THE EFFECTS OF WORKPLACE OSTRACISM & WORKPLACE INCIVILITY ON
EMPLOYEES’ TURNOVER INTENTION.
THE MEDIATING ROLE OF KNOWLEDGE HIDING.
ABSTRACT
The primary aim of this investigation is to explore the interplay among workplace
ostracism, workplace incivility, and turnover intention, taking into account the
mediating influence of knowledge hiding behavior, which encompasses evasive
hiding, playing dumb, and rationalized hiding. Data for the study were gathered
through structured questionnaires distributed to a sample of employees (referred
to as participants) in small to medium-sized enterprises located in HCMC.
Employing structured equation modeling as the analytical approach, the study
underscores noteworthy findings, indicating a positive impact of both workplace
ostracism and workplace incivility on employees' turnover intention. Notably,
knowledge hiding behavior emerges as a significant mediator in the association
between workplace ostracism, workplace incivility, and employees' turnover
intention. The study emphasizes the necessity of scrutinizing individual
personality dispositions to comprehend the intricate relationships among
variables like workplace ostracism, workplace incivility, and knowledge hiding
behavior. Mitigating inappropriate employee behavior is advocated through
initiatives such as realistic job previews and the establishment of exemplary
conduct. This research makes a substantial contribution to the existing literature
on knowledge hiding behavior, offering valuable insights into the organizational
and individual factors influencing such behavior. Remarkably, this study
represents a pioneering effort in examining the predictive influence of the
specified variables.
Keywords: Workplace Ostracism, Workplace Incivility, Knowledge Hiding (Evasive
hiding, Playing dumb, Rationalized hiding), Turnover Intention.
TABLE OF CONTENT
ABSTRACT........................................................................................ 1
CHAPTER 01: INTRODUCTION................................................... 4
1.1.
Research background and statement of the problem... 4
1.2.
Research objectives.......................................................... 5
1.3.
Research question:........................................................... 6
1.4.
Research scope................................................................. 6
1.4.1. Content Scope............................................................... 6
1.4.2. Location Scope.............................................................. 6
1.4.3. Time Scope.................................................................... 6
1.4.4. Research method.......................................................... 6
1.4.5. Target population......................................................... 6
1.5.
Research contribution...................................................... 7
1.6.
Structure of the study...................................................... 7
CHAPTER 02: LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESIS
DEVELOPMENT............................................................................... 8
2.1.
Definitions......................................................................... 8
2.1.1. Workplace Ostracism................................................... 8
2.1.2. Workplace Incivility..................................................... 9
2.1.3. Knowledge Hiding...................................................... 10
2.1.3.1.
Evasive Hiding...................................................... 11
2.1.3.2.
Playing Dumb........................................................ 11
2.1.3.3.
Rationalized Hiding.............................................. 11
2.1.4. Turnover Intention..................................................... 12
2.2.
Theoretical backgrounds............................................... 13
2.2.1.
COR Theory................................................................ 13
2.2.2.
Role Theory.................................................................. 13
2.2.3.
Social Exchange Theory............................................. 14
2.3.
Prior relevant studies..................................................... 15
2.3.1. Muhammad Mohsin & Khalid Jamil et al., 2022.... 15
2.3.2. Zainab Mahfooz et al., 2017...................................... 16
2.3.3.
Lalatendu Kesari Jena & Deepika Swain, 2021...... 17
2.3.4. Sidra Riaz, Yusen Xu and Shahid Hussain, 2019.... 18
2.3.5. Lata Bajpai Singh & Shalini Srivastava, 2021......... 19
2.3.6. Elham Anasori et al., 2021......................................... 20
2.4.
Research framework and hypothesis development.... 21
2.4.1.
Research framework.................................................. 21
2.4.2. Hypothesis development............................................ 21
2.4.2.1.
Workplace Ostracism and Knowledge Hiding.. 21
2.4.2.2.
Workplace Incivility and Knowledge Hiding.... 22
2.4.2.3.
Workplace Ostracism and Turnover Intention. 23
2.4.2.4.
Workplace Incivility and Turnover Intention... 24
2.4.2.5.
Knowledge Hiding and Turnover Intention...... 25
CHAPTER 03: RESEARCH METHOD........................................ 27
3.1.
Research process............................................................ 27
3.2.
Measurement scale......................................................... 28
3.2.1. Workplace Ostracism................................................. 28
3.2.2. Workplace Incivility................................................... 29
3.2.3. Knowledge Hiding...................................................... 29
3.2.4. Turnover Intention..................................................... 30
3.3.
Questionnaire design...................................................... 31
3.4.
Data collection................................................................ 31
3.5.
Data analysis method..................................................... 32
REFERENCES……...……………………………………………………………..…………………
. 33
CHAPTER 01: INTRODUCTION
1.1. Research background and statement of the problem
To gain a competitive edge in the economy, knowledge is recognized as a
valuable asset (Singh, 2019). Knowledge sharing not only enhances organizational
performance and innovation capabilities but also reduces costs. Companies initiate
various strategies such as implementing software for knowledge sharing, introducing
incentive systems, nurturing enduring connections with employees over an extended
period, and creating a conducive atmosphere that promotes the exchange of knowledge
among employees. Despite these efforts, employee knowledge sharing remains
suboptimal, with deliberate concealment of information from colleagues being
prevalent (Xiao & Cooke, 2019). Scholars emphasize the significance of effective
knowledge sharing for organizational success, considering it pivotal for facilitating
innovation and enhancing performance, particularly within production-oriented
companies.. The term "knowledge hiding" has emerged as employees deliberately
choose not to share information, as indicated by Han et al. (2021). This intentional
concealment or withholding of requested information is considered a detrimental factor
impacting organizational performance, although there is a scarcity of comprehensive
studies investigating its root causes. (Kumar & Varkkey, 2018).
