Abstract
Introduction:
Anchored in Social Exchange Theory, Conservation of Resources Theory, Affective Events Theory, and Psychological Ownership Theory, this study develops an integrated model linking leader trust, job satisfaction, and knowledge hiding, while positioning knowledge psychological ownership (KPO) as a contextual boundary condition.
Methods:
Survey data were collected from 518 matched leader-employee dyads across 17 Chinese knowledge-intensive firms in IT services, pharmaceutical R&D, high-end equipment manufacturing, and financial consulting. Structural equation modeling combined with PROCESS bootstrap analysis was employed to test the hypothesized relationships.
Results:
Confirmatory-factor-analysis results indicate satisfactory discriminant validity for all four focal constructs. Empirical evidence shows that: (1) leader trust significantly curbs employee knowledge hiding (β = −0.31, p < 0.001); (2) job satisfaction partially mediates this relationship, with the indirect path accounting for 34 per cent of the total effect (β = 0.46, p < 0.001); and (3) KPO exerts a significant negative moderating influence on both the “leader trust → job satisfaction” path and the overall indirect effect, reducing the mediation coefficient from −0.17 to −0.06 under high-KPO conditions (β = −0.23, p < 0.001). These findings remain robust after controlling for organizational support, team competition, and industry heterogeneity.
Discussion:
The study enriches the antecedent framework of knowledge hiding by foregrounding vertical trust, illuminating the dynamic tension between reciprocity motivation and resource-defence motivation, and clarifying the double-edged boundary role of psychological ownership. Practically, Organizations should enhance perceived trust through empowerment and feedback while implementing monitoring systems to cultivate knowledge-sharing climates.
1 Introduction
As the global economy shifts from a resource-driven to a knowledge-driven paradigm, competitive advantage depends less on tangible inputs such as capital and land and more on knowledge assets that are difficult to imitate or transfer (). The widespread deployment of big data, artificial intelligence, and cloud computing has accelerated both the speed and density of knowledge flows, making knowledge management a core function for sustaining long-term competitiveness. However, the rapid circulation of knowledge also brings a paradox: while firms can benefit from knowledge sharing, they simultaneously face the challenge that individuals may deliberately conceal or withhold knowledge. In modern firms-where individual expertise differentiation and performance contests are salient-employees often hesitate, or even refuse, to share their unique know-how. When confronted with knowledge requests from colleagues or teams, employees may deliberately withhold information by feigning ignorance, offering excuses, or invoking confidentiality. This intentional refusal is conceptualized as knowledge hiding (). Extensive empirical research indicates that knowledge hiding not only undermines team innovation and prolongs new-product development cycles but also erodes organizational trust and employee satisfaction (; ).
Early studies treated knowledge hiding as the antithesis of knowledge sharing and concentrated on horizontal antecedents-such as interpersonal distrust, team competition climate, or individual personality traits (; ). However, in China's high-power-distance, relationship-oriented context, employees are acutely sensitive to their direct supervisor's attitudes and evaluations. The extent to which leaders trust subordinates may therefore constitute a critical cue in weighing the risks and benefits of sharing. Although a number of studies have examined interpersonal trust, systematic evidence on how vertical trust-particularly leader trust-affects knowledge hiding remains limited and fragmented, with most prior work focusing only on peer-level dynamics or treating leader trust as a background factor (). Drawing on Social Exchange Theory (SET), employees who perceive strong endorsement of their competence and integrity from leaders are motivated to reciprocate positively. Conservation of Resources Theory (COR) further posits that vertical trust provides socio-emotional and status resources that buffer the resource-loss anxiety associated with knowledge leakage ().
Affective Events Theory (AET) adds that positive workplace events first influence employees' emotional states and subsequently shape their work attitudes and behaviors. Leader trust, as a salient affective event, is expected to elevate job satisfaction, which is closely linked to pro-organizational behavior. Whether job satisfaction mediates the leader-trust → knowledge-hiding link, however, remains under-examined. Simultaneously, the Psychological Ownership Framework (POF) cautions that once employees develop a sense of “this is mine” toward a resource, they tend to guard it to protect personal boundaries (). When employees hold strong Knowledge Psychological Ownership (KPO) over their expertise, they may fear that sharing will diminish their advantage, thereby attenuating the positive influence of leader trust. KPO is thus likely to be a crucial boundary condition in the trust-knowledge-hiding pathway.
Against this theoretical and practical backdrop, the present study addresses three research questions: (1) Can leader trust significantly suppress knowledge-hiding behavior? (2) Does job satisfaction serve as an intermediary between leader trust and knowledge hiding? (3) In what manner does KPO intervene in this causal chain? Figure 1 illustrates the conceptual framework underlying these questions. By tackling these questions, we aim to enrich the literature on vertical trust and knowledge hiding by illuminating the interaction between affective channels and resource-conservation motives, and to offer actionable guidance for knowledge-intensive enterprises seeking a balance between the virtuous cycle of “trust-satisfaction-sharing” and the vicious cycle of “possession-defense-hiding.”
