Abstract
Purpose: Using moral licensing theory, this study investigated the relationship between volunteering and knowledge hiding. Moreover, pride (authentic and hubristic pride) is a mediator between volunteering and knowledge-hiding.
Design/methodology/approach: This study used a time-lag approach and a sample of 545 individuals from Pakistani public-sector research-oriented institutions. The partial least squares structural equation modelling method is applied through SmartPLS 4 for data analysis.
Findings/results: Volunteering has a significant association with rationalised hiding. However, it has no significant association with evasive hiding and playing dumb. The mediation analyses revealed that authentic pride and hubristic pride significantly mediate between volunteering and knowledge hiding. The results show that hubristic pride mediates the impact of volunteering on rationalised hiding and playing dumb better than authentic pride. On the other hand, authentic pride significantly mediates the relationship between volunteering and evasive hiding.
Practical implications: The study extends the generalisability of moral licensing theory and provides considerable implications for organisations, particularly research-oriented departments.
Originality/value: Drawing upon moral licensing theory, this study supplies a rare perspective on the adverse outcomes of apparently good organisational behaviours by investigating how employee volunteering engenders knowledge-hiding behaviours in the workplace. These findings imply businesses should carefully monitor employee volunteering to avoid negative consequences and promote cooperation rather than knowledge-hiding.
Keywords: volunteering; knowledge hiding; hubristic pride; authentic pride; moral licensing theory.
Introduction
Traditionally, volunteerism refers to the unpaid contribution of time, talent and effort by organisational members to support charitable and/or non-profit entities (Rodell & Lynch, 2016). Volunteerism now has a different interpretation for for-profit organisations. Scholars consider volunteering as a positive employee behaviour that improves organisational citizenship behaviour (Erks et al., 2021), task performance (Rodell, 2013), employee engagement (Rupp et al., 2018), organisational loyalty (Ding et al., 2021), innovative work behaviour (Afridi et al., 2020) and organisational commitment (Breitsohl & Ehrig, 2017). Volunteering’s upsides are widely studied and proven. However, the dark side of volunteering is still underexplored. Recent studies revealed potential dark aspects of volunteering in the workplace, such as burnout (Morse, 2022), distressed behaviour (Loi et al., 2020) and impression management (Rodell & Lynch, 2016). Hence, volunteering can lead to the emergence of counterproductive behaviour in the workplace, that is, knowledge-hiding behaviours (KHB) that require further inquiry.
Knowledge-hiding behaviour is the intentional behaviour of knowledge holders to conceal knowledge from the knowledge seekers when they request it (Connelly et al., 2019; Hernaus et al., 2019). A knowledge holder can adopt different strategies for knowledge hiding, that is, evasive hiding, playing dumb or rationalised hiding (Connelly et al., 2019). The knowledge holder, in evasive concealing, provides false or misleading responses to enquiries and may employ techniques to evade sharing by making deceptive promises for the future (Connelly & Zweig, 2015). In playing dumb, the knowledge holder denies having the knowledge to those seeking it (Babič et al., 2019; Hernaus et al., 2019), and in rationalised hiding, the knowledge holder justifies his or her refusal by citing the boss’s restrictive directions (Connelly & Zweig, 2015).
The moral licensing theory (MLT) holds that those who initially exhibit moral behaviours may later engage in deviant or morally dubious behaviours (Merritt et al., 2010). Volunteers may perceive themselves as being granted a licence allowing them to engage in negative activities (Merritt et al., 2010), for example, wasting time in gossip, leaving early, favouritism and hiding knowledge. A volunteer believes he or she is not legally or morally bound to share his or her complete knowledge with anyone at any time because of his or her history of volunteer activities. Moral licensing theory is a cognitive mechanism that assists individuals in maintaining a cognitive equilibrium between morally good and morally questionable actions. Hence, drawing on MLT, employees may gain moral credits through volunteering and then use those credits to justify their less admirable behaviour, such as hiding knowledge.
Participation in volunteering activities fosters a feeling of pride among participants, either genuine or entitled (Thomas et al., 2017). Pride, both positively and negatively, impacts mutual relationships and internal attribution of success on receiving compliments from others (Tracy et al., 2023; Weidman et al., 2016). Tracy and Robins (2014) categorised the self-conscious emotion of pride into authentic pride (AP) and hubristic pride (HP). Both have different psychological characteristics and behavioural consequences (Tracy & Robins, 2014). Authentic pride is a positive emotion that boosts self-confidence and achievement. It arises from internal sources and prosocial traits and is grounded in self-satisfaction, while HP is characterised by arrogance and antisocial behaviours (Bagozzi et al., 2018). Authentic pride is seen as more sociable and achievement focused than HP (Tracy et al., 2023). Han et al. (2022) reported that pride may cause employees to act deviantly. Particularly, those who are engaged in volunteering value themselves by their contributions. Upon comparison, they may feel self-worth, potentially leading volunteers to hide information from coworkers. This study uses MLT to suggest pride as a mediator between volunteering and KHB.
This investigation has two objectives. Firstly is to determine whether volunteers can exhibit KHB. Secondly is to determine which form of pride, that is, AP or HP, develops more in employees because of volunteering activities and how pride differentially impacts certain KHBs. This study has two research questions to achieve its objectives. Firstly, what is the impact of volunteering on KHB within an organisational setting? Secondly, how does pride (AP and HP) act as an underlying mechanism between volunteering and KHB? For empirical investigation, this study performed analyses and provided recommendations based on Pakistan’s research and development institutes’ employee data. Hence, exploring the dark side of volunteering and its effects on employees working in Pakistan’s public-sector research-oriented institutions is of great significance as these entities contribute to future capability enhancement, innovation and process improvement.
This study presents a more nuanced perspective on how organisations might face unexpected outcomes stemming from good intentions by thoroughly investigating the relationship between employees’ volunteering and KHB. By introducing pride (AP and HP), this study also advances our understanding of the emotional aspects that turn volunteering into counterproductive conduct. The findings offer significant insights for managers and leaders in the development of volunteer programmes and tactics for handling emotions to mitigate unexpected outcomes. The findings offer significant insights for managers and leaders in the development of volunteer programmes and tactics for handling emotions to mitigate unexpected outcomes. This study addresses recent calls for in-depth analysis of the negative aspects associated with actions that may appear to be positive. The subsequent sections review the literature on volunteering, KHBs and pride; formulate hypotheses; outline the methodology; present data analysis and findings and finally draw conclusions, including future research and study limitations.
Literature review and study framework
Moral licensing theory
Moral licensing is a psychological process wherein individuals, based on their previous good deeds, rationalise their behaviours that are deemed morally ambiguous (Miller & Effron, 2010). The MLT posits that engaging in socially and ethically desirable acts can foster a sense of pride and privilege that further vindicates immoral actions (Nguyen, 2021). The MLT consists of two distinct mechanisms: moral credits and moral credentials. While they serve different purposes, both explain how moral acts can lead to immoral ones. Moral credits are similar to a bank account, debiting and crediting moral or ethical actions. In a credit shortfall, he or she must add more good deeds (Zhong et al., 2009). In a moral credit surplus case, one tends to take moral credit out to settle their transgressive behaviours (Monin & Miller, 2001). Scholars interpret surplus moral credits as permitted licences to engage in immoral activities (Effron & Monin, 2010; Loi et al., 2020).
Moral credentials are another MLT mechanism. An individual’s moral self-respect is contingent upon the perceptions of others. The moral track record interprets ambiguous action in line with moral self-image. The moral credentials perspective holds that earlier good acts generate credentials, which make future questionable acts sound less unethical (Nguyen, 2021). This construal reasoning justifies morally questionable actions (Loi et al., 2020). Both lenses inherently differ. Moral credits are past good acts that impact current evil deeds, whereas moral credentials affect moral self-image as a construe for future harmful acts (Loi et al., 2020). The results of ethical actions are the same, whether they increase moral credit or credentials (Lin et al., 2016).
