 1988; Amabile et al., 1996; Unsworth, Wall, & Carter, 2005; Woodman et al., 1993). Thus,
59
60
16
1
2
3
4 we controlled for the creative requirement for a particular position. This is a variable that was
5
6
set up by an independent human resource management expert who was blind to the measures
7
8
9 and the purpose of our study. He did so by evaluating the creativity required in the
10
11 respondents’ different job types on a scale from “1 = not creative at all to 7 = very creative”
12
13 based on the job title, job description, and the job’s placement within the organizational
14
15 structure.
16
17
18 STUDY 1: RESULTS
19
20 Descriptive Statistics, Validity, and Reliability
21
22 Table 1 provides descriptive statistics for all variables analyzed in this study. We began by
23
24 observing the factor structure of the focal variables and thus conducted a multilevel
25
26 confirmatory factor analysis using AMOS 17 software with maximum likelihood estimation
27
28
29
procedures. The expected four-factor solution (creativity, knowledge hiding, mastery climate,
30
31 and performance climate) displayed adequate fit with the data (Chi-square [703] = 1594.88,
32
33 CFI = .975, SRMR = .039). The factor loadings ranged from .72 to .88 for the creativity
34
35 items, .65 to .89 for the knowledge-hiding items, .70 to .89 for the mastery climate items, and
36
37 .72 to .89 for the performance climate items.
38
39
40 ----------------------------------
41 Insert Table 1 about here
42 ----------------------------------
43
44 Multilevel Analysis Results
45
46 The dataset consisted of two hierarchically nested levels: 240 employees (level-1) nested
47
48
49 within 34 groups (level-2), which all had one group supervisor. We used hierarchical linear
50
51 modeling (random coefficient modeling) to test the following aspects of our multilevel model:
52
53 (1) the existence of a multilevel structure; (2) the level-1 relationship between knowledge
54
55 hiding and the knowledge hider’s creativity; (3) the cross-level effect of mastery and
56
57
58
performance climate on creativity; and (4) the interaction effects between knowledge hiding,
59
60
17
1
2
3
4 creativity, and the perceived motivational climate. Supervisory ratings of creativity violated
5
6
the independence assumption (that is, each supervisor provided ratings of creativity for
7
8
9 multiple employees). This justified our use of random coefficient modeling as an appropriate
10
11 strategy for analyzing the cross-level effects of various constructs on individual creativity.
12
13 To test our hypotheses, we developed a set of multilevel models based on theoretical
14
15 predictions by using the incremental improvement procedure that Hox (2010) demonstrated.
16
17
18 The fixed effects with robust standard errors for all models are presented in Table 2. We
19
20 started with the intercept-only model, which uses individual employee creativity as the
21
22 dependent variable (Model 1).
23
24 ----------------------------------
25
26
Insert Table 2 about here
27 -----------------------------------
28
29 First, we added knowledge hiding as a level-1 predictor of creativity. The results show
30
31 (supporting Hypothesis 1) that knowledge hiding is negatively and significantly related to
32
33
creativity (Model 2: γ = -.21, SE = .04, p < .01). Creativity required for position, a control
34
35
36 variable in the model, was also significantly related to creativity (Model 2: γ = .52, SE = .04,
37
38 p < .01). For multilevel model estimation, although this is difficult to assess precisely in
39
40 cross-level models, we report Snijders and Bosker’s (1999) overall pseudo R2 for each model.
41
42 These estimates are based on a proportional reduction of level 1 and level 2 errors owed to
43
44
45 predictions in the model. We also report deviance estimations for all models.
46
47 To test the cross-level main effects of motivational climate, we added both mastery and
48
49 performance climate (Model 3). We examined the coefficients of corresponding parameters
50
51 estimated in the models. Model 4 deals with the interaction effects of motivational climate
52
53
types and knowledge hiding on employee creativity. We examined interaction effects between
54
55
56 knowledge hiding and a mastery climate to see whether a mastery climate might soften the
57
58 negative effect of knowledge hiding on creativity. The results revealed a significant positive
59
60
18
1
2
3
4 interaction between knowledge hiding and a mastery climate (γ = .17, SE = .08, p < .05).
5
6
These effects are shown in Figure 3 and indicate that in groups in which employees perceive
7
8
9 higher levels of a mastery climate, the slope demonstrating the relationship between
10
11 knowledge hiding and employee creativity is less negative. To test this interpretation, we
12
13 statistically compared the slopes of both lines to zero. Knowledge hiding predicted lower
14
15 levels of creativity when the mastery climate was low (γ = -.39, SE = .09, t = -2.99, p < .01)
16
17
18 but not when it was high (γ = -.01, SE = .08, t = -.03, ns), thus supporting Hypothesis 3.
19
20 ----------------------------------
22 -----------------------------------
23
24
25 Also in Model 4, we examined the interaction effect between knowledge hiding and a
26
27 performance climate. The interaction effect was only marginally significant (γ = -.12, SE =
28
29 .06, p = .07). The interaction effects between knowledge hiding and a performance climate on
30
31 employee creativity are nevertheless shown in Figure 4. The depicted pattern indicates that
32
33
within groups in which employees perceive higher levels of a performance climate, the slope
34
35
36 demonstrating the relationship between knowledge hiding and employee creativity is more
37
38 negative. The statistical comparison of the slopes of both lines to zero revealed that they were
39
40 both significantly different from zero (ώ = -.14, SE = .07, t = -2.38, p < .05 for high
41
42 performance climate and ώ = -.10, SE = .06, t = -1.99, p < .05 for low performance climate).
43
44
45 These results provide marginal support for Hypothesis 4.1
46
47 ----------------------------------
49
50
1
51 When the creative requirement control variable is omitted from the analyses, all of the hypothesized main and
52 interaction effects in the models increase, but their statistical significance levels remain the same. We also
53 conducted an exploratory three-way interaction analysis of the interaction among knowledge hiding, a mastery
54 climate, and a performance climate in predicting creativity, which was not significant (Model 5: three-way
55 interaction term = .01, SE = .00, ns). We also examined the creativity scale’s idea generation and idea
56 implementation items (Zhou & George, 2001) separately in the analyses; the results are not significantly
57 different.
58
59
60
19
1
2
3
4 -----------------------------------
5
6
7
8
9 STUDY 1: DISCUSSION
10
11 A couple of factors and limitations need to be taken into account when interpreting the
12
13 results of Study 1. First, as Connelly et al. (2012) state, knowledge hiding may be a relatively
14
15 under-reported low-base-rate event. It might also be obvious to the respondents that
16
17
18 knowledge hiding is not a desirable behavior and thus may be underreported on questionnaire
19
20 surveys. Any other-reported survey would not be accurate, however, as it is difficult to ask
21
22 supervisors or coworkers to assess an employee’s knowledge-hiding behaviors when, by
23
24 definition, the actions involved would be concealed (Connelly et al., 2012). Besides, meta-
25
26
analytical data suggest that other-reported assessments of counterproductive work behavior do
27
28
29 not capture unique and valid incremental variance beyond self-reporting and even assess such
30
31 behavior more narrowly (Berry et al., 2012).
32
33 Second, not only is the relationship between knowledge hiding and creativity dependent
34
35 upon motivational climate but also perceived mastery and performance climates may act as
36
37
38 antecedents to knowledge hiding. Furthermore, reverse causality between knowledge hiding
39
40 and creativity is also plausible; less creative employees may be more inclined to hide
41
42 knowledge since they have more difficulty with generating novel and useful ideas.