Figure 1
2 Literature Review
2.1 Leader Trust: Conceptualization and Mechanisms
Within an organizational context, leader trust refers to the extent to which subordinates perceive their immediate manager to be reliable in terms of ability, integrity and benevolence (; ). A robust body of evidence demonstrates that leader trust diminishes vertical communication barriers and enhances organizational citizenship behavior and team performance (; ; ; ). From the perspective of Social Exchange Theory (), a high level of trust constitutes a social resource conferred by leaders, thereby motivating subordinates to reciprocate through loyalty, voice and innovative conduct.
The influence of leader trust on knowledge-related behaviors, however, remains equivocal. In the hospitality sector, ) found that leader trust buffers the negative impact of psychological contract breach on knowledge sharing, whereas a study of high-technology firms by ) showed that perceived distrust from leaders significantly curtails employees' innovation effort and knowledge sharing. Taken together, these findings suggest that leader trust may not exert a uniform effect; rather, its impact depends on contextual characteristics and employees' cognitive appraisals. Conservation of Resources Theory () further posits that trusted employees view such trust as a valuable socio-emotional resource and are therefore willing to deploy additional “available resources” in exchange; conversely, when trust is absent, they are inclined to conserve residual resources by withholding knowledge to avoid potential losses. Consequently, it is essential to examine both the direct and indirect effects of leader trust on knowledge hiding across diverse contexts and to identify the boundary conditions that shape these relationships.
2.2 Knowledge Hiding: Measurement, Antecedents, and Research Gaps
Since ) introduced a 12-item instrument encompassing three forms of knowledge hiding-playing dumb, evasive hiding, and rationalized hiding-the literature on this construct has expanded rapidly. Empirical studies have identified antecedents at the individual, interpersonal, and organizational levels. At the individual level, traits such as Machiavellianism, low self-efficacy, and knowledge uniqueness are positively associated with hiding behavior (; ; ). At the interpersonal level, interpersonal distrust and a competitive team climate significantly increase the propensity to withhold knowledge (; ). At the organizational level, territorial culture, performance pressure, and uncertainty surrounding intellectual-property rights have all been shown to trigger knowledge hiding ().
Despite these insights, prior studies seldom address intra-team heterogeneity-that is, why some employees engage in hiding while others share knowledge under the same conditions. In particular, the interplay between leader trust and employees' subjective appraisals, such as knowledge psychological ownership, has been under-examined. Moreover, most existing studies are cross-sectional, providing little insight into the temporal dynamics of knowledge hiding or its long-term performance consequences. Longitudinal designs and mixed-methods approaches are therefore needed to illuminate the developmental trajectory of knowledge hiding and to capture its evolving impact on organizational outcomes.
2.3 Job Satisfaction: A Potential Bridge between Trust and Knowledge Behavior
Job satisfaction is commonly defined as employees' global affective evaluation of their work tasks, environment, remuneration, and developmental opportunities (). From a Conservation of Resources perspective, job satisfaction reflects a favorable appraisal of the resources that the organization provides, thereby attenuating employees' need to defensively guard their own resources-particularly knowledge. Prior research demonstrates that job satisfaction is shaped by organizational identification and fosters belongingness, stimulates positive discretionary behavior, and ultimately improves employees' evaluation of the organization (; ). Among knowledge workers, higher satisfaction strengthens the motivation to reciprocate organizational support (). However, evidence remains scarce regarding whether job satisfaction can dampen knowledge hiding and how it mediates the link between leader trust and knowledge-related behavior. Clarifying this pathway will enrich theoretical understanding and provide actionable insights for organizations seeking to reduce knowledge loss through enhancing employee satisfaction.
2.4 Knowledge Psychological Ownership: Boundary Regulation and a Double-Edged Sword
Psychological ownership refers to a subjective sense of “mine” that is psychological rather than legal in nature (). Extending this notion, Knowledge Psychological Ownership (KPO) captures employees' perceived control and proprietary claims over the knowledge they possess (). Empirical studies indicate that employees with high KPO are more inclined to engage in territorial behaviors and knowledge-hiding strategies (). Conversely, some scholars argue that in contexts of strong leader trust or high job satisfaction, KPO can be re-channeled into a positive impetus for knowledge sharing. Accordingly, KPO may function as a boundary condition in the leader-trust-knowledge-hiding linkage: when employees feel deeply trusted by their leader and are highly satisfied, KPO's defensive effect is attenuated; when trust and satisfaction are weak, KPO can intensify the urge to hoard knowledge. This double-edged nature of KPO has yet to be thoroughly validated, calling for multi-context, multi-level investigations to clarify its contingent role.
3 Research hypotheses
Integrating Conservation of Resources theory (COR; ), Social Exchange Theory (SET; ), and Psychological Ownership Theory (), we propose an overarching “vertical trust-affective channel-knowledge hiding” framework (see Figure 1) to explain how leader trust shapes employees' knowledge-hiding behavior in a knowledge-economy context and to highlight the boundary role of Knowledge Psychological Ownership (KPO). The theoretical logic and corresponding hypotheses are developed as follows.