Despite the widespread emphasis on knowledge sharing, the concept of
knowledge concealment is equally important but often overlooked. The intentional
withholding of information distinguishes knowledge hiding from the absence of sharing
information. Understanding employees' motivations at work is crucial for fostering
knowledge transfer and sharing within organizations. Irum et al.'s study highlights the
importance of mutual understanding and reciprocity in explaining members' negative
responses to mistreatment in the workplace (Anand & Hassan, 2019).
Workplace ostracism (WO) and workplace incivility (WI) are critical factors
influencing social exchange behaviors. WO introduces stressful, emotionally draining,
physically and mentally exhausting behaviors, leading to less productivity. The ongoing
study investigates the ramifications of workplace discourtesy on the efficiency of work
and the contributions made by employees. The widespread prevalence of workplace
incivility and ostracism can have detrimental effects on an organization's overall
performance and employee engagement. This pervasive issue obstructs constructive
behaviors while fostering counterproductive work behavior (CWB). (Zhao et al.).
Workplace incivility and ostracism may contribute to turnover intention as a predictor
linked to knowledge hiding.
Research findings indicate that WI and WO can result in knowledge concealment
among employees, adversely impacting organizational performance and stakeholders.
Researchers are actively investigating the effects of WI and WO, exploring their
associations with job anxiety and the propensity to hide information. Many workers
experiencing WI and WO keep their concerns due to fear of discrimination (Nguyen et
al., 2022), resulting in decreased productivity, weakened work motivation, and
diminished loyalty to the organization.
1.2. Research objectives
● Firstly, this paper analyzes and evaluates the impact of WI and TI.
● Secondly, to analyze and evaluate the impact of WO and TI.
● Thirdly, to analyze the mediating role of Knowledge Hiding in the correlation
between WI and TI as well as WO and TI.
● Finally, it also proposes managerial implications to solve knowledge
concealment problems at work for managers.
1.3. Research question:
●
How does Workplace Ostracism influence the extent of Knowledge Hiding?
●
In what manner does Workplace Incivility dictate the occurrence of Knowledge
Hiding?
●
Are there interconnected relationships between Knowledge Hiding behaviors
and Workplace Incivility, Workplace Ostracism, and Turnover Intention?
1.4. Research scope
1.4.1. Content Scope
This study primarily measures the effects of workplace ostracism, workplace
incivility on turnover intentions. The study also examines and assesses the mediating
role of Knowledge Hiding on employee’s TI at work.
1.4.2. Location Scope
The scope of the research is Ho Chi Minh City, where several Vietnamese
provinces send workers there as well as foreigners.
1.4.3. Time Scope
The research was carried out from January 2024 to April 2024.
1.4.4. Research method
Quantitative research techniques are used in this study. The research gap was
identified by reviewing previously published papers and proposing a new theoretical
research model to investigate in this paper. In addition, a Google Form questionnaire is
used to collect data for this study's convenient sample collection approach. After that,
we use PLS-SEM to analyze the data and test the scale and model.
1.4.5. Target population
Since the research object of the author's group is Turnover Intention, employees
who work for small and medium-sized businesses are the survey subjects that our group
is focusing on.
1.5. Research contribution
This research contributes to the enhancement of our understanding of the impact
of workplace incivility and workplace ostracism on negative outcomes. It enriches the
literature on turnover intentions and Knowledge Hiding by providing diverse
perspectives, integrating these negative outcomes with the phenomena of workplace
incivility and workplace ostracism.
1.6. Structure of the study
There are five chapters in this study, each with a summary below:
Chapter 1: This chapter shows the contemporary environment of turnover
intentions at work for employees who are facing ostracism and incivility, particularly
after the COVID-19 epidemic altered the economy and required employees to satisfy
challenging standards. Also, it includes the limitations and findings of prior research.
Using that as a foundation, the author provides the research topic, objectives, questions,
and scope of the study.
Chapter 2: This chapter introduces relevant concepts and theories surrounding
stress at work. A research gap that was filled in this study is also highlighted by
literature reviews of previous research on this topic. The proposed research model and
hypotheses are also introduced in this chapter.
Chapter 3: The research process and methodology employed in this study are
discussed in this chapter. Also, it describes the use of questionnaires, measuring scales,
sampling methods, and the methods of collecting and analyzing data.
Chapter 4: The results from PLS-SEM analysis are presented in this chapter.
Chapter 5: This chapter contains research conclusions, limitations, and
suggestions for further research.
CHAPTER 02: LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESIS
DEVELOPMENT
2.1. Definitions
2.1.1. Workplace Ostracism.
Employees experience decreased engagement and disconnection when subjected
to workplace ostracism, leading to dissatisfaction and a sense of being outsiders within
their work environment. The occurrence of workplace ostracism results in unproductive
work behavior (Issac et al., 2019), contributing to reduced efficiency within
organizations. This problem manifests in less productive behavior, causing physical,
mental, and emotional exhaustion, as well as psychological and physical harm. The
impact of workplace ostracism extends to job anxiety and innovation-related challenges
at work (Riaz et al., 2019; Naseem et al., 2020).