43
44 Third, the perception of creativity might differ among employees who conduct tasks that
45
46
require varying levels of creative behaviors (Hennessey & Amabile, 2010). One task might
47
48
49 require a great amount of creative behavior, whereas another might require none. We
50
51 controlled for the expertise that undeniably plays a role in perceptions of creativity as well as
52
53 for creativity required in a position but could not effectively control for the influence of tasks
54
55 as such (cf., Wood, 1986).
56
57
58
59
60
20
1
2
3
4 Fourth, the social explanatory mechanism of the reciprocal distrust loop depends heavily
5
6
on dyadic interaction among coworkers. We were not able to collect sequential data on one
7
8
9 employee’s knowledge hiding, subsequent distrust of his or her coworker, and whether or not
10
11 this is the factor that predicts the first employee’s diminished levels of creativity. We also
12
13 could not assess perceived knowledge hiding and adequately test the proposed distrust loop,
14
15 nor did we compare this mediator with other mechanisms of a more intrapsychic nature that
16
17
18 can also be important in explaining the basic relationship between knowledge hiding and
19
20 creativity.
21
22
23 Connelly et al. (2012) declared that the motivations for knowledge hiding mostly lie in
24
25 their interpersonal ties and in the nature of preceding relations with coworkers. However,
26
27 other motivations might also be valid. For example, an employee may engage in knowledge
28
29
hiding to protect themselves when the employee’s ideas are highly novel and could be subject
30
31
32 to criticism or even ridicule or simply in an attempt to preserve his or her advantage relative
33
34 to coworkers based on the specific knowledge he or she possesses. In both cases, the
35
36 employee would decide to intentionally hide knowledge and activate a prevention focus. This
37
38 is a regulatory focus that originates from the survival need for security and self-protection,
39
40
41 whose desired end state is safety (Higgins, 1997). When hiding knowledge, an individual
42
43 might feel safer because his or her coworkers would not be able to discover and exploit his or
44
45 her weaknesses if all information was disclosed. Thus, the employee’s coworkers would not
46
47 be able to use the knowledge that the employee possesses for their own advantage and against
48
49
that employee in a competitive work environment. In turn, prevention focus is known to
50
51
52 decrease creativity (cf. Baas, De Dreu, & Nijstad, 2008). Individuals in prevention focus are
53
54 focused on safety (Lanaj, Chang, & Johnson, 2012); as creativity is risky and holds potentially
55
56 negative outcomes, they would avoid being creative. Based on this logic, prevention focus
57
58
59
60
21
1
2
3
4 acts as an alternative mechanism in mediating the knowledge hiding-creativity relationship,
5
6
which we expect to offer unique insight into the examined relationship without prevailing
7
8
9 over the social mediating mechanism of a reciprocal distrust loop.
10
11 STUDY 2: METHODS
12
13 To strengthen causal inferences and to rule out alternative explanations, as well as to
14
15 address the four limitations of Study 1, we conducted an experimental study in which
16
17
participants generated creative ideas to solve a business problem. Drawing upon the results of
18
19
20 our first study, the goal of our second study was to test the results we obtained using a
21
22 different method, controlling for the task, and to use multiple experts to rate the creative
23
24 outcome. Most importantly, we wanted to test the proposed distrust loop and compare this
25
26 explanatory mechanism for the relationship between knowledge hiding and creativity with
27
28
29 other more intrapsychic mediators in moderated mediation analyses. We independently
30
31 manipulated mastery and performance climates as well as manipulated knowledge hiding in
32
33 order to mitigate the effect of underreporting this undesirable behavior.
34
35
36 Sample, Design, and Procedures
37
38 We conducted an experiment with 132 second-year undergraduates within an HRM course
39
40
41 at a Slovenian university. The age of the participants ranged from 20 years to 28 years, and
42
43 the mean age was 22.2 years (SD = 1.25). Approximately 65% were female, of which roughly
44
45 70% had some work experience such as student or summer jobs. They were given extra points
46
47 for participation. The experiment used a three-by-two (mastery climate/performance
48
49
climate/no climate induced Χ knowledge hiding, low/high) between-subjects factorial design.
50
51
52 The participants were randomly assigned to three classrooms prior to the course. We
53
54 introduced the study by explaining that we were interested in studying how people solve
55
56 business problems. The experiment began by presenting a marketing scenario to the
57
58
59
60
22
1
2
3
4 participants. The participants were assigned the role of the company’s marketing managers. In
5
6
the scenario, the organization had developed a new product and a project team of two students
7
8
9 was assembled (thus, the students were asked to form dyads, as dyadic interaction is where
10
11 knowledge hiding tends to most significantly influence its outcomes [Connelly et al., 2012])
12
13 to introduce the product into the market successfully. The scenario consisted of two stages (15
14
15 minutes each). Each stage represented a specific phase of the product-launching process.
16
17
18 Motivational climate manipulation. Prior to beginning the first stage, we introduced our
19
20 manipulations of a mastery climate and performance climate, each in one classroom. The
21
22 manipulation consisted of two coherent aspects from which a specific motivational climate
23
24 was derived—that is, a performance climate in the first classroom and a mastery climate in
25
26
the second, which the instructor induced using teaching strategies consistent with Ames
27
28
29 (1992a)—and the members were given instructions that corresponded with a particular
30
31 climate. For a mastery climate, these instructions included the following:
32
33 During the task, you are encouraged to cooperate and exchange thoughts and ideas. Each
34
35 individual plays a very important role in this process. Cooperation and mutual exchange of
36
37 knowledge is desired and will be commended. You should work together to try to find new
38
39 solution methods and learn something throughout this process.
40
41 In addition, the teacher also repeated these instructions . Conversely, we induced a
42
43
performance climate using the following instructions:
44
45
46 During the task, you should keep in mind that your colleagues are actually your competitive
47
48 rivals. Work accomplishments will be assessed based on comparisons with other participants, so
49
50 you should try as hard as you can and perform better than others. This includes your team-mate
51
52 in the dyad as well.
53
54 In the third classroom, the control group, no inducement regarding motivational climates
55
56 was provided.
57
58
59
60
23
1
2
3
4 Knowledge-hiding manipulation. Half of the participants in each classroom were given
5
6
special instructions about knowledge hiding (i.e., a sign “Hide your knowledge and
7
8
9 information” written on the instruction sheet in each of the stages). Knowledge hiding was
10
11 also randomly assigned within each classroom. Thus, dyads could consist of two, one, or no
12
13 knowledge hiders.
14
15 First stage of the experimental task. The first stage included one of the team members’
16
17
18 assuming the role of a strategy planner and the other the role of a sales channels designer.
19
20 Each had relevant information about the other’s role. For example, the strategy planner had
21
22 information about the sales channels designer (explanations of what this particular domain is
23
24 supposed to mean and what goals they might be expected to achieve):
25
26
27 A sales channel designer should consider options about which sales channels we can market our
28
29 product through and choose the best while also exploring some of the more unconventional
30
31 channels. What are sales channels? For example, Internet (in all forms and shapes), phone sales,
32
33 sales representatives, our stores, door-to-door sales, or anything else you come up with.
34
35
36 On the contrary, the sales channels designer had the information about the strategy planner,
37
38
for example:
39
40
41 A strategy planner should consider how the project can achieve optimal marketing results with
42
43 minimal resources. This includes balancing and coordinating sales channels with marketing
44
45 activities. He or she should come up with a holistic and rounded plan that would connect all
46
47 marketing efforts into one unified whole. Strategy usually is usually directed either toward
48
49 differentiation or cost efficiency. Marketing segmentation and target segments should also be
50
51 considered.
52
53 After they completed the task, we assessed the perceived knowledge hiding of the other
54
55 person in the dyad using Connelly et al.’s (2012) scale, which we adapted for this particular
56
57 task to measure others’ knowledge hiding instead of the subject’s (α = .93). The other person
58
59
60
24
1
2
3
4 also provided a score of their distrust in the first one (“Please rate your level of distrust in
5
6
another team member you felt during the task,” with anchors “1 = trusted completely, 7 =
7
8
9 distrusted completely”).