3.1 Leader Trust and Knowledge Hiding: A Direct Inhibitory Path
Leader trust constitutes a high—quality social resource conveyed by managers, encompassing emotional support, developmental opportunities, and discretion. From a SET perspective, trust functions as a “social investment”: by signaling that subordinates are “worth investing in,” leaders trigger employees' reciprocity motivation. Concurrently, COR theory suggests that trust operates as a resource caravan passageway, alleviating employees' anxiety over the potential resource loss associated with sharing knowledge. In high-trust contexts, perceived failure risk is lower, making employees more willing to share tacit know-how and thereby reducing their propensity to hide knowledge. Accordingly, we hypothesize:
H1. Leader trust is negatively related to employee knowledge hiding.
3.2 Job satisfaction as an affective mediating pathway
Affective Events Theory (AET) posits that discrete workplace events trigger emotional reactions that subsequently shape employees' work attitudes and behaviors. Within this framework, leader trust represents a positive event that enhances employees' emotional arousal and sense of belonging, which is expected to translate into higher job satisfaction. Job satisfaction reflects employees' overall appraisal of the resources and opportunities provided by the organization; when satisfaction rises, employees are more likely to view the organization as a “resource-gain platform,” thereby attenuating the defensive mindset that fuels knowledge withholding. Prior research (e.g., ) further indicates that job satisfaction varies with contextual conditions and reliably predicts work performance and organizational citizenship behavior. Building on this logic, we propose the following hypotheses:
H2. Leader trust is positively associated with job satisfaction.
H3. Job satisfaction is negatively associated with knowledge hiding.
H4. Job satisfaction mediates the relationship between leader trust and knowledge hiding; that is, leader trust indirectly reduces knowledge hiding by enhancing job satisfaction.
3.3 Knowledge psychological ownership as a contextual moderator
Psychological ownership theory posits that when employees perceive knowledge as “mine,” they closely guard its flow and treat sharing as a potential resource loss (). Under such circumstances, even explicit expressions of leader trust may not translate into higher affective investment or satisfaction, because employees' resource-defense motivation overrides reciprocity motives. Accordingly, high levels of Knowledge Psychological Ownership (KPO) are expected to dampen the positive affective response elicited by leader trust and, in turn, weaken the capacity of job satisfaction to curb knowledge hiding. Therefore, we advance the following hypotheses:
H5. Knowledge psychological ownership negatively moderates the positive relationship between leader trust and job satisfaction; specifically, the enhancing effect of leader trust on satisfaction becomes weaker when KPO is high.
H6. Knowledge psychological ownership negatively moderates the indirect effect of leader trust on knowledge hiding via job satisfaction; the higher the KPO, the weaker the mediating pathway.
4 Method
4.1 Research design and sample
A cross-sectional survey design was adopted. Data were collected from seventeen Chinese knowledge-intensive firms spanning four industries-IT services, pharmaceutical RandD, high-end equipment manufacturing and financial information consulting. Target firms were identified using industry-association directories and public annual reports. Within each firm, departments were first stratified into RandD, operations, and support functions, and employees were then randomly sampled across hierarchical positions (entry-level, middle management, and senior staff) to ensure representation across both functional and positional tiers. Participation was entirely voluntary and anonymity was guaranteed to reduce social-desirability bias.
To maximize content validity and contextual fit, a two-round Delphi process was conducted with a panel of 12 experts (six university researchers in organizational behavior and HRM, and six senior managers from knowledge-intensive firms). In Round 1, experts independently rated the clarity and relevance of each draft item on a 5-point scale; items with median ratings below 3.5 or an interquartile range above 1.0 were flagged for revision. In Round 2, experts reviewed the revised items and reached over 85% consensus on content adequacy. This process helped refine wording and ensure that scenario-based items (e.g., knowledge requests from colleagues vs. leaders) were both realistic and culturally appropriate.
A pilot test with forty two respondents yielded an exploratory factor analysis, leading to the elimination of items with low (< 0.50) or cross loadings. In the formal stage, 600 questionnaires were distributed and 556 returned. After removing cases with aberrant response time, failed attention checks, or logical inconsistencies, 518 valid responses remained (response rate = 86.7%).
The final sample comprised 45.4 % men and 54.6 % women, with an average age of 32.7 years (SD = 6.2). A total of 60.8 % held a bachelor's degree or higher, including 27.0 % with master's or doctoral degrees; mean organizational tenure was 3.8 years (SD = 2.9). Overall, the demographic profile mirrors China's knowledge-intensive workforce, supporting the sample's representativeness. Table 1 reports the respondents' profile.