Volunteering
The literature has defined volunteering as a form of prosocial behaviour of individuals ready to dedicate their time, skill and energy to improve society (Rodell & Lynch, 2016; Sekar & Dyaram, 2021). It was initially seen as a deliberate and unpaid donation for a non-profit entity (Rodell et al., 2016). However, corporate organisations today value volunteerism and acknowledge the benefits volunteers bring them (Erks et al., 2021). Today’s businesses thrive when employees are ready to take on any challenge and exert extra efforts for the company’s good (Breitsohl & Ehrig, 2017). Despite the benefits of volunteering, it is important to understand why some volunteers participate in undesired acts that hinder the achievement of an organisation’s objectives.
Volunteering can occur in formal or informal settings. Formal volunteering is associated with structured efforts with predetermined objectives, policies and procedures, whereas informal volunteering pertains to an individual’s aspiration (Loosemore & Bridgeman, 2017). Organisations frequently adopt volunteering initiatives to improve their corporate image and social acceptability (Brown et al., 2019) while employees as volunteers dedicate their resources, that is, time, skills and energy, to ensure the smooth operations of organisational activities (Clary & Snyder, 1999). Business organisations keenly monitor employees’ volunteering at the workplace and its significant impact on the organisation and its employees (Ding et al., 2021). Given that prior studies have indicated that volunteers are more likely to feel entitled and act deviantly at work (Loi et al., 2020; Morse, 2022; Rodell & Lynch, 2016), it is worthwhile to investigate why volunteers engage in counterproductive work behaviours like KHBs. This phenomenon is explained by MLT when people use their past good deeds to justify unethical behaviour. Volunteering makes volunteers feel licensed to act deviantly.
Volunteering and evasive knowledge hiding
Several studies have explored KHB-related behavioural antecedents and outcomes. For example, exposing relationships between KHB and workplace competition (Anand et al., 2020), burnout and interpersonal conflicts (Ali et al., 2021), task and relationship conflict (Boz Semerci, 2019), organisational politics and role stress (Malik et al., 2019), psychological entitlement and competitive psychological climate (Alnaimi & Rjoub, 2021), abusive supervision (Ayub, 2021), workplace ostracism (Bhatti et al., 2022), workplace incivility and organisational injustice (Arshad & Ismail, 2018), etc. However, knowledge management literature has neglected significant aspects such as volunteering. Drawing on MLT, employees who volunteer at work could view their voluntary acts as moral points, which they use to rationalise their questionable behaviour, such as hiding pertinent information from others.
All three dimensions of KHB differ in their causes and effects (Connelly et al., 2019). Evasive hiding (EH) is the most deceptive form of KHB (Burmeister et al., 2019), stemming from a combination of individual and job-related characteristics at the workplace (Hernaus et al., 2019) and can spark negative emotions. Contextual factors such as competitiveness and performance pressure, resource ownership, mistreatment from others, shared identity and societal values force individuals to hide task-relevant knowledge to strengthen their organisational standing (Anand et al., 2020). Evasive hider has a strong psychological attachment to his or her acquired expertise (Guo et al., 2022). Such individuals deliberately delay knowledge sharing or share incomplete knowledge to stay competitive (Connelly et al., 2012). Employees may engage in EH by providing inaccurate information owing to workplace competitiveness (Hernaus et al., 2019). Employee volunteering may lead to counterproductive work behaviour at the workplace (Morse, 2022), such as KHB (Connelly et al., 2012). Drawing on MLT, the individuals who initially engaged in voluntary knowledge sharing may then exclude themselves from future knowledge sharing. Thus, this study proposes that:
H1a: Employee volunteering leads to evasive knowledge hiding.
Volunteering and playing dumb
Playing dumb is another duplicitous form of KHB (Burmeister et al., 2019). To hide the requested knowledge, playing dumb, knowledge hiders consciously act ignorantly and misinterpret the facts (Connelly & Zweig, 2015). Knowledge seekers may find playing dumb challenging to deal with because it is hard for them to determine whether the person is genuinely uninformed or is intentionally hiding information (Arias-pérez & Vélez-jaramillo, 2022). Personal concerns about maintaining and asserting control over one’s knowledge encourage playing dumb tactics (Guo et al., 2022). Wang et al. (2024) distinguished deceptive KHB (playing dumb and evasive hiding) as open and closed deceit. Scholars contend that playing dumb is a form of open deceit, as the hider is under the impression that they are unaware of the information the seeker is requesting. However, evasive hiding is a form of close deceit, as it involves providing partial information or pretending to give it later. Similar to evasive hiding, playing dumb induces unpleasant emotions at work.
Engaging in volunteer work can foster counterproductive behaviours within the workplace (Loi et al., 2020), including KHB, owing to moral licensing mechanisms. Through MLT, the volunteers initially engaged in knowledge sharing may grant themselves moral credits and moral credentials to hide requested knowledge (Effron & Monin, 2010). When a colleague asks about a shared topic, volunteers are likely to respond with ‘I do not know’. Playing dumb knowledge hiders try to convince others to believe lies (Wang et al., 2024). Volunteers in the workplace may exhibit the behaviour of playing dumb. Therefore, this study suggests that:
H1b: Volunteering is positively associated with playing dumb.
Volunteering and rationalised hiding
Rationalised hiding is a more direct and overt form of KHB (Arias-pérez & Vélez-jaramillo, 2022). It represents a relatively low level of deception as it involves the hider’s justification or explanation for the non-disclosure of information (Connelly et al., 2012). Compared to other forms of KHB, rationalised hiding tends to generate more favourable responses (Connelly & Zweig, 2015). Genuine organisational constraints on information sharing purportedly drive rationalised hiding (Guo et al., 2022). Sometimes, it is executed to preserve others’ feelings and to protect organisational interests (Koay et al., 2022). Individuals often try to hide their knowledge by justifying their inability to share information (Connelly & Zweig, 2015). The decision to hide information is contingent upon the hider’s assessment of the situation. Sometimes, being a rationalised hider may not necessarily have altruistic intentions (Connelly et al., 2012). Such a hider offers knowledge seekers a compelling justification for denial, making it easier for them to accept and maintain positive interpersonal relationships and be less hostile (Wu & Liu, 2023).
Volunteering can potentially bring about counterproductive workplace behaviours (Loi et al., 2020), that is, KHB. A volunteer may engage in rationalised hiding by employing tactful deception to protect someone’s privacy or the secrecy of crucial information. Likewise, rationalised hiding is more likely when the hider believes his or her knowledge power is being eroded (Koay et al., 2022). Drawing on MLT, the volunteers initially engaged in knowledge sharing may grant themselves moral points to hide requested knowledge in the future (Effron & Monin, 2010). As another coping mechanism, individuals employ, it is rational to propose that volunteers are more inclined to avoid responding to knowledge requests by being rationalised to preserve organisational interest. Hence, this study proposes that:
However, H1c: Volunteering is positively associated with rationalised hiding.