A growing number of organizations are focusing on issues related to social
exclusion, mistreatment, and workplace ostracism, recognizing the significant negative
consequences at both individual and organizational levels (Gulek, 2020). Workplace
ostracism is characterized by a feeling of being overlooked at work, posing threats to
self-esteem, belonging, control, and a sense of meaning in one's life. Studies on
workplace ostracism reveal that any part of the workplace, including supervisors, coworkers, or external clients, can contribute to the ostracizing experience (Zhao et al.,
2017). Perceptions of workplace ostracism are subjective, leading affected coworkers
to exhibit hostile behaviors toward their colleagues, with manifestations varying in
subtle and overt expression depending on the situation (Aljawarneh & Atan, 2018).
In addition to affecting an individual's ability to embrace and sustain healthy
habits, these outcomes result in diminished workplace motivation, reduced participation
in civic activities, and a range of health issues. Researchers have turned their attention
to the efficacy of organizations, unveiling instances of deviant behavior among
colleagues, incompetence, and counterproductive actions stemming from heightened
social interactions. Similar trends manifest across a spectrum of organizations, as
evidenced by Howard et al.'s findings in 2020.
2.1.2. Workplace Incivility
Liu et al. (2019) define workplace incivility as a behavior characterized by disrespect
towards others, leading to a sense of disconnection, disrupted interpersonal relations,
and underdeveloped empathy. Research on workplace incivility has explored incidents
involving individual workers, such as checking emails and using mobile devices to send
text messages within meeting sessions, as well as making disrespectful comments or
uttering derogatory remarks (Wang & Chen, 2020). Scholars have increasingly focused
on these once-disregarded incidents for two primary reasons. Firstly, ignoring the costs
associated with WI is deemed irresponsible (Armstrong, 2018). Researchers assert that
the repercussions of WI extend to both organizations and individuals, exerting adverse
effects on them, negatively influencing the welfare of employees, their TI, and their
dedication to their roles, as indicated by previous studies. Secondly, workplace
incivility has global implications. Despite numerous studies conducted in American
contexts, Liu et al. illustrate that workplace incivility is prevalent in Asian work
environments, positively affecting both the company and personnel. However, limited
empirical research has explored the consequences arising from WI within the Asian
professional landscape. (Shi et al., 2018).
Pearson and Andersson (1999) conducted a foundational study on workplace incivility,
defining it as an employee's conduct within the professional environment. Described as
"low-level divergent behavior with ambiguous intent to harm, breaching workplace
norms for mutual respect" (Andersson & Pearson, 1999, p. 455), incivility is
characterized by verbal rather than physical actions, indirect rather than direct
expressions, and passive rather than active behaviors, as scrutinized by Neuman and
Baron (1996). Subsequent research expands the definition to encompass activities such
as gossiping and privacy invasion (Martin & Hine, 2005). Incivility is also depicted as
the daily botherations of individuals, turning unpleasant and stressful with repetition
(Grandey & Kern, 2009, p. 47). In contrast to more severe behaviors like aggression,
sabotage, and harassment, Lim et al. (2008) propose that incivility can be viewed as a
milder form of divergent actions, where the intention of wrongdoing is merely
perceived.
2.1.3. Knowledge Hiding
The occurrence of knowledge hiding, characterized by the intentional
withholding or concealment of requested knowledge by an individual, holds extensive
implications for both organizations and interpersonal relationships within them
(Connelly et al., 2012). In-depth research has shed light on diverse consequences of
knowledge hiding, including its adverse effects on creativity (M. Cerne et al., 2014),
innovative work behaviors, and individual performance (M. Cerne et al., 2017).
Furthermore, knowledge hiding has been linked to the emergence of interpersonal
distrust (Connelly et al., 2012) and strained relationships among individuals (Connelly
et al., 2015). Notably, evidence suggests that the practice of knowledge concealment
can rapidly spread, permeating from supervisors to subordinates (Arain, Bhatti et al.,
2018).
When employees actively partake in the sharing of both implicit and explicit
knowledge with their colleagues, it markedly enhances an organization's overall
effectiveness, creativity, and proficiency (Lin, 2015). Despite the intentional nature
associated with knowledge concealment, there are instances where employees may
choose to keep certain information to themselves (Connelly et al., 2012). This
knowledge encompasses task-specific details or expertise related to a job (e.g., Bartol
& Srivastava, 2002). The conscious decision not to share knowledge underscores the
distinction between hoarding and hiding (Zhao & Xia, 2017), resulting in significant
implications for knowledge sharing and organizational performance. Nonetheless, as
noted by Connelly et al., this concept diverges from Counterproductive Work Behaviors
(CWBs), given that knowledge hiding does not necessarily aim to inflict harm on others
or the organization, unlike CWBs that involve intentional acts of harm. Nevertheless,
knowledge hiding may harbor positive intentions at times. For instance, justified hiding
may aim to protect others' feelings or maintain confidentiality (e.g., abstaining from
sharing specific confidential documents). Knowledge hiding is a dyadic phenomenon
and should not be universally characterized as negative behavior, unlike CWBs, which
are explicitly designed to harm organizations or stakeholders.
