How Peer Abusive Supervision Affects Sales Employees’ Customer Knowledge Hiding: The Roles of Rivalry and Schadenfreude

References

• Jaziri D. The advent of customer experiential knowledge management approach (CEKM): the integration of offline & online experiential knowledge. J Bus Res. 2019;94:241–256.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hsu CC, Liou JJH, Chuang YC. Integrating DANP and modified grey relation theory for the selection of an outsourcing provider. Expert Syst Appl. 2013;40:2297–2304.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khelladi I, Castellano S, Hobeika J, Perano M, Rutambuka D. Customer knowledge hiding behavior in service multi-sided platforms. J Bus Res. 2022;140:482–490.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Islam T, Asad M. Enhancing employees’ creativity through entrepreneurial leadership: can knowledge sharing and creative self-efficacy matter? J Inf Knowl Manag Syst. 2021. doi:10.1108/VJIKMS-07-2021-0121
   Google Scholar
• Islam T, Chaudhary A, Jamil S, Ali HF. Unleashing the mechanism between affect-based trust and employee creativity: a knowledge sharing perspective. Glob Knowledge, Mem Commun. 2021. doi:10.1108/GKMC-04-2021-0071
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chaker NN, Nowlin EL, Walker D, Anaza NA. Defending the frontier: examining the impact of internal salesperson evasive knowledge hiding on perceptions of external customer outcomes. Eur J Mark. 2021;55:671–699.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Connelly CE, Zweig D. How perpetrators and targets construe knowledge hiding in organizations. Eur J Work Organ Psychol. 2015;24:479–489.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gagné M. Different motivations for knowledge sharing and hiding: the role of motivating work design. J Organ Behav. 2019;40:783–799.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peng H. Why and when do people hide knowledge? J Knowl Manag. 2013;1:34.
   Google Scholar
• Singh SK, Chen J, Del Giudice M, El-Kassar AN. Environmental ethics, environmental performance, and competitive advantage: role of environmental training. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2019;146:203–211.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pereira V, Mohiya M. Share or hide? Investigating positive and negative employee intentions and organizational support in the context of knowledge sharing and hiding. J Bus Res. 2021;129:368–381.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Islam T, Ahmad S, Kaleem A, Mahmood K. Abusive supervision and knowledge sharing: moderating roles of Islamic work ethic and learning goal orientation. Manag Decis. 2021;59:205–222.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feng J, Wang C. Does abusive supervision always promote employees to hide knowledge? From both reactance and COR perspectives. J Knowl Manag. 2019;23:1455–1474.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hernaus T, Cerne M, Connelly C, Vokic NP, Škerlavaj M. Evasive knowledge hiding in academia: when competitive individuals are asked to collaborate. J Knowl Manag. 2018;1:56.
   Google Scholar
• Chaudhary A, Islam T, Ali HF, Jamil S. Can paternalistic leaders enhance knowledge sharing? The roles of organizational commitment and Islamic work ethics. Glob Knowledge, Mem Commun. 2021. doi:10.1108/GKMC-06-2021-0109
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harvey P, Stoner J, Hochwarter W, Kacmar C. Coping with abusive supervision: the neutralizing effects of ingratiation and positive affect on negative employee outcomes. Leadersh Q. 2007;18:264–280.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang X, Wen X, Paşamehmetoğlu A, Guchait P. Hospitality employee’s mindfulness and its impact on creativity and customer satisfaction: the moderating role of organizational error tolerance. Int J Hosp Manag. 2021:94.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tepper BJ. Consequences of abusive supervision. Acad Manag J. 2000;43:178–190.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Choi W, Kim SL, Yun S, Social Exchange A. Perspective of Abusive Supervision and Knowledge Sharing: investigating the Moderating Effects of Psychological Contract Fulfillment and Self-Enhancement Motive. J Bus Psychol. 2019;34:305–319.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khoreva V, Wechtler H. Exploring the consequences of knowledge hiding: an agency theory perspective. J Manag Psychol. 2020.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gul RF, Dunnan L, Jamil K, Awan FH, Ali B. Abusive Supervision and Its Impact on Knowledge Hiding Behavior Among Sales Force Components of Knowledge Hiding. Int J med. 2021;12:1–13.
