Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 325

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 67 of the 67 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Evasive knowledge hiding in academia: when competitive individuals are asked to collaborate

Hernaus, Tomislav, Cerne, Matej, Connelly, Catherine, Poloski Vokic, Nina, Škerlavaj, Miha·2019·Journal of Knowledge Management

Abstract

Purpose: Academic knowledge work often presumes collaboration among interdependent individuals. However, this work also involves competitive pressures to perform and even outperform others. While knowledge hiding has not yet been extensively examined in the academic environment, this study aims to deepen the understanding of the personal (individual-level) and situational (job-related) factors that affect evasive knowledge hiding (EKH) within academia. Design/methodology/approach: A field study was conducted on a nation-wide sample of 210 scholars from both public and private business schools in a European Union member state. A series of paired sample t-tests were followed by hierarchical regression analyses to test moderation using the PROCESS macro. Findings: The results suggest that scholars hide more tacit than explicit knowledge. The findings also indicate a consistent pattern of positive and significant relationships between trait competitiveness and EKH. Furthermore, task interdependence and social support buffer the detrimental relationship between personal competitiveness and evasive hiding of explicit knowledge, but not tacit knowledge. Originality/value: The research provides insights into several important antecedents of EKH that have not been previously examined. It contributes to research on knowledge transfer in academia by focusing on situations where colleagues respond to explicit requests by hiding knowledge. The moderating role of collaborative job design offers practical solutions on how to improve knowledge transfer between mistrusted and competitive scholars. The collaboration–competition framework is extended by introducing personal competitiveness and relational job design, and suggesting how to manage the cross-level tension of differing collaborative and competitive motivations within academia.

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 · 10.1108/jkm-11-2017-0531

Cites

67 of 67 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

Show all 67 references

Metadata

Authors
Hernaus, T., Cerne, M., Connelly, C., Poloski Vokic, N., & Škerlavaj, M.
Venue
Journal of Knowledge Management
Publisher
Emerald
Published
2019-05-13
Volume
23
Issue
4
Pages
597-618
ISSN
1367-3270 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2898166599
Cited by
325
References
67
FWCI
59.55
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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Evasive knowledge hiding in academia: when competitive individuals are asked to collaborate. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1108/jkm-11-2017-0531
The paper
Hernaus, T., Cerne, M., Connelly, C., Poloski Vokic, N., & Škerlavaj, M. (2019). Evasive knowledge hiding in academia: when competitive individuals are asked to collaborate. Journal of Knowledge Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/jkm-11-2017-0531

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.