Table 1
| Variable | Category | Frequency | Percentage(%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 235 | 45.37 |
| Female | 283 | 54.63 | |
| Age | ≤ 25 | 109 | 21.04 |
| 26–30 | 116 | 22.39 | |
| 31–40 | 105 | 20.27 | |
| 41–50 | 124 | 23.94 | |
| ≥51 | 64 | 12.36 | |
| Education | High school or below | 46 | 8.88 |
| Junior college | 157 | 30.31 | |
| Bachelor's | 175 | 33.78 | |
| Master's | 105 | 20.27 | |
| Doctorate | 35 | 6.76 | |
| Organizational tenure | < 1 year | 109 | 21.04 |
| 1–3 years | 147 | 28.38 | |
| 4–5 years | 108 | 20.85 | |
| 6–7 years | 107 | 20.66 | |
| >7 years | 47 | 9.07 |
Demographic characteristics of the sample (N = 518).
Percentages may not sum to exactly 100 due to rounding.
4.2 Measurement instruments
The final questionnaire comprised two sections. Section A captured six demographic variables (gender, age, education, organizational tenure, etc.). Section B contained 38 items measuring four focal constructs, each rated on a five-point Likert scale (1 = “strongly disagree,” 5 = “strongly agree”). Scale development employed a blind forward-back translation procedure. Two independent bilingual doctoral researchers with formal training in survey translation/psychometrics conducted the forward translation; a separate bilingual linguist with an M.A. in applied linguistics performed the back-translation. A bilingual professor of organizational behavior adjudicated discrepancies and confirmed semantic and contextual equivalence. Item sources and counts were as follows: leader trust (; ten items), job satisfaction (; seventeen items), knowledge hiding (; ten items), and knowledge psychological ownership (; three items). Reverse-scored items are flagged “Ⓡ”. Although the KPO scale included only three items, confirmatory factor analysis results indicated high reliability (Cronbach's α = 0.89; AVE = 0.73), which is adequate for our analytical approach (Table 2).
Table 2
| Construct | Code | English item wording | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Leader Trust (LT) | LT1 | My immediate supervisor involves me in key decisions and allows me to exert influence. | |
| LT2 | My immediate supervisor pays appropriate attention to my work progress. | ||
| LT3 | Even when unable to monitor me, my supervisor is comfortable assigning tasks to me. | ||
| LT4 | My supervisor openly shares mistakes he or she has made at work. | ||
| LT5 | My supervisor is willing to discuss contentious or unpopular views. | ||
| LT6Ⓡ | My supervisor worries that I might make things difficult for him/her at work. | Reverse | |
| LT7 | When I raise questions, my supervisor provides detailed explanations. | ||
| LT8 | If others question my motives, my supervisor chooses to believe me. | ||
| LT9 | When I ask for assistance, my supervisor responds readily without weighing self-interest. | ||
| LT10 | My supervisor frequently entrusts me with full responsibility for important projects. | ||
| Job Satisfaction (JS) | JS1 | I feel enthusiastic about my current job. | |
| JS2 | I maintain a high level of initiative at work. | ||
| JS3 | This job fully utilizes my abilities. | ||
| JS4 | I can play an important role within the team. | ||
| JS5 | My work gives me a sense of achievement. | ||
| JS6 | My job is fairly stable. | ||
| JS7 | I often have opportunities to try different tasks. | ||
| JS8 | I have opportunities to help other people. | ||
| JS9 | I have authority to direct others in their work. | ||
| JS10 | I enjoy autonomy and discretion in my position. | ||
| JS11 | My work tasks do not conflict with my conscience. | ||
| JS12 | Communication with my supervisor and colleagues is smooth. | ||
| JS13 | I am satisfied with my supervisor's management style. | ||
| JS14 | My income is generally commensurate with my effort. | ||
| JS15 | I am satisfied with the policies the company formulates and implements. | ||
| JS16 | There is a clear promotion path in my current work. | ||
| JS17 | I am satisfied with the working environment and conditions. | ||
| Knowledge Hiding (KH) | KH1Ⓡ | When a colleague requests information, I pretend not to know what he/she is talking about. | Reverse |
| KH2Ⓡ | When a colleague seeks help, I claim to be unfamiliar with the topic. | Reverse | |
| KH3Ⓡ | Although I know the answer, I tell the colleague “I'm not sure.” | Reverse | |
| KH4Ⓡ | I divert the colleague to information unrelated to the issue. | Reverse | |
| KH5Ⓡ | I verbally agree to help but deliberately delay doing so. | Reverse | |
| KH6Ⓡ | I provide information that does not match the colleague's needs. | Reverse | |
| KH7Ⓡ | I refuse to share by stating that “the supervisor does not want this information disclosed.” | Reverse | |
| KH8Ⓡ | I state that the information is restricted to certain personnel only. | Reverse | |
| KH9Ⓡ | I explicitly say that I will not answer the colleague's question. | Reverse | |
| KH10Ⓡ | I feel I “should not reveal” relevant knowledge. | Reverse | |
| Knowledge Psychological Ownership (KPO) | KPO1 | I regard the knowledge I bring to work as my personal property. | |
| KPO2 | The knowledge I use at work belongs to me. | ||
| KPO3 | The knowledge and experience I accumulate at work are owned by me personally. |
Measurement items.