2.1.3.1. Evasive Hiding
In the act of concealing knowledge, employees employ three distinct strategies,
with the selection of a particular strategy contingent on the nature of the knowledge
inquiry (Connelly et al., 2012). When faced with intricate knowledge queries,
employees are inclined to employ strategic concealment. As delineated by Connelly et
al. (2015), strategic concealment transpires when "the individual offering misleading or
incorrect information makes a deceptive commitment to providing a comprehensive
answer at a later time." This strategy involves an element of deception, even though the
employee harbors no intention of furnishing the information.
2.1.3.2. Playing Dumb
The second approach can be characterized as "pretending to be unaware of the
sought-after knowledge" (Von der Trenck, 2019). In this scenario, an employee assumes
a guise of not possessing the knowledge that is being sought.
2.1.3.3. Rationalized Hiding
The third tactic is termed as rationalized hiding, wherein individuals "provide a
rationale by presenting reasons or assigning blame to others." This approach is
employed when dealing with confidential information or aiming to safeguard the
emotions of colleagues. Despite an individual's perception of positive intentions behind
knowledge hiding, it has adverse effects on organizational performance, collaboration,
and advancement (Peng, 2013). Nevertheless, the factor of individual willingness to
withhold knowledge remains insufficiently examined. Instances of such concealment
persist, notwithstanding organizational initiatives geared towards promoting knowledge
sharing (Webster et al., 2008).
2.1.4. Turnover Intention
The inclination of employees to part ways with an organization is termed as
"turnover intentions." It is a critical factor that exerts an impact on employee
productivity. Chad and Sut (2011) emphasized that the turnover of employees leads to
economic losses, significantly diminishing job performance. According to Barak et al.
(2001), employee turnover is considered hazardous and costly, disrupting
organizational effectiveness and employee productivity to a considerable extent.
Administrators are compelled to invest significant resources and efforts in acquiring
new talent to offset the loss incurred by departing individuals. Bonett and Wright's
(2007) study delineated two categories of employee turnover: voluntary and
involuntary. Voluntary turnover occurs when employees intentionally leave the
organization for various reasons, often driven by the prospect of better opportunities,
whether spiritual or mental. This departure can have a detrimental impact on the
organization. Involuntary turnover, on the other hand, is instigated by factors such as
poor performance, layoffs, or other reasons that harm the organization's interests.
Previous research contends that turnover intention is a gradual process encompassing
thoughts of leaving a job, searching for a new one, or deciding whether to stay or leave
(Mobley, 1982; Milton and Jacqueline, 2007; Khan, Imran, & Nisar, 2016). Ultimately,
employee turnover can be defined as an individual's anticipated likelihood of
permanently leaving the organization in the near future (Miriam and Matthias, 2011).
2.2. Theoretical backgrounds
2.2.1. COR Theory
Hobfoll developed a new theory in 1989 called the Conservation Of Resources
theory. The model's basic tenet is that people strive to retain, protect, and build resources
and that what is threatening to them is the potential or actual loss of these valued
resources.
According to Hobfoll's COR theory (1989), people are driven to acquire
resources, which motivates them to invest in order to improve their status, love, assets,
or self-esteem, depending on their goals and the direction of their investment.
Psychological stress happens when an individual's resources are in danger or they could
lose a large number of their belongings. The threat to human resources comes from a
growth in the amount of work completed in a certain length of time (Work Overload),
which pushes people to spend resources on work that could be utilized for other things.
Due to the lack of resources, this prevents them from completing other objectives, which
results in stress.
When a person's sense of belonging is threatened, Hobfoll (1989) asserted that
the loss of resources is what causes depression and other serious unpleasant emotions
like stress to emerge. Ostracized employees view their social resources, which are
valuable resources utilized as auxiliary tools for problem-solving and dealing with
difficult situations at work, as being threatened in the setting of Workplace Ostracism
(Greenhaus & Powell, 2006). Employees may get focused on work-related issues due
to a lack of social resources, which could result in Job Stress.
2.2.2. Role Theory
In a particular status, certain standardized behavioral patterns are considered to
be in the role. In other words, a status has a role that needs to be fulfilled in accordance
with the laws that apply. According to Role Theory, individuals will suffer role
Ambiguity when they lack the knowledge necessary to perform specific roles
effectively. When a person or group exercises their rights and obligations and then
fulfills their role (Makom, 2021). People perform poorly at work when they feel that
the workload is excessive for the job they are doing. This results from their lack of
clarity around their role. This is comparable to Workplace Conflict, where employees'
ideas may be disregarded if their roles are not clearly defined, leading to bad
performance. The same thing occurs when there is work-related stress due to the
inappropriate role, which results in subpar performance.
2.2.3. Social Exchange Theory
The theory of Social Exchange helps to explain how people behave (Cropanzano
& Mitchell, 2005). Social Exchange Theory is present in workplace relations. The law
of reciprocity, which states that when people are properly needed by others, they will
feel obligated to repay them with good treatment, is the main tenet of social exchange
theory, which also examines how well superiors and subordinates interact and how
organizations support their employees. A business leader who is aware of what the
workforce wants and who can articulate the benefits of meeting those expectations will
make every effort to perform at their highest level.