Authentic pride as a mediator
Having true pride in oneself is what is meant by ‘authentic pride’ (Ho et al., 2016). It is a socially desirable emotion (Tracy et al., 2023) that can be attained through self-ability, competence, skills and knowledge (Bodolica & Spraggon, 2011), also known as proper pride (Lewis, 2008). Authentic pride is associated with internal drive and positively increases an individual’s self-confidence in goal achievement (Tracy et al., 2009). Authentic pride usually grows through mastery of learning or interpersonal processes (Ho et al., 2016). Individuals with AP feel valued and acknowledged for their accomplishments (Sanders et al., 2018). Hence, they share their knowledge and expertise more. The AP holders are more likely to exhibit moral behaviours and resilience, relying on their self-confidence and competence (Bodolica & Spraggon, 2011). Individuals with AP have significant personality flexibility (Tracy et al., 2010). Thus, individuals may conceal knowledge when they believe they have a sense of mastery over it (Anand et al., 2020).
Following the argument of Han et al. (2022) and Rezwan and Takahashi (2021), this study proposes an indirect connection between volunteering and KHB. Pride is likely to serve as an intermediary mechanism between volunteering and KHB. Primarily and gradually, volunteers experience a sense of pride (AP) while engaging in unpaid activities (Ho et al., 2016; Septianto et al., 2018), and this increased sense of AP may hide imperative information from their colleagues to maintain their position and competitiveness. Thus, based on the properties of MLT, this study proposes AP as a mediator between volunteering and KHB. This leads to the following hypotheses:
H2a: AP mediates the relationship between volunteering and evasive hiding.
H2b: AP mediates the relationship between volunteering and playing dumb.
H2c: AP mediates the relationship between volunteering and rationalised hiding.
Hubristic pride as a mediator
Hubristic pride, the dark side of pride, refers to extreme feelings of self-importance and excessive confidence in one’s abilities (Tracy et al., 2023). Several studies have related this psychological emotion to deleterious conduct in the workplace, for example, arrogance (Tracy & Prehn, 2012), moral disengagement (Stanger et al., 2020) and KHB (Han et al., 2022). Hubristic pride is associated with external motives, that is, power and position (Bodolica & Spraggon, 2011). Individuals with hubristic traits are self-centred (Ho et al., 2016), uncaring and antisocial (Tracy et al., 2010). Hubristic pride is the bare expression of one’s self-interpretation. For instance, an individual may believe he or she is born excellent or superior. He or she attributes his or her accomplishments to luck (Tracy & Robins, 2007) and desires self-affirmation (Tracy et al., 2009). Hubristic pride has antisocial consequences (Tracy & Robins, 2007), that is, low self-esteem (Tracy et al., 2009) and short-term focus (Ho et al., 2016). Hubristic pride impacts individuals and organisational performance (Ho et al., 2016) and weakens social networks (Han et al., 2022). When confronted with situations outside of their comfort zone, people with HP experience insecurity and become obsessed with maintaining their self-regard (Ho et al., 2016).
Numerous scholarly investigations have examined the effects of pride from diverse angles within the organisational setting (Bagozzi et al., 2018; Han et al., 2022; Sanders et al., 2018). Volunteers perceive their importance according to the impact of their contributions. Volunteers may take pride in their unpaid work, which grows with time. Volunteers hide vital information from their peers or coworkers to maintain their supremacy. It is in line with the notion that positive emotions yield negative impacts (Septianto et al., 2019); pride, being a positive emotion, creates a positive vibe about success, and when it crosses its limits, it ascends to a relatively negative side. So, it is assumed that HP may cause counterproductive behaviours to protect and maintain their dignity. The current study proposes that HP mediates volunteering and KHB, using MLT. Figure 1 presents the following study framework and the relationships of the variables. The following hypotheses are constructed:
H3a: HP mediates the relationship between volunteering and evasive hiding.
H3b: HP mediates the relationship between volunteering and playing dumb.
H3c: HP mediates the relationship between volunteering and rationalised hiding.
Methodology
Participants and data collection procedure
Considering the properties of variables, that is, KHB, pride and volunteerism, this study focused on those organisations where the signs of knowledge creation, sharing and hiding are common practice (Xiong et al., 2021). Thus, this study randomly selected 545 employees of public-sector research-oriented institutions in Pakistan. Pakistan Scientific and Technological Information Centre (PASTIC), a representative body of the Ministry of Science & Technology, provided a list of public-sector research-oriented institutions in Pakistan (Pakistan Scientific and Technological Information Centre, 2023). Pakistan Scientific and Technological Information Centre reports that about 500 organisations or sub-departments are involved in research-based activities in different fields. The authors looked into the accessibility and approachability of the whole list. The majority of these organisations exhibit their presence on social media platforms. Among the listed institutions, only those that met our criteria of being easily accessible and having a digital or virtual presence were selected. The author’s school research ethics committee and school board of studies approved the research model.
The instrument was developed in English using ‘Google Forms’. A cover letter explaining its purpose was embedded with the questionnaire. The letter serves as employees’ voluntary agreement to participate in this survey and allows them to withdraw at any point. Participants were requested to answer rationally and confidently. A formal request was made to the officials of the relevant organisation to acquire consent to collect data. After getting their official go-ahead, the survey link was disseminated to each organisation’s employees and posted on their official social media accounts. The authors also physically visited some offices for data collection.
Podsakoff et al. (2012) suggested a moderate time lapse between data collection rounds. Suppose there is a short time gap between observations. In that case, the predictor variable will be fresh in the minds of respondents, whereas if the gap is too lengthy between measurements, confounding effects may distort the predictor-criterion relationship (Nguyen, 2021; Podsakoff et al., 2003). The recommended time lag is 4 to 6 weeks (He et al., 2022) to reduce process variance and potential correlation bias (Podsakoff et al., 2012). Therefore, we split our data collection into three parts, each 6 weeks apart, addressing the maximum time-lag criteria. The first step (T 1) included participants’ demographic details and the employees’ volunteering. In the second step (T 2), with a gap of 6 weeks, respondents rated their perception of EH, PD and RH. In the third step (T 3), with a gap of another 6 weeks, the respondents were asked to rate their level of pride (AP and HP). This investigation utilised Harman’s single-factor test to evaluate common method variance (CMV). The analysis conducted with SPSS 15.0 revealed 30 factors, with the preliminary unrotated factor accounting for 45.56% of the variance (Appendix 1). As no single factor was most common, CMV did not pose a significant issue (Meng & Bari, 2019).
Within 6 weeks of disseminating the survey link, 789 responses were received (T1). After receiving the response, a unique code was allocated to each response based on their email IDs. Then, respondents who had previously completed the initial questionnaire were asked to participate in a second-wave survey by sharing the second part of the survey link. After 6 weeks, 685 participants completed the second-stage survey at an attrition rate of 13.18 % (T2). In the third stage, participants who took part in the first two waves of the survey were asked to complete the final section. Finally, with a gap of 6 weeks, 545 participants completed all three survey rounds at 20.44 % attrition (T3).
Measurements
Volunteering
Employee volunteering was measured using a five-item scale devised by Rodell (2013). Participants were asked to rate their tendency to help others on a 5-point scale from 1 (almost never) to 5 (very often). The sample item is ‘I engage in activities to support other people in the organisation. Cronbach’s alpha value of the construct was 0.838.
Authentic pride
Authentic pride was measured on the scale developed by Tracy and Robins (2007). A seven-item construct was used to measure AP on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5, where 1 represents ‘strongly disagree’ and 5 represents ‘strongly agree’. A sample item that represents AP is ‘I feel great when I accomplish work tasks’. The Cronbach’s alpha value of the construct was 0.820.
Hubristic pride
Similarly, AP was measured on the scale developed by Tracy and Robins (2007). A seven-item construct was used to measure AP on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5, where 1 represents ‘strongly disagree’ and 5 represents ‘strongly agree’. A sample item that represents AP is ‘I like others to admire or praise me’. The Cronbach’s alpha value of the construct was 0.887. One item was deleted because of a lower outer loading value.