All items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree). Items marked “Ⓡ” are reverse-scored.
Pilot deletions (n = 42; principal axis factoring with Promax). Three pilot-only items were removed prior to CFA/SEM and therefore do not appear in Table 2:
JS-P1 (pilot-only): “I often have opportunities to try different tasks.” — primary loading < 0.50.
KH-P1 (pilot-only): “I divert the colleague to information unrelated to the issue.” — cross-loading > 0.40 on Job Satisfaction.
KH-P2 (pilot-only): “I provide information that does not match the colleague's needs.” — cross-loading > 0.40 on Job Satisfaction.
Table 2 reports the final retained items only.
5 Empirical results
5.1 Descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations
For the five hundred and eighteen valid cases, the mean scores (and standard deviations) were 3.62 (0.71) for leader trust, 3.55 (0.64) for job satisfaction, 3.21 (0.89) for knowledge psychological ownership, and 2.48 (0.83) for knowledge hiding. Pearson correlations (two-tailed) show that leader trust is negatively related to knowledge hiding (r = – 0.43, p < 0.01) and positively related to job satisfaction (r = 0.43, p < 0.01). Job satisfaction is negatively associated with knowledge hiding (r = – 0.35, p < 0.01), whereas knowledge psychological ownership is positively associated with knowledge hiding (r = 0.40, p < 0.01). These bivariate patterns provide preliminary support for the proposed paths (See Table 3).
Table 3
| Variable | M | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 Leader trust (LT) | 3.62 | 0.71 | — | |||
| 2 Job satisfaction (JS) | 3.55 | 0.64 | 0.43** | — | ||
| 3 Knowledge hiding (KH) | 2.48 | 0.83 | −0.43** | −0.35** | — | |
| 4 Knowledge psychological ownership (KPO) | 3.21 | 0.89 | −0.33** | −0.13* | 0.40** | — |
Means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations (N = 518).
*p<0.05. **p<0.01 (two-tailed).
5.2 Measurement-model fit, reliability, and validity
The four-factor measurement model exhibits an excellent fit to the data (χ2/df = 1.98, CFI = 0.955, TLI = 0.948, RMSEA = 0.043, SRMR = 0.038) and outperforms three, two, and one-factor alternatives (see Table 5). Harman's single-factor test shows that the first factor accounts for only 28.4 % of the variance-well below the 40 % threshold-indicating that common-method bias is unlikely to be a serious concern. Internal consistency is satisfactory: Cronbach's α ranges from 0.86 to 0.91; composite reliability (CR) from 0.80 to 0.91; and average variance extracted (AVE) from 0.54 to 0.73-all exceeding conventional cut-offs, thereby supporting convergent validity (Table 4).
Table 4
| Construct | Items | Cronbach α | CR | AVE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Leader trust | 8 | 0.91 | 0.90 | 0.63 |
| Job satisfaction | 17 | 0.88 | 0.89 | 0.56 |
| Knowledge hiding | 10 | 0.86 | 0.86 | 0.54 |
| Knowledge psychological ownership | 3 | 0.89 | 0.89 | 0.73 |
Reliability and convergent-validity statistics.
Table 5
| Model | χ2/df | CFI | TLI | IFI | GFI | RMSEA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Four-factor | 1.98 | 0.955 | 0.948 | 0.957 | 0.959 | 0.043 |
| Three-factor2(LT + JS) | 2.03 | 0.879 | 0.829 | 0.849 | 0.924 | 0.098 |
| Three-factor2(LT + KH) | 2.24 | 0.846 | 0.804 | 0.826 | 0.805 | 0.117 |
| Two-factor(LT + JS/KH + KPO) | 3.94 | 0.764 | 0.618 | 0.592 | 0.614 | 0.123 |
| Single-factor | 4.25 | 0.640 | 0.575 | 0.579 | 0.562 | 0.137 |
Fit indices for competing measurement models.
Three-factor2 merges leader trust (LT) and job satisfaction (JS) because both capture employees' positive appraisals of leader–member exchange and supervisory treatment; this specification tests discriminant validity between two closely related relational constructs. Three-factor2 merges LT and knowledge hiding (KH); the two-factor model merges (LT + JS) and (KH + KPO); the single-factor model pools all four constructs.
