Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 516

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

How perpetrators and targets construe knowledge hiding in organizations

Connelly, Catherine E., Zweig, David·2015·European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology

Abstract

Research has begun to document the negative organizational consequences of knowledge hiding, or the intentional attempt to conceal knowledge, among employees. However, different knowledge hiding behaviours exist, and we explore whether some types of knowledge hiding are more harmful than others. Although theory would suggest that knowledge hiders rationalize their behaviours and fail to anticipate the negative consequences of their behaviours, we found that they did anticipate harmed relationships and retaliation. In addition, targets of knowledge hiding did not always construe the behaviour as harmful or as necessitating retaliation. Overall, our research suggests that not all knowledge hiding is equally harmful. Some types of knowledge hiding may actually enhance the relationships between colleagues and might break the cycle of knowledge hiding in organizations.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/1359432x.2014.931325

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Metadata

Authors
Connelly, C. E., & Zweig, D.
Venue
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology
Published
2014-06-30
Volume
24
Issue
3
Pages
479-489
ISSN
  • 1359-432X (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-0643
OpenAlex
W1998234282
Cited by
516
References
6
FWCI
17.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.