Knowledge hiding
Connelly et al. (2012) created a 12-item scale to evaluate three dimensions of KHB, that is, EH, PD and RH. Each dimension is measured with four items at 5 points on the Likert scale, with 1 being a strong disagree and 5 being a strong agree. Sample items for EH, PD and RH are ‘I agree to help him or her but never really intend to’, ‘pretended that I did not know the information’ and ‘I tell him or her that my boss doesn’t allow me to share this knowledge with other’, respectively. Cronbach’s alpha values are 0.790, 0.796 and 0.889, respectively.
Statistical approach
Partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) was employed to evaluate the conceptual model, utilising SmartPLS 4.0 software. Structural equation modelling is a comprehensive statistical approach used to measure data in the social sciences. Covariance-based SEM (CB-SEM) and partial least square variance-based SEM (PLS-SEM) are the most common forms of SEM. Covariance-based SEM is extensively utilised in the behavioural social sciences, while PLS-SEM is becoming popular in marketing, strategic management, information systems and other social sciences (Hair et al., 2019). Covariance-based SEM contains factor-based techniques (e.g. LISREL, AMOS, Mplus, etc.) commonly used in confirmatory studies. In contrast, PLS-SEM uses multi-linear regression modelling techniques (e.g. SmartPLS) used in exploratory studies. The PLS-SEM is a widely applied statistical tool for investigating complex associations between latent and observed variables (Ringle et al., 2020), even with small data sets (Hair et al., 2019). Partial least squares structural equation modelling consists of two steps: evaluating the measurement model and estimating the structural model (Hair et al., 2019). The measurement model is evaluated before determining the structural paths.
Ethical considerations
Ethical clearance to conduct this study was obtained from the Government College University Faisalabad Ethics Review Committee (No. GCUF/ERC/472).
Results
Assessment of measurement model
According to Hair et al. (2016), assessing a model encompasses two fundamental stages: initially, ascertaining the construct’s validity and reliability and subsequently determining the robustness and discriminant validity of the model. This study model used 30 indicators and six variables (Figure 2). The assessment of construct reliability and validity involves the utilisation of several indicators, such as item loadings, Cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability (CR), rho_a, average variance extracted (AVE), convergent validity and discriminant validity (Hair et al., 2019).
The data analysis showed that all six constructs’ Cronbach’s alpha values are 0.70 to 0.95 (Hair et al., 2016) (Table 1). Convergent validity was assessed by evaluating the factor loadings of each indicator on its respective factors. Factor loadings were statistically significant, indicating convergent validity as they were above the threshold of 0.70 (Hair et al., 2016). However, an item HP7 from the construct of HP, with a loading value below 0.40, was excluded from the analysis (Hair et al., 2016), while two items, volunteering 1 and EH 4, with factor loadings of 0.621 and 0.613, respectively, which fell below the criteria of 0.7, were retained. The final model included these items as the constructs’ loadings and AVE values were above the specified criteria (CR > 0.7 and AVE > 0.5) (Hair et al., 2019).
A CR value over 0.7 signifies that the construct indicators effectively represent the underlying latent construct (Hair et al., 2016). The rho_a values for all six constructs are deemed acceptable as they are above the threshold of 0.70 (Hair et al., 2016). According to Hair et al. (2016), when AVE exceeds 0.5, the latent construct explains all indicator variation. The indicators’ outer loadings and AVE validate the reflecting construct.
The researcher’s bias
This article highlights the researcher’s position and role throughout the study as critical elements that need a thorough examination to understand the influences and inherent biases that have shaped the outcomes. Transparency about these aspects is crucial in establishing the study’s validity and providing a framework for future researchers to assess how the doctoral contribution might be applicable in different settings or contexts. The researcher’s positionality has influenced every research stage from formulating questions to interpreting findings. The researcher brings a unique perspective shaped by academic and professional experiences. This perspective influences assumptions about what constitutes valuable knowledge in the field and how it should be acquired and applied, which are embedded in the research design and methodology. A reflexive approach was adopted throughout the research process, constantly questioning assumptions, values and beliefs and considering their potential impact on the research. This reflexivity was crucial for uncovering power dynamics and ethical considerations underpinning the research process and ensuring it was conducted with integrity and respect for participants and affected communities. The researcher’s inherent biases also played a role in shaping the research outcomes. Recognising that every researcher brings a set of biases based on their background, experiences and worldview, steps were taken to mitigate their impact. These included triangulating data sources and engaging in peer debriefing to challenge assumptions and interpretations. In considering the transferability of this research to other contexts, it is acknowledged that the findings are within a specific time, place, and cultural context of the business field. While the findings have broader applicability, it is recognised that their transferability is not automatic.
Future researchers should consider this study’s contextual factors and underlying assumptions and assess their alignment with their research setting and objectives. This involves understanding the similarities and differences between the original and new research contexts and adapting the research design, methods and analysis accordingly. In conclusion, this thesis reflects the researcher’s positionality, influences and biases in business. By adopting a critically reflective approach and maintaining transparency about assumptions, values and prejudices, the thesis aims to enhance its credibility and transferability, contributing to the discourse on the researcher’s role in the knowledge business. The findings and contributions are context specific, and future researchers are encouraged to approach their transferability with a critical and reflexive mindset.
The researcher’s position
In summary, this paper sets the framework for systematically collecting and analysing data for this research using Wilson’s (2014) honeycomb. After extensive research on methodology, the research’s position is that interpretivism, subjectivism, inductive and qualitative are in philosophy, approach and strategy. This research drew upon interviews, secondary data and observations from a case study design and analysed the data collected using thematic analysis.
Screening and exploration of data
Data screening is another important step of the research process that helps researchers refine and organise their data before getting it ready for analysis (Hair et al., 2006). Data screening checks for outliers, missing values and issues of normality.
The following table contains details of all measurement scales of the study.
Following scale validation, primary data were obtained using online platforms. Prior to data collection, permission from the relevant authority was taken. For that, the HR department was contacted to explain the objectives of the current study and to guarantee data confidentiality. Employees were introduced to study objectives via email and assured of privacy, and consent was secured. With the permission of the principal officers, the survey link was shared on the walls of more than 50 official social media pages of different organisations. Besides, the survey link was also emailed to the organisations’ principal officers, and they were requested to circulate this link to their employees. A thorough examination of the reliability and validity of the study’s measurements can be achieved by providing a detailed description of the instruments or scales utilised for data collection (Sekaran, 2003). In probability sampling, self-administered questionnaires and structured interviews are frequently employed as data collection tools (Saunders et al., 2012).
Sampling is a process of extracting a subset from a larger population (Zikmund & Babin, 2010).
Among listed research-oriented institutions, only those organisations will be selected that serve or purpose. A sample is true representative of whole population.
Zikmund et al. (2013) and Sekaran and Bougie (2016) identified an individual population member who can supply the data as an element and a unit of analysis for the investigation. In this study, each public sector research-oriented organisation/department is a unit of analysis.
Firstly, 10 organisations were selected randomly for further data collection from the given lists, including federal, Panjab, Sindh, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan. Secondly, after getting administrative approval, a questionnaire was forwarded online through Google, WhatsApp and email. Data were collected from those research-oriented institutions, which were ready to provide information. A physical visit was also done where possible. As this study’s data were collected via a Google form, this study exhibited no missing values. Answering all questions was required to proceed with the Google form. The research data weres complete, with no missing information. A total of 789 responses were received in the first round and 545 in the last. Three rounds of survey yielded 545 responses after removing poor responses, resulting in a 20.44% attrition rate. It is found pretty sufficient sample size to run the model (Anderson & Gerbing, 1984; Hoelter, 1983; Iacobucci, 2010); hence, the final response rate was 80.4%.