5.3 Structural model and hypothesis testing
After controlling for gender, age, educational attainment, and organizational tenure, the structural equation model yielded the following results (Table 6). Leader trust exerted a significant negative effect on knowledge hiding (β = – 0.31, p < 0.001), supporting H1. Leader trust also had a significant positive effect on job satisfaction (β = 0.46, p < 0.001), while job satisfaction negatively predicted knowledge hiding (β = – 0.23, p < 0.001). Together, these two paths constitute a partial mediation; the bootstrap indirect effect was – 0.11 (95% CI [−0.17, −0.07]), accounting for 34 per cent of the total effect, thereby supporting H2–H4. In the moderated model, the interaction term (Leader Trust × Knowledge Psychological Ownership) exerted a significant negative effect on job satisfaction (β = −0.09, p = 0.004), indicating that knowledge psychological ownership (KPO) weakens the positive influence of leader trust on satisfaction. Johnson-Neyman analysis further revealed that when KPO is at or above M + 1.04 SD, the positive effect of leader trust on job satisfaction becomes non-significant, confirming H5.
Table 6
| Path | β | SE | t/z | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LT → KH | −0.31 | 0.04 | −7.51 | < 0.001 |
| LT → JS | 0.46 | 0.04 | 11.44 | < 0.001 |
| JS → KH | −0.23 | 0.05 | −4.39 | < 0.001 |
Direct and mediated effects.
The conditional indirect-effect analysis (5,000 bootstrap samples) shows that the mediating impact of job satisfaction diminishes as KPO increases: the indirect effect is −0.17 at low KPO (−1 SD) and declines to −0.06 at high KPO (+1 SD), with 95% confidence intervals excluding zero in all cases. These results corroborate H6 (Table 7).
Table 7
| KPO Level | Indirect Effect | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| −1 SD | −0.17 | [−0.24, −0.11] |
| Mean | −0.11 | [−0.17, −0.07] |
| +1 SD | −0.06 | [−0.10, −0.03] |
Conditional indirect effects at different levels of KPO (Bootstrap N = 5000).
5.4 Robustness checks
To assess the robustness of our findings, perceived organizational support and team competition climate were introduced as alternative control variables and the structural model was re-estimated. The coefficients on all key paths changed by less than 0.02, leaving the pattern of results intact. In addition, industry-specific subgroup analyses revealed that, within the pharmaceutical RandD subsample, the positive effect of leader trust on job satisfaction was even stronger (β = 0.54, p < 0.001), suggesting that vertical trust yields greater affective dividends in highly regulated, high-risk settings. Taken together, these supplementary tests consistently uphold the core “leader trust → job satisfaction → knowledge hiding” pathway and the attenuating role of knowledge psychological ownership.
6 Discussion and managerial implications
Drawing on five hundred and eighteen matched leader-employee surveys from the IT services, pharmaceutical RandD, high-end equipment manufacturing, and financial consulting sectors, this study empirically validates an affective-behavioral chain in which leader trust enhances job satisfaction, thereby suppressing knowledge hiding, and further demonstrates that knowledge psychological ownership (KPO) attenuates both the trust-satisfaction link and the overall indirect effect. By positioning vertical trust as an antecedent of knowledge hiding and integrating Conservation of Resources Theory with Social Exchange Theory, the findings shed light on the interplay between reciprocity motivation and resource-defense motivation, while recognizing that these contributions are incremental and should be interpreted in light of contextual boundaries.
6.1 Managerial implications
Cultivating a “high-trust-low-ownership” knowledge climate. Although vertical trust curbs knowledge hiding via greater satisfaction, this benefit weakens under high KPO conditions. Organizations can strengthen trust by delegated autonomy, mentoring, and timely feedback, while simultaneously reducing exclusivity through explicit authorship, patent-sharing bonuses, or team co-creation ceremonies. To ensure feasibility, firms may embed short “trust and satisfaction surveys” into existing HR routines rather than implementing resource-intensive systems. Simple dashboards that track changes in trust or ownership sentiments can guide timely yet low-cost managerial interventions.
Embedding satisfaction management into knowledge-management routines. Because job satisfaction bridges leader trust and knowledge behavior, managers should incorporate emotional check-ins into performance reviews or project debriefings. Feasible initiatives include peer-support groups, team reflection meetings, or recognition programs. Linking satisfaction with knowledge contribution (e.g., cross-departmental showcases or redeemable training credits) can create a cycle of “satisfaction → sharing → further satisfaction” without placing excessive financial burdens on firms.
Deploying targeted interventions for high-KPO employees. Employees with strong ownership feelings may resist sharing despite being trusted. Instead of costly analytics, firms can rely on existing performance data or project records to identify such employees. Recognition strategies—such as mentoring roles, expert titles, or newsletter features-help affirm identity while positioning them as contributors to collective goals. Cross-functional projects and collaborative platforms can highlight the collective benefits of sharing and gradually reduce possessive impulses.
6.2 Theoretical implications
This study contributes to the literature in three moderated ways. First, by examining direct supervisor trust, we highlight the underexplored role of vertical trust alongside the more frequently studied peer trust. Second, by integrating Conservation of Resources Theory (COR) and Social Exchange Theory (SET), we illustrate how leader-provided socio-emotional resources activate reciprocity, while high psychological ownership triggers resource-defense, revealing a dynamic but context-dependent balance between the two logics. Third, rather than treating KPO only as a direct antecedent, we clarify its boundary role: under high KPO, the indirect effect of leader trust on knowledge hiding through job satisfaction declines from – 0.17 to – 0.06. These findings extend but do not redefine existing theories, and should be interpreted as a step toward a more nuanced understanding.