10
11 Second stage of the experimental task. The second stage represented an extension of the
12
13 first. One of the dyad members was asked to generate at least three slogans for the new
14
15 marketing campaign, while the other was in charge of the advertising. Again, the first person
16
17
18 had information about the other on the instruction sheet, and vice versa:
19
20
Your team member who is in charge of advertising should come up with creative ideas for
21
22
23 advertisements, be it television, newspaper ads, magazine ads, billboards, flyers, etc. It is
24
25 desired that he or she thinks outside the box to come up with unusual places for these ads and
26
27 interesting ideas for the content of the advertisements.
28
29
30 Slogans for a new marketing campaign:
31
32
Your teammate who deals with a new marketing campaign should come up with at least three
33
34
35 slogans that are as creative as possible. Our company will market our product in commercials or
36
37 any promotional materials using these slogans. A slogan is a motto, or a short line, that is easy
38
39 on the ears and can be quickly remembered. It can briefly and effectively express the purpose or
40
41 an idea of a product.
42
43
44 After the participants completed the task, we assessed the knowledge hiding of the other
45
46 individual in the dyad (reciprocated knowledge hiding). This was self-reported using
47
48 Connelly et al.’s (2012) scale—α = .92. Each individual’s creative ideas were assessed by two
49
50 independent raters (experts in the field of creativity) on a scale from “1 = not at all creative”
51
52
to “7 = very creative.” The two raters’ reliability (ICC2 = .83) and agreement (single item rwg
53
54
55 = .80) were within conventional guidelines (LeBreton & Senter, 2008). We thus averaged
56
57
58
59
60
25
1
2
3
4 their ratings into a measure of the overall creativity of the first and second individual’s second
5
6
stage of the task outcome.
7
8
9 After completing both tasks, all participants also answered questions regarding perceived
10
11 mastery and performance climates. We adapted the scale by substituting the word
12
13 “employees” with “participants” (α = .86 for mastery and .82 for performance climate),
14
15 whereas the participants on whom we manipulated knowledge hiding also self-reported this
16
17
18 phenomenon during the entire task (the same scale used by Connelly et al., 2012—α = .84).
19
20 These responses (climates and knowledge hiding) served as manipulation checks. The
21
22 participants also assessed an alternative mediator: the prevention focus (nine items from
23
24 Lockwood, Jordan, & Kunda, 2002) general regulatory focus measure (GRFM) that was
25
26
modified to measure their temporary psychological states during the experiment—α = .96.
27
28
29
30 STUDY 2: RESULTS
31
32 Means and standard deviations for each condition are shown in Table 3. Random
33
34 coefficient modeling was used in HLM 7 (we used this approach because our dyadic
35
36 experimental data violate the observation independence assumption in terms of creativity),
37
38
first for manipulation checks. It showed the expected main effects of the motivational climate
39
40
41 manipulation on the perceived mastery climate (γ = -.49, SE = .18, p < .01), the perceived
42
43 performance climate (γ = .18, SE = .08, p < .05), and the expected main effect of the
44
45 knowledge hiding manipulation on self-reported knowledge hiding (γ = .68, SE = .25, p <
46
47 .01).
48
49
50 Turning to creativity as the dependent variable, in support of Hypothesis 1, Table 3
51
52 presents creativity means of knowledge hiders in differential knowledge-hiding conditions.
53
54 All means for creativity were significantly different from one another except for two: no
55
56 knowledge hiding/performance climate condition and knowledge hiding/mastery climate
57
58
59
60
26
1
2
3
4 condition; and no knowledge hiding/mastery climate condition and knowledge hiding/mastery
5
6
climate condition. The knowledge hiding manipulation significantly decreased one’s own
7
8
9 creativity (γ = -.26, SE = .06, p < .01)2.
10
11 A random coefficient modeling analysis also revealed a significant interaction effect of the
12
13 knowledge hiding and motivational climate manipulations on one’s own creativity (γ = -.17,
14
15 SE = .08, p < .05; Figure 5). Supporting Hypothesis 3, simple effects showed that knowledge
16
17
18 hiding decreased participants’ creativity in performance climate conditions (ώ = -.34, SE =
19
20 .14, p < .05) and where no climate was induced (ώ = -.21, SE = .09, p < .05), but not in
21
22 mastery climate conditions (ώ = -.14, SE = .08, ns). A comparison of slopes depicting the
23
24 knowledge hiding-creativity relationship shows that the slopes in performance climate
25
26
conditions and in the control group are significantly different from one another (p < .05). The
27
28
29 effect of knowledge hiding on creativity is more negative in the performance climate group
30
31 than in the control group. The slope within mastery climate conditions is also significantly
32
33 different from that of the other two conditions (p < .05 when compared with the control group
34
35 and p < .01 when compared with the performance climate condition).
36
37
38 ----------------------------------
39 Insert Table 3 about here
40 -----------------------------------
41
42
43 ----------------------------------
45 -----------------------------------
46
47
Supplementary Analyses
48
49
50 The first set of supplementary analyses is concerned with contrasting the creativity scores
51
52 for the dyads with no knowledge hiders, versus one, versus two. Creativity means (no
53
54 knowledge hiders: 4.54, one knowledge hider: 3.43, and two knowledge hiders: 3.20) were
55
56 2
Knowledge hiding of the first individual is also significantly related to creativity of his/her partner in the dyad
57 (γ = -.29, SE = .08, p < .01).
58
59
60
27
1
2
3
4 significantly different in the dyad type with no knowledge hiders as compared with the other
5
6
two dyad types (p<.01), whereas the creativity means were not significantly different in dyads
7
8
9 with one knowledge hider as compared with dyads featuring two knowledge hiders.
10
11 Next, to test the reciprocal distrust loop and to establish distrust as a mediator in the
12
13 knowledge-hiding creativity relationship, we examined the three-path mediation effect
14
15 (knowledge hiding by A distrust by B knowledge hiding by B creativity of A). We
16
17
18 used a random coefficient modeling analysis in MPlus 6 and adopted the joint significance
19
20 test (MacKinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman, West, & Sheets, 2002; Taylor, MacKinnon, & Tein,
21
22 2008), which requires a separate test for each of the mediated paths. The results show that
23
24 each of the three paths was significantly nonzero3, thus providing evidence of three-path
25
26
mediation. This allows us to proceed with examining distrust as an explanatory mechanism in
27
28
29 the moderated mediation analyses.
30
31 Next, we used Bauer et al.’s (2006) multilevel moderated mediation procedures to first
32
33 examine whether participants’ reports of distrust (second individual) and prevention focus
34
35 (first individual) mediated the effect of the knowledge-hiding manipulation on creativity. We
36
37
38 began by conducting multilevel moderated regression analyses that predicted distrust. The
39
40 interaction between the mastery climate and knowledge hiding in predicting distrust was
41
42 significant (γ = -.17, SE = .08, p < .05). The relationship between knowledge hiding and
43
44 distrust was positive in the performance climate condition (γ = .31, SE = .11, p < .01) and in
45
46
the control group (γ = .24, SE = .07, p < .01), whereas it was negative but not significant,
47
48
49 according to traditional significance standards, in the mastery climate condition (γ = -.11, SE
50
51 = .06, p < .10). Next, we tested whether distrust predicted creativity when knowledge hiding,
52
53 mastery climate, and their interaction were controlled for. Distrust was a significant predictor,
54
55
56 3
The 95% confidence intervals of these paths included knowledge hiding by A distrust by B (.19, .35),
57 distrust by B knowledge hiding by B (.24, .48), and knowledge hiding by B creativity of A (-.30, -.08).
