Promotion or prevention? Impact of gamified work on knowledge hiding among gig workers
Weiwei Liu & Lingyan Hu
Abstract
Purpose This study examines the impact of gamified work on knowledge hiding among gig workers from the perspective of regulatory focus theory. Design/methodology/approach To validate the proposed theoretical model, we conducted three studies. Study 1 was an experiment with a 2 (gamified work: absence vs presence) between-subjects design. Studies 2 and 3 were surveys. Findings The main results revealed several key findings. First, gamified work increased self-efficacy. Second, gamified work inhibited knowledge hiding through self-efficacy. Third, gamified work increased affective rumination. Fourth, gamified work facilitated knowledge hiding through affective rumination. Finally, task-technology fit served as a moderating factor in these relationships. Practical implications Organizations are encouraged to design dynamic and personalized gamified work systems. Additionally, psychological development initiatives should be implemented to enhance workers' self-efficacy. A psychological support mechanism could also be established to alleviate affective rumination. Furthermore, ensuring an optimal task-technology fit remains crucial. These strategies are expected to effectively mitigate knowledge hiding behaviors. Originality/value Most studies on knowledge hiding have focused on formal employees within traditional firm settings, often overlooking those working outside the conventional economic framework, such as gig workers. This study focuses on gig workers, uncovering the mechanisms through which gamified work influences knowledge hiding and offering practical insights for knowledge management in platform-based enterprises.
1 citation
Evidence weight
Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40
| F · citation impact | 0.16 × 0.4 = 0.06 |
| M · momentum | 0.53 × 0.15 = 0.08 |
| 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.