6.3 Practical implications
The study yields three actionable insights. First, the “leader trust → job satisfaction → knowledge hiding” pathway suggests that enabling employees to feel trusted is a practical entry point to reduce defensive knowledge behaviors. Second, managers should balance recognition of individual knowledge contributions with mechanisms that prevent exclusivity-such as formal authorship or shared rewards-to maintain fluid knowledge flow. Third, feasible monitoring tools (e.g., simple HR dashboards or regular team surveys) can alert managers to declining trust or rising ownership sentiments. These tools should remain proportionate to organizational resources to ensure sustainability.
6.4 Limitations and directions for future research
Although this study employed a rigorous design and a sizable sample, several limitations remain. The reliance on self-reported, cross-sectional data makes it difficult to completely rule out concerns of common method bias and reverse causality, even though statistical checks suggested these issues were not severe. In addition, the Chinese cultural context in which the data were collected may constrain the extent to which the findings can be generalized to other institutional environments, particularly Western settings where leader-employee dynamics and knowledge norms may differ. Another limitation lies in the voluntary nature of participation, which raises the possibility of selection bias, as employees more comfortable with sharing may have been more willing to respond.
Beyond these general concerns, several more specific issues warrant attention. One relates to the leader-employee dyad. This study focused on direct supervisor-employee interactions, but hierarchical distance-such as whether an employee interacts with an immediate supervisor or a higher-level manager-may influence the development of trust and the manifestation of knowledge behaviors. Another concerns the type of knowledge itself. We did not differentiate between product-related (tangible) and process-related (intangible) knowledge, nor between explicit and tacit knowledge. Since psychological ownership is often stronger for tacit forms, its role may extend beyond that of a moderator to exert direct effects on knowledge hiding. Finally, although we controlled for organizational tenure, we did not capture the duration of the specific leader-employee relationship. Relational length and congruence in attributes such as age, education, and professional background could further condition how trust translates into satisfaction and subsequent knowledge-sharing or hiding behaviors.
Looking ahead, future research should address these limitations by employing longitudinal or experience-sampling designs that can capture the dynamic interplay of trust, satisfaction, and knowledge hiding over time, thereby providing stronger evidence of causality. Cross-cultural replications and multi-industry studies would be valuable for testing the robustness of the mechanisms identified here and for extending the findings beyond the Chinese context. To refine our understanding of dyadic factors, subsequent studies should explicitly model the influence of hierarchical distance on trust-satisfaction-hiding pathways. Likewise, distinguishing between explicit and tacit knowledge, and between product and process knowledge, would allow scholars to test whether psychological ownership operates differently across knowledge domains and whether it simultaneously exerts direct and moderating effects. Finally, by incorporating indicators of the length and quality of leader-employee relationships, as well as demographic and professional congruence, future research could provide more nuanced insights into how relational histories shape employees' willingness to share or conceal knowledge.
Statements
Data availability statement
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.
Author contributions
WZ: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Project administration, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. SL: Conceptualization, Data curation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. HR: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article. This research was supported by the National Social Science Fund of China (Grant No. 23BMZ131).
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declare that no Gen AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Correction note
This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the scientific content of the article.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1
AnandP.JainK. K. (2014). Big five personality supple types and knowledge hiding behaviour: a theoretical framework. Arch. Bus. Res.2, 47–56. doi: 10.14738/abr.25.355
2
ArgoteL.IngramP. (2000). Knowledge transfer: a basis for competitive advantage in firms. Organ. Behav. Hum. Dec. Processes82, 150–169. doi: 10.1006/obhd.2000.2893
3
BartelsJ.DouwesR.De JongM.PruynA. (2006). Organizational identification during a merger: determinants of employees' expected identification with the new organization. Br. J. Manag.17, S49–S67. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2006.00478.x
4
BlauP. M. (1956). Social mobility and interpersonal relations. Am. Sociol. Rev.21, 290–295. doi: 10.2307/2089282
5
CerneM.NerstadC. G.SkerlavayM. (2012). “Don't come around here no more: knowledge hiding, perceived motivational sclimate, and creativity,” in Academy of Management Proceedings (Briarcliff Manor, NY: Academy of Management), 1:12222. doi: 10.5465/AMBPP.2012.36
6
ChenX.WangJ. (2019). Organizational trust, employee satisfaction and knowledge-worker performance: an empirical study. Chinese Person. Sci. 46:32 (In Chinese).
7
ConnellyC. E.ZweigD.WebsterJ.TrougakosJ. P. (2012). Knowledge hiding in organizations. J. Organ. Behav.33, 64–88. doi: 10.1002/job.737
8
DirksK. T.FerrinD. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice. J. Appl. Psychol.87:611. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.611
9
FuY.ZhongX. (2020). Psychological contract breach, leader trust and employee knowledge sharing: the moderating role of Machiavellianism. Sci. Technol. Progress Policy37, 147–152 (In Chinese).
