Min Min
Kai Fang2
Zhen Zhang- 1School of Supply Chain Management, Ningbo Polytechnic University, Ningbo, China
- 2Zhongkai University of Agriculture and Engineering, Guangzhou, China
- 3Business School, Ningbo University, Ningbo, China
Objectives: The current study aims to examine the effects of work interference with family (WIF) and family interference with work (FIW) on leaders’ knowledge hiding, as well as the mediating role of affective organizational commitment and the contingent role of organization-based self-esteem.
Methods: Data were collected through a three-wave survey from 137 new product team leaders in China, with a 2-week interval between waves to reduce common method bias.
Results: Our findings indicate that FIW was positively related to knowledge hiding. This positive linkage was partially mediated by affective organizational commitment. Organization-based self-esteem weakens the impact of FIW on affective organizational commitment. In addition, as affective organizational commitment increased, the positive indirect effect of FIW on knowledge hiding becomes weaker. By contrast, the relevant results related to the effect of WIF were not significant.
Conclusion: Extant research on micro-innovation has mainly highlighted the within-domain stressful effects of job conflicts but largely neglected their cross-domain mechanisms in shaping leaders’ knowledge behaviors. This study is one of the first to investigate how and when work-family interfaces influence top-down knowledge-hiding behavior. Practically, the findings provide guidance for organizations to design family-supportive and esteem-enhancing HR practices to reduce leaders’ knowledge hiding driven by FIW.
1 Introduction
Knowledge hiding - defined as individuals’ intentional attempts to conceal or withhold knowledge requested by others (Connelly et al., 2012) - precludes knowledge seekers from acquiring new insights and has emerged as a serious threat to organizational development (Arain et al., 2020; Peng et al., 2021; Aleksić et al., 2022). For instance, knowledge hiding has been linked to considerable productivity losses in organizations, with recent reports suggesting that such behavior may cost American companies up to $47 million in lost productivity (Nguyen et al., 2022). Moreover, numerous scholars contended that if organizations leave knowledge hiding problems unsolved, they are likely to experience lower levels of individual creativity (Arain et al., 2019; Chatterjee et al., 2021; Singh, 2019) and reduced team innovation (Fong et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2022). To avoid potential innovation-related losses and risks, it is necessary to understand predictors leading to individuals’ knowledge hiding within organizations.
Individuals working in innovative organizations are required to simultaneously cope with organizational norms, client requirements, multiple role expectations, and parallel tasks (Zhao and Jiang, 2022). Given ever-increasing job demands faced by organizational members, work stressors arising from heavy job workloads have been highlighted as a critical predictor of knowledge hiding. Zhao and Jiang (2022) found that role stress (stemming from job role expectations) discourages employees to help others and positively contributes to their engagement in knowledge hiding. Additionally, drawing on the interpersonal nature of social job demands, scholars have demonstrated that various interpersonal stressors—such as task conflict, relationship conflict, and perceived injustice—can trigger employees’ knowledge hiding (Cao, 2022; Losada-Otálora et al., 2020; Peng et al., 2021; Semerci, 2019). Although prior studies have greatly improved our understanding of stressful effects of specific job demands on employees’ knowledge hiding, several issues in this line of research remain under-explored.
First, the above studies primarily highlighted within-domain (i.e., work domain) stressful effects of overloaded job demands on knowledge hiding. However, research on the work-family interface has argued that job demands can also spill over into family domain (Hall et al., 2010; He et al., 2024), leading to work interference with family that further backfires on employees’ work-domain behaviors (Frone et al., 1992; Xia et al., 2018). Moreover, extant studies have considered job demands as the sole source of work-domain stressors that stimulate employees’ knowledge hiding while overlooking the importance of demands originating from other domains (e.g., family demands). Kim et al. (2015) emphasized that employees’ growing family demands may be contradictory with their work roles and further interact with job demands to determine employees’ knowledge transfer intentions. Given significant demographic changes and fierce competition in innovative organizations, employees increasingly suffer from stressors of work-family imbalance (Byron, 2005, Kim et al., 2015). A cross-domain approach not only provides a more comprehensive understanding of stressful effects of job demands on knowledge hiding but also better match the life status of contemporary knowledge workers.
