Unraveling the two decades of Knowledge Hiding scholarship: A systematic review, bibliometric analysis, and literature synthesis

Usman Khizar, Hafiz Muhammad; Khurshid, Rashid; Al-Waqfi, Mohammed A. Article Unraveling the two decades of Knowledge Hiding scholarship: A systematic review, bibliometric analysis, and literature synthesis Journal of Innovation & Knowledge (JIK) Provided in Cooperation with: Elsevier Suggested Citation: Usman Khizar, Hafiz Muhammad; Khurshid, Rashid; Al-Waqfi, Mohammed A. (2024) : Unraveling the two decades of Knowledge Hiding scholarship: A systematic review, bibliometric analysis, and literature synthesis, Journal of Innovation & Knowledge (JIK), ISSN 2444-569X, Elsevier, Amsterdam, Vol. 9, Iss. 4, pp. 1-18, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2024.100624 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/327526 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Unraveling the two decades of Knowledge Hiding scholarship: A systematic review, bibliometric analysis, and literature synthesis Hafiz Muhammad Usman Khizar a , Rashid Khurshid b , Mohammed Al-Waqfi c,* a Human Capital Research Center, United Arab Emirates University, UAE b Institute of Business Management & Administrative Sciences, The Islamia University of Bahawalpur, Pakistan c College of Business and Economics, United Arab Emirates University, UAE ARTICLE INFO JEL Code: M12 M50 Keywords: Knowledge hiding Bibliometric Knowledge management ADO-TCM Systematic literature review ABSTRACT Purpose: This study aims to provide a state-of-the-art review of the literature on Knowledge Hiding (KH), focusing on its inherent knowledge structure (i.e. intellectual, social, and conceptual structure). This study also presents an integrative synthesis of previous research and highlights knowledge gaps and limitations for further knowledge advancement in this field. Methodology: The systematic literature review approach was used to identify, select, and review the extant KH literature. For analysis, we employed a hybrid technique that combines quantitative and qualitative methods. In the first phase, we conducted quantitative bibliometric analyses (using VOS viewer and Biblioshiny in R-Studio) to highlight the state of the research profile. In the second phase, we utilise the ADO-TCM framework to synthesise the current literature into key themes, followed by the proposal of future research trajectories. Results: Our findings in the first phase highlighted the current research profile of KH in terms of publication timeline, relevant journals, utilised methods, top contributing authors, affiliations, and countries. In addition, our first-phase findings revealed the knowledge structure of KH research: intellectual structure (i.e. influential authors, influential studies, and citation analysis), social structure (i.e. collaborating authors, institutions, and countries), and conceptual structure (i.e. co-citation analysis, keyword co-occurrences, and thematic mapping). In the second phase, we discuss the KH literature and propose a future research agenda regarding antecedents, decisions, and outcomes (ADO) and theories, contexts, and methods (TCM) frameworks. Future Research / Implications: By offering a knowledge database of existing literature and building a solid foundation for future research, this study is anticipated to inspire academics and researchers to expand the literature on this topic and theoretically develop the field. Additionally, it creates a strong argument for businesses to acknowledge the presence of KH and assess the risks, advantages, and drawbacks of this phenomenon in order to make wise decisions. Introduction Over the years, knowledge has been considered a key resource that plays a crucial role in the success of individuals and organisations (Shan et al., 2023; Vidic, 2022). Management and sharing of knowledge in the workplace are pivotal for fostering innovation, enhancing productivity, and gaining a competitive advantage (Cabrilo et al., 2024; Idrees et al., 2023; ud din Khan et al., 2023). However, it has been reported that about 50 % of employees intentionally withhold, mislead, or conceal knowledge from their counterparts (Peng, 2013). To this end, a subtle yet pervasive phenomenon has emerged in workplace dynamics, termed ‘Knowledge Hiding’ (Connelly et al., 2012). It is often described as the intentional concealment or withholding of knowledge from others (Connelly et al., 2012). Notably, knowledge hiding (KH) has been popularised as an independent concept, different from merely considering it as the opposite side of knowledge sharing (Zhao et al., 2019). The prevalence of KH in the workplace makes it challenging for organisations to compete, perform, and grow. The concept of KH has received considerable attention from researchers, practitioners, and policymakers owing to its severely detrimental effects on individuals and organisations (e.g. Xiong et al., 2021). Previous studies have provided valuable insight into the * Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (H.M.U. Khizar), [email protected] (R. Khurshid), [email protected] (M. Al-Waqfi). Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Innovation & Knowledge journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jik https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2024.100624 Received 24 August 2024; Accepted 8 November 2024 Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 9 (2024) 100624 Available online 26 November 2024 2444-569X/© 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U. on behalf of Journal of Innovation & Knowledge. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ ). conceptualisation, antecedents, and outcomes of KH (e.g., Arain et al., 2024; Bari et al., 2023; Connelly et al., 2019). In this regard, there is a plethora of empirical research on the factors contributing to KH behaviour in the workplace. These factors include i) individual characteristics, ii) organisational characteristics, and situational factors (e.g., A. Anand et al., 2023; Butt, 2021; Connelly et al., 2012). Similarly, another stream of research explored the consequences of KH at both the individual and organisational levels, highlighting its detrimental effects on trust, collaboration, innovation, and organisational performance (e. g., Andreeva & Zappa, 2023; Arain et al., 2021). Interestingly, despite the predominant scholarly consensus on its severe negative consequences for individuals, groups, and organisations, empirical evidence highlights the positive aspects of KH (Khoreva & Wechtler, 2020; Yao et al., 2023). Proponents of this school of thought also suggest that KH can be triggered by pro-social motivation, thereby strengthening interpersonal ties between the perpetrator and the victim (Connelly & Zweig, 2015; Connelly et al., 2012). Moreover, rationalised hiding can enhance employee empowerment (Offergelt, 2019) and well-being (Khoreva & Wechtler, 2020). Additionally, KH may provide benefits to the organisation by protecting its knowledge and resources, confidentiality, and competitive advantage (Anand et al., 2020; Connelly et al., 2012). Given the widespread interest in KH’s dynamics, there is a dire need to consolidate the knowledge structure of the field (i.e. intellectual, social, and conceptual structure) from the current fragmented literature. Therefore, we aim to synthesise the existing literature, identify research gaps, and provide directions for future knowledge development. There have been few valuable attempts to conduct literature reviews on KH (e. g. Anand et al., 2020; Di Vaio et al., 2021; Siachou et al., 2021; Silva de Garcia et al., 2022; Xiao & Cooke, 2019). For instance, Anand et al. (2020) conducted a systematic review to identify research streams and provide future research directions. More recently, Xiao (2024) provided insight into the perpetrator-centric causes and consequences of KH. Another valuable field-specific scientometric review focusing on KH in higher education institutions is available (Fauzi, 2023). While these literature reviews provide excellent insight into this topic and directions for future research, our review aims to address the following research questions (see Table 1). Our review extends the valuable insight offered by previous studies as follows. Our review utilises both quantitative and qualitative techniques to evaluate existing research and provides a nuanced understanding of the knowledge structure on this topic. In doing so, we delineate the existing literature into intellectual, social, and conceptual structure. In other words, by utilising various bibliometric analytical techniques, we provide up-to-date profiles of research (performance analysis), citation-based analyses (intellectual structure), collaboration networks (social structure), and key conceptual and thematic networks (conceptual structure) in the current literature on KH. Another key contribution of our review is the development of an ADO-TCM framework-based literature synthesis (i.e., what do we know, and how do we know?) and future research agendas (i.e., where should we be heading, and how can we get there?). In this vein, our review presents a literature synthesis to highlight