   Google Scholar
• Tan L, Ma Z, Huang J, Guo G. Peer abusive supervision and third-party employee creativity from a social exchange theory perspective. Soc Behav Pers. 2021;1:49.
   Google Scholar
• Nguyen T-M, Malik A, Budhwar P. Knowledge hiding in organizational crisis: the moderating role of leadership. J Bus Res. 2022;139:161–172.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Islam T, Chaudhary A, Aziz MF. I regret to hide knowledge: a coping strategy model. Glob Knowledge, Mem Commun. 2021. doi:10.1108/GKMC-12-2020-0198
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burmeister A, Fasbender U, Gerpott FH. Consequences of knowledge hiding: the differential compensatory effects of guilt and shame. J Occup Organ Psychol. 2019;92:281–304.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peltokorpi V. Abusive supervision and emotional exhaustion: the moderating role of power distance orientation and the mediating role of interaction avoidance. Asia Pacific J Hum Resour. 2019;57:251–275.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Islam T, Ahmed I, Usman A, Ali M. Abusive supervision and knowledge hiding: the moderating roles of future orientation and Islamic work ethics. Manag Res Rev. 1565–1582;2:44.
   Google Scholar
• Mitchell MS, Vogel RM, Folger R. Third parties’ reactions to the abusive supervision of coworkers. J Appl Psychol. 2015;100:1040.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kilduff GJ, Elfenbein HA, Staw BM. The psychology of rivalry: a relationally dependent analysis of competition. Acad Manag J. 2010;53:943–969.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li X, McAllister DJ, Ilies R, Gloor JL. Schadenfreude: a counternormative observer response to workplace mistreatment. Acad Manag Rev. 2019;44:360–376.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Dijk WW, Ouwerkerk JW. Introduction to schadenfreude. Schadenfreude Underst Pleas Misfortune Others. 2014;1–14. doi:10.1007/9781139084246.001
   Google Scholar
• Skarlicki DP, Kulik CT. Third-party reactions to employee (mis) treatment: a justice perspective. Res Organ Behav. 2004;26:183–229.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu D. Empirical study of knowledge withholding in cyberspace: integrating protection motivation theory and theory of reasoned behavior. Comput Human Behav. 2020;2:105.
   Google Scholar
• Gul RF. Abusive Supervision and Its Impact on Knowledge Hiding Behavior Among Sales Force. Front Psychol. 2021;12:1–13.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qiao Y, Zhang Z, Jia M. Their pain, our pleasure: how and when peer abusive supervision leads to third parties’ schadenfreude and work engagement. J Bus Ethics. 2021;169:695–711.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martinko MJ, Harvey P, Brees JR, Mackey J. A review of abusive supervision research. J Organ Behav. 2013;34:S120–S137.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tepper BJ. Abusive supervision in work organizations: review, synthesis, and research agenda. J Manage. 2007;33:261–289.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Storey C, Larbig C. Absorbing customer knowledge: how customer involvement enables service design success. J Serv Res. 2018;21:101–118.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang C, Wei Y, Zhao X, Zhang X, Peng Y. Abusive supervision and creativity: investigating the moderating role of performance improvement attribution and the mediating role of psychological availability. Front Psychol. 2021;12:2222.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsai MT, Cheng NC. Understanding knowledge sharing between IT professionals-An integration of social cognitive and social exchange -Theory. Behav Inf Technol. 2012;31:1069–1080.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Serenko A, Bontis N. Understanding counterproductive knowledge behavior: antecedents and consequences of intra-organizational knowledge hiding. J Knowl Manag. 2016.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Magnotta SR, Johnson CM. The role of sales team intragroup conflict on critical job outcomes. Ind Mark Manag. 2020;84:126–137.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Černe M, Hernaus T, Dysvik A, Škerlavaj M. The role of multilevel synergistic interplay among team mastery climate, knowledge hiding, and job characteristics in stimulating innovative work behavior. Hum Resour Manag J. 2017;27:281–299.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malik OF. Perceptions of organizational politics, knowledge hiding, and employee creativity: the moderating role of professional commitment. Pers Individ Dif. 2019;142:232–237.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Butt AS, Ahmad AB. Are there any antecedents of top-down knowledge hiding in firms? Evidence from the United Arab Emirates. J Knowl Manag. 2019;23:1605–1627.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carnahan S, Agarwal R, Campbell B. The Effect of Firm Compensation Structures on the Mobility and Entrepreneurship of Extreme Performers. Business. 2010;1201:1–43.