Stratified random sampling technique
The current research employs probability sampling, specifically stratified random sampling, for data collection. According to Saunders et al. (2012), this technique is particularly appropriate for survey-based analysis. Stratified random sampling divides the population into relevant and important strata by one or more attributes. Basically, a sample frame is partitioned into many subsets. After that, from every stratum, a random sample is taken, which might be either simple or systematic (Saunders et al., 2012). Stratified random sampling better represents the population and is more precise (Sekaran, 2003). That is why stratified random sampling is chosen for this research due to its accessibility and feasibility.
For this research, the federal government and the four provinces of Pakistan (Punjab, Sindh, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan) have been divided into strata. Then, 10 organisations are selected randomly from each stratum for further data collection from the given lists by PASTIC. A total of 50 organisations were chosen for this data set, 10 organisations from each of the five strata. Researchers working in their Research and Development organisations or departments were addressed in different capacities, that is, junior researchers, senior researchers, managers and other senior managers’ roles. The author’s school research ethics committee and school board of studies approved the research model.
This study’s discriminant validity was established using traditional and novel approaches, the Fornell-Larcker criteria and Heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) ratios (Hair et al., 2016). Discriminant validity can be determined by examining the highest values at the top of each column, which is found by taking the square root of the AVE for each variable (Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Hair et al., 2016). Table 2 shows that AP, EH, PD, RH and volunteering have column top values of 0.8235, 0.789, 0.801, 0.787, 0.866 and 0.782, respectively. Discriminant validity exists. The second approach for establishing discriminant validity is HTMT ratios. Experts recommend HTMT values below 0.9 for the data to be considered reliable (Henseler et al., 2016) and below 0.85 would be even better (Hair et al., 2016). All the results in Table 2 are below 0.9, with the highest being 0.879, supporting discriminant validity. The results confirm the model’s discriminant validity.
Assessment of structural model
An assessment of a structural model uncovers the relationships between the constructs. Variance inflation factor (VIF), R2, f2 and Q2 determine the model’s predictive relevance. The study analysed the VIF values to verify the presence of collinearity issues in the model. A VIF value of 5 or above is considered unacceptable and indicates the presence of collinearity concerns (Hair et al., 2016). There is no problem with collinearity in the data as the constructs’ inner VIF values are >3.00 (Hair et al., 2016). The structural model’s predictability is determined by estimating the coefficient of determination (R2), which measures the extent to which variance in the dependent variable is because of the variance in the independent variable. The R2 values of 0.25, 0.50 and 0.75 or above are viewed as weak, moderate and substantial models for a dependent variable (Hair et al., 2016). However, few reported the same account for 0.19, 0.33 and 0.67 (Chin, 2009). This analysis revealed that the influence of volunteering explained 0.579 of the variance in AP, 0.601 in HP, 0.46 in EH, 0.34 in PD and 0.37 in RH. It indicates acceptable R2 values.
A cross-validated redundancy (Q2) value greater than zero suggests that the predicted relevance of the pathways is satisfactory (Hair et al., 2016). Q2 values of this analysis are considerably higher than the threshold, indicating strong support for this model’s significance. Effect size is another way to assess an explanatory construct’s influence on a dependent construct (Hair et al., 2016). The f2 effect size values of 0.02, 0.15 and 0.35 are categorised as small, medium and large size (Hair et al., 2016). The standardised root mean square residual (SRMR) measures the fit of the structural model (Henseler et al., 2016). The SRMR values below 0.08 indicate a strong model fit (Hair et al., 2016; Hu & Bentler, 1999). The study model’s SRMR value is 0.079, indicating a satisfactory model fit.
Hypotheses analysis (direct relationship)
Path coefficient investigates the potential cause-and-effect relationship between the independent and dependent variables. A 10 000-sample with-replacement-based bootstrapping approach was used to investigate the hypothesesed correlations (Hair et al., 2016). The hypotheses were evaluated using t-values (t > 1.96), p-values (p < 0.05) and path coefficients (β). Table 3 presents the path coefficients of bootstrapping analysis, t-values, significance level, p-values and 95% confidence level. The initial hypotheses, proposing a direct association between volunteering and EH (H1a), was rejected based on the statistical analysis (β = 0.052, t = 0.902, p = 0.367). The second hypotheses (H1b), which posited the direct relationship between volunteering and PD (β = 0.023, t = 0.383, p = 0.702), was also rejected because of statistical insignificance. However, sufficient support was found for H1c because of the statistically significant finding of (β = 0.159, t = 2.516, p = 0.012).
| TABLE 3: Hypotheses analyses (direct relationship). |
Hypotheses analysis (indirect relationship)
Table 4 summarises the mediation results. The study found that volunteering increases KHB through pride. Authentic pride and HP significantly mediate the impact of volunteering on KHB. Authentic pride significantly mediates the association between volunteering and evasive hiding (β = 0.273, t = 6.192, p = 0.000), playing dumb (β = 0.147, t = 2.928, p = 0.003) and rationalised hiding (β = 0.185, t = 3.595, p = 0.000). Hence, H2a, H2b and H2c are accepted. Similarly, HP also significantly mediates the relationship between volunteering and evasive hiding (β = 0.248, t = 4.716, p = 0.000), playing dumb (β = 0.311, t = 6.185, p = 0.000) and rationalised hiding (β = 0.197, t = 3.308, p = 0.001). Thus, H3a, H3b and H3c are accepted. In the case of evasive hiding and playing dumb, it is an indirect mediation because the direct relationship between volunteering and evasive hiding and playing dumb was insignificant. On the other hand, rationalised hiding has a complementary mediation impact as the direct relationship was also significant (Hair et al., 2016; Hu & Bentler, 1999).
| TABLE 4: Hypotheses analysis (indirect relationship). |
Discussion
Several studies have found positive aspects of volunteering (Ding et al., 2021; Erks et al., 2021; Rodell, 2013; Rupp et al., 2018). However, this study has examined the potential drawbacks associated with volunteering. Moral licensing theory was used to examine the dark side of volunteering and its effects on KHB. Moral licensing theory rationalises individual’s dubious actions based on their past good deeds (Effron & Monin, 2010). This article further explored how pride (AP and HP) mediates volunteering and KHB. This study used primary data collected from employees working in research and development institutes in Pakistan. For quantitative analyses, the authors used the PLS-SEM through SmartPLS 4.
This investigation has produced some very intriguing results. Volunteering has no direct impact on evasive hiding and playing dumb. On contrary, volunteering has a significant association with rationalised hiding. Table 3 suggests that volunteers rationally hide their knowledge to preserve organisational interest and avoid enquiries. This finding raises many intriguing questions. Volunteers are compassionate individuals with a kind disposition. However, because of moral licensing, they engage in unethical behaviour like KH. Hence, they dislike participating in deceptive knowledge hiding (evasive hiding and playing dumb) but rather preserve organisational interest (rationalised hiding), creating an interesting paradox. It indicates that volunteers participate in knowledge hiding in such a way that they think is ethically acceptable. Investigating the factors that lead to KHB among compassionate individuals is essential, emphasising its intricacies and the need for further inquiry as there is no definitive statistical evidence indicating their propensity for deceptive knowledge hiding.
This study investigated the mediating role of pride (AP and HP) in the relationship between volunteering and KHB. The results reveal that HP exerts a more significant and enduring mediating influence compared to AP, affecting the relationship between volunteering and counterproductive behaviours such as playing dumb and rationalised hiding. Volunteers who experience HP may have an inflated sense of self-worth, potentially leading them to deliberately hide information or knowledge. On the other hand, AP more substantially mediates the association between volunteering and evasive hiding, implying that a genuine or achievement-driven pride may result in the more covert form of knowledge hiding. Volunteering cannot always yield beneficial results for organisations. Hubristic pride can turn the good vibes of volunteering into actions that may prioritise self-interest and induce destructive behaviour. The findings confirm previous research findings (Han et al., 2022; Loi et al., 2020). This research enhances further knowledge of the dimensions of employee behaviour in terms of pride.