2.3. Prior relevant studies
2.3.1. Muhammad Mohsin & Khalid Jamil et al., 2022
Elongating Nexus Between Workplace Factors and Knowledge Hiding
Behavior: Mediating Role of Job Anxiety
This research aims to explore the connection between workplace ostracism,
workplace incivility, and knowledge hiding behavior (evasive hiding, playing dumb,
rationalized hiding), taking into account the mediating role of job anxiety. The data for
this study were gathered through structured questionnaires administered to 275
participants (i.e., employees) employed in small to medium-sized enterprises across five
major cities in Pakistan. Structural equation modeling was employed as the analytical
technique for the collected data. Notably, the study findings indicate a positive impact
of workplace ostracism and workplace incivility on employees' knowledge hiding
behavior, with job anxiety significantly mediating the relationship between workplace
ostracism, workplace incivility, and knowledge hiding behavior.
This study underscores the importance of exploring individual dispositions to
comprehend the interplay between variables such as workplace ostracism, workplace
incivility, and knowledge hiding behavior. The implementation of a campaign for a
realistic job preview, coupled with setting exemplary standards, has effectively curbed
employees' inappropriate behavior. Furthermore, the study makes a substantial
contribution to existing literature on knowledge hiding behavior by offering valuable
insights into organizational and individual factors that subsequently shape individuals'
knowledge hiding behavior. This study stands out as the first of its kind to delve into
the predictive implications of the specified variables.
2.3.2. Zainab Mahfooz et al., 2017
Does Workplace Incivility & Workplace Ostracism influence the Employees’
Turnover Intentions? Mediating Role of Burnout and Job Stress & Moderating Role of
psychological Capital
The primary objective of this study is to scrutinize the pivotal role of workplace
incivility and ostracism in employees' turnover intentions, focusing on the mediating
impact of burnout and job stress, along with the moderating influence of psychological
capital in the health sector. The study adopts a descriptive, quantitative, and longitudinal
approach. Data collection occurred at two different time points, employing simple
random sampling techniques. Questionnaires were distributed among employees and
doctors in various hospitals, with only 200 out of 300 questionnaires deemed reliable.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)
techniques were utilized to investigate the behaviors under study.
The findings uncovered significant and negative relationships between workplace
incivility, workplace ostracism, and turnover intentions. Furthermore, burnout was
identified as a significant and partial mediator in the relationship between workplace
incivility and turnover intentions. Similarly, the results illuminated that job stress also
partially mediates the association between workplace ostracism and turnover intentions.
Additionally, psychological capital was found to significantly moderate the
relationships among workplace ostracism, job stress, and turnover intentions. This study
provides valuable insights into the adverse repercussions of psychological behaviors
within organizations.
2.3.3. Lalatendu Kesari Jena & Deepika Swain, 2021
How Knowledge-Hiding Behavior Among Manufacturing Professionals Influences
Functional Interdependence and Turnover Intention
Our study involved 363 executives employed across three public and two private
manufacturing organizations in eastern India. A t-test was conducted to analyze the
differences in the study variables. The statistical findings indicated no significant
difference among the study variables, suggesting that, despite varying levels of
management, there was no notable distinction in perceiving workplace incivility,
knowledge-hiding behavior, and items related to Functional Interdependence (FI) and
Turnover Intention (TI) in our instruments.
Correlation findings revealed a negative association between workplace
incivility and functional interdependence (r = −0.37, p < 0.01) and a positive association
between workplace incivility and turnover intention (r = 0.32, p < 0.01). The combined
effect of workplace incivility (β = −0.59, p < 0.001) and the significant presence of
knowledge-hiding behavior (β = −0.68, p < 0.01) when the dependent variable is FI
suggests that knowledge-hiding behavior partially mediates the association between
workplace incivility and FI. Similarly, the impact of workplace incivility (β = 0.43, p <
0.01) diminishes when the influence of knowledge-hiding behavior (β = 0.66, p < 0.001)
is substantial, with TI as the dependent variable.
The inverse relationship between knowledge hiding and FI, coupled with the
direct relation between sharing and TI, highlights the intricate dynamics. An exhaustive
data sample and rigorous statistical analysis are essential to elucidate the precise impact
of TI and FI due to the presence or absence of knowledge sharing and hiding.
2.3.4. Sidra Riaz, Yusen Xu and Shahid Hussain, 2019
Workplace Ostracism and Knowledge Hiding: The Mediating Role of Job Tension
This investigation delved into the repercussions of workplace incivility on
employees' inclination to conceal knowledge. Grounded in the conservation of resource
theory, the study aimed to pinpoint the influence of job tension as an intermediary and
the moderating impact of employee allegiance. Employing a time-lagged research
framework, information was gathered from 392 individuals in the textile industry. The
findings reveal a positive correlation between workplace incivility and knowledge
hiding behaviors like evasive hiding and playing dumb, although no significant
association was found with rationalized hiding. Specifically, workplace incivility
heightens job tension, and this tension serves as a mediator between workplace incivility
and knowledge hiding. Furthermore, it was observed that workplace incivility
undermines the advantages of employee loyalty, with high levels of workplace incivility
exerting a more pronounced effect on job tension. The study also delves into the
theoretical and practical implications of these findings.
