Knowledge hoarding refers to the act of accumulating knowledge that may or may not be shared in the future [14]. Both knowledge hiding and hoarding can be described as a spectrum of behaviors categorized as withholding knowledge. However, unlike knowledge hiding—which represents intentional concealment of knowledge in response to another’s request—knowledge hoarding captures the accumulation of knowledge that is not necessarily requested by others [15]. The intentionality of knowledge hiding and the broader range of methods for engaging in it further highlight its fundamental differences from knowledge hoarding.

It is also important to distinguish knowledge hiding from knowledge sharing. We argue that knowledge hiding is not merely the absence of sharing; rather, it is the intentional concealment or withholding of knowledge requested by another person. While comparisons of knowledge hiding and sharing may suggest that individuals either share or hide their knowledge, we contend that these variables are not opposites but two conceptually distinct constructs. Behaviorally, the two constructs may appear similar, but the motivations behind hiding knowledge and lacking knowledge sharing are vastly different. Knowledge hiding can stem from various motives (e.g., prosocial, instrumental, laziness), while a lack of knowledge sharing may simply result from not possessing the knowledge itself. For instance, an employee may receive a knowledge request and choose to share it. Alternatively, they may not have the knowledge to share. This person does not intend to hide knowledge; they are simply unable to engage in sharing. In other words, knowledge hiding does not include cases where employees fail to share knowledge due to error, accident, or ignorance. Conversely, if an employee receives a knowledge request and acts to hide knowledge (e.g., pretending not to know it), this constitutes knowledge hiding.

Knowledge hiding also differs from counterproductive work behavior (CWB). These behaviors include actions taken by employees “intended to harm the organization and its members” [16]. In contrast, knowledge hiding behaviors are not necessarily intended to cause harm; some employees may hide knowledge to protect themselves or colleagues (e.g., to avoid hurting someone’s feelings). It is also important to note that CWB can be directed at individuals or the organization itself (e.g., sabotage, theft), whereas knowledge hiding occurs in response to an individual’s request.

6.1.1. Prosocial Motivation

Prosocial motivation refers to an individual’s desire to increase effort out of concern for helping others. Employees with high prosocial motivation emphasize positive work environments, values, and norms that encourage mutual cooperation and assistance even without requests [19]. Given these positive traits, employees with high prosocial motivation are less likely to engage in knowledge hiding.

6.1.2. Avoidance Motivation

Avoidance motivation is a behavioral activation to avoid losses and negative outcomes [20]. Rhee and Choi [21] argued that employees with this motivation tend to hide knowledge because they fear their incompetence will be exposed through irrelevant knowledge sharing. In other words, avoidant employees tend to hide knowledge and maintain a facade to prevent anticipated embarrassment and shame from negative evaluations of their shared knowledge [22].

6.1.3. Learning Goal Orientation

Learning goal orientation refers to employees’ focus on mastering new skills and knowledge, believing their abilities can be improved through strong learning motivation [23]. Employees with high learning goal orientation generally view colleagues as collaborators and information exchange as reciprocal. Driven by self-development and future success, these employees exhibit lower knowledge hiding behaviors [24].

Employees’ work attitudes and behaviors are influenced by the nature of interpersonal social interactions with colleagues. Knowledge hiding research shows that various interpersonal characteristics—interactional justice, task interdependence, and perceived competition with colleagues—are important predictors of knowledge hiding behaviors.

6.2.1. Interactional Justice

Interactional justice refers to the perceived fairness and quality of interpersonal treatment employees receive during procedural implementation and outcome determination [25]. It fosters a trusting climate that discourages negative work behaviors [26]. Thus, employees who perceive interactional justice are less likely to exhibit knowledge hiding behaviors [27].

6.2.2. Task Interdependence

Task interdependence refers to the extent to which employees’ work relies on others or is interconnected [28]. It is a force that connects employees through shared goals to promote cooperation [29]. Work environments characterized by task interdependence strengthen interpersonal relationships and discourage employees from hiding or concealing knowledge from each other.

6.2.3. Perceived Competition

Perceived competition refers to the extent to which goal achievement is mutually exclusive among employees, often encouraged by managers to improve performance and organizational effectiveness [30]. Organizations implement tangible and intangible incentives and reward systems to support managers in fostering competition. In such competitive environments, cooperation and sharing may be seen as detrimental to individual goal attainment (i.e., mutually exclusive goals). Thus, intense competition does not always yield positive outcomes; it can also lead to adverse effects such as knowledge hiding.

Situational factors (e.g., job characteristics, policies, leadership, context) significantly influence employees’ work attitudes and behaviors [31]. The knowledge hiding literature highlights leader-member exchange, ethical leadership, empowering leadership, abusive supervision, organizational knowledge sharing climate, organizational identification, organization-based psychological ownership, job autonomy, job insecurity, and workplace mistreatment as common organizational antecedents.

