Elongating Nexus Between Workplace Factors and Knowledge Hiding Behavior: Mediating Role of Job Anxiety

Figures & data

Figure 1 Conceptual Framework.

Table 1 Measurement Model Results

	Items	Loadings	Cα	CR	AVE
Workplace Ostracism			0.867	0.904	0.657
	WO1	0.821
	WO2	0.880
	WO3	0.873
	WO4	0.806
	WO5	0.650
Workplace Incivility			0.818	0.869	0.525
	WI1	0.714
	WI2	0.766
	WI3	0.794
	WI4	0.685
	WI5	0.724
	WI6	0.659
Job Anxiety
	JA2	0.780	0.794	0.866	0.618
	JA3	0.776
	JA4	0.809
	JA5	0.779
Evasive Hiding			0.867	0.909	0.715
	EH1	0.826
	EH2	0.853
	EH3	0.892
	EH4	0.809
Playing Dumb			0.872	0.913	0.723
	PD1	0.847
	PD2	0.841
	PD3	0.866
	PD4	0.849
Rationalized Hiding	RH1	0.741	0.790	0.864	0.614
	RH2	0.848
	RH3	0.771
	RH4	0.770

Notes: Ca> 0.7; CR>0.7; AVE>0.5; loadings>0.6. According to Hair et al, the discriminant validity of the measurement model shows the extent to which a particular measure is differentiated from the other ones. We followed the Fornell and Larcker and HTMT ratio to test the discriminant validity among the latent constructs (Table 2).

Table 2 Discriminant Validity

	Fornell-Larcker Criterion							Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT)
	EH	JA	PD	RH	WI	WO		EH	JA	PD	RH	WI	WO
EH	0.846						EH
JA	0.520	0.786					JA	0.624
PD	0.553	0.527	0.851				PD	0.634	0.627
RH	0.534	0.475	0.471	0.783			RH	0.633	0.595	0.560
WI	0.529	0.570	0.579	0.436	0.725		WI	0.622	0.696	0.683	0.533
WO	0.604	0.580	0.573	0.389	0.682	0.810	WO	0.683	0.688	0.655	0.450	0.805

Abbreviations: EH, Evasive Hiding; JA, Job Anxiety; PD, Playing Dumb; RH, Rationalized Hiding; WI, Workplace Incivility; WO, Workplace Ostracism.

Figure 2 Measurement Model.

Table 3 Effect Size, Coefficient of Determination and Predictive Relevance

	VIF				R Square	Q Square
	Evasive Hiding	Job Anxiety	Playing Dumb	Rationalized Hiding	Endogenous Construct	Endogenous Construct
Evasive Hiding					0.419	0.288
Playing Dumb					0.423	0.300
Rationalized Hiding					0.267	0.152
Job Anxiety	1.649		1.649	1.649	0.393	0.234
Workplace Incivility	2.043	1.869	2.043	2.043
Workplace Ostracism	2.081	1.869	2.081	2.081

Table 4 Direct Effects

	Proposal Effect	Beta	St. Dev.	T Values	f^2	Confirmed
Workplace Ostracism -> Evasive Hiding	H1a	0.378***	0.085	4.452	0.118	Yes
Workplace Ostracism -> Playing Dumb	H1b	0.254***	0.082	3.112	0.054	Yes
Workplace Ostracism -> Rationalized Hiding	H1c	0.057^NS	0.084	0.676	0.002	No
Workplace Incivility -> Evasive Hiding	H2a	0.148^NS	0.087	1.699	0.018	No
Workplace Incivility -> Playing Dumb	H2b	0.280***	0.082	3.402	0.067	Yes
Workplace Incivility -> Rationalized Hiding	H2c	0.216**	0.080	2.684	0.031	Yes

Notes: ***p< 0.001; **p< 0.01.

Figure 3 Structural Model.

Table 5 Direct, Indirect and Total Effects

		Β	T Statistics	Β	T Statistics	β	T Statistics	Conclusion
H3a	WO-> JA-> EH	0.378***	4.433	0.078*	2.198	0.455***	5.968	Partial Mediation
	LLCI	0.200		0.021		0.294
	ULCI	0.534		0.161		0.591
H3b	WO-> JA-> PD	0.254***	3.134	0.079**	2.682	0.333***	4.557	Partial Mediation
	LLCI	0.087		0.030		0.182
	ULCI	0.402		0.142		0.470
H3c	WO-> JA-> RH	0.057^NS	0.669	0.114**	2.841	0.171*	2.185	Full Mediation
	LLCI	−0.120		0.049		0.013
	ULCI	0.213		0.207		0.320
H4a	WI-> JA-> EH	0.148^NS	1.701	0.070*	2.478	0.218*	2.591	Full Mediation
	LLCI	−0.016		0.020		0.058
	ULCI	0.327		0.132		0.393
H4b	WI-> JA-> PD	0.280***	3.376	0.071**	2.588	0.352***	4.178	Partial Mediation
	LLCI	0.113		0.026		0.182
	ULCI	0.437		0.133		0.515
H4c	WI-> JA-> RH	0.216**	2.640	0.104***	3.162	0.319***	3.945	Partial Mediation
	LLCI	0.057		0.047		0.163
	ULCI	0.381		0.175		0.481

Notes: ***p< 0.001; **p< 0.01; *p< 0.05.

Abbreviations: LLCI, lower limit confidence interval; ULCI, upper limit confidence interval.