58
59
60
28
1
2
3
4 and the coefficient on the interaction term (knowledge hiding Χ mastery climate) decreased
5
6
7 below statistical significance (from .21 to .10). To examine whether this was a significant
8
9 decrease, we constructed 95% bias-corrected confidence intervals around the indirect effects
10
11 of both levels of motivational climate (Bauer et al., 2006). The confidence interval for the
12
13 indirect effect of knowledge hiding on creativity through distrust excluded zero for the
14
15
mastery climate condition (.01, .13), for the performance climate condition (.13, .36), and in
16
17
18 the control group (.04, .27), indicating that distrust mediated the relationship between
19
20 knowledge hiding and creativity in all motivational climate conditions.
21
22 We compared these results with an alternative mediator, prevention focus. Knowledge
23
24 hiding and mastery climate do interact in predicting this intrapsychic mediator (γ = -.20, SE =
25
26
27 .09, p < .05). The relationship between knowledge hiding and prevention focus was positive
28
29 in the performance climate condition (γ = .44, SE = .16, p < .01) and in the control group (γ =
30
31 .35, SE = .13, p < .01), whereas it was negative but not significant in the mastery climate
32
33 condition (γ = -.01 SE = .11, ns). Next, we tested whether prevention focus predicted
34
35
creativity when knowledge hiding, mastery climate, and their interaction were controlled for.
36
37
38 Prevention focus was a significant predictor, and the coefficient on the interaction term
39
40 (knowledge hiding Χ mastery climate) decreased to below statistical significance (from .21 to
41
42 .11). To examine whether this was a significant decrease, we constructed 95% bias-corrected
43
44
45
confidence intervals around the indirect effects of both motivational climate conditions (Bauer
46
47 et al., 2006). The confidence interval for the indirect effect of knowledge hiding on creativity
48
49 through prevention focus excluded zero for the mastery climate condition (.0019, .15), for the
50
51 performance climate condition (.09, .25), and in the control group (.03,18), indicating that
52
53
prevention focus mediated the relationship between knowledge hiding and creativity in all
54
55
56 motivational climate conditions. We thus found empirical support for the distrust loop
57
58 (supporting a colleague’s distrust as a mediator in the relationship between knowledge hiding
59
60
29
1
2
3
4 and own creativity). This social explanatory mechanism is valid even after examining the
5
6
impact of an alternative intrapsychic mediator, prevention focus, which also uniquely explains
7
8
9 the relationship between knowledge hiding and creativity. Thus, interpersonal (social) and
10
11 intrapsychic mechanisms represent different sides of the same coin in explaining the
12
13 relationship between knowledge hiding and creativity.
14
15 GENERAL DISCUSSION
16
17
We have drawn on social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) and the norm of reciprocity
18
19
20 (Gouldner, 1960) to argue that when a co-worker is denied knowledge needed in order to be
21
22 creative, in turn, this same person is likely to reciprocate knowledge hiding to the initial
23
24 knowledge hider. This behavior would successively impede the knowledge hider’s creativity,
25
26 as both of our studies support. The results from both field and experimental data also
27
28
29 demonstrated that a mastery climate buffers the detrimental effect of knowledge hiding on the
30
31 knowledge hider’s creativity. On the other hand, in high-performance climate conditions, the
32
33 association between knowledge hiding and creativity was even more negative.
34
35
36 Theoretical Contributions
37
38
Theory and recent research on organizational creativity emphasize the importance of
39
40
41 creating favorable work environments in stimulating individual creativity (e.g., Amabile,
42
43 1983; Woodman et al., 1993; Zhou et al., 2012), including knowledge sharing (Perry-Smith,
44
45 2006; Perry-Smith & Shalley, 2003). To date, however, limited attention has been paid to
46
47 knowledge hiding as an individual-level contingency that can explain the failure of creativity
48
49
50 enhancement initiatives in organizations beyond the lack of knowledge sharing. Therefore,
51
52 this study’s first theoretical contribution to the creativity literature is its establishment of the
53
54 existence of a distrust loop between knowledge hiding and creativity. We have shown that this
55
56 interpersonal mechanism involves a colleague’s reciprocal knowledge hiding, which, in turn,
57
58
59
60
30
1
2
3
4 is related to the diminished creativity of the initial knowledge hider. This process is based on
5
6
the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960) and social exchange theory (Blau, 1964). We were
7
8
9 able to test the distrust loop and all of its elements via a two-stage experimental design in
10
11 Study 2. We even found support for our proposed interpersonal mechanism when comparing
12
13 its role with prevention focus as a representative of an intrapsychic mediator. Employees
14
15 engage in knowledge hiding to protect themselves, thus activating a prevention focus and
16
17
18 behavioral avoidance, which, in turn, decreases creativity.
19
20 Our second contribution to the creativity literature is the introduction of the moderating
21
22 role of the motivational climate. Across two studies using both field and experimental data,
23
24 we find that a mastery climate overrides the reciprocity norms underlying the social exchange
25
26
in the knowledge hiding-creativity relationship. A mastery climate influences social exchange
27
28
29 patterns by facilitating more constructive exchange relationships among coworkers, thereby
30
31 preventing negative actions from resulting in negative consequences. It does so by reducing
32
33 the likelihood that intentionally concealing or withholding knowledge from exchange partners
34
35 will lead to distrust and reciprocal knowledge hiding and subsequently result in inhibited
36
37
38 employee creativity. By introducing the motivational climate as a relevant moderator, we
39
40 facilitate the possibility of not simply considering the individual in terms of his or her
41
42 personal dispositions (e.g., Matzler & Müller, 2011; Swift et al., 2010) but rather considering
43
44 the individual in his or her context (Johns, 2006). In short, and in support of previous findings
45
46
(e.g., Hirst et al., 2009; Zhou et al., 2012), shared work climate perceptions are important
47
48
49 since they enable organizations and their managers to take corrective and preventive actions
50
51 (i.e., actionability; cf., Pearce & Huang, 2012) by facilitating an adequate motivational
52
53 climate.
54
55 In contrast, in high-performance climate conditions, the association between knowledge
56
57
58 hiding and creativity was even more negative (albeit this interaction was only marginally
59
60
31
1
2
3
4 significant in Study 1). This aligns well with previous research showing that competition and
5
6
social comparison do not encourage creativity enhancement initiatives (e.g., Johnson et al.,
7
8
9 2006; Roberts, Treasure, & Conroy, 2007). Reward structures in a performance climate are
10
11 typically based on comparative information (i.e., verbal comparison of coworkers). Our
12
13 findings indicate that since employees perceive that outperforming coworkers is expected,
14
15 rewarded, and supported behavior in their work situation, they become motivated to impair
16
17
18 the progress of others by intentionally hiding their own knowledge in an effort to gain
19
20 personal positive advantage (cf., Beersma et al., 2003). Still, because consistent results across
21
22 our two studies are lacking, this finding should be interpreted with caution, and future
23
24 research is warranted.
25
26
Our findings also contribute to research on help-seeking, help-giving, and creativity.