the key antecedents, decisions, and outcomes (ADO) of KH and the theories, contexts, and methods (TCM) employed in the current literature. In addition to synthesising the current literature, our review highlights research gaps and proposes future research trajectories on this topic. This review will assist researchers and academicians in gaining an overview of the current literature, its publication trends (timeline, articles, sources, citation metrics), and potential collaborators (authors, institutions, and countries) in KH research. Our review is also helpful for policymakers and practitioners in gaining insight from the existing literature to develop and adapt appropriate policies and make informed decisions. Methodology When conducting a systematic literature review, scholars have suggested four approaches: domain-based, theory-based, method-based, and meta-analytical reviews (Paul & Criado, 2020). In this regard, our study is classified as a domain-based review, as we aim to conduct a comprehensive review of the KH literature. Previous studies have used various techniques to perform domain-based reviews, such as structured reviews (e.g. Khizar et al., 2023), framework-based reviews (e.g. Paul & Benito, 2018), bibliometric reviews (Donthu et al., 2020; Dzhunushalieva & Teuber, 2024), and hybrid reviews (Bhukya & Paul, 2023). Among these techniques, the hybrid reviews, as compared to others, combine both qualitative and quantitative techniques to provide a comprehensive overview of the current literature and enlighten the directions for further knowledge advancements. This technique also facilitates the development of new theoretical frameworks and contributes significantly to conceptual, methodological, and thematic development (Bahoo et al., 2020; Thomas & Gupta, 2022). However, given the diversity of the existing knowledge on KH, our study employed a hybrid review technique that combined the standard procedures of bibliometric analysis (quantitative) and framework-based synthesis (qualitative). In the first phase, we utilised bibliometric techniques to present an up-to-date research profile of the existing literature, and in the second phase, we utilised the ADO-TCM framework to integrate current research, identify knowledge gaps, and propose future research directions. Fig. 1 summarises the data collection and assessment procedures adapted from SPAR-4-SLR (Scientific procedures and rationales for systematic literature reviews) (Paul et al., 2021). Table 1 Research questions and sub-questions of this review. Research Questions Sub-questions 1- What are the current publication trends and characteristics in knowledge hiding research? 1a: What is the publication timeline of knowledge hiding studies? 1b: Which journals are leading in publishing knowledge hiding research? 1c: What are the key studies that have significantly contributed to the field of knowledge hiding? 1d: Who are the most influential and prolific authors in knowledge hiding research? 1e: Which institutions are prominently involved in knowledge hiding research? 2- What is the collaboration network and social structure within knowledge hiding research? 2a: How do authors collaborate in knowledge hiding studies? 2b: Which institutions collaborate on knowledge hiding research? 2c: What is the international collaboration network in knowledge hiding research? 3- What are the key thematic areas in the knowledge hiding literature? 3a: What are the clusters of co-occurring keywords in knowledge hiding research? 3b: What themes emerge from thematic mapping in knowledge hiding studies? 4- What are the key theories employed, methods utilised, and contexts explored in knowledge hiding research? 4a: Which theoretical frameworks are commonly used in knowledge hiding studies? 4b: What research methodologies are utilised in knowledge hiding research? 4c: What contexts (e.g. geographical, industries) are explored in knowledge hiding studies? 5- What are the research gaps, limitations, and future directions in knowledge hiding literature? 5a: What gaps and limitations exist in the current knowledge hiding research? 5b: What future research directions are suggested for advancing knowledge hiding scholarship? H.M.U. Khizar et al. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 9 (2024) 100624 2 Assembling We initially developed our search string by combining relevant keywords to identify a corpus of articles on KH. Based on our preliminary review of the relevant literature, we identified a list of possible keywords, followed by consultation with three academic experts to ascertain the suitability of these keywords for representing KH. This led to the following search string: "Knowledge hid*" OR "hiding knowledge" OR "knowledge hoarding" OR "hoarding knowledge" OR "knowledge withholding" OR "withholding knowledge". To identify potentially relevant articles for this review, we searched the prominent academic database Scopus. This is the largest high-quality scientific database of scholarly articles. We limited the initial search to 31 December 2023 to ensure that all relevant and recent studies are considered for inclusion in our review. Based on our Scopus search, 1083 documents were returned. Arranging To arrange the corpus of 1083 articles identified, we utilised the following filter function in the databases to limit our search: year (i.e. up to 2023), document type (i.e. articles and reviews), source type (i.e. journals), and language (English). This process resulted in a reduced corpus of 768 articles. Subsequently, to ensure the relevance and quality of the studies to be included in our review, two authors independently read the titles and abstracts of the papers to include only those studies that were relevant to KH. Consequently, we retained 381 studies to be included in our review for further analysis. Assessing To analyse the selected studies (n =381), we performed a two-stage analysis: quantitative bibliometric analysis, followed by ADO-TCM framework-based qualitative literature synthesis. In the first phase, we utilised bibliometric analysis to quantitatively analyse the scientific information of the selected studies (Donthu et al., 2021). In the second phase, we selected a subsample of studies based on journal quality criteria: studies published in journals ranked 3, 4, and 4* on the Chartered Association of Business School list (CABS). That is, we selected 76 studies to extract key information on the antecedents, decisions, and consequences as well as the theories, contexts, and methods to develop our ADO-TCM framework. In particular, the ADO-TCM framework was organised to explore and address the following implied questions: What is known? How is it known? Where should we be heading? How can we get there? Quantitative bibliometric analysis We performed three types of quantitative bibliometric analyses: i) performance analysis, ii) collaboration network analysis, and iii) science mapping. First, the performance analyses delineate the research profile in terms of publication timeline, publishing journals, influential articles, prolific authors, institutions, and countries. Second, collaboration network analyses reveal the social structure of KH research by highlighting the collaboration networks among authors, institutions, and countries. Finally, a science mapping technique is utilised through cocitation analysis, keyword co-occurrence networks, and thematic mapping. Our analyses were mainly performed using VOSviewer and Biblioshiny in the R studio. Fig. 1. Systematic review procedure adapting the SPAR-4-SLR protocol. H.M.U. Khizar et al. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 9 (2024) 100624 3 Performance analysis Performance analysis is a bibliometric analysis technique used to highlight the descriptive research profile of a given topic or research domain Donthu et al. (2021). We utilised a performance analysis to reveal the research profile of KH in the following ways: i) publication trends over time, ii) the most influential articles, iii) the most productive authors, iv) key journals, v) institutions, and vi) countries. Publication trends for KH The year-wise publication trend of KH Research is presented in Fig. 2. This indicates that scholarly interest in exploring this concept began during the first decade of the 21st century. Our findings highlighted that the scholarly piece of Connelly et al. (2012) served as a breakthrough, as it was followed by an increase in scholarly publications. Notably, an exponential increase in publications was observed beginning in 2019, whereby nearly 85 % of the articles were published between 2019 and 2023, with almost 50 % (n =169) published in the last 2 years. Top contributing journals for KH research The extant literature on KH selected in our review (n =352) was published in 109 journals. Table 2 indicates that the top 10 contributing journals published 185 articles (53 %) in the field. Specifically, the top three most prolific journals were Journal of Knowledge Management (n = 69), Journal of Business Research (n =33), and Vine Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems (n =21). However, in terms of their influence, the Journal of Knowledge Management showed the highest at 