   Google Scholar
• Blau KA. exchange and power in social life. Schlüsselwerke der Netzwerkforschung. 1964;51–54(Springer,):2019.
   Google Scholar
• Arain GA, Bhatti ZA, Ashraf N, Fang Y-H. Top-down knowledge hiding in organizations: an empirical study of the consequences of supervisor knowledge hiding among local and foreign workers in the Middle East. J Bus Ethics. 2020;164:611–625.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartmann NN, Wieland H, Vargo SL. Converging on a new theoretical foundation for selling. J Mark. 2018;82:1–18.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Srikanth K, Nandkumar A, Mani D, Kale P. How Firms Build Isolating Mechanisms for Knowledge: a Study in Offshore Research and Development Captives. Strateg Sci. 2020;5:98–116.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramdeo S, Singh R. Abusive supervision, co-worker abuse and work outcomes: procedural justice as a mediator. J med. 2019;7:325–341.
   Google Scholar
• Li Y, Wei Z, Liu Y. Strategic orientations, knowledge acquisition, and firm performance: the perspective of the vendor in cross-border outsourcing. J Manag Stud. 2010;47:1457–1482.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferrin DL, Bligh MC, Kohles JC. Can I trust you to trust me? A theory of trust, monitoring, and cooperation in interpersonal and intergroup relationships. Gr Organ Manag. 2007;32:465–499.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Islam T, Ahmad S, Kaleem A, Mahmood K. Abusive supervision and knowledge sharing: moderating roles of Islamic work ethic and learning goal orientation. Manag Decis. 2020.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim SL, Kim M, Yun S. Knowledge Sharing, Abusive Supervision, and Support: a Social Exchange Perspective. Gr Organ Manag. 2015;40:599–624.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yook KH, Choi JH, Suresh NC. Linking green purchasing capabilities to environmental and economic performance: the moderating role of firm size. J Purch Supply Manag. 2018;24:326–337.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aryee S, Sun L-Y, Chen ZXG, Debrah YA. Abusive supervision and contextual performance: the mediating role of emotional exhaustion and the moderating role of work unit structure. Manag Organ Rev. 2008;4:393–411.
   Google Scholar
• Jiang W, An Y, Wang L, Zheng C. Newcomers’ reaction to the abusive supervision toward peers during organizational socialization. J Vocat Behav. 2021;128:103586.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhao H, Jiang J. Role stress, emotional exhaustion, and knowledge hiding: the joint moderating effects of network centrality and structural holes. Curr Psychol. 2021;1–13.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khalid M, Bashir S, Khan AK, Abbas N. When and how abusive supervision leads to knowledge hiding behaviors: an Islamic work ethics perspective. Leadersh Organ Dev J. 2018;39:794–806.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang Y, Liu X, Chen W. Fight and flight: a contingency model of third parties’ approach-avoidance reactions to peer abusive supervision. J Bus Psychol. 2020;35:767–782.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Heugten K. Bullying of social workers: outcomes of a grounded study into impacts and interventions. Br J Soc Work. 2010;40:638–655.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kong M, Xu H, Zhou A, Yuan Y. Implicit followership theory to employee creativity: the roles of leader–member exchange, self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation. J Manag Organ. 2019;25:81–95.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cropanzano R, Stein JH. Organizational justice and behavioral ethics: promises and prospects. Bus Ethics Q. 2009;19:193–233.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Di Vaio A, Hasan S, Palladino R, Profita F, Mejri I. Understanding knowledge hiding in business organizations: a bibliometric analysis of research trends, 1988–2020. J Bus Res. 2021;134:560–573.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deutsch M. A theory of cooperation-competition and beyond. Hum Relations. 2012;2:275–294.