2.3.5. Lata Bajpai Singh & Shalini Srivastava, 2021
Linking workplace ostracism to turnover intention: A moderated mediation approach
This research aims to investigate the impact of workplace ostracism on the
relationship between turnover intention and the moderating and mediating roles of
variables. Data were collected from 350 employees in hotels located in the Delhi NCR
region of India. Structural Equation Modeling and Macro PROCESS (Hayes, 2013)
were employed to analyze the proposed relationships. Openness to experience and
neuroticism were identified as partial mediators in the influence of workplace ostracism
on turnover intention, and the mediating effects were moderated by resilience. These
findings contribute to understanding how resilience can modify the link between
workplace ostracism and turnover intention. Notably, this study, the first of its kind in
the Indian context, connects variables such as workplace ostracism, turnover intention,
and personality traits to elucidate their impact on the hotel industry. Grounded in the
'Conservation of Resource' perspective, the research introduces a novel dimension to
the existing knowledge framework.
2.3.6. Elham Anasori et al., 2021
The mediating role of psychological distress between ostracism, work engagement, and
turnover intentions: An analysis in the Cypriot hospitality context.
Utilizing the frameworks of the conservation of resources and job-demands
resource theories, this investigation puts forth and validates psychological distress as an
underlying mechanism that mediates the connections between workplace ostracism,
work engagement, and turnover intentions. Additionally, it explores how resilience and
perceived external employability influence the aforementioned associations. The data
for this study were sourced from full-time employees in four- and five-star hotels. The
results indicate that psychological distress acts as a mediator in the link between
workplace ostracism and turnover intention, but does not play a mediating role in the
relationship between workplace ostracism and work engagement. Interestingly,
workplace ostracism diminishes the work engagement of less resilient employees while
unexpectedly heightening that of more resilient employees. Contrary to expectations,
the findings did not support the notion that employees with perceived high external
employability would exhibit stronger turnover intentions compared to those with lower
external employability. This research provides novel insights into the interplay of
workplace ostracism, engagement, and turnover intention, and discusses pertinent
theoretical implications and managerial considerations.
2.4. Research framework and hypothesis development
2.4.1. Research framework
Source: Author’s own
2.4.2. Hypothesis development
2.4.2.1. Workplace Ostracism and Knowledge Hiding
The COR theory posits that individuals possess resources to fulfill their needs,
and as a result, they strive to acquire and maintain valuable resources to reduce the risk
of losing support from both others and the environment (physical, social, cognitive).
Rooted in the COR theory, this perspective elucidates how workplace ostracism
depletes individuals' crucial resources essential in the work environment (Samma et al.,
2020). In response to such situations, individuals may activate protective mechanisms,
leading to continuous stress as a consequence of ongoing resource depletion, ultimately
resulting in negative outcomes (Sepahvand & Mofrad, 2021). The influence of
workplace ostracism on concealing knowledge and emotions during the workday, as
anticipated by the COR theory, has been demonstrated. Instances of hiding valuable
information are more likely to occur when employees are unaware that they might face
consequences for withholding sensitive data. Hence, the awareness of when to conceal
and when not to conceal can have significant ramifications. Hence, we proposed the
following hypotheses:
H1: Workplace ostracism positively influences evasive hiding.
H2: Workplace ostracism positively influences playing dumb.
H3: Workplace ostracism positively influences rationalized hiding.
2.4.2.2. Workplace Incivility and Knowledge Hiding
Individuals within an organization engage in tasks that demand knowledge,
expertise, and ideas. Knowledge hiding involves the intentional withholding or
concealing of information when requested (Liu et al., 2019). Despite the expectation for
employees to share information, various factors lead them to withhold it. Fear of losing
power or status, dissatisfaction with colleagues, and a system emphasizing individual
performance over collective outcomes contribute to this behavior (Wang & Chen,
2020). Employees employ different strategies for knowledge concealment, such as
playing dumb when they already possess the answers, evasive hiding by offering
knowledge but refusing to share, and rationalized hiding by providing reasons why
information cannot be disclosed or blaming third parties (Armstrong, 2018).
To enhance our understanding of reciprocity and social exchange in the
workplace (Aljawarneh & Atan, 2018), the concept of reciprocation is implemented.
Workplace incivility expressed from one party to another in social exchange can lead
to detrimental interactions. Following a "tit-for-tat" pattern, the authors identify signs
of reciprocity and escalation in uncivil behavior. Empirical evidence supports the
association between workplace incivility and workplace withdrawal (Hülsheger et al.,
2021). Our hypothesis posits that employees who experience uncivil treatment may
conceal any knowledge they possess when requested by those who treated them in such
a manner. Hence, we proposed the following hypotheses:
H4: Workplace incivility positively influences evasive hiding.
H5: Workplace incivility positively influences playing dumb.
H6: Workplace incivility positively influences rationalized hiding.
2.4.2.3. Workplace Ostracism and Turnover Intention
Workplace ostracism, a pervasive issue in various organizations, significantly
impacts employees' mental well-being and behavior (Bedi and Skowronski, 2014). In
the United States, a study involving workplace staff revealed that over two-thirds of
workers have experienced exclusion or rejection from leaders or co-workers at some
point in their professional history. This phenomenon diminishes employees' social
cohesion, a crucial factor for optimal job performance and productivity (Özer and
Günlük, 2010). While being ignored or excluded may seem relatively harmless, it has
enduring negative effects on employees' well-being, attitudes toward colleagues, and
actual turnover (Heaphy and Dutton, 2008).