4418 citations, followed by the Journal of Organizational Behavior and Journal of Business Research, with 2043 and 1314 citations, respectively. Notably, our analyses revealed that KH research has received predominant attention and publication space in some of the best journals. This is indicated because most of the contributing journals are rated as 3* or 4* in the Academic Journal Guide by the Chartered Association of Business Schools (CABS) and have an impact factor above three. Most significant articles for KH Table 3 presents the most influential articles in KH research based on their citations. Our findings highlight that Connelly’s (2012) study, published in the Journal of Organizational Behavior, has received widespread acknowledgement, with 836 citations (an average of 76 citations per year) since its publication in 2012. This was followed by Al-Alawi’s (2007), Cerne’s (2014), and Peng’s (2013) articles published in the Journal of Knowledge Management, Academy of Management Journal, and Journal of Knowledge Management, which have been cited 545, 539, and 363 times, respectively. Notably, the top 10 most-cited articles have significantly contributed to the field with a total of 4043 citations. Top contributing authors for KH Our findings revealed that 786 authors contributed to the publication of the 352 studies selected for our review. The authors of the KH research are listed in Table 4. Our results show that ‘BUTT AS’ (from the American University of Ras Al Khaimah, UAE), ‘ˇ CERNE M’ (from the University of Ljubljana, Slovenia), ‘ZHAO H’ (from Shanghai University, China), and ‘ISSAC AC’ (from the Indian Institute of Technology Madras, India) are the four most prolific authors in the field, with 12, 10, nine, and nine articles, respectively. However, the two most influential authors (based on the citations) are ‘CONNELLY CE’ from McMaster University, Canada, and ‘ˇ CERNE M’ from University of Ljubljana, Slovenia, with 2052 and 1865 citations, respectively. Overall, these 10 authors have made substantial contributions in terms of knowledge advancements in the field of KH. Top contributing affiliations and countries The top contributing institutions and countries for KH research are listed in Table 5. Our findings suggest that the most prolific institution in KH research is Shanghai University, China, with 25 articles, followed by Tongji University, China, with 22 articles and University of Ljubljana, Slovenia, with 14 articles. Our findings in terms of countries’ scientific production indicate that China (n =282), Pakistan (n =128), and India (n =92) are the three most prolific countries. Although South Asian researchers dominated scientific knowledge production in the realm of KH, there was also notable representation of authors from Western and Oceanic countries, including the USA (n =53), Australia (n =49), Fig. 2. Year-wise publication for KH research between 2003 and 2023. Table 2 Top contributing journals for knowledge hiding research. Top Journal NP TC ABS IF H JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT 69 4418 210.26 134 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS RESEARCH 33 1314 313.44 236 VINE JOURNAL OF INFORMATION AND KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS 21 349 –3.64 37 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT RESEARCH AND PRACTICE 13 300 14.02 45 KNOWLEDGE AND PROCESS MANAGEMENT 10 267 14.77 49 JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR 9 2043 47.46 205 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS 8 468 35.39 116 MANAGEMENT DECISION 8 426 28.11 229 DEVELOPMENT AND LEARNING IN ORGANIZATIONS 7 54 –8.139 151 LEADERSHIP AND ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT JOURNAL 7 319 15.76 78 NP: Number of publications, TC-Total citations, CABS: The 2022 Journal ranking by the Chartered Association of Business Schools (i.e. lowest rating 1/2/3/4/4* highest rating, NR: No rating). IF-Impact factor from the Journal Citation Report (JCR) 2023 and h-H_Index. H.M.U. Khizar et al. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 9 (2024) 100624 4 Canada (n =43), and the UK (n =40). Social structure – collaboration networks Fig. 3a-bshows the collaboration network analysis, which highlights the collaboration between authors and institutions involved in KH research. Our analysis revealed a highly interconnected network of scholarly collaborations driven by prominent clusters. Notable collaborations are among the most prominent authors, including C. E. Connelly, M. ˇ Cerne, A. Dysvik, and M. ˇ Skerlavaj. This group of authors has made substantial contributions to KH research since its inception. Other notable collaborations include authors like A. Anand and U.A. Agarwal, as well as Chinese authors, including H. Zhao and Q. Xia. On the institutional side, few distinct clusters were identified. Cluster 1 highlights the substantial collaboration among Pakistani universities, such as COMSATS University in Islamabad and Government College University in Faisalabad, underscoring a concentrated regional effort. In Cluster 3, notable Chinese universities such as Shanghai University and Tongji University showcase a vibrant research network that advances the field through cohesive academic partnerships. These clusters collectively illustrate the pivotal role of collaborative efforts in driving forward KH research and fostering regional and international academic synergy. Moreover, in terms of the landscape of international collaboration in KH research, our review shows that researchers from several countries across different continents have been involved (Fig. 4a-b). In this vein, China has emerged as a central hub, as its researchers have formed strong research ties with researchers from the USA (12 collaborations), the UK (11 collaborations), and Pakistan (nine collaborations). This collaborative scholarly partnership reflects extensive global academic reach and interest in KH. Canada also played a pivotal role, particularly with Norway (four collaborations) and Slovenia (three collaborations), highlighting its position in fostering research across continents. Moreover, Pakistan has exhibited robust collaborative efforts, especially with the UAE (eight collaborations) and Canada (five collaborations), indicating its strategic partnership in advancing KH studies. Likewise, Indian scholars have also actively engaged in cross-border research initiatives, co-authoring with scholars from Australia (eight collaborations) and the UAE (one collaboration). Authors from these countries collectively contributed to a rich, interconnected network, driving the research agenda forward through collaborative endeavours. Science mapping Science mapping involves analytical techniques that uncover what knowledge exists and how it is interrelated within a domain Donthu et al. (2021). Science mapping of KH research was carried out using three bibliometric analysis techniques: i) co-citation analysis (in VOS- viewer) to reveal the major clusters/themes in KH research over the last two decades, ii) network analysis using keyword co-occurrences (in VOSviewer), and iii) thematic maps (in R-Studio) to unpack thematic evolution and key research themes. Co-citation networks Co-citation refers to the frequency with which two papers are cited together in another (Small, 1973). This technique has been extensively used in bibliometric analyses to uncover intellectual and conceptual structures within a research field. A higher co-citation frequency between two articles indicates greater similarity in their research areas (Culnan, 1987). Documents that are too old, with only a few citations, or too recent tend not to significantly impact the research domain Pilkington and Fitzgerald (2006). To focus on the most impactful publications on KH, we selected a threshold of 25 citations of a document for Table 3 Most significant articles for KH research. Author(s) Article Title Journal DOI TC Connelly et al. (2012 KH in organizations Journal of Organizational Behavior 10.1002/job.737 836 Al-alawi et al. (2007) Organizational culture and knowledge sharing: critical success factors Journal of Knowledge Management 10.1108/ 13,673,270,710,738,898 545 ˇ Cerne et al. (2014) What goes around comes around: KH, perceived motivational climate, and creativity Academy of Management Journal 10.5465/amj.2012.0122 539 Peng (2013) Why and when do people hide knowledge? Journal of Knowledge Management 10.1108/JKM-12–2012–0380 363 Serenko and Bontis (2016) Understanding counterproductive knowledge behavior: antecedents and consequences of intra-organizational KH Journal of Knowledge Management 10.1108/JKM-05–2016–0203 343 Connelly and Zweig (2015) How perpetrators and targets construe KH in organizations European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 10.1080/ 1359432X.2014.931325 337 Chang et al. (2020) How Blockchain can impact financial services–The overview, challenges and recommendations from expert interviewees Technological Forecasting and Social Change 10.1016/j. techfore.2020.120166 305 Michailova and Husted (2003) Knowledge-sharing hostility in Russian firms California Management Review 10.2307/41,166,176 260 Zhao et al. (2016) Workplace ostracism and KH in service organizations International Journal of Hospitality Management 10.1016/j.ijhm.2016.09.009 255 Singh (2019) Territoriality, task performance, and workplace deviance: Empirical evidence on role of KH Journal of Business Research 10.1016/j. jbusres.2018.12.034 230 Table 4 Top contributing authors for KH. Authors Start_Year NP h_index g_index TC TC/NP BUTT AS 2019 12 9 12 320 26.67 ˇ CERNE M 2014 10 9 10 1865 186.5 ISSAC AC 2018 9 7 9 153 17 ZHAO H 2016 9 7 9 601 66.78 ZHANG Z 2019 8 6 8 155 19.37 LUO J 2016 7 7 7 736 105.14 BARAL R 2018 7 6 7 145 20.71 FATIMA T 2019 7 5 7 229 32.71 CONNELLY CE 2008 7 7 7 2052 293.15 ˇ SKERLAVAJ M 2014 6 6 6 1449 241.5 ***NP- Number of publications, TC- Total citations, TC/NP- Average citations per publication. Table 5 Top contributing institutions and countries. Institutions’ Scientific Production Countries’ Scientific Production Shanghai University 25 China 282 Tongji University 22 Pakistan 128 University of Ljubljana 14 India 92 Huaqiao University 13 USA 53 Zhejiang University of Technology 12 Australia 49 American University of Ras Al Khaimah 12 Canada 43 South China University of Technology 12 UK 40 Swinburne University of Technology 10 UAE 29 Comsats University Islamabad 09 Italy 24 International Islamic University 09 Malaysia 22 H.M.U. Khizar et al. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 9 (2024) 100624 5 inclusion in the analysis. This ensures that the analysis remains centred on influential and relevant literature. Consequently, our findings revealed 44 studies that were categorised into four clusters based on thematic similarity (Fig. 5). Cluster 1 - KH and employees’ psychological, social, and behavioural dynamics. The first cluster (red) in our co-citation analysis (n =15) centres on the intricate dynamics of KH within organisational settings. In particular, the majority of studies in this cluster examined the antecedents and consequences of KH. Key studies in this cluster examined the psychological and social factors influencing KH, such as organisational politics, leadership dynamics, task interdependence and territoriality (e.g. Connelly et al., 2019; Singh, 2019). Scholars have also highlighted the role of work design, psychological safety, and organisational cynicism in motivating or deterring KH behaviours (Gagn´ e et al., 2019; Jiang et al., 2019). Moreover, this cluster includes studies related to psychological mechanisms from the perspective of knowledge hiders. In this regard, by delving into the emotional aftermath of KH, previous studies have suggested that feelings of guilt and shame drive different compensatory behaviours among employees (Burmeister et al., 2019). Collectively, these studies underscore the multifaceted nature of KH and its profound implications for organisational behaviour and performance. Cluster 2 - Theoretical Foundations and interpersonal relations in teams. Cluster 2 (green; n =14) largely includes seminal studies of KH and foundational theories utilised in prior research, including social exchange and agency theories (e.g. Connelly et al., 2012; Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Peng et al., 2013). Key studies in this cluster suggested that KH hampers creativity, creates distrust, and has varied impacts based on colleagues’ perceptions (ˇ Cerne et al., 2014; Connelly et al., 2012, 2015). Scholars have also highlighted an intricate link between KH and team creativity, revealing that absorptive capacity mediates this relationship, and task interdependence can mitigate the negative effects of KH (Fong et al., 2018). This cluster underscores the critical need for organisations to foster positive social exchange and open knowledge-sharing environments to enhance creativity and mitigate the adverse effects of KH on organisational dynamics and performance. Cluster 3 - Negative Workplace dynamics and KH. Cluster 3 (blue; n =9) examined the influence of negative workplace dynamics, such as abusive supervision, competitiveness, and workplace bullying, on KH behaviours. This cluster of studies suggests that abusive supervision and competitiveness increase KH, which consequently influences Fig. 3. a Authors collaborations. b Institutional collaborations. Fig. 4. a Countries productivity. b Countries collaborations. H.M.U. Khizar et al. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 9 (2024) 100624 6 employees’ creativity and triggers distrust (ˇ Cerne et al., 2014; Feng & Wang, 2019). These studies highlight the profound impact of negative workplace behaviours on KH and reveal the complex mechanisms and moderating factors that organisations must address to foster a more collaborative and innovative environment. Cluster 4 - Cultural and contextual influences. Cluster 4 (yellow; n =6) focuses on the interplay between cultural and contextual dynamics and Fig. 5. Co-citation network. Fig. 6. Keyword co-occurrence network. H.M.U. Khizar et al. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 9 (2024) 100624 7 KH behaviour. The key interconnected studies in this cluster include those by Serenko and Bontis (2016), Bogilovic et al. (2017), and Xiao and Cooke (2019). This cluster includes studies examining the impact of cultural intelligence (Bogilovi´ c et al., 2017), team dynamics (ˇ Cerne et al., 2017), and contextual settings such as the Chinese business environment (Huo et al., 2016) and Indian research and development professionals (Kumar Jha & Varkkey, 2018). This cluster highlights how KH varies across organisational and cultural contexts. Keyword co-occurrence analysis (Network analysis) Using the VOSviewer software, we performed a keyword cooccurrence analysis to identify key topics and their conceptual structures in KH scholarship. This analysis utilised all keywords (author keywords +index keywords), as they represent the study theme. Fig. 6 shows the network of keyword co-occurrences and the top keywords used in KH research, along with their total link strength. Keyword cooccurrence occurs when two keywords appear simultaneously in an article, indicating a relationship between them (Baker et al., 2020). Based on the analysis, four key clusters were identified. Each cluster is represented by a different colour (Fig. 6) and signifies a thematic grouping based on keyword associations within the studied literature. Cluster 1 (red) includes keywords like ‘knowledge management’ (66 occurrences, 100 link strength), ‘creativity’ (eight occurrences, 10 link strength), ‘human resource management’ (seven occurrences, 14 link strength), ‘psychological ownership’ (eight occurrences, 15 link strength), and ‘social exchange theory’ (12 occurrences, 15 link strength). This cluster highlights the integration of knowledge management with psychological and organisational theories to enhance creativity and human resource management effectiveness. Cluster 2 (green) comprises keywords such as ‘ethical leadership’ (seven occurrences, 14 link strength), ‘knowledge-sharing’ (15 occurrences, 35 link strength), ‘personnel’ (seven occurrences, 24 link strength), ‘psychological safety’ (seven occurrences, 13 link strength), and ‘qualitative research’ (seven occurrences, 10 link strength). This cluster focuses on the role of leadership, psychological factors, and qualitative methodologies in promoting knowledge-sharing behaviours. Cluster 3 (blue) features terms like ‘knowledge hoarding’ (22 occurrences, 36 link strength), ‘knowledge sharing’ (59 occurrences, 93 link strength), ‘knowledge transfer’ (seven occurrences, 5 link strength), ‘knowledge withholding’ (12 occurrences, 15 link strength), and ‘trust’ (seven occurrences, 6 link strength). This cluster emphasises the contrasting behaviours of knowledge sharing and hoarding and their implications for trust and knowledge transfer within organisations. Cluster 4 (yellow) includes ‘abusive supervision’ (17 occurrences, 25 link strength), ‘conservation of resources theory’ (10 occurrences, 12 link strength), ‘knowledge hiding’ (223 occurrences, 151 link strength), ‘moral disengagement’ (nine occurrences, 11 link strength), and ‘workplace ostracism’ (seven occurrences, 12 link strengths). This cluster examines negative workplace behaviours and their impact on knowledge hiding, supported by theories such as the conservation of resources. Thematic evolution and strategic map The thematic evolution of KH research over the past two decades revealed significant shifts and expansions in the field (Fig. 7). From 2003 to 2008, the focus was predominantly on knowledge sharing (or nonsharing) within the broader context of knowledge management. This foundational period set the stage for more specific enquiries. Between 2009 and 2013, knowledge management continued to be a central theme, with increased attention being paid to knowledge-sharing practices. However, during this period, studies began to emerge in Asian countries, including China, Pakistan, and India. Subsequently, the period from 2014 to 2018 marked a critical transition as the concept of KH became more prominent. This period witnessed a shift from merely sharing (or not sharing) knowledge to understanding why individuals withhold information. Moreover, innovation and creativity have emerged as prominent themes because of