Secrets in the shadows: Unmasking tacit knowledge hiding and hoarding through the lens of trust
Darren Wiggins & Ling Wang
What the paper says
Knowledge Hiding is the intentional withholding of knowledge from colleagues, often driven by a lack of trust. It manifests as rationalized hiding, evasive hiding, or playing dumb; the latter two are particularly detrimental to workplace trust. Organizations invest in promoting Tacit Knowledge and Explicit Knowledge sharing to enhance teamwork, problem-solving, and workplace relationships. Recent studies emphasize the importance of understanding the characteristics of Tacit Knowledge and Explicit Knowledge, as well as the motivations behind Knowledge Hiding and Knowledge Hoarding. This study aimed to identify key factors influencing individuals' decisions to share Tacit Knowledge or engage in Knowledge Hiding and Knowledge Hoarding. Using an 11-stage Survey Design methodology, data were collected from 285 Knowledge Management professionals across five countries in North America and Europe. Participants represented a diverse range of industries and organizational sizes, providing a broad perspective on knowledge behaviors. Results indicated participant awareness of and engagement in Knowledge Hiding, Knowledge Hoarding, and Knowledge Sharing. They recognized that Tacit Knowledge holders made deliberate sharing decisions based on factors like trust, sincerity, and expertise. Additionally, organizational culture, incentives, and perceived risks played a role in these decisions, with some respondents highlighting the impact of competitive environments and personal career advancement. The study highlighted the need for future research to include leadership influences on Knowledge Hiding, Knowledge Hoarding, and trust and distrust in the workplace.
Evidence weight
Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40
| F · citation impact | 0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20 |
| M · momentum | 0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07 |
| V · venue signal | 0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03 |
| R · text relevance † | 0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20 |
† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.