The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Knowledge hiding and team creativity: the contingent role of task interdependence
Abstract
Purpose: Creativity and innovation are crucial in improving the organizational performance and sustaining competitive advantage. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the relationship between knowledge hiding and team creativity. Design/methodology/approach: The authors tested the hypotheses with a sample of 87 knowledge worker teams involving 393 employees and employers in China. Findings: Knowledge hiding is negatively related to team creativity, fully mediated by absorptive capacity. In addition, the negative relationship between knowledge hiding and absorptive capacity would be weakened by task interdependence. Practical implications: Team managers should take measures to avoid the development of knowledge hiding, which is indirectly related to team creativity via absorptive capacity within a team, and motivate team members to share more knowledge by training to improve their feelings of accountability, responsibility, and duty. In addition, managers can decrease knowledge hiding by strengthening within-team task interdependence. Originality/value: This study is one of the first to investigate the relationship between knowledge hiding and team creativity and the moderating role of task interdependence in the relationship between knowledge hiding and absorptive capacity.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: myths and truths about mediation analysis
Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., & Chen, Q. (2010) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/651257 · Cited by 12,583
The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement
Gouldner, A. W. (1960) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2092623 · Cited by 12,001
Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations.
Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.7.4.422 · Cited by 11,335
Social Exchange Theory: An Interdisciplinary Review
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206305279602 · Cited by 10,068
Addressing Moderated Mediation Hypotheses: Theory, Methods, and Prescriptions
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007) · Multivariate Behavioral Research · doi:10.1080/00273170701341316 · Cited by 9,973
ASSESSING THE WORK ENVIRONMENT FOR CREATIVITY.
AMABILE, T. M., CONTI, R., COON, H., LAZENBY, J., & HERRON, M. (1996) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/256995 · Cited by 6,029
Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.69.1.85 · Cited by 4,774
Shin, S. J., & Zhou, J. (2007) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1709 · Cited by 845
Metadata
- Authors
- Fong, P. S. W., Men, C., Luo, J., & Jia, R.
- Venue
- Management Decision
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2018-01-31
- Volume
- 56
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 329-343
- ISSN
- 0025-1747 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2786286895
- Cited by
- 259
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 54.04
- 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: Knowledge hiding and team creativity: the contingent role of task interdependence. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1108/md-11-2016-0778
- The paper
- Fong, P. S. W., Men, C., Luo, J., & Jia, R. (2018). Knowledge hiding and team creativity: the contingent role of task interdependence. Management Decision. https://doi.org/10.1108/md-11-2016-0778
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.