To counteract the detrimental impact of workplace ostracism, the concept of
teamwork is gaining prominence, aiming to enhance employees' social cohesion for
improved performance and timely achievement of job targets (Özer and Günlük, 2010).
Workplace ostracism manifests in various forms, such as exclusion from conversations,
colleagues leaving when one enters, sitting alone in a crowded lunchroom, lack of
invitations or inquiries during coffee breaks, and being treated as if invisible (Bedi and
Skowronski, 2014). These experiences contribute to turnover intentions, ultimately
leading employees to leave their jobs.
Employee turnover intention represents the final stage in the sequence initiated
by workplace ostracism (Carpenter and Berry, 2014). Turnover can be categorized as
involuntary or voluntary, with the latter occurring when an employee chooses to resign
for various reasons (Haq, 2014). Voluntary turnover often results from seeking better
treatment, whether physical or spiritual, in another organization (Haq, 2014). While
such voluntary turnover may be positive for the employee, it raises concerns for the
organization.
Existing research has explored the relationship between workplace ostracism and
turnover intention, but less attention has been given to job stress as a mediator in this
association. Building on the existing literature, the hypothesis proposed is as follows:
H7: Workplace ostracism positively influences turnover intention.
2.4.2.4. Workplace Incivility and Turnover Intention
Prior studies have suggested that workplace incivility, stemming from
employees' attitudes and coworkers' behaviors, contributes to job turnover or the pursuit
of new employment opportunities. For instance, Bliese, Jex, and Thomas (2015)
demonstrated that workplace incivility diminishes employees' intent to continue their
current jobs, and Cortina's study (2001) identified a link between incivility victimization
and increased turnover intention. Therefore, individuals subjected to incivility are likely
to lose interest in their work, ultimately leading to a turnover intention and job
replacement (Griffon, 2010; Riasat & Nisar, 2016).
From the perspective of the Conservation of Resources (COR) theory, there
exists a direct and significant relationship between workplace incivility and turnover
intentions. Previous research indicates that undue pressure negatively impacts an
individual's job handling abilities and diminishes social interactions among employees
(Wright & Cropanzano, 1998; Halbesleben, 2006; Hobföll, 2001; Cole & Beeian,
2007). The resulting reduced social interactions serve as a coping mechanism, helping
employees distance themselves from these stressors, ultimately enhancing job
performance (Hobföll, 2001; Halbesleben, 2006).
While prior studies have extensively examined the association between
workplace incivility and turnover intention, they have often overlooked burnout as a
mediator in this relationship. In the current organizational landscape, many face issues
related to workplace incivility, leading employees to develop turnover intentions. The
direct relationship between workplace incivility and turnover intention is contingent on
the severity and frequency of incivility. Minor instances may be temporarily overlooked
by employees, requiring time before considering job resignations and transitions.
Conversely, if incivility involves attitude aggression or emotional abuse, employees are
more likely to resign from their current positions.
H8: Workplace incivility positively influences turnover intention.
2.4.2.5. Knowledge Hiding and Turnover Intention
Establishing a competitive advantage within any organization revolves around
knowledge, according to Wang and Noe (2010). Consequently, the concealment of
knowledge becomes crucial as it serves as a hurdle to disseminating the organization's
competitive edge to its workforce. Abundant research in the realm of knowledge
exchange and its influence on employee morale emphasizes that the sharing and
exchange of knowledge and information foster team cohesion and enhance
organizational performance. On the flip side, knowledge hiding acts as a catalyst for the
erosion of trust. The absence of trust turns the workplace into a perpetual Darwinian
battleground, where employees must constantly strive for survival, and only the most
adaptable thrive. This workplace atmosphere nurtures bitterness, thus mediating uncivil
behaviors. Knowledge sharing and collaboration, integral to knowledge transfer (Wang
and Noe, 2010), face substantial hindrances from knowledge-hiding behaviors. This
pattern of concealment intensifies, giving rise to WI.
Diverse forms of workplace incivility erode job satisfaction, as outlined by Viotti
et al. (2021). This erosion gradually engenders discomfort with peers, contrived
interactions, avoidance of workplace interactions, and an increasing desire to explore
more favorable professional environments. Consequently, ensuring that employees'
knowledge is accessible to various individuals and departments becomes pivotal for
fostering a thriving organization (De Vries et al., 2006). Knowledge sharing is defined
as a specific set of information and experiences that empower others to replicate
problem-solving skills, generate new ideas, and implement unique methods and
processes (Wang and Noe, 2010). Extensive research in this field demonstrates a
positive correlation between both team and organizational productivity and
performance and the sharing and exchange of knowledge and information (Collins and
Smith, 2006; Wang and Noe, 2010). In the context of the contemporary global-local
economy, where considerable value is placed on knowledge-related work,
understanding the factors influencing knowledge sharing has become an increasingly
significant concern ( Frost et al, 2010). Therefore, we posit the following hypotheses:
H9: Evasive hiding positively influences turnover intention.
H10: Playing dump positively influences turnover intention.
H11: Rationalized hiding positively influences turnover intention.
CHAPTER 03: RESEARCH METHOD
3.1. Research process
3.2. Measurement scale
The assessment of all items is conducted using 5-point Likert-type scales,
ranging from "1" (strongly disagree) through "3" (neutral) to "5" (strongly agree).