Theoretical contributions
This study examines the potential dark side of volunteering in the workplace. Drawing upon MLT, we argued that volunteering may justify knowledge hiding in the workplace. Furthermore, pride can inflate this relationship. The empirical findings support these theoretical claims and offer the following novel insights on volunteering and KHB. Firstly, volunteerism is deeply ingrained in human nature, influenced by subjective emotions, and produces unique effects. Most volunteerism literature has focused on its positive elements (Afridi et al., 2020; Breitsohl & Ehrig, 2017; Erks et al., 2021) while ignoring its dark sides (Loi et al., 2020; Rodell & Lynch, 2016). Researchers mainly focused on impression management (Rodell & Lynch, 2016), distress behaviours (Loi et al., 2020) and burnout (Morse, 2022). This research reveals an overlooked aspect of volunteering by examining how it promotes knowledge hiding. The literature calls for such an investigation (Loi et al., 2020).
Secondly, this study integrates volunteering and MLT literature to examine how volunteers turn into knowledge hiders at work. This research fills this gap by revealing the cognitive mechanisms behind volunteering-motivated knowledge hiding at work. Moral licensing happens when people justify their morally dubious behaviour with their past good deeds (Miller & Effron, 2010). As a cognitive process, MLT helps people keep a cognitive balance between doing what is right and what is morally dubious. Volunteering can provide employees with moral points to justify their less admirable behaviour, like hiding knowledge. This change in behaviour is because of the cognitive process of MLT, and they start to explain their actions based on their personal sense of right and wrong.
Thirdly, KHB is another novel study focus. While existing research has examined several behavioural antecedents and effects of knowledge hiding, volunteerism represents an additional possible component that could incite undesired workplace behaviour (Loi et al., 2020; Morse, 2022; Rodell & Lynch, 2016). The study found a novel factor influencing KHB.
Fourthly, pride has been examined within the context of organisational behaviours, managerial decisions, employee interactions (Bagozzi et al., 2018) and leadership behaviours (Yeung & Shen, 2019). This study has broadened its scope by investigating its role as a mediator in the relationship between volunteerism and KHB, as no empirical evidence has been found before. This study illuminates the dual role of pride, as a consequence of volunteering and as another antecedent of KHB. When employees acquire a moral licence with voluntary efforts, they can experience pride, either AP or HP, which leads to deviant behaviour, that is, KHB. True success induces AP, while superiority induces HP in volunteers. Consequently, they start hiding knowledge from others. This study confirms Han et al.’s (2022) findings that volunteers with HP are more likely to adopt playing dumb and evasive hiding when confronted with knowledge requests. However, with AP, they resort to evasive behaviour.
Managerial implications
The findings of the study have the following managerial implications. Firstly, drawing on MLT volunteering may cause counterproductive work behaviour (Loi et al., 2020), like KHB. To effectively address the darker aspects of volunteering, the administration can employ various strategies. Managers should be vigilant about employees’ conduct; despite their volunteering disposition, some of them may act unethically. Managers must comprehend the MLT to address such workplace misconduct. By establishing explicit ethical guidelines, conducting orientation and providing gentle reminders, its endorsement can be affirmed. Acknowledging exemplary volunteers can strengthen constructive behaviours, encourage workplace volunteering and improve organisational performance. The study findings affirm that volunteering triggers KHB. However, to deter it, managers must prioritise a healthy, knowledge-sharing workplace. Additionally, recently proposed mitigating measures can also be implemented, such as open space workstations, a streamlined hierarchy, a transparent evaluation process, etc. (Bari et al., 2024).
Secondly, management must foster a moral workplace culture that helps employees to become self-controlled and morally upright. Top leadership should inspire their employees by their moral conduct and must reflect in policies. Moreover, management should provide counselling to help employees cope with emotional issues.
Thirdly, managers ought to be aware of how incentive systems reduce workplace moral inequalities. Recognising employees’ positive work behaviour improves the workplace environment. Formal or informal monetary and non-monetary appreciation stimulates individuals to keep exhibiting the highest ethical conduct at work.
Fourthly, the study found that volunteers gain pride over time. Some volunteers would hide imperative information from others to keep that pride and stay competitive. Pride is a natural, positive emotion that creates a positive vibe of success; however, when it crosses its limits, it ascends to a relatively negative side. Indeed, the study emphasises the importance of fostering a culture of positive emotions and celebrating success while also cautioning against excessive pride in the workplace. The findings can be utilised to educate staff on the dark side of volunteering.
Limitations and future research calls
Like other social and management studies, this study also has certain limitations and associated future directions. Firstly, using multi-source data appropriately addresses common method bias concerns in research. We evaluated our study model only at public research institutions. To establish robust causation, cross-sector data must be collected over an extended duration. Secondly, this research revealed the underlying dynamic that links volunteering to KHB. Hence, future researchers should examine an amalgamation of different factors like individual-team dynamics, individual-organisational factors, physiological-cognitive factors, etc., to better understand how volunteering affects KHB.
Thirdly, this study solely examined volunteering effects on KHB through parallel mediation. No moderator or coping mechanism was introduced. Future studies should empirically investigate the potential moderating mechanism that can open up new debates, for example, organisational factors (organisational justice, leadership, culture) and contextual factors (self-efficacy, task performance, task interdependence). Future research should also examine individual factors that affect volunteers’ likelihood of behaving unethically outside of the desk.
Fourthly, this study has confined its investigation to pride, a self-conscious emotion as a mediator between volunteering and KHB. Future studies can examine other emotions, such as fear, guilt, anxiety, joy and aggression. Indeed, we can compare the effects of volunteering on KHB with those emotions that are connected to work.
Fifthly, this study’s findings are based on the data collected from research-oriented institutes in Pakistan. Cultural and regional considerations may limit these results’ generalisability. Future investigations must incorporate these characteristics.
Sixthly, a comparative analysis of MLT and moral cleansing perspectives in future research would be fascinating. Moral licensing theory justifies immoral behaviour with past good deeds (Effron & Monin, 2010), while moral cleansing proposes that immoral individuals can be morally rejuvenated through upright actions. Integrating both could assist researchers in understanding how and when volunteering may lead to unethical and helpful behaviours.
Conclusion
This study used MLT to investigate the relationship between volunteering and KHB in Pakistan’s research-oriented institutions’ employees. Moral licensing theory implies that employee volunteering may justify knowledge-hiding in the workplace. This study also investigated how pride (AP and HP) mediates the dark effects of volunteering on employee KHB. Volunteering is significantly associated with rationalised hiding but not with evasive hiding and playing dumb. This strong correlation implies that volunteers are more likely to avoid responding to inquiries from others about what they know by being rationalised to preserve organisational interest. However, the mediation analyses revealed that AP and HP significantly mediated volunteering and KHB. Hubristic pride mediates the impact of volunteering on KHB (rationalised hiding and playing dumb) better than AP (evasive hiding). Our findings will offer significant relevance for academics and management, especially research-oriented departments, to develop and carry out initiatives aimed at reducing knowledge-hiding that arises from volunteering efforts.
Acknowledgements
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.
Authors’ contributions
M.W.B. and I.S. designed the study, reviewed the literature and performed data collection and analysis. Both authors reviewed the manuscript and agreed to submit it for publication.
Funding information
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Data availability
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, M.W.B., upon reasonable request.