their association with workplace knowledge dynamics. In the most recent period, from 2019 to 2023, KH became a crucial research focus, with related themes such as knowledge hoarding, moral disengagement, and workplace ostracism gaining prominence. Recent studies have extended this debate and explored the personal, psychological, and social factors that influence knowledge behaviours (e.g. distrust, personality traits, and interpersonal relationships). In this regard, conservation of resources and social exchange theories provided deeper insight into the personal and interpersonal mechanisms that drive these behaviours. The thematic evolution of the KH literature underscores the growing recognition of the multifaceted nature of knowledge processes and the importance of fostering an environment that mitigates KH and promotes innovation and collaboration. Fig. 8 presents a thematic map (aka; strategic map) that reveals the distinct classifications and trends in the field. The X-axis represents the centrality and significance of a theme while the Y-axis represents the density and internal strength of a cluster network. In this 2 ×2 strategic diagram, the lower right quadrant classifies the basic themes (i.e. general topics that are transversal to different research areas of the field); the lower left quadrant contains emerging or declining themes (i.e. novel topics, or weakly developed research areas); the upper left quadrant depicts the niche and isolated themes (i.e. themes with a specialised focus); and finally, the upper right quadrant identifies motor Fig. 7. Thematic evolution. H.M.U. Khizar et al. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 9 (2024) 100624 8 KH behaviours and various mediating or moderating factors that may influence or regulate their occurrence and effects across all three levels. In particular, by uncovering various individual, interpersonal, and organisational factors such as psychological safety, leadership styles, and organisational justice, this review sheds light on how and why KH occurs and its various impacts across different levels of analysis. Another theoretical contribution of this review is the application of the TCM framework to highlight the current trends and future perspectives on the theories, context, and methods used in KH research. Specifically, our review emphasises the need to utilise new theoretical lenses (e.g. complexity theory and configurational approaches) to uncover the complex interactions of the various factors that cause KH. In addition, our review highlights the underexplored contexts (geographical and industrial) and provides a rationale for further exploration of emerging topics, such as the role of digital technologies in navigating KH behaviours and how factors such as remote work environments, cultural diversity, and evolving workplace practices influence KH. This study offers valuable insight for practitioners and managers in various industries. Managers can benefit from understanding the causes of KH (e.g. employee personality traits, team dynamics, leadership styles, and the organisational environment) to address this issue within their organisations. By addressing these causes, managers can foster a more open, collaborative, and knowledge-sharing culture within their organisation. It also emphasises the importance of understanding and addressing KH behaviour to foster employee support systems and Table 9 (continued) TCM-ADO Elements Gaps and Limitations in Existing Research Future Research Questions (FRQs) responses to KH, and their differential impacts on constructive vs. destructive emotions. - Lack of research on the positive or negative impacts of KH on interpersonal relationships. - Insufficient understanding of the intersection of KH with workplace deviant behaviour and organisational politics. FRQ- How do constructive emotions like guilt and destructive emotions like shame differentially impact KH and its outcomes? FRQ- How does KH intersect with workplace deviant behaviour and organisational politics? Outcomes (Mesolevel) - Limited research on the impact of KH on team dynamics and employee loyalty. - Insufficient understanding of how KH behaviours influence perceptions of team loyalty and organisational commitment. - Lack of exploration into the mechanisms through which KH affects team cohesion, trust, collaborations, and performance. - Lack of exploration into the mechanisms through which KH affects team cohesion and performance. FRQ- What factors determine the positive or negative impacts of KH on interpersonal relationships? FRQ- Examine team dynamics and leadership practices in shaping perceptions of loyalty related to KH behaviours. FRQ- What role do team dynamics and leadership practices play in shaping perceptions of loyalty in relation to KH behaviours? Outcomes (Macrolevel) - Limited research on the broader organisational implications of KH, particularly in relation to workplace deviant behaviour and organisational politics. - Insufficient understanding of the negative impact of KH behaviours on extra-role behaviour and the role of organisational support in mitigating its effects. - Limited investigation into the role of organisational support systems in promoting employee well-being and mitigating the adverse effects of KH. - Insufficient understanding of how KH behaviours influence organisational culture and overall workplace dynamics. FRQ- How does KH interact with workplace deviant behaviour and organisational politics, and what are the implications for task performance? FRQ- What mechanisms link KH to work overload, and how can organisational support systems mitigate its effects? FRQ- What are the broader organisational implications of KH for task performance and workplace behaviour? Theories - Heavy reliance on social exchange theory in KH research, with limited exploration of other theoretical perspectives. - Lack of application of system approaches, including complexity theory and configuration theory. - Limited understanding on the reasons/motivations behind KH through the lens of behavioural reasoning theory (BRT) - Limited development of new theoretical models of KH using these theories. - Insufficient investigation of the factors forming configurations for the presence or absence of KH using configuration theory. - Lack of exploration of the underlying reasons behind KH from a perpetrator perspective using behavioural reasoning theory. FRQ- How can configurational and contingency approaches be applied to KH research? FRQ- What new theoretical models can be developed to explain KH behaviours using these theories? FRQ- What factors form configurations for the presence or absence of KH as per configuration theory? FRQ- What underlying reasons behind KH can be uncovered using behavioural reasoning theory? Table 9 (continued) TCM-ADO Elements Gaps and Limitations in Existing Research Future Research Questions (FRQs) Contexts - Overrepresentation of the Asia-Pacific region and Europe in KH research, with limited representation of Africa, South America, and countries like Germany. - Lack of comparative studies on individual KH behaviours across different countries. - Limited exploration of the impact of religious beliefs and cultural differences on KH at individual, team, and organisational levels. - Insufficient understanding of the differences/similarities between collectivist and individualistic societies in approaching KH within organisations. FRQ- How do KH behaviours vary across different countries and cultures? FRQ- What is the impact of religious beliefs and cultural differences on KH at various organisational levels? FRQ- How do collectivist (vs. individualistic) societies differ or align in their approach to KH within organisations? FRQ- What insight can be gained from studying KH behaviours in underrepresented regions such as Africa and South America? Methods - Heavy reliance on traditional statistical methods such as regression analysis, ANOVA, and factor analysis in KH research. - Limited use of qualitative research methods to bridge methodological gaps and understand KH in service provider settings. - Lack of diverse research approaches, such as multiphase methods and fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA), in KH studies. - Insufficient longitudinal research to explain causal links between antecedents, decisions, and outcomes in KH. - Limited development of contextualised KH indicators aligned with the values of service providers. FRQ- How can qualitative research methods enhance our understanding of KH in service provider settings? FRQ- What insight can fsQCA provide in understanding the multiple interventions for KH behaviours? FRQ- How can longitudinal research better explain the causal links between antecedents, decisions, and outcomes in KH? FRQ- What contextualised KH indicators can be developed to align with the values of service providers? FRQ- How can a deeper understanding of KH help managers develop appropriate interventions and strategies to manage it? H.M.U. Khizar et al. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 9 (2024) 100624 15 cultivate a positive organisational culture that values the workforce. Finally, insight into how the motivation and outcomes of KH differ across different KH strategies (such as playing dumb, evasive, and rationalised) provide guidance for practitioners by enabling them to navigate KH dynamics from the perspectives of both knowledge seekers and hiders, taking into consideration the work context and job characteristics. Organisations may gain insight from this review to enhance knowledge sharing and management efforts, ultimately contributing to their overall success and reputation. This study has some limitations that should be considered when evaluating its implications. First, our selection of studies for inclusion in this review was based on a keyword search in two scientific databases: Scopus and Web of Science. There is a possibility of missing relevant studies for which our selected keywords were not used in their titles, abstracts, or keywords. Second, our review included only articles and review studies on this topic and excluded books, conference papers, essays, perspectives, and letters. Third, despite a thorough search for studies to be included in our review, it is possible that some relevant studies were missed because of the dynamic nature of the field of study and/or because they were published after December 2023. Finally, to develop the ADO-TCM framework in the second phase, we applied quality criteria, selecting only studies that were published in ABS 3-, 4-, and 4*-ranked journals. There is a possibility of missing key insights from other sources. Despite these limitations, this review serves as a knowledge base that provides both a quantitative and qualitative overview of the KH literature. Ethics statement This research ensures to maintain the anonymity of individuals and ensures no personal data or personally sensitive data are identifiable. CRediT authorship contribution statement Hafiz Muhammad Usman Khizar: Writing – review & editing, Visualization, Supervision, Software, Methodology, Data curation, Conceptualization. Rashid Khurshid: Writing – original draft, Investigation, Formal analysis. Mohammed Al-Waqfi: Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Data curation. Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that there is no financial and non-financial conflict of interest. References Abubakar, A. M., Behravesh, E., Rezapouraghdam, H., & Yildiz, S. B. (2019). Applying artificial intelligence technique to predict knowledge hiding behavior. International Journal of Information Management, 49, 45–57. Agarwal, U. A., Singh, S. K., & Cooke, F. L. (2024). Does Co-worker incivility increase perceived knowledge hiding? The Mediating Role of Work Engagement and turnover intentions and the moderating Role of cynicism. British Journal of Management, 35(3), 1281–1295. Al-Alawi, A. I., Al-Marzooqi, N. Y., & Mohammed, Y. F. (2007). Organizational culture and knowledge sharing: critical success factors. Journal of knowledge management, 11 (2), 22–42. Ali, M., Ali, I., Albort-Morant, G., & Leal-Rodríguez, A. L. (2021). How do job insecurity and perceived well-being affect expatriate employees’ willingness to share or hide knowledge? International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 17(1), 185–210. Ali, M., Usman, M., Khan, M. A. S., Shafique, I., & Mughal, F. (2024). Articulating cognizance about what to hide what not": Insights into why and when ethical leadership regulates employee knowledge-hiding behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, 190(4), 885–895. Almeida, J. G., Hartog, D. N. D., De Hoogh, A. H., Franco, V. R., & Porto, J. B. (2022). Harmful leader behaviors: Toward an increased understanding of how different forms of unethical leader behavior can harm subordinates. Journal of Business Ethics, 180(1), 215–244. Alnaimi, A. M. M., & Rjoub, H. (2021). Perceived organizational support, psychological entitlement, and extra-role behavior: The mediating role of knowledge hiding behavior. Journal of Management & Organization, 27(3), 507–522. Anand, A., Agarwal, U. A., & Offergelt, F. (2023). Why should I let them know? Effects of workplace incivility and cynicism on employee knowledge hiding behavior under the control of ethical leadership. International Journal of Manpower, 44(2), 247–266. Anand, A., Agarwal, U. A., & Offergelt, F. (2023). Why should I let them know? Effects of workplace incivility and cynicism on employee knowledge hiding behavior under the control of ethical leadership. International Journal of Manpower, 44(2), 247–266. Anand, A., Centobelli, P., & Cerchione, R. (2020). Why should I share knowledge with others? A review-based framework on events leading to knowledge hiding. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 33(2), 379–399. Andreeva, T., & Zappa, P. (2023). Whose lips are sealed? Gender differences in knowledge hiding at work. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 96 (4), 828–855. Arain, G. A., Bhatti, Z. A., Ashraf, N., & Fang, Y. H. (2020). Top-down knowledge hiding in organizations: an empirical study of the consequences of supervisor knowledge hiding among local and foreign workers in the Middle East. Journal of Business Ethics, 164(3), 611–625. Arain, G. A., Hameed, I., Umrani, W. A., Khan, A. K., & Sheikh, A. Z. (2021). Consequences of supervisor knowledge hiding in organizations: a multilevel mediation analysis. Applied Psychology, 70(3), 1242–1266. Arain, G. A., Bhatti, Z. A., Hameed, I., Khan, A. K., & Rudolph, C. W. (2024). A metaanalysis of the nomological network of knowledge hiding in organizations. Personnel Psychology, 77(2), 651–682. Ayub, A., Ajmal, T., Iqbal, S., Ghazanfar, S., Anwaar, M., & Ishaq, M. (2021). Abusive supervision and knowledge hiding in service organizations: exploring the boundary conditions. International Journal of Conflict Management, 32(5), 725–746. Babiˇ c, K., ˇ Cerne, M., ˇ Skerlavaj, M., & Zhang, P. (2018). The interplay among prosocial motivation, cultural tightness, and uncertainty avoidance in predicting knowledge hiding. Economic and Business Review, 20(3), 4. Bahoo, S., Alon, I., & Paltrinieri, A. (2020). Corruption in international business: A review and research agenda. International Business Review, 29(4), Article 101660. Baker, H. K., Pandey, N., Kumar, S., & Haldar, A. (2020). A bibliometric analysis of board diversity: Current status, development, and future research directions. Journal of business research, 108, 232–246. Bari, M. W., Khan, Q., & Waqas, A. (2023). Person related workplace bullying and knowledge hiding behaviors: relational psychological contract breach as an underlying mechanism. Journal of Knowledge Management, 27(5), 1299–1318. Bari, M. W., Ghaffar, M., & Ahmad, B. (2020). Knowledge-hiding behaviors and employees’ silence: mediating role of psychological contract breach. Journal of knowledge management, 24(9), 2171–2194. Batistiˇ c, S., & Poell, R. F. (2022). Do HR systems and relational climates affect knowledge hiding? An experiment and two-source multi-level study. Journal of Business Research, 147, 82–96. Bhukya, R., & Paul, J. (2023). Social influence research in consumer behavior: What we learned and what we need to learn?–A hybrid systematic literature review. Journal of Business Research, 162, 113870. Bogilovi´ c, S., ˇ Cerne, M., & ˇ Skerlavaj, M. (2017). Hiding behind a mask? Cultural intelligence, knowledge hiding, and individual and team creativity. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 26(5), 710–723. Boz Semerci, A. (2019). Examination of knowledge hiding with conflict, competition and personal values. International Journal of Conflict Management, 30(1), 111–131. Burmeister, A., Fasbender, U., & Gerpott, F. H. (2019). Consequences of knowledge hiding: The differential compensatory effects of guilt and shame. Journal of occupational and organizational psychology, 92(2), 281–304. Butt, A. S. (2020). Mitigating knowledge hiding in firms: an exploratory study. Baltic Journal of Management, 15(4), 631–645. Butt, A. S., & Ahmad, A. B. (2019). Are there any antecedents of top-down knowledge hiding in firms? Evidence from the United Arab Emirates. Journal of Knowledge Management, 23(8), 1605–1627. Cabrilo, S., Dahms, S., & Tsai, F. S. (2024). Synergy between multidimensional intellectual capital and digital knowledge management: Uncovering innovation performance complexities. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 9(4), Article 100568. Cao, Y. (2022). Effect of interpersonal injustice on knowledge hiding behavior: moderating role of high-performance work stress. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 858669. Caputo, F., Magni, D., Papa, A., & Corsi, C. (2021). Knowledge hiding in socioeconomic settings: matching organizational and environmental antecedents. Journal of Business Research, 135, 19–27. ˇ Cerne, M., Hernaus, T., Dysvik, A., & ˇ Skerlavaj, M. (2017). The role of multilevel synergistic interplay among team mastery climate, knowledge hiding, and job characteristics in stimulating innovative work behavior. Human Resource Management Journal, 27(2), 281–299. ˇ Cerne, M., Nerstad, C. G., Dysvik, A., & ˇ Skerlavaj, M. (2014). What goes around comes around: Knowledge hiding, perceived motivational climate, and creativity. Academy of Management journal, 57(1), 172–192. Chang, V., Baudier, P., Zhang, H., Xu, Q., Zhang, J., & Arami, M. (2020). How Blockchain can impact financial services–The overview, challenges and recommendations from expert interviewees. Technological forecasting and social change, 158, Article 120166. Chatterjee, S., Chaudhuri, R., Thrassou, A., & Vrontis, D. (2021). Antecedents and consequences of knowledge hiding: The moderating role of knowledge hiders and knowledge seekers in organizations. Journal of Business Research, 128, 303–313. Che, F., Zhou, Y., & Liu, Y. (2022). Social quality, knowledge hiding, and community capacity: a study on multi-ethnic communities in Chinese cities. Journal of Business Research, 144, 1024–1038. Cheng, B., Peng, Y., Shaalan, A., & Tourky, M. (2023). The hidden costs of negative workplace gossip: Its effect on targets’ behaviors, the mediating role of guanxi H.M.U. Khizar et al. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 9 (2024) 100624 16 closeness, and the moderating effect of need for affiliation. Journal of Business Ethics, 182(1), 287–302. Connelly, C. E., & Zweig, D. (2015). How perpetrators and targets construe knowledge hiding in organizations. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24 (3), 479–489. Connelly, C. E., ˇ Cerne, M., Dysvik, A., & ˇ Skerlavaj, M. (2019). Understanding knowledge hiding in organizations. Journal of organizational behavior, 40(7), 779–782. Connelly, C. E., Zweig, D., Webster, J., & Trougakos, J. P. (2012). Knowledge hiding in organizations. Journal of organizational behavior, 33(1), 64–88. Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of management, 31(6), 874–900. Culnan, M. J. (1987). Mapping the intellectual structure of MIS, 1980-1985: A co-citation analysis. Mis Quarterly, 341–353. Di Vaio, A., Hasan, S., Palladino, R., Profita, F., & Mejri, I. (2021). Understanding knowledge hiding in business organizations: A bibliometric analysis of research trends, 1988–2020. Journal of Business Research, 134, 560–573. Donate, M. J., Gonz´ alez-Mohíno, M., Appio, F. P., & Bernhard, F. (2022). Dealing with knowledge hiding to improve innovation capabilities in the hotel industry: The unconventional role of knowledge-oriented leadership. Journal of Business Research, 144, 572–586. Donthu, N., Kumar, S., & Pattnaik, D. (2020). Forty-five years of Journal of Business Research: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of business research, 109, 1–14. Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of business research, 133, 285–296. Duan, Y., Yang, M., Huang, L., Chin, T., Fiano, F., de Nuccio, E., & Zhou, L. (2022). Unveiling the impacts of explicit vs. tacit knowledge hiding on innovation quality: The moderating role of knowledge flow within a firm. Journal of Business Research, 139, 1489–1500. Dzhunushalieva, G., & Teuber, R. (2024). Roles of innovation in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 9(2), Article 100472. El-Kassar, A. N., Dagher, G. K., Lythreatis, S., & Azakir, M. (2022). Antecedents and consequences of knowledge hiding: The roles of HR practices, organizational support for creativity, creativity, innovative work behavior, and task performance. Journal of Business Research, 140, 1–10. Evans, J. M., Hendron, M. G., & Oldroyd, J. B. (2015). Withholding the ace: The individual-and unit-level performance effects of self-reported and perceived knowledge hoarding. Organization Science, 26(2), 494–510. Fauzi, M. A. (2023). Knowledge hiding behavior in higher education institutions: a scientometric analysis and systematic literature review approach. Journal of Knowledge Management, 27(2), 302–327. Feng, J., & Wang, C. (2019). Does abusive supervision always promote employees to hide knowledge? From both reactance and COR perspectives. Journal of Knowledge Management, 23(7), 1455–1474. Fong, P. S., Men, C., Luo, J., & Jia, R. (2018). Knowledge hiding and team creativity: the contingent role of task interdependence. Management Decision, 56(2), 329–343. Gagn´ e, M., Tian, A. W., Soo, C., Zhang, B., Ho, K. S. B., & Hosszu, K. (2019). Different motivations for knowledge sharing and hiding: The role of motivating work design. Journal of organizational behavior, 40(7), 783–799. Garg, N., Talukdar, A., Ganguly, A., & Kumar, C. (2021). Knowledge hiding in academia: an empirical study of Indian higher education students. Journal of Knowledge Management, 25(9), 2196–2219. Guo, M., Brown, G., & Zhang, L. (2022). My knowledge: The negative impact of territorial feelings on employee’s own innovation through knowledge hiding. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 43(5), 801–817. Haar, J., O’Kane, C., & Cunningham, J. A. (2022). Firm-level antecedents and consequences of knowledge hiding climate. Journal of Business Research, 141, 410–421. Hadjielias, E., Christofi, M., & Tarba, S. (2021). Knowledge hiding and knowledge sharing in small family farms: A stewardship view. Journal of business research, 137, 279–292. Han, M. S., Masood, K., Cudjoe, D., & Wang, Y. (2021). Knowledge hiding as the dark side of competitive psychological climate. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 42(2), 195–207. Hays, N. A., Li, H., Yang, X., Oh, J. K., Yu, A., Chen, Y. R., & Jamieson, B. B. (2022). A tale of two hierarchies: Interactive effects of power differentiation and status differentiation on team performance. Organization Science, 33(6), 2085–2105. Hernaus, T., & ˇ Cerne, M. (2022). Trait and/or situation for evasive knowledge hiding? Multiple versus mixed-motives perspective of trait competitiveness and prosocial motivation in low-and high-trust work relationships. European journal of work and organizational psychology, 31(6), 854–868. Huo, W., Cai, Z., Luo, J., Men, C., & Jia, R. (2016). Antecedents and intervention mechanisms: a multi-level study of R&D team’s knowledge hiding behavior. Journal of Knowledge Management, 20(5), 880–897. Idrees, H., Xu, J., Haider, S. A., & Tehseen, S. (2023). A systematic review of knowledge management and new product development projects: Trends, issues, and challenges. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 8(2), Article 100350. Islam, T., Ahmed, I., Usman, A., & Ali, M. (2021). Abusive supervision and knowledge hiding: the moderating roles of future orientation and Islamic work ethics. Management Research Review, 44(12), 1565–1582. Jafari-Sadeghi, V., Mahdiraji, H. A., Devalle, A., & Pellicelli, A. C. (2022). Somebody is hiding something: Disentangling interpersonal level drivers and consequences of knowledge hiding in international entrepreneurial firms. Journal of Business Research, 139, 383–396. Jahanzeb, S., De Clercq, D., & Fatima, T. (2021). Organizational injustice and knowledge hiding: the roles of organizational dis-identification and benevolence. Management Decision, 59(2), 446–462. Jiang, Z., Hu, X., Wang, Z., & Jiang, X. (2019). Knowledge hiding as a barrier to thriving: The mediating role of psychological safety and moderating role of organizational cynicism. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(7), 800–818. Khan, A. G., Li, Y., Akram, Z., & Akram, U. (2022). Does bad gossiping trigger for targets to hide knowledge in morally disengaged? New multi-level insights of team relational conflict. Journal of Knowledge Management, 26(9), 2370–2394. Khelladi, I., Castellano, S., Hobeika, J., Perano, M., & Rutambuka, D. (2022). Customer knowledge hiding behavior in service multi-sided platforms. Journal of Business Research, 140, 482–490. Khizar, H. M. U., Younas, A., Kumar, S., Akbar, A., & Poulova, P. (2023). The progression of sustainable development goals in tourism: A systematic literature review of past achievements and future promises. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 8(4), Article 100442. Khoreva, V., & Wechtler, H. (2020). Exploring the consequences of knowledge hiding: an agency theory perspective. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 35(2), 71–84. Kim, H. T., & Nguyen, Q. (2023). Linking top managers’ behavioural traits with business practices and firm performance. Review of Managerial Science, 1–44. Kmieciak, R. (2023). Knowledge-withholding behaviours among IT specialists: the roles of job insecurity, work overload and supervisor support. Journal of Management & Organization, 29(2), 383–399. Koay, K. Y., & Lim, P. K. (2022). Ethical leadership and knowledge hiding: testing the mediating and moderating mechanisms. Journal of Knowledge Management, 26(3), 574–591. Kumar Jha, J., & Varkkey, B. (2018). Are you a cistern or a channel? Exploring factors triggering knowledge-hiding behavior at the workplace: evidence from the Indian R&D professionals. Journal of Knowledge Management, 22(4), 824–849. Li, C. S., Liao, H., & Han, Y. (2022). I despise but also envy you: A dyadic investigation of perceived overqualification, perceived relative qualification, and knowledge hiding. Personnel Psychology, 75(1), 91–118. Liu, Y., Zhu, J. N., & Lam, L. W. (2020). Obligations and feeling envied: A study of workplace status and knowledge hiding. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 35(5), 347–359. Men, C., Fong, P. S., Huo, W., Zhong, J., Jia, R., & Luo, J. (2020). Ethical leadership and knowledge hiding: a moderated mediation model of psychological safety and mastery climate. Journal of Business Ethics, 166, 461–472. Michailova, S., & Husted, K. (2003). Knowledge-sharing hostility in Russian firms. California management review, 45(3), 59–77. Nguyen, T. M., Malik, A., & Budhwar, P. (2022). Knowledge hiding in organizational crisis: The moderating role of leadership. Journal of Business Research, 139, 161–172. Offergelt, F., Sp¨ orrle, M., Moser, K., & Shaw, J. D. (2019). Leader-signaled knowledge hiding: Effects on employees’ job attitudes and empowerment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(7), 819–833. Oubrich, M., Hakmaoui, A., Benhayoun, L., S¨ oilen, K. S., & Abdulkader, B. (2021). Impacts of leadership style, organizational design and HRM practices on knowledge hiding: The indirect roles of organizational justice and competitive work environment. Journal of Business Research, 137, 488–499. Pan, W., Lua, E., Yang, Z., & Su, Y. (2024). When and How Knowledge Hiding Motivates Perpetrators’ Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 193(2), 325–344. Pan, W., Zhang, Q., Teo, T. S., & Lim, V. K. (2018). The dark triad and knowledge hiding. International Journal of Information Management, 42, 36–48. Paul, J., & Criado, A. R. (2020). The art of writing literature review: What do we know and what do we need to know? International business review, 29(4), Article 101717. Paul, J., & Benito, G. R. (2018). A review of research on outward foreign direct investment from emerging countries, including China: what do we know, how do we know and where should we be heading? Asia Pacific Business Review, 24(1), 90–115. Paul, J., Lim, W. M., O’Cass, A., Hao, A. W., & Bresciani, S. (2021). Scientific procedures and rationales for systematic literature reviews (SPAR-4-SLR). International Journal of Consumer Studies, 45(4), O1–O16. Peng, H. (2013). Why and when do people hide knowledge? Journal of knowledge management, 17(3), 398–415. Peng, J., Wang, Z., & Chen, X. (2019). Does self-serving leadership hinder team creativity? A moderated dual-path model. Journal of Business Ethics, 159, 419–433. Peng, H., Bell, C., & Li, Y. (2021). How and when intragroup relationship conflict leads to knowledge hiding: the roles of envy and trait competitiveness. International Journal of Conflict Management, 32(3), 383–406. Pereira, V., & Mohiya, M. (2021). Share or hide? Investigating positive and negative employee intentions and organizational support in the context of knowledge sharing and hiding. Journal of business research, 129, 368–381. Pilkington, A., & Fitzgerald, R. (2006). Operations management themes, concepts and relationships: a forward retrospective of IJOPM. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 26(11), 1255–1275. Pour, H. R. S., Abadi, M. D., Narouei, B., Bakhshi, H., & Maligaya, D. E. (2024). The Impact of Despotic Leadership on Knowledge Hiding Through Mediate of Psychological Contract Violation; the Moderating Role of Islamic Work Ethics. International Journal of Business and Management Sciences, 5(1), 1–21. Rhee, Y. W., & Choi, J. N. (2017). Knowledge management behavior and individual creativity: Goal orientations as antecedents and in-group social status as moderating contingency. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(6), 813–832. Serenko, A., & Bontis, N. (2016). Understanding counterproductive knowledge behavior: antecedents and consequences of intra-organizational knowledge hiding. Journal of knowledge management, 20(6), 1199–1224. H.M.U. Khizar et al. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 9 (2024) 100624 17 Shan, H., Bai, D., Li, Y., Shi, J., & Yang, S. (2023). Supply chain partnership and innovation performance of manufacturing firms: Mediating effect of knowledge sharing and moderating effect of knowledge distance. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 8(4), Article 100431. Shrivastava, S., Pazzaglia, F., & Sonpar, K. (2021). The role of nature of knowledge and knowledge creating processes in knowledge hiding: Reframing knowledge hiding. Journal of Business Research, 136, 644–651. Siachou, E., Trichina, E., Papasolomou, I., & Sakka, G. (2021). Why do employees hide their knowledge and what are the consequences? A systematic literature review. Journal of Business Research, 135, 195–213. Silva de Garcia, P., Oliveira, M., & Brohman, K. (2022). Knowledge sharing, hiding and hoarding: how are they related? Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 20(3), 339–351. Singh, S. K. (2019). Territoriality, task performance, and workplace deviance: Empirical evidence on role of knowledge hiding. Journal of Business Research, 97, 10–19. Small, H. (1973). Co-citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents. Journal of the American Society for information Science, 24(4), 265–269. Sofyan, Y., De Clercq, D., & Shang, Y. (2023). Detrimental effects of work overload on knowledge hiding in competitive organisational climates. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 61(2), 324–354. Soral, P., Pati, S. P., & Kakani, R. K. (2022). Knowledge hiding as a coping response to the supervisors’ dark triad of personality: A protection motivation theory perspective. Journal of Business Research, 142, 1077–1091. Tan, C., Zhang, J., & Zhang, Y. (2022). The mechanism of team-member exchange on knowledge hiding under the background of “Guanxi. Journal of Business Research, 148, 304–314. Thomas, A., & Gupta, V. (2022). Tacit knowledge in organizations: bibliometrics and a framework-based systematic review of antecedents, outcomes, theories, methods and future directions. Journal of Knowledge Management, 26(4), 1014–1041. ud din Khan, H. S., Li, P., Chughtai, M. S., Mushtaq, M. T., & Zeng, X. (2023). The role of knowledge sharing and creative self-efficacy on the self-leadership and innovative work behavior relationship. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 8(4), Article 100441. Venz, L., & Nesher Shoshan, H. (2022). Be smart, play dumb? A transactional perspective on day-specific knowledge hiding, interpersonal conflict, and psychological strain. Human Relations, 75(1), 113–138. Vidic, F. (2022). Knowledge asset as competitive resource. Socioeconomic challenges, 6(4), 8–20. Wang, C., Wang, Z., Chen, K., & Feng, J. (2022). Double-edged sword of perceived mastery climate on evasive knowledge hiding: the mediating roles of perceived status and perceived social support. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 37(8), 729–745. Weng, Q., Latif, K., Khan, A. K., Tariq, H., Butt, H. P., Obaid, A., & Sarwar, N. (2020). Loaded with knowledge, yet green with envy: leader–member exchange comparison and coworkers-directed knowledge hiding behavior. Journal of Knowledge Management, 24(7), 1653–1680. Xia, Q., Yan, S., Zhao, H., & Cheng, K. (2022). Request politeness and knowledge hiding: a daily diary study through an affective events perspective. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 31(4), 496–509. Xiao, M. (2024). Antecedents and consequences of perpetrator-centric knowledge hiding within organizations: a cross-cultural meta-analytic review and implications for human resource management. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 35(5), 806–867. Xiao, M., & Cooke, F. L. (2019). Why and when knowledge hiding in the workplace is harmful: a review of the literature and directions for future research in the Chinese context. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 57(4), 470–502. Xiong, C., Chang, V., Scuotto, V., Shi, Y., & Paoloni, N. (2021). The social-psychological approach in understanding knowledge hiding within international R&D teams: An inductive analysis. Journal of Business Research, 128, 799–811. Yang, F., Dong, K., Yang, L., & Mardani, A. (2023). The effect of evasive knowledge hiding on dual innovation behavior under low knowledge potential difference: Hinder or promote? Journal of Business Research, 161, Article 113770. Yao, G., Zhao, H., Hu, Y., & Zheng, X. (2023). Exploring knowledge sharing and hiding on employees’ creative behaviors: A coopetition perspective. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 8(4), Article 100447. Zhang, Z., & Ji, X. (2023). A Virtual Net Locks Me In: How and When Information and Communication Technology Use Intensity Leads to Knowledge Hiding. Journal of Business Ethics, 187(3), 611–626. Zhao, H., & Jiang, J. (2022). Role stress, emotional exhaustion, and knowledge hiding: The joint moderating effects of network centrality and structural holes. Current Psychology, 41(12), 8829–8841. Zhao, H., Liu, W., Li, J., & Yu, X. (2019). Leader–member exchange, organizational identification, and knowledge hiding: The moderating role of relative leader–member exchange. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(7), 834–848. Zhao, H., Xia, Q., He, P., Sheard, G., & Wan, P. (2016). Workplace ostracism and knowledge hiding in service organizations. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 59, 84–94. Zhao, H., Zhao, S., Chen, Y., & Yu, X. (2023). Bystanders’ reactions to leader knowledge hiding: The roles of moral disengagement and moral identity. Journal of Business Research, 165, Article 114029. H.M.U. Khizar et al. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 9 (2024) 100624 18