Second, recent reviews have highlighted that knowledge hiding has emerged as a fast-growing research domain with diverse theoretical perspectives, however, notable gaps remain in understanding leaders’ own knowledge-hiding behaviors (He et al., 2021). Leaders are widely recognized as playing the decisive role in fostering teamwork and to serve as role models who guide subordinates’ behaviors (Zhang and Min, 2024a). Top-down and leader-signaled knowledge hiding has been found to cause subordinates’ knowledge hiding, work withdrawal behavior, and work disengagement and it usually has severe implications for organizational outcomes (Arain et al., 2020; Offergelt et al., 2019; Xu et al., 2022) and harmful the performance of teams they manage (Nauman et al., 2025; Zhang and Min, 2024b). To further advance this important line of inquiry, the current study investigates how and when cross-domain conflicts influence leaders’ knowledge hiding.
Conservation of resources (COR) theory suggests that individuals strive to seek, maintain, and protect their valued resources. The loss of these resources can cause individuals to experience stress (Hobfoll, 1989). According to Xia et al. (2018), leaders who are juggling cross-domain conflicts may face a process of work resource drain (e.g., lacking energy to complete tasks). This process of resource loss undermines confidence in career prospects, thereby reducing leaders’ psychological bond with their organizations (i.e., affective commitment) (Lapointe et al., 2013). Therefore, leaders with low affective commitment may not voluntarily respond to subordinates’ requests and may engage in knowledge hiding to avoid further resource loss (Feng and Wang, 2019). To address how work–family conflicts influence leaders’ knowledge hiding, we explore the mediating role of affective commitment.
As COR theory suggests, higher levels of individual characteristic resources—especially self-esteem—help individuals resist stress. These resources enable them to cope with the negative psychological states caused by resource loss (Hobfoll, 1989). The perceived loss of resources from work–family conflicts may lead to different psychological and behavioral outcomes depending on one’s organization-based self-esteem. Organization-based self-esteem refers to the degree to which individuals believe themselves to be competent, important, and worthy organizational members (Pierce et al., 1989). Drawing on COR theory, we argue that organization-based self-esteem serves as a boundary factor that mitigates the stressful effects of work–family conflicts.
In summary, the current study makes two major contributions to extant organizational behavior research, particularly regarding the antecedents of leaders’ knowledge hiding. First, previous studies on knowledge hiding have mainly focused on the within-domain effects of job demands on peer knowledge hiding. This study is among the first to extend this view by identifying the cross-domain stressful mechanisms of job demands that predict leaders’ knowledge hiding. Second, drawing on the COR theory, we further offer a comprehensive explanation of how and when work-family conflicts influence leaders’ knowledge hiding by examining the mediating role of affective commitment and the moderating role of organization-based self-esteem.
2 Literature review and hypothesis development
2.1 Work-family conflict and knowledge hiding
According to research on work and family domains, work-family conflict is defined as the extent to which requirements related to work (or family) roles are incompatible with requirements related to family (or work) roles (Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985). Based on the sources resulting to inter-role conflict, work-family conflict can be classified into three forms: time-based conflict (i.e., excessive time devoted to one role limits an individual’s ability to fulfill the requirements of another role) (Netemeyer et al., 1996), strain-based conflict (i.e., strain derived from one role makes it difficult to satisfy the demands of another role) (Bruck and Allen, 2003), and behavior-based conflict (i.e., actions effective in one role are incompatible with those expected in another role) (Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985). As suggested by Frone et al. (1992), the concept of work family conflict exhibits a bidirectional property that includes work interference with family (WIF) and family interference with work (FIW).
The COR theory proposes that individuals under inter-role stresses always strive to maintain their resources (e.g., time, energy, and life status) and avoid resource loss (Hobfoll, 1989). Specifically, individuals who experience conflicts between work and family roles may encounter actual or threatened losses of work- and family-related resources, which trigger stress responses. Individuals tend to engage in behaviors that not only balance the demands of different domains (i.e., resource replacement) but also offset future resource loss (Grandey and Cropanzano, 1999; Kim et al., 2015).