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and are the product of professional research. It does not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institution, funder, agency or that of the publisher. The authors are responsible for this article’s results, findings and content.
References
Afridi, S.A., Afsar, B., Shahjehan, A., Rehman, Z.U., Haider, M., & Ullah, M. (2020). Perceived corporate social responsibility and innovative work behavior: The role of employee volunteerism and authenticity. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(4), 1865–1877. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1932
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, 185–210.
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 and Organization, 27(3), 507–522. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2019.1
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. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-06-2019-0174
Anderson, J.C., & Gerbing, D.W. (1984). The effect of sampling error on convergence, improper solutions, and goodness-of-fit indices for maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis. Psychometrika, 49, 155–173. Retrieved from https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/psychometrika/article/abs/effect-of-sampling-error-on-convergence-improper-solutions-and-goodnessoffit-indices-for-maximum-likelihood-confirmatory-factor-analysis/528C6FF7FDC480F10CEEE9471F8ACA7F
Arias-pérez, J., & Vélez-jaramillo, J. (2022). Understanding knowledge hiding under technological turbulence caused by artificial intelligence and robotics. Journal of Knowledge Management, 26(2019), 1476–1491. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-01-2021-0058
Arshad, R., & Ismail, I.R. (2018). Workplace incivility and knowledge hiding behavior: Does personality matter? Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, 5(3), 278–288.
Ayub, A. (2021). Abusive supervision and knowledge hiding in service organizations : Exploring the boundary conditions. International Journal of Conflict Management, 32(5), 725–746. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCMA-02-2021-0029
Babič, K., Černe, M., Connelly, C.E., Dysvik, A., & Škerlavaj, M. (2019). Are we in this together? Knowledge hiding in teams, collective prosocial motivation and leader-member exchange. Journal of Knowledge Management, 23(8), 1502–1522. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-12-2018-0734
Bagozzi, R.P., Sekerka, L.E., & Sguera, F. (2018). Understanding the consequences of pride and shame : How self-evaluations guide moral decision making in business ✰. Journal of Business Research, 84(November 2017), 271–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.11.036
Bari, M.W., Shahzadi, I., & Sheikh, M.F. (2024). Management strategies to mitigate knowledge hiding behaviours: Symmetric and asymmetric analyses. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 22(2), 162–176.
Bhatti, S.H., Hussain, M., Santoro, G., & Culasso, F. (2022). The impact of organizational ostracism on knowledge hiding: Analysing the sequential mediating role of efficacy needs and psychological distress. Journal of Knowledge Management, 27(2), 485–505. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-03-2021-0223
Bodolica, V., & Spraggon, M. (2011). Behavioral governance and self-conscious emotions : Unveiling governance implications of authentic and hubristic pride. Journal of Business Ethics, 100(3), 535–550. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0695-7
Boz Semerci, A. (2019). Examination of knowledge hiding with conflict, competition and personal values. International Journal of Conflict Management, 30(1), 111–131. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCMA-03-2018-0044
Breitsohl, H., & Ehrig, N. (2017). Commitment through employee volunteering : Accounting for the motives of inter-organisational volunteers. Applied Psychology, 66(2), 260–289. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12092
Brown, A.L., Meer, J., & Williams, J.F. (2019). Why do people volunteer? An experimental analysis of preferences for time donations. Management Science, 65(4), 1455–1468. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2017.2951
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.
Chin, W.W. (2009). How to write up and report PLS analyses. In Handbook of partial least squares: Concepts, methods and applications (pp. 655–690). Springer. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-540-32827-8_29
Clary, E.G., & Snyder, M. (1999). The motivations to volunteer: Theoretical and practical considerations. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8(5), 156–159. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00037
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2014.931325
Connelly, C.E., Černe, M., Dysvik, A., & Škerlavaj, M. (2019). Understanding knowledge hiding in organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(7), 779–782. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2407
Connelly, C.E., Zweig, D., Webster, J., & Trougakos, J.P. (2012). Knowledge hiding in organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(1), 64–88. https://doi.org/10.1002/job
Ding, Z., Yang, H., Wang, J., & Xu, J. (2021). The effects of employee volunteering on organizational loyalty: The moderating effects of perceived organization support. In 2021 IEEE international conference on industrial engineering and engineering management, IEEM 2021, Singapore, 13–16 December 2021 (pp. 1289–1293).
Effron, D.A., & Monin, B. (2010). Letting people off the hook: When do good deeds excuse transgressions? In Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(12), 1618–1634. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167210385922
Erks, R.L., Allen, J.A., Harland, L.K., & Prange, K. (2021). Do volunteers volunteer to do more at work? The relationship between volunteering, engagement, and OCBs. Voluntas, 32(6), 1285–1298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-020-00232-7
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D.F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 382–388.
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. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2599
Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., Anderson, R., & Tatham, R. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Pearson Prentice Hall. Retrieved from https://www.scirp.org/reference/ReferencesPapers?ReferenceID=1385913
Hair, J.F., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C.M. (2019). Rethinking some of the rethinking of partial least squares. European Journal of Marketing, 53(4), 566–584. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-10-2018-0665
Hair, Jr. J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (2nd ed.). Sage.
Han, M.S., Hampson, D.P., & Wang, Y. (2022). Two facets of pride and knowledge hiding: An empirical analysis. Journal of Knowledge Management, 26(10), 2602–2617. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-06-2021-0488
He, P., Anand, A., Wu, M., Jiang, C., & Xia, Q. (2022). How and when voluntary citizenship behaviour towards individuals triggers vicious knowledge hiding : The roles of moral licensing and the mastery climate. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-05-2022-0358
Henseler, J., Hubona, G., & Ray, P.A. (2016). Using PLS path modeling in new technology research: Updated guidelines. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 116(1), 2–20. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-09-2015-0382
Hernaus, T., Cerne, M., Connelly, C., Vokic, N.P., & Miha, Š. (2019). Evasive knowledge hiding in academia : When competitive individuals are asked to collaborate. 23(4), 597–618. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-11-2017-0531
Ho, S., Tong, E.M.W., Jia, L., Ho, S., Tong, E.M.W., & Jia, L. (2016). Emotion authentic and hubristic pride : Differential effects on delay of gratification authentic and hubristic pride : Differential effects on delay of gratification. American Psychological Association.
Hoelter, J.W. (1983). The analysis of covariance structures: Goodness-of-fit indices. Sociological Methods & Research, 11(3), 325–344. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0049124183011003003
Hu, L., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.
Iacobucci, D. (2010). Structural equations modeling: Fit indices, sample size, and advanced topics. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(1), 90–98. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1057740809001120
Koay, K.Y., Sandhu, M.S., Tjiptono, F., & Watabe, M. (2022). Understanding employees’ knowledge hiding behaviour: The moderating role of market culture. Behaviour and Information Technology, 41(4), 694–711. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2020.1831073
Lewis, M. (2008). Self-conscious emotions: Embarrassment, pride, shame, and guilt. American Psychological Association.
Lin, S.H., Ma, J., & Johnson, R.E. (2016). When ethical leader behavior breaks bad: How ethical leader behavior can turn abusive via ego depletion and moral licensing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(6), 815–830. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000098
Loi, T.I., Kuhn, K.M., Sahaym, A., Butterfield, K.D., & Tripp, T.M. (2020). From helping hands to harmful acts: When and how employee volunteering promotes workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(9), 944–958. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000477
Loosemore, M., & Bridgeman, J. (2017). Corporate volunteering in the construction industry: Motivations, costs and benefits. Construction Management and Economics, 35(10), 641–653. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2017.1315150
Malik, O.F., Shahzad, A., Raziq, M.M., Khan, M.M., Yusaf, S., & Khan, A. (2019). Perceptions of organizational politics, knowledge hiding, and employee creativity: The moderating role of professional commitment. Personality and Individual Differences, 142, 232–237.