   Google Scholar
• Tyler BD, Cobbs J, Satinover Nichols B, Dalakas V. Schadenfreude, rivalry antecedents, and the role of perceived sincerity in sponsorship of sport rivalries. J Bus Res. 2021;124:708–719.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Converse BA, Reinhard DA. On rivalry and goal pursuit: shared competitive history, legacy concerns, and strategy selection. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2016;110:191.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim E, Glomb TM. Victimization of high performers: the roles of envy and work group identification. J Appl Psychol. 2014;99:619–634.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu X, Wu JH, Li Q. What drives consumer shopping behavior in live streaming commerce? J Electron Commer Res. 2020;21:144–167.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kilduff G, Elfenbein H, Staw B. The psychology of rivalry: a relationally dependent analysis of competition. Acad Manag J. 2010;53:943–969.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leach CW, Spears R, Branscombe NR, Doosje B. Malicious Pleasure: schadenfreude at the Suffering of Another Group. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003;84:932–943.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu E. The ‘evil Pleasure’: abusive supervision and third-party observers’ malicious reactions toward victims. Organ Sci. 2020;31:1115–1137.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Dijk WW, Ouwerkerk JW, Goslinga S, Nieweg M, Gallucci M. When people fall from grace: reconsidering the role of envy in Schadenfreude. Emotion. 2006;6:156–160.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marticotte F, Arcand M. Schadenfreude, attitude and the purchase intentions of a counterfeit luxury brand. J Bus Res. 2017;77:175–183.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nai A, Otto LP. When they go low, we gloat: how trait and state schadenfreude moderate the perception and effect of negative political messages. J Media Psychol. 2021;33:82–93.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kilduff GJ, Galinsky AD, Gallo E, Reade JJ. Whatever it takes to win: rivalry increases unethical behavior. J Acad Manag J Manuscr ID. 2016;1:536.
   Google Scholar
• Kistruck GM, Lount RB, Smith BR, Bergman BJ, Moss TW. Cooperation vs. competition: alternative goal structures for motivating groups in a resource scarce environment. Acad Manag J. 2016;59:1174–1198.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson C, John OP, Keltner D, Kring AM. Who attains social status? Effects of personality and physical attractiveness in social groups. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2001;81:116–132.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson J. Essentials of Business Research: A Guide to Doing Your Research Project. Sage; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Connelly CE, Zweig D, Webster J, Trougakos JP. Knowledge hiding in organizations. J Organ Behav. 2012;33:64–88.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitchell MS, Ambrose ML. Abusive supervision and workplace deviance and the moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2007;92:1159–1168.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu E, Huang X, Lam CK, Miao Q. Abusive supervision and work behaviors: the mediating role of LMX. J Organ Behav. 2012;33:531–543.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peng J, Wang Z, Chen X. Does self-serving leadership hinder team creativity? A moderated dual-path model. J Bus Ethics. 2019;159:419–433.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee J-Y, Podsakoff NP. Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol. 2003;88:879.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dawson KM, O’Brien KE, Beehr TA. The role of hindrance stressors in the job demand–control–support model of occupational stress: a proposed theory revision. J Organ Behav. 2016;37:397–415.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson JC, Gerbing DW. Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol Bull. 1988;103:411.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res. 1981;18:39–50.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aiken LS, West SG, Reno RR. Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. sage; 1991.
   Google Scholar
• Baron RM, Kenny DA. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1986;51:1173.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siachou E, Trichina E, Papasolomou I, Sakka G. Why do employees hide their knowledge and what are the consequences? A systematic literature review. J Bus Res. 2021;135:195–213.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen C, Qin X, Yam KC, Wang H. Empathy or schadenfreude? Exploring observers’ differential responses to abusive supervision. J Bus Psychol. 2020;1–18.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu P, Li X, Li A, Wang X, Xiong G. How third parties respond to workplace incivility: the moderating role of the dark triad and task interdependence. Pers Individ Dif. 2021;171:110427.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qiao Y, Zhang Z, Jia M. Their Pain, Our Pleasure: How and When Peer Abusive Supervision Leads to Third Parties’ Schadenfreude and Work Engagement. J Bus Ethics. 2019. doi:10.1007/s10551-019-04315-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neall AM, Tuckey MR. A methodological review of research on the antecedents and consequences of workplace harassment. J Occup Organ Psychol. 2014;87:225–257.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christensen TC, Barrett LF, Bliss-Moreau E, Lebo K, Kaschub C. A practical guide to experience-sampling procedures. J Happiness Stud. 2003;4:53–78.
   Google Scholar