27
28
29 Mueller and Kamdar’s (2011) recent research in this field shows that seeking help from co-
30
31 workers results in increased personal creativity. On the other hand, people who seek help also
32
33 tend to reciprocate in giving help, which negatively relates to personal creativity and
34
35 attenuates the mediated relationship between intrinsic motivation and creativity via help-
36
37
38 seeking (Mueller & Kamdar, 2011). Our study adds to this line of research by supporting the
39
40 positive effects gained from obtaining knowledge and information a person needs for
41
42 creativity, either through lower levels of reciprocated knowledge hiding or through increased
43
44 help-seeking. In addition, a mastery climate environment can apparently override norms of
45
46
self-interest (cf., Grant & Patil, 2012) toward reciprocal help-giving. Our findings extend the
47
48
49 findings of Mueller and Kamdar (2011) in that we find positive gains in giving knowledge
50
51 and information to others in the form of personal creativity. Mueller and Kamdar (2011), on
52
53 the other hand, found that providing help equals reciprocation costs in terms of less time to
54
55 work on creative ideas individually. It should be emphasized that their study explicitly
56
57
58 focused on seeking and giving help, while our two studies examined knowledge and
59
60
32
1
2
3
4 information hiding. As such, the examined concepts are not completely the same, which could
5
6
affect the comparison of findings.
7
8
9
10 Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research
11
12 The results from our two studies should be interpreted in light of several potential
13
14 limitations. First, by focusing on the perceived motivational climate, we decided to include a
15
16 limited number of factors mitigating the knowledge hiding-creativity relationship. For
17
18
example, the ability of a mastery climate to reverse the negative relationship between
19
20
21 knowledge hiding and creativity could also be dependent upon other factors, such as
22
23 perceived supervisor support, decision autonomy, goal orientation, and other job-related
24
25 variables that have been found to influence creativity (e.g., Amabile, Schatzel, Moneta, &
26
27 Kramer, 2004; Hirst et al., 2009; Zhou, 1998). Further research in exploring work situations
28
29
30 that stimulate or hinder the negative relationship between knowledge hiding and creativity
31
32 within the extant motivational climate is required.
33
34 Second, a potential limitation of our experimental Study 2 is that the mastery climate
35
36 manipulation may have confounded cooperation and learning by including instructions that
37
38
may not be clearly distinct from the knowledge-hiding manipulation. Nonetheless, people
39
40
41 have discretion about what knowledge to share, making it possible that although participants
42
43 are encouraged to learn and share knowledge and that they understand the important role each
44
45 individual plays in the process, the hiding manipulation may cause them to withhold some
46
47 information. Since we manipulated knowledge hiding and climate independently, our data do
48
49
50 speak to their interactive effects. Future research should nonetheless focus on ruling out these
51
52 potential confounds and produce even cleaner manipulations of the three mastery climate
53
54 dimensions (cooperation, the important role each individual plays, and learning). Another
55
56 limitation related to our manipulation is that rating distrust after the first stage of the
57
58
59
60
33
1
2
3
4 experimental task may have affected the participants’ behavior during the second stage of the
5
6
experimental task. Future studies can address this issue by varying the measurement order.
7
8
9 In addition, another limitation related to our random assignment exists; even if we did
10
11 randomly assign students to the different motivational climate conditions and knowledge
12
13 hiding to dyad members, the participants were not randomly assigned to dyads but rather were
14
15 asked to form dyads with their neighbors in the classroom. Nevertheless, the effects of this
16
17
18 limitation are probably not so severe because the groups were not permanent (throughout the
19
20 school year or in other courses), which is why permanent mini-groups of students who would
21
22 constantly sit together likely did not form. Nonetheless, some students might have known
23
24 each other beforehand and could have chosen to sit together, resulting in another limitation of
25
26
our experimental Study 2.
27
28
29 Given the cross sectional field data in Study 1, reverse causality cannot be excluded when
30
31 interpreting the results. Nonetheless, we were able to address this concern by adding another
32
33 experimental study in which we found support for causal relationships and tested our main
34
35 explanatory mechanism, the reciprocal distrust loop. The participants in the experimental
36
37
38 study were somewhat homogeneous, as we used a student sample. Consequently, a potential
39
40 threat to the generalizability of the findings associated with the experiment does exist, but the
41
42 findings do serve to strengthen the causal claims of the survey-based Study 1. Furthermore, as
43
44 Highhouse and Gillespie (2009) noted, the use of student samples is only problematic when
45
46
the behavior studied is specific to one demographic or occupational group. Because
47
48
49 knowledge hiding, as well as creativity, may be relevant for all workers, including students,
50
51 this population constituted a reasonable sample for further testing our hypotheses. In general,
52
53 our two-study, multi-method approach addresses generalizability concerns and indicates that
54
55 knowledge hiding negatively predicts creativity and that this relationship is dependent upon
56
57
58 its interaction with the perceived motivational climate.
59
60
34
1
2
3
4 Practical Implications
5
6
In increasingly dynamic and uncertain work environments, organizations depend on
7
8
9 creative ideas from employees (George, 2007). Our studies indicate how knowledge hiding
10
11 negatively influences the knowledge hider’s creativity and how managers can mitigate this
12
13 effect by inducing particular motivational climate conditions at work. Our findings support a
14
15 mastery climate as a suitable work environment for stimulating creative behaviors when faced
16
17
18 with knowledge hiding. In addition, the need for self-protection seems to decrease in such
19
20 environments, while a mastery climate fosters trust rather than distrust among employees.
21
22 Managers must be aware, however, that stimulating a performance climate (i.e., emphasizing
23
24 competition and goal achievement at any cost) leads to even worse scenarios. Under such
25
26
conditions, knowledge hiding has an even more negative influence on employee creativity.
27
28
29 Providing incentives for employees to “betray” their coworkers (i.e., inducing a performance
30
31 climate) should be avoided, as this negatively impacts creativity. This serves as a powerful
32
33 explanation for the potential failures of creativity enhancement initiatives based on
34
35 competition instead of on collaboration.
36
37
38 The second practical implication of this paper entails the employees in organizations who
39
40 intentionally and actively hide knowledge from their peers. In light of our findings, they
41
42 should reconsider and be careful about hiding knowledge from their coworkers because as our
43
44 two studies have shown, what goes around comes around. More specifically, employees who
45
46
intentionally hide more knowledge seem bound to receive such selfish behavior in return from
47
48
49 their co-workers, which will ultimately hurt them and decrease their creativity. This could
50
51 also be described using the metaphor of “shooting yourself in the foot.” The existence of such
52
53 a reciprocal distrust loop is somewhat in contrast with the findings of the literature on
54
55 unforgiveness as a coping strategy (Worthington Jr & Wade, 1999), which suggests that
56
57
58 employees gain more if they withhold negative reciprocity. It is apparent, however, that
59
60
35
1
2
3
4 human nature is not inclined toward this type of restraint. People would rather reciprocate
5
6
negatively, gaining a short-term feeling of satisfaction (Tepper et al., 2011), even if they
7
8
9 could lose more in the long term. Therefore, employees should engage in less knowledge-
10
11 hiding behavior in order to facilitate their own creative processes.
12
13
14 CONCLUSION
15
16 An unfortunate fact of organizational life is that employees sometimes intentionally
17
18
19
withhold knowledge from their coworkers. Although knowledge hiding is a relatively low-
20
21 base-rate event, its consequences are likely to be devastating to organizational creativity,
22
23 innovation, and performance. Specifically, knowledge hiders end up hurting their own
24
25 creativity by intentionally withholding information from their colleagues. These coworkers
26
27
retaliate by reciprocating knowledge hiding via an interpersonal distrust loop. However,
28
29
30 managers have the ability to mitigate this process by facilitating a mastery climate. On the
31
32 other hand, by solely inducing a performance climate, they could attain the contrary effect.
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
36
1
2
3
4 REFERENCES
5
6
Agars, M. D., Kaufman, J. C., & Locke, T. R. 2008. Social influence and creativity in
7
8
9 organizations: A multilevel lens for theory, research, and practice. In M. D. Mumford, S. T.
10
11 Hunter & K. E. Bedell-Avers (Eds.), Multi-level issues in organizational innovation (pp. 3-
12
13 61). Amsterdam, NL: JAI Press.