6.3.1. Leader-Member Exchange

Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) theory posits that leaders develop distinct exchange relationships with subordinates using different approaches [32]. In high-quality LMX relationships, leaders provide subordinates with exchange resources such as respect, care, and trust, and subordinates reciprocate with prosocial organizational behaviors. Thus, employees in high-quality exchange relationships are likely to respond positively to colleagues’ knowledge requests and avoid knowledge hiding [33].

6.3.2. Ethical Leadership

Ethical leaders demonstrate honesty, altruism, and concern for followers’ needs through their actions. Ethical leadership is defined by fairness, responsibility, honesty, and care for subordinates’ professional and personal needs [34]. Thus, ethical leaders establish personal and organizational norms that make subordinates less likely to engage in knowledge hiding [35].

6.3.3. Empowering Leadership

Empowering leadership refers to a set of person-centered leadership behaviors aimed at empowering followers in leader-follower dyads [36]. It focuses on developing followers’ maximum potential by trusting their abilities and granting them autonomy to exercise creativity without fear of leader evaluation. Thus, followers experiencing empowering leadership are less likely to engage in knowledge hiding.

Connelly argued that the inherent characteristics of knowledge (e.g., knowledge complexity, knowledge-based psychological ownership) may influence employees’ knowledge hiding behaviors. They specifically noted that most employee rewards are based on task performance. Responding to knowledge requests consumes significant time, reducing time available for core activities [37]. Knowledge complexity—employees’ perception that requested knowledge is difficult to communicate—increases the likelihood of knowledge hiding.

Knowledge-based psychological ownership refers to employees’ strong sense of possession and attachment to their work knowledge [38]. Employees’ psychological ownership of “what they know” makes them less likely to share knowledge, as it may cause psychological conflict [39]. Thus, employees who view their knowledge as a valuable asset (i.e., strong knowledge-based psychological ownership) may hide knowledge from others.

7.1.1. Creative and Innovative Performance

Creative and innovative performance is defined as employees’ proficiency in generating and implementing new ideas [41]. It has become an important dimension of individual performance, critical for modern organizations to maintain competitive advantage.

A key driver of creative and innovative performance is knowledge sharing with others, including processes such as obtaining colleague support. Thus, employees’ knowledge sharing behaviors are positively correlated with creative and innovative performance, while knowledge hiding is negatively correlated [42].

7.1.2. Extra-Role Performance

Extra-role performance refers to prosocial behaviors (e.g., organizational citizenship behavior, voice behavior, helping behavior) that are not included in job descriptions or formally recognized in performance evaluations but are highly useful for organizational effectiveness. Extra-role behaviors include helping others, and sharing knowledge deemed critical to organizational operations is a common form of extra-role performance. Employees’ positive work attitudes and behaviors (e.g., knowledge sharing) are positively correlated with workplace extra-role performance [43], while negative attitudes and behaviors including knowledge hiding are negatively correlated.

7.1.3. Task Performance

Task performance refers to necessary behaviors that are part of job descriptions and formally recognized in performance evaluations [44]. It is the core feature of one’s job. Employees perceive that knowledge hiding produces adverse organizational outcomes, as colleagues form a cycle of mutual distrust with knowledge hiders, ultimately negatively impacting the hiders’ creativity and task performance. Thus, employees engaged in knowledge sharing tend to have higher task performance, while knowledge hiding may negatively affect their task performance [45].

Knowledge hiding is an unethical and counterproductive work behavior that profoundly affects employees’ positive work attitudes and interpersonal relationships. This category includes four notable outcomes of knowledge hiding: job satisfaction, turnover intention, distrust, and reciprocal knowledge hiding.

7.2.1. Job Satisfaction

Job satisfaction is one of the most frequently studied positive work attitudes and is considered an important positive antecedent of employee performance. In contrast, turnover intention is another widely studied negative work attitude, established as a significant negative antecedent of employee performance [46].

7.2.2. Turnover Intention

Research shows that knowledge hiding is negatively correlated with job satisfaction and positively correlated with turnover intention, as knowledge hiding is perceived as violating organizational norms, and employees engaging in such behaviors receive negative feedback from the environment (e.g., appropriate sanctions). This treatment makes employees fear punishment for repeated behaviors, ultimately reducing job satisfaction and increasing turnover intention.

7.2.3. Distrust

Distrust is interpreted as a trustor’s negative expectations of the other party’s intentions and behaviors in a relationship [47]. Employees experiencing interpersonal distrust feel the need to protect themselves through knowledge hiding, fearing their knowledge sharing efforts will not be reciprocated.

7.2.4. Reciprocal Knowledge Hiding

Reciprocal knowledge hiding refers to multiple parties hiding knowledge from each other simultaneously. Research shows that employees’ experiences of colleagues hiding knowledge shape their beliefs, intentions, and actions toward reciprocal knowledge hiding [48].