When leaders experience high levels of WIF or FIW, they may face the threat of losing essential resources such as divorce and poor job performance (Xia et al., 2018). The resource loss in a process of juggling work and family roles makes leaders generate stress in both the work and family domains (Grandey and Cropanzano, 1999). Based on the propositions of COR, individuals with stresses will take actions that avert continuous loss of resource (Hobfoll, 1989). Knowledge hiding can serve as a means of maintaining resources. For example, knowledge hiding helps knowledge owners to avoid embarrassment of reduction of work resource (e.g., forfeiting knowledge power). As levels of WIF and FIW increase, leaders are more likely to hide knowledge for resource protection. Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis.
Hypothesis 1: WIF (a) and FIW (b) are positively associated with leaders’ knowledge hiding behavior.
2.2 Affective organizational commitment as a mediator
Meyer et al. (1990) conceptualized organizational commitment as a three-dimensional construct consisting of affective commitment (individuals’ emotional attachment to their working organization), continuance commitment (individuals’ awareness of the cost associated with leaving current organizations), and normative commitment (individuals’ sense of obligation to remain with their organization). In contrast to continuance and normative commitment, affective commitment is more responsive to work experience variables (e.g., organizational support) and exerts stronger effects on work-related outcomes (e.g., organizational citizenship behavior, performance, and turnover intentions). Building on these findings, the current study explores the mediating role of affective commitment in the relationship between work family conflict and knowledge hiding.
Work interference with family refers to the interference of work on family duties and creates stress associated with the the loss of family resources (e.g., divorce) (Xia et al., 2018). According to arguments of COR theory, to cope with stress derived from family resource loss, individuals may also engage in resource replacement behaviors (Hobfoll, 1989). That is, leaders may employ job resources in the work domain to withdraw the net loss of the family resources. The sacrificed work-related resources may aggravate the leaders’ inability to adequately perform the work role and lead them to perceive higher levels of work-related stress.
With regard to the case of FIW, leaders experiencing high levels of FIW find it difficult to meet their work demands. In this situation, they may be confronted with actual or potential net losses of work resources (e.g., nonproductive performance and job termination), which in turn induces leaders’ work-related psychological stress (Frone et al., 1992). Consequently, both WIF and FIW will give rise to leaders’ work-related psychological stress (Frone et al., 1992; Grandey and Cropanzano, 1999).
According to Zhang et al. (2012), work-related psychological stress can weaken individuals’ capacity to completely perform their work roles. Consequently, leaders’ inability to fulfill their work roles reduces their job-related rewards, such as promotions and bonuses (Aryee et al., 1999), which further diminishes leaders’ organizational attachment (Zhang et al., 2012). Therefore, both WIF and FIW weaken leaders’ affective commitment.
Hypothesis 2: WIF (a) and FIW (b) are negatively associated with leaders’ affective commitment.
Moreover, according to Meyer et al. (1990), leaders with high levels of affective commitment will deem organizations’ problems as their own. Knowledge-based psychological ownership, the state in which individuals feel as though the ownership of the knowledge is theirs, is a predictor of individual’s knowledge hiding behavior (Peng, 2013). When an individual put collective problems on the most important position, the individual is likely to pay more attention on others’ knowledge requests for problem solving rather than the self-interest. Knowledge-based psychological ownership decreases, leading to a lower level of knowledge hiding. Taken together, affective commitment is supposed to have a negative effect on knowledge hiding.
As noted previously, work family conflict (i.e., WIF and FIW) is hypothesized to impose negative influences on affective organizational commitment. That is, as the degree of work family conflict becomes higher, the level of affective organizational commitment will be lower. In addition, the decreased affective organizational commitment further enhances knowledge hiding. Therefore, it can be inferred that affective organizational commitment causes the indirect effects of work family conflict on knowledge hiding. Following this logic, we propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3: Affective organizational commitment is negatively associated with knowledge hiding.