14
15 Alencar, E. 2012. Creativity in Organizations: Facilitators and Inhibitors. In M. D. Mumford
16
17
18 (Ed.), Handbook of Organizational Creativity (pp. 87-111). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.
19
20 Allen, T. J. 1977. Managing the flow of technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
21
22 Amabile, T. M. 1983. The social-psychology of creativity - a componential conceptualization.
23
24 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45: 357-376.
25
26
Amabile, T. M. 1988. A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in
27
28
29 Organizational Behavior, 10: 123-167.
30
31 Amabile, T. M. 1997. Motivating creativity in organizations: On doing what you love and
32
33 loving what you do. California Management Review, 40(1): 39-58.
34
35 Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. 1996. Assessing the work
36
37
38 environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5): 1154-1184.
39
40 Amabile, T. M., Schatzel, E. A., Moneta, G. B., & Kramer, S. J. 2004. Leader behaviors and the
41
42 work environment for creativity: Perceived leader support. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(1):
43
44 5-32.
45
46
Ames, C. 1984. Competitive, cooperative, and individualistic goal structures: A cognitive-
47
48
49 motivational analysis. In C. Ames & A. R.E. (Eds.), Research on motivation in education
50
51 (vol. 1, pp. 177-207). Gainesville, FL: Florida Academic Press.
52
53 Ames, C. 1992a. Achievement goals, motivational climate, and motivational processes. In G. C.
54
55 Roberts (Ed.), Motivation in sport and exercise (pp. 161-176). Champaign, IL: Human
56
57
58 Kinetics Books.
59
60
37
1
2
3
4 Ames, C. 1992b. Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of
5
6
Educational Psychology, 84: 261-271.
7
8
9 Ames, C., & Ames, R. 1984. Systems of student and teacher motivation: Toward a qualitative
10
11 definition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(4): 535-556.
12
13 Ames, C., & Archer, J. 1988. Achievement goals in the classroom: Students' learning strategies
14
15 and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3): 260-267.
16
17
18 Baas, M., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Nijstad, B. A. 2008. A meta-analysis of 25 years of mood-
19
20 creativity research: Hedonic tone, activation, or regulatory focus? Psychological Bulletin,
21
22 134(6): 779-806.
23
24 Barron, F., & Harrington, D. 1981. Creativity, intelligence, and personality. Annual Review of
25
26
Psychology, 32(1): 439-476.
27
28
29 Bartol, K. M., & Srivastava, A. 2002. Encouraging knowledge sharing: The role of
30
31 organizational reward systems. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9(1): 64-
32
33 76.
34
35 Bauer, D. J., Preacher, K. J., & Gil, K. M. 2006. Conceptualizing and testing random indirect
36
37
38 effects and moderated mediation in multilevel models: new procedures and
39
40 recommendations. Psychological Methods, 11(2): 142-163.
41
42 Beersma, B., Hollenbeck, J. R., Humphrey, S. E., Moon, H., Conlon, D. E., & Ilgen, D. R.
43
44 2003. Cooperation, competition, and team performance: Toward a contingency approach.
45
46
47
Academy of Management Journal, 46(5): 572-590.
48
49 Berry, C., Carpenter, N., & Barratt, C. 2012. Do other-reports of counterproductive work
50
51 behavior provide an incremental contribution over self-reports? A meta-analytic comparison.
52
53 Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(3): 613-636.
54
55 Blau, P. M. 1964. Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: Wiley.
56
57
58
59
60
38
1
2
3
4 Brislin, R. 1986. The wording and translation of research instruments. In W. Lonner & J. Berry
5
6
(Eds.), Field methods in cross-cultural research. Cross-cultural research and methodology
7
8
9 series. (vol. 8, pp. 137-164). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
10
11 Byron, K., Khazanchi, S., & Nazarian, D. 2010. The relationship between stressors and
12
13 creativity: A meta-analysis examining competing theoretical models. Journal of Applied
14
15 Psychology, 95(1): 201-212.
16
17
18 Connelly, C. E., & Kelloway, E. K. 2003. Predictors of employees' perceptions of knowledge
19
20 sharing cultures. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 24(5): 294-301.
21
22 Connelly, C. E., Zweig, D., Webster, J., & Trougakos, J. P. 2012. Knowledge hiding in
23
24 organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(1): 64–88.
25
26
Cumming, S. P., Smoll, F. L., Smith, R. E., & Grossbard, J. R. 2007. Is winning everything?
27
28
29 The relative contributions of motivational climate and won-lost percentage in youth sports.
30
31 Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 19(3): 322-336.
32
33 George, J. M. 2007. Creativity in organizations. In J. Walsh & A. VBrief (Eds.), Academy of
34
35 Management Annals (vol. 1, pp. 439-477). New York, NY: Erlbaum.
36
37
38 Gouldner, A. W. 1960. The norm of reciprocity. American Sociological Review, 25(2): 161-
39
40 178.
41
42 Grant, A., & Patil, S. 2012. Challenging the Norm of Self-Interest: Minority Influence and
43
44 Transitions to Helping Norms in Work Units. Academy of Management Review, 37(4): 547-
45
46
47
568.
48
49 Grant, A. M., & Berry, J. W. 2011. The Necessity of Others is the Mother of Invention: Intrinsic
50
51 and Prosocial Motivations, Perspective Taking, and Creativity. Academy of Management
52
53 Journal, 54(1): 73-96.
54
55 Grovier, T. 1994. An epistemology of trust. International Journal of Moral and Social
56
57
58 Studies, 8(2): 155-174.
59
60
39
1
2
3
4 Hammond, M. M., Neff, N. L., Farr, J. L., Schwall, A. R., & Zhao, X. 2011. Predictors of
5
6
individual-level innovation at work: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity,
7
8
9 and the Arts, 5(1): 90-105.
10
11 Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. 2010. Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 61(1):
12
13 569-598.
14
15 Higgins, E. T. 1997. Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52(12): 1280.
16
17
18 Highhouse, S., & Gillespie, J. Z. 2009. Do samples really matter that much? In C. E. Lance &
19
20 R. Vandenberg (Eds.), Statistical and methodological myths and urban legends: Doctrine,
21
22 verity and fable in the organizational and social sciences (pp. 247-267). New York, NY:
23
24 Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
25
26
Hirst, G., Van Knippenberg, D., & Zhou, J. 2009. A cross-level perspective on employee
27
28
29 creativity: Goal orientation, team learning behavior, and individual creativity. Academy of
30
31 Management Journal, 52(2): 280-293.
32
33 Hox, J. J. 2010. Multilevel analysis. Techniques and applications, (2nd ed.). New York, NY:
34
35 Routledge.
36
37
38 James, L. R. 1982. Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal of Applied
39
40 Psychology, 67(2): 219-229.
41
42 James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. 1984. Estimating within-group interrater reliability
43
44 with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(1): 85-98.
45
46
Johnson, M. D., Hollenbeck, J. R., Humphrey, S. E., Ilgen, D. R., Jundt, D., & Meyer, C. J.
47
48
49 2006. Cutthroat cooperation: Asymmetrical adaptation to changes in team reward structures.
50
51 Academy of Management Journal, 49(1): 103-119.
52
53 Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. 1986. Fairness and the assumptions of
54
55 economics. Journal of Business, 59(4): 285-300.
56
57
58
59
60
40
1
2
3
4 Kanter, R. M. 1988. When a Thousand Flowers Bloom: Structural, Collective and Social
5
6
Conditions for Innovation in Organization. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10: 169-
7
8
9 211.