Constructs
Number of
Sources
measurement item
Workplace Ostracism
10
Ferris et al., (2008)
Workplace Incivility
7
Cortina et al., (2001)
Evasive hiding
4
Connelly et al., (2012)
Playing dumb
4
Rationalized hiding
4
Knowledge
Hiding
Turnover Intention
3
Kim et al. (2017)
3.2.1. Workplace Ostracism
The assessment of workplace ostracism was conducted using the 10-item scale
developed by Ferris et al. (2008). One example of a statement in the survey was "Others
at work shut you out of the conversation", and participants rated their agreement on a
5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from "1" (strongly disagree) through "3" (neutral) to
"5" (strongly agree).
WO1. Others ignored you at work.
WO2. Others left the area when you entered.
WO3. Your greetings have gone unanswered at work.
WO4. You involuntarily sat alone in a crowded lunchroom at work.
WO5. Others avoided you at work.
WO6. You noticed others would not look at you at work.
WO7. Others at work shut you out of the conversation.
WO8. Others refused to talk to you at work.
WO9. Others at work treated you as if you weren’t there.
WO10. Others at work did not invite you or ask you if you wanted anything when they
went out for a coffee break.
3.2.2. Workplace Incivility
The evaluation of workplace incivility utilized the "workplace incivility scale"
created by Cortina et al. (2001). This 7-item gauge was employed to gauge the
respondents' encounters with disrespectful, impolite, or condescending conduct from
their immediate superiors. An example item from the scale is “Have you been in a
situation where any of your superiors paid little attention to your statement or showed
little interest in your opinion?”
WI1. Put you down or was condescending to you?
WI2. Paid little attention to your statement or showed little interest in your opinion?
WI3. Made demeaning or derogatory remarks about you?
WI4. Addressed you in unprofessional terms, either publicly or privately?
WI5. Ignored or excluded you from professional camaraderie?
WI6. Doubted your judgment on a matter over which you have responsibility?
WI7. Made unwanted attempts to draw you into a discussion of personal matters?
3.2.3. Knowledge Hiding
We selected 12 items from a total of 21, encompassing three facets of the scale (evasive
hiding, playing dumb, rationalized hiding) to discern the adverse impact associated with
possessing knowledge within a work environment.
In this study, the mediating variables were three dimensions of knowledge hiding
(evasive hiding, playing dumb, rationalized hiding). Each dimension of knowledge
hiding was measured using a set of four items, adapted from Connelly et al.'s (2012)
research.
Evasive Hiding
EH1. I agree to help him/her but never really intend to.
EH2. I agree to help him/her but instead give him/her information different from what
s/he wanted.
EH3. I tell him/her that I would help him/her out later but stall as much as possible
EH4. I offer him/her some other information instead of what he/she really wants
Playing Dumb
PD1. I pretend that I do not know the information.
PD2. I say that I do not know. even though I do.
PD3. I pretend I do not know what s/he was talking about.
PD4. I say that I am not very knowledgeable about the topic.
Rationalized Hiding
RH1. I explain that I would like to tell him/her but was not supposed to
RH2. I explain that the information is confidential and only available to people on a
particular project.
RH3. I tell him/her that my boss would not let anyone share this knowledge.
RH4. I say that I would not answer his/her questions.
3.2.4. Turnover Intention
The focal point of the study was turnover intention, serving as the dependent variable,
and its assessment utilized a set of five items derived from the research conducted by
Kim et al. (2017).
TI1. I think a lot about quitting my job
TI2. I am actively searching for an alternative to my present job
TI3. As soon as possible, I will leave this Organization
3.3. Questionnaire design
The questionnaire consists of two sections. First section includes the
demographic profiles of the respondent by using nominal scale. Second section includes
the questions of all variables mentioned above by using a 5-point likert scale.
3.4. Data collection
The survey was translated into Vietnamese by the authors while simultaneously
ensuring face validity and contextual equivalence for respondents in Vietnam since the
study's participants were Vietnamese. The survey was conducted on an online survey
platform to ensure that all survey participants could fill it out whenever they have time
because our survey respondents are working people. Moreover, online surveys have
many advantages, including the ability to be conducted from anywhere, lower survey
costs, and quicker response times.
Our survey subjects are people working in many different working environments
in Vietnam. As a result, they were invited to answer questions related to their work
situation as well as their recent turnover intention. The main purpose of this
modification is to assist the response in creating a clear image or recollection that will
act as the basis for concluding the survey. This modification would ensure that every
response reflected the defined study model components in a way that was congruent
with the respondent's subjective experience. In an effort to represent perceived
experiences from many contexts involving work-related stress, the answer can become
disorganized without manipulation. A bias in the data-gathering process could be
prevented by data manipulation.
3.5. Data analysis method
We evaluated the suggested model using structural equation models with partial
squares (PLS-SEM) using the SmartPLS software. Several management and marketing
studies have made substantial use of PLS-SEM due to its ability to estimate
sophisticated statistical models. The consistency, value, and dependability of the
indicator are used to assess the measurement model. Each indicator's requirements are
properly followed: The outer loadings of indicators should be greater than 0.7,
Cronbach's alpha should be at least 0.6 and the average variance extracted (AVE) should
be over 0.5.
The model's variance inflation factor (VIF), which should be 3 or less, is then
assessed. After that, the precision of PLS estimates is verified using a bootstrapping
procedure
REFERENCES
with
5000
samples.