10
GillespieN. (2003). “Measuring trust in work relationships: the behavioral trust inventory,” in Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management (Seattle, WA).
11
HeY.JiangR. (2016). Uncertainty of human-capital property rights and knowledge hiding in the internet industry. Guangdong Soc. Sci. 2, 20–28 (In Chinese).
12
HobfollS. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: a new attempt at conceptualizing stress. Am. Psychol.44:513. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513
13
HobfollS. E.HalbeslebenJ.NeveuJ. P.WestmanM. (2018). Conservation of resources in the organizational context: the reality of resources and their consequences. Ann. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav.5, 103–128. doi: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104640
14
HoppockR. (1935). Job Satisfaction. New York, NY: Harper & Brothers.
15
JiangR.HeY. (2013). Antecedents of employee knowledge-hiding behaviour in the workplace: an empirical study. Sci. Technol. Manag. Res.33, 128–132 (In Chinese).
16
KnollD. L.GillH. (2011). Antecedents of trust in supervisors, subordinates, and peers. J. Manag. Psychol.26, 313–330. doi: 10.1108/02683941111124845
17
LinT. C.HuangC. C. (2010). Withholding effort in knowledge contribution: the role of social exchange and social cognitive on project teams. Inform. Manag.47, 188–196. doi: 10.1016/j.im.2010.02.001
18
LiuR.ZhangQ.MinW. (2013). Knowledge psychological ownership and tacit knowledge sharing. Sci. Technol. Progress Policy30, 134–137 (In Chinese).
19
LuH.YangY.WangY.ZhangX.TanL. (2021). Tough love or discouragement? The double-edged effect of perceived ability distrust from leaders. Acta Psychol. Sinica53, 1376–1390 (In Chinese) doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2021.01376.
20
MalikO. F.ShahzadA.RaziqM. M.KhanM. M.YusafS.KhanA. (2019). Perceptions of organizational politics, knowledge hiding, and employee creativity: the moderating role of professional commitment. Person. Individ. Diff.142, 232–237. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2018.05.005
21
PengH. (2013). Why and when do people hide knowledge?. J. Knowl. Manag.17, 398–415. doi: 10.1108/JKM-12-2012-0380
22
PierceJ. L.KostovaT.DirksK. T. (2003). The state of psychological ownership: integrating and extending a century of research. Rev. Gen. Psychol.7, 84–107. doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.7.1.84
23
PorterL. W.SteersR. M.MowdayR. T.BoulianP. V. (1974). Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians. J. Appl. Psychol.59:603. doi: 10.1037/h0037335
24
SchaubroeckJ.LamS. S.PengA. C. (2011). Cognition-based and affect-based trust as mediators of leader behavior influences on team performance. J. Appl. Psychol.96:863. doi: 10.1037/a0022625
25
UddinM. A.AzimM. T.HaqueM. M. (2021). Does compliance to the prescribed standards in readymade garments sector predict employee turnover intention? The mediating role of job satisfaction and organizational attraction. IIM Kozhikode Soc. Manag. Rev.10, 209–221. doi: 10.1177/2277975221989109
26
WeiH.LongL. (2009). Leader trust and team effectiveness in knowledge-work teams. Res. Dev. Manag.21, 48–55 (In Chinese).
27
WeissD. J.DawisR. V.EnglandG. W. (1967). Manual for the Minnesota satisfaction questionnaire. Minnesota Stud. Vocat. Rehabil. doi: 10.1037/t05540-000
28
WhitenerE. M.BrodtS. E.KorsgaardM. A.WernerJ. M. (1998). Managers as initiators of trust: an exchange relationship framework for understanding managerial trustworthy behavior. Acad. Manag. Rev.23, 513–530. doi: 10.2307/259292
29
ZhouJ.LiuY.ChenM. (2016). Knowledge hiding, knowledge stock and new-product development performance. Sci. Technol. Manag. Res. 36, 162–168 (In Chinese).
Summary
Keywords
leader trust, job satisfaction, knowledge hiding, knowledge psychological ownership, conservation of resources theory, social exchange theory
Citation
Zhang W, Leng S and Ran H (2025) Trusted to share or tempted to hoard? Unpacking employee knowledge hiding through the interplay of leader trust and knowledge psychological ownership. Front. Psychol. 16:1659249. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1659249
Received
03 July 2025
Accepted
22 September 2025
Published
10 October 2025
Corrected
14 November 2025
Volume
16 - 2025
Edited by
Tamara Gajić, Geographical Institute Jovan Cvijić, Serbia
Reviewed by
Adriana Zait, Alexandru Ioan Cuza University, Romania
Snežana Knežević, Academy of Applied Studies Polytechnic, Serbia
Updates
Copyright
© 2025 Zhang, Leng and Ran.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Hao Ran, 22216038110026@ymu.edu.cn
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.