10
11 Lanaj, K., Chang, C. H., & Johnson, R. E. 2012. Regulatory Focus and Work-Related
12
13 Outcomes: A Review and Meta-Analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138(5): 998–1034.
14
15 Lance, C. E., Butts, M. M., & Michels, L. C. 2006. The sources of four commonly reported
16
17
18 cutoff criteria. Organizational Research Methods, 9(2): 202-220.
19
20 LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. 2008. Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and
21
22 interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11(4): 815-852.
23
24 Lerner, M. J. 1980. The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. New York, NY:
25
26
Plenum Press.
27
28
29 Levine, J. 1983. Social comparison and education. In J. Levine & M. Wang (Eds.), Teacher and
30
31 student perceptions: Implications for learning (pp. 29-55). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
32
33 Liao, T., & Rice, J. 2010. Innovation investments, market engagement and financial
34
35 performance: A study among Australian manufacturing SMEs. Research Policy, 39(1): 117-
36
37
38 125.
39
40 Lockwood, P., Jordan, C. H., & Kunda, Z. 2002. Motivation by positive or negative role
41
42 models: Regulatory focus determines who will best inspire us. Journal of Personality and
43
44 Social Psychology, 83(4): 854-864.
45
46
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. 2002. A
47
48
49 comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects.
50
51 Psychological methods, 7(1): 83-104.
52
53 Matzler, K., & Müller, J. 2011. Antecedents of Knowledge Sharing - Examining the Influence
54
55 of Learning Orientation and Performance Orientation on Knowledge Sharing. Journal of
56
57
58 Economic Psychology, 32(3): 317-329.
59
60
41
1
2
3
4 Mueller, J. S., & Kamdar, D. 2011. Why seeking help from teammates is a blessing and a curse:
5
6
A theory of help seeking and individual creativity in team contexts. Journal of Applied
7
8
9 Psychology, 96(2): 263-276.
10
11 Nerstad, C. G. L., Roberts, G. C., & Richardsen, A. M. in press. Achieving success at work: The
12
13 development and validation of the motivational climate at work questionnaire (MCWQ).
14
15 Journal of Applied Social Psychology, forthcoming.
16
17
18 Nicholls, J. G. 1984. Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience,
19
20 mastery choice and performance. Psychological Review, 91(3): 328-346.
21
22 Nicholls, J. G. 1989. The competitive ethos and democratic education. Cambridge, MA:
23
24 Harvard University Press.
25
26
Ntoumanis, N., & Biddle, S. J. H. 1999. A review of motivational climate in physical activity.
27
28
29 Journal of Sports Sciences, 17(8): 643-665.
30
31 Ommundsen, Y., Roberts, G., Lemyre, P., & Treasure, D. 2003. Perceived motivational climate
32
33 in male youth soccer: Relations to social–moral functioning, sportspersonship and team norm
34
35 perceptions. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 4(4): 397-413.
36
37
38 Pearce, J. L., & Huang, L. 2012. The decreasing value of our research to management
39
40 education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(2): 247-262.
41
42 Pensgaard, A.-M., & Roberts, G. C. 2002. Elite athletes' experiences of the motivational
43
44 climate: The coach matters. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports, 12:
45
46
54-60.
47
48
49 Perry-Smith, J. E. 2006. Social yet creative: The role of social relationships in facilitating
50
51 individual creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 49(1): 85-101.
52
53 Perry-Smith, J. E., & Shalley, C. E. 2003. The social side of creativity: A static and dynamic
54
55 social network perspective. Academy of Management Review, 28(1): 89-106.
56
57
58
59
60
42
1
2
3
4 Poortvliet, P. M., & Giebels, E. 2012. Self-improvement and cooperation: How exchange
5
6
relationships promote mastery-approach driven individuals’ job outcomes. European
7
8
9 Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 21(3): 392-425.
10
11 Reiter-Palmon, R., & Illies, J. J. 2004. Leadership and creativity: Understanding leadership
12
13 from a creative problem-solving perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(1): 55-77.
14
15 Roberts, G. C. 2012. Motivation in sport and exercise from an achievement goal theory
16
17
18 perspective: After 30 years, where are we? In G. C. Roberts & D. Treasure (Eds.), Advances
19
20 in motivation in sport and excercise (vol. 3, pp. 5-58). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
21
22 Roberts, G. C., Treasure, D. C., & Conroy, D. E. 2007. Understanding the dynamics of
23
24 motivation in sport and physical activity. In G. Tenenbaum & R. C. Eklund (Eds.),
25
26
Handbook of Sport Psychology (3rd ed.). New Jersey, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
27
28
29 Rosenbusch, N., Brinckmann, J., & Bausch, A. 2011. Is innovation always beneficial? A meta-
30
31 analysis of the relationship between innovation and performance in SMEs. Journal of
32
33 Business Venturing, 26(4): 441–457.
34
35 Runco, M. A. 2008. Creativity research should be a social science. In M. D. Mumford, S. T.
36
37
38 Hunter & K. E. Bedell-Avers (Eds.), Multi-level Issues in Creativity and Innovation (vol. 7,
39
40 pp. 75-94). Amsterdam, NL: Elsevier.
41
42 Schulte, M., Ostroff, C., Shmulyian, S., & Kinicki, A. 2009. Organizational climate
43
44 configurations: Relationships to collective attitudes, customer satisfaction, and financial
45
46
47
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3): 618-634.
48
49 Settoon, R. P., Bennett, N., & Liden, R. C. 1996. Social exchange in organizations: Perceived
50
51 organizational support, leader-member exchange, and employee reciprocity. Journal of
52
53 Applied Psychology, 81(3): 219-227.
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
43
1
2
3
4 Shalley, C., & Zhou, J. 2008. Organizational creativity research: A historical overview. In J.
5
6
Zhou & C. Shalley (Eds.), Handbook of organizational creativity (pp. 3-31). New York,
7
8
9 NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
10
11 Shalley, C. E. 1991. Effects of productivity goals, creativity goals, and personal discretion on
12
13 individual creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(2): 179-185.
14
15 Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J. 1999. Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and
16
17
18 advanced multilevel modeling. London, UK: Sage publications Ltd.
19
20 Swift, M., Balkin, D. B., & Matusik, S. F. 2010. Goal orientations and the motivation to share
21
22 knowledge. Journal of Knowledge Management, 14(3): 378-393.
23
24 Taylor, A. B., MacKinnon, D. P., & Tein, J. Y. 2008. Tests of the three-path mediated effect.
25
26
Organizational Research Methods, 11(2): 241-269.
27
28
29 Tepper, B., Mitchell, M., & Almeda, M. 2011. Examining Negative Exchange from a
30
31 Relational Perspective: Consequences of Reciprocating Downward Hostility in Supervisor-
32
33 Subordinate Relationships. Paper presented at the Israel Organizational Behavior
34
35 Conference, Tel Aviv, IS.
36
37
38 Unsworth, K. L., Wall, T. D., & Carter, A. 2005. Creative Requirement: A neglected construct
39
40 in the study of employee creativity? Group & Organization Management, 30(5): 541-560.
41
42 Vardi, Y., & Weitz, E. 2004. Misbehavior in Organizations: Theory, Research, and
43
44 Management. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
45
46
Wang, S., & Noe, R. A. 2010. Knowledge sharing: A review and directions for future research.
47
48
49 Human Resource Management Review, 20(2): 115-131.
50
51 Wood, R. E. 1986. Task complexity: Definition of the construct. Organizational Behavior and
52
53 Human Decision Processes, 37(1): 60-82.
54
55 Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. 1993. Toward a theory of organizational
56
57
58 creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18(2): 293-321.
59
60
44
1
2
3
4 Worthington Jr, E. L., & Wade, N. G. 1999. The psychology of unforgiveness and forgiveness
5
6
and implications for clinical practice. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 18(4):
7
8
9 385-418.