Meng, Y., & Bari, M.W. (2019). Design perceptions for 3D printed accessories of digital devices and consumer-based brand equity. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2800.
Merritt, A.C., Effron, D.A., & Monin, B. (2010). Moral self-licensing: When being good frees us to be bad. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(5), 344–357.
Miller, D.T., & Effron, D.A. (2010). Psychological license. When it is needed and how it functions. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 43(C), 115–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(10)43003-8
Monin, B., & Miller, D.T. (2001). Moral credentials and the expression of prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(1), 33–43. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.33
Morse, J.L. (2022). Volunteerism and burnout : Does satisfaction of motives for volunteering protect against symptoms? VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 33(2), 229–241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-020-00257-y
Nguyen, C.M. (2021). The effect of other in-group members’ organizational citizenship behavior on employees ’ organizational deviance: A moral licensing perspective. Journal of Asian Business and Economic Studies, 28(3), 177–190. https://doi.org/10.1108/JABES-08-2020-0099
Pakistan Scientific and Technological Information Centre. (2023). http://pastic.gov.pk/searchstorgs.aspx
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., & Podsakoff, N.P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539–569.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N.P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879.
Rezwan, R.B., & Takahashi, Y. (2021). The psychology behind knowledge hiding in an organization. Administrative Sciences, 11(2), 57.
Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M., Mitchell, R., & Gudergan, S.P. (2020). Partial least squares structural equation modeling in HRM research. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 31(12), 1617–1643. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2017.1416655
Rodell, J.B. (2013). Finding meaning through volunteering: Why do employees volunteer and what does it mean for their jobs? Academy of Management Journal, 56(5), 1274–1294. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.0611
Rodell, J.B., & Lynch, J.W. (2016). Perceptions of employee volunteering: Is it ‘credited’ or ‘stigmatized’ by colleagues? Academy of Management Journal, 59(2), 611–635. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.0566
Rodell, J.B., Breitsohl, H., Schröder, M., & Keating, D.J. (2016). Employee volunteering: A review and framework for future research. Journal of Management, 42(1), 55–84.
Rupp, D.E., Shao, R., Skarlicki, D.P., Paddock, E.L., Kim, T.Y., & Nadisic, T. (2018). Corporate social responsibility and employee engagement: The moderating role of CSR-specific relative autonomy and individualism. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(5), 559–579. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2282
Sanders, S., Wisse, B., Van Yperen, N.W., & Rus, D. (2018). On ethically solvent leaders: The roles of pride and moral identity in predicting leader ethical behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 150(3), 631–645. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3180-0
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2012). For business students. 649. Retrieved from https://is.vsfs.cz/el/6410/leto2014/BA_BSeBM/um/Research_Methods_for_Business_Students__5th_Edition.pdf
Sekar, S., & Dyaram, L. (2021). What makes employees participate in volunteering programs? The role of organizational support. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 29(2), 512–528. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-11-2019-1939
Sekaran, R., & Bougie, U. (2016). (2016). Research methods for business: A skill building approach (7th ed.). Wiley. Retrieved from https://books.google.com.pk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Ko6bCgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA19&dq=Sekaran+and+Bougie,+2016.+(2016).+Research+methods+for+business:+A+skill+building+approach.+(7+ed.),+Wiley,+West+Sussex+(2016).&ots=2D1UT-JUqO&sig=7fIV-a4aDIHpudoSDNXKshIs13s&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Sekaran%20and%20Bougie%2C%202016.%20(2016).%20Research%20methods%20for%20business%3A%20A%20skill%20building%20approach.%20(7%20ed.)%2C%20Wiley%2C%20West%20Sussex%20(2016).&f=false
Sekaran, U. (2003). Research methods for business: A skill building approach. John Wiley & Sons. Retrieved from https://books.google.com.pk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Ko6bCgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA19&dq=Sekaran,+U.+(2003).+Research+methods+for+business:+A+skill+building+approach.+John+Wiley+%26+Sons.&ots=2D1UT-HWnU&sig=WM3_AsYF9gwWoRyYHsComkH5Rtk&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
Septianto, F., Northey, G., Moi, T., & Viet, L. (2019). Hubristic pride & prejudice : The effects of hubristic pride on negative word-of-mouth. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 37(3), 621–643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2019.11.003
Septianto, F., Sung, B., Seo, Y., & Tugiman, N. (2018). Proud volunteers: The role of self- and vicarious-pride in promoting volunteering. Marketing Letters, 29(4), 501–519. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-018-9472-7
Stanger, N., Kavussanu, M., & Ring, C. (2020). Linking facets of pride with moral behaviour in sport: The mediating role of moral disengagement. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 19(6), 929–942. https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2020.1830825
Thomas, E.F., Rathmann, L., & McGarty, C. (2017). From ‘I’ to ‘We’: Different forms of identity, emotion, and belief predict victim support volunteerism among nominal and active supporters. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 47(4), 213–223. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12428
Tracy, J.L., & Prehn, C. (2012). Arrogant or self-confident? The use of contextual knowledge to differentiate hubristic and authentic pride from a single nonverbal expression. Cognition & Emotion, 26(1), 14–24.
Tracy, J.L., & Robins, R.W. (2007). The psychological structure of pride: A tale of two facets. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(3), 506–525. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.3.506
Tracy, J.L., & Robins, R.W. (2014). Conceptual and empirical strengths of the authentic/hubristic model of pride. Emotion, 14(1), 33–37. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034490
Tracy, J.L., Mercadante, E., & Hohm, I. (2023). Pride: The emotional foundation of social rank attainment. Annual Review of Psychology, 74(1), 519–545.
Tracy, J.L., Robins, R.W., Tracy, J.L., & Robins, R.W. (2009). TARGET ARTICLE : ‘Putting the self into self-conscious emotions : A theoretical model’, Psychological Inquiry, 15(2), 103–125. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli1502
Tracy, J.L., Shariff, A.F., Cheng, J.T., Tracy, J.L., Shariff, A.F., & Cheng, J.T. (2010). A naturalist’s view of pride. Emotion Review, 2(2), 163–177. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073909354627
Wang, L., Waseem, M., Shaheen, S., & Zhong, K. (2024). Acta Psychologica Impostor leader and knowledge hiding : Attachment avoidance as underlying mechanism. Acta Psychologica, 244(February), 104188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2024.104188
Weidman, A.C., Tracy, J.L., & Elliot, A.J. (2016). The benefits of following your pride: Authentic pride promotes achievement. Journal of Personality, 84(5), 607–622.
Wilson, V. (2014). Research methods: Sampling. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 9(2), 45–47. https://doi.org/10.18438/B8S30X
Wu, D., & Liu, E. (2023). The influence of competitive personality on rationalized knowledge hiding among Chinese employees. VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, 55(3), 667–682. https://doi.org/10.1108/VJIKMS-01-2023-0007
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.04.009
Zhong, C.-B., Liljenquist, K., & Cain, D.M. (2009). Moral self-regulation: Licensing and compensation. American Psychological Association.
Zikmund, W.G., & Babin, B.J. (2010). Exploring marketing research (10th ed., pp. 188–186). South-Western Cengage Learning. Retrieved from https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=3036514
Zikmund, W.G., Babin, B.J., Carr, J.C., & Griffin, M. (2013). Business research methods (Vol. 6). Cengage Learning. Retrieved from https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=2986509
Appendix 1
| TABLE 1-A1: Harman’s single-factor test: Total variance explained. |
|
Hide
Show all
Email this article (Login required)