10
11 Zhou, J. 1998. Feedback valence, feedback style, task autonomy, and achievement orientation:
12
13 Interactive effects on creative performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2): 261-276.
14
15 Zhou, J., & George, J. 2001. When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: Encouraging the
16
17
18 expression of voice. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4): 682-696.
19
20 Zhou, Q., Hirst, G., & Shipton, H. 2012. Context matters: Combined influence of participation
21
22 and intellectual stimulation on the promotion focus–employee creativity relationship.
23
24 Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(7): 894–909.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
45
1
2
3
4
5
6 Table 1: Means, standard deviations, and correlationsa,b
7
8 Variable Mean s.d. 1 2 3 4 5
9 1 Creativity 5.34 1.06 (.95)
10
11 2 Knowledge hiding 1.94 .85 -.18* (.89)
12
13 3 Creativity required for position 4.12 1.31 .73** -.34** -
14
15 4 Mastery climate 4.56 .89 .23** .04 -.14* (.79)
16
17 5 Performance climate 3.74 .92 .08 -.03 -.01 -.03 (.84)
18
19 a
n=242.
20 b
21 Coefficient alphas are on the diagonal in parentheses.
*
22 p<.05, ** p<.01
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2 46
3
4
5
6
Table 2: Multilevel analysis results for creativity as the dependent variablea, b
7
8
9
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5
10
11 Level 1
12 Intercept 5.41** (.11) 5.44**(.06) 5.44**(.06) 5.45**(.06) 5.43**(.06)
13 Creativity required for position .52** (.05) .52** (.05) .47** (.04) .51** (.04)
14
Knowledge hiding -.21** (.08) -.21** (.04) -.20** (.06) -.21** (.07)
15
16 Level 2
17 Mastery climate .01 (.05) .01 (.05) .01 (.05)
18 Performance climate -.01 (.06) -.02 (.05) -.03 (.06)
19
Interaction effects
20
21 Knowledge hiding Χ Mastery climate .17* (.07) .17* (.08)
22 Knowledge hiding Χ Performance
23 climate -.14† (.07) -.13† (.06)
24 Knowledge hiding Χ Mastery climate
25 Χ Performance climate .03 (.02)
26 Pseudo R2 .27 .28 .37 .38
27 Deviance 639.93 457.29 464.01 450.00 457.70
28
29 n (level 1) 34 34 34 34 34
30 n (level 2) 240 240 240 240 240
a
31 Entries are estimations of fixed effects with robust standard errors. b Results were substantively unchanged after accounting for age, gender, expertise, dyad
32 tenure, company, task variety, task interdependence, mastery goal orientation, performance goal orientation, and team size as control variables, which were all
33 found not to be significantly related to creativity. **p<.01, *p<.05, †p<.10
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
1
2 47
3
4
5
6
Table 3: Means and standard deviations by conditiona
7
8
9 Condition Creativity Performance Mastery Distrust Prevention Knowledge
10
11 climate climate focus hiding
12
13 No knowledge hiding, 4.36 (1.49) 4.59 (1.18) 4.14 (1.36) 1.68 (1.94) 2.32 (1.04) 1.73 (1.45)
14 performance climate (n
15 = 22)
16 Knowledge hiding, 2.86 (.83) 5.45 (1.34) 4.27 (1.35) 5.32 (.96) 5.41 (1.40) 4.86 (1.83)
17
performance climate (n
18
19 = 22)
20 No knowledge hiding, 4.84 (1.89) 2.86 (1.81) 5.64 (1.56) 2.53 (1.78) 3.53 (1.39) 1.32 (.48)
21 mastery climate (n = 22)
22
23 Knowledge hiding, 4.5 (.91) 2.91 (1.15) 5.86 (1.04) 5.09 (.97) 4.73 (1.67) 2.27 (1.03)
24 mastery climate (n = 22)
25
26 No knowledge hiding, 3.24 (1.79) 2.71 (1.79) 4.05 (2.29) 1.57 (1.21) 2.76 (.96) 1.52 (.68)
27 no climate induced (n =
28
22)
29
30
Knowledge hiding, no 2.52 (1.04) 2.95 (1.26) 4.35 (1.75) 4.78 (1.24) 4.74 (1.14) 2.61 (1.27)
31
32 climate induced (n = 22)
33
34 a
35 Standard deviations are in parentheses
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
48
1
2
3
4 Figure 1: Reciprocal distrust loop illustrating the knowledge hiding-creativity
5
6 relationship
7
8
9 1st individual 2nd individual
10
Knowledge Perceived
11
hiding knowledge hiding
12
13
14 Distrust
15
16
Creativity Reciprocated
17 knowledge hiding
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
49
1
2
3
4 Figure 2: Relationships between our focal constructs
5
6
H2
7
8 Distrust (ind 2)
9
10 Prevention focus (ind 1)
11
12
13
14
15 H1-
16 Knowledge Creativity (ind 1)
17 hiding (ind 1)
18 H3 H4
19
20 Mastery climate Performance climate
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
50
1
2
3
4 Figure 3: The moderating effect of perceived mastery climate on the knowledge hiding-
5
6 creativity relationship
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
51
1
2
3
4 Figure 4: The moderating effect of perceived performance climate on the knowledge
5
6 hiding-creativity relationship
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
52
1
2
3
4
5 Biographical Sketches
6
7
Matej Černe (matej.cerne@ef.uni-lj.si) is an assistant for scientific research at The Centre of
8
9 Excellence for Biosensors, Instrumentation and Process Control (COBIK), and a teaching
10 assistant and late Ph.D. student at the Faculty of Economics Ljubljana University in Slovenia.
11 A focus on non-technological innovation, creativity, leadership, and multi-level issues in
12
13 management are overarching themes of his research.
14
15
16
17 Christina G. L. Nerstad (christina.g.l.nerstad@bi.no) is a postdoctoral fellow at BI
18 Norwegian Business School. She recently received her Ph.D. from BI Norwegian Business
19
20 School. Her research activities are in the areas of organizational behavior, human resource
21 management, and occupational health psychology, focusing on the motivational determinants
22 of achievement, health and well-being at work. Dr. Nerstad has particularly focused on how
23
work climates affect employee motivation, performance and well-being, as well as the
24
25 antecedents of work climates.
26
27
28
29 Anders Dysvik (anders.dysvik@bi.no) is an associate professor of organizational psychology
30
at BI Norwegian Business School. He received his Ph.D. from BI Norwegian Business
31
32 School. His research interests include human resource management (training and
33 development, pay systems, performance management, supportive HR practices, temporary
34 employment), organizational behavior (motivation, stressors, work performance, helping
35
36 behaviors, turnover, knowledge sharing) and leadership (perceived supervisor support, LMX).
37
38
39
40 Miha Škerlavaj (miha.skerlavaj@ef.uni-lj.si) is an assistant professor of management at the
41 Faculty of Economics Ljubljana University in Slovenia and an adjunct associate professor of
42
43 organizational behavior at BI Norwegian Business School in Oslo, Norway. He received his
44 Ph.D. from Faculty of Economics University of Ljubljana. His current research is focused on
45 creativity, innovation, learning and knowledge in organizations.
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Moderator Preceived Mastery Motivational Climate PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Moderator Preceived Mastery Motivational Climate PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Academy of Management Journal

What goes around comes around: Knowledge hiding,

Journal: Academy of Management Journal

Manuscript ID: AMJ-2012-0122.R3

Manuscript Type: Revision

Creativity < Behavior < Organizational Behavior < Topic Areas,

Knowledge hiding prevents colleagues from generating creative ideas, but

You might also like