Hypothesis 4: Affective organizational commitment mediates the relationships between (a) WIF and (b) FIW and knowledge hiding.
2.3 Organization-based self-esteem as a contingency
Organization-based self-esteem refers to the degree to which an individual believes him/herself to be competent, important and worthy as a member of the organization (Pierce et al., 1993). Pierce and Gardner (2004) suggested that individuals with higher levels of organization-based self-esteem usually have better work performance and possess a perception of meeting their demands via their roles in employing organizations. Following Ekrot et al. (2016), we further operationalize organization-based self-esteem as the extent to which a leader perceives him/herself as capable and significant within the organization.
As suggested previously, WIF and FIW can lead to leaders’ loss of work resource and in turn aggravate their work-related psychological stress. As a result, the increased stress undermines leaders’ affective organizational commitment. However, if a leader has a strong sense of organization-based self-esteem, the leader will be more capable of minimizing their work resource losses and experiencing lower levels of work stress. For instance, individuals with higher levels of organization-based self-esteem tend to exhibit greater composure and confidence, on which they can depend in dealing with problematic circumstances in work domains. Leaders are less disturbed by potential losses of work-related resources because of their confidence in coping with such a loss. Organization-based self-esteem can mitigate leaders’ work stress results from work resource loss. When organization-based self-esteem is present, WIF and FIW are less likely to reduce leaders’ organizational affective commitment by enhancing their work-related psychological stress. Accordingly, we propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 5: Organization-based self-esteem moderates (weakens) the negative relationships between (a) WIF and (b) FIW and knowledge hiding.
Moreover, we have proposed that WIF and FIW exert an indirect positive effects on knowledge hiding through affective organizational commitment. Organization-based self-esteem moderates (weakens) the negative effect of WIF and FIW on affective organizational commitment. That is, the moderation of organization-based self-esteem leads to an additional (increased) strength of affective organizational commitment, which further reduces knowledge hiding. It is likely that organization-based self-esteem results in a conditional indirect effect of WIF and FIW on knowledge hiding through affective organizational commitment. Thus, we further propose the following hypothesis:
H6. The indirect positive effect of (a) WIF and (b) FIW on knowledge hiding via affective organizational commitment is moderated (weakened) by organization-based self-esteem.
3 Materials and methods
3.1 Sample and data collection
Innovative project leaders working in high-tech firms were identified as the target respondents of our survey. A sample was drawn from students who had enrolled in an advanced training program for innovation leadership at a national key university in China. Prior to data collection, all potential participants were informed that the study was conducted for research purposes and were assured of confidentiality and anonymity. A total of 253 respondents who were involved in new product innovation agreed to participate in our research.
As suggested by Peng (2013), self-report measure is an effective approach for evaluating individuals’ knowledge hiding behavior. However, self-report approach may also be subject to several biases (e.g., implicit theories and illusory correlations, leniency bias, and social desirability), which can contribute to common method bias (CMB) (Podsakoff et al., 2003). To reduce the noise caused by CMB, we followed recommendations of Zhu et al. (2019) and introduced a 2-week interval between the measurement of the predictor, mediator and outcome variables. In each wave, emails containing a unique number, a URL link to the web-based questionnaires, and a statement ensuring data confidentiality were sent to the target respondents. In the first wave (Time 1), project leaders were required to evaluate their level of work-family conflict, demographics, and information about their projects. In the second wave (Time 2), respondents were required to assess their affective organizational commitment and organization-based self-esteem. In the third wave (Time 3), leaders were asked to evaluate the frequency of their knowledge hiding behaviors. To improve the response rate, we sent reminder emails one week later. Finally, a total of 137 matched questionnaires were retained for subsequent analysis (response rate = 54.2%). Details of the leaders and their projects are described in Table 1.
Table 1. Information of project managers and projects (N = 137).
3.2 Measures
Work-family conflict. Based on Netemeyer et al. (1996), a 10-item scale was used to assess the dual direction values of leaders’ work family conflict. Five items of this measurement were related to work interfere with family, and the other five items were used to assess the degree of family interfere with work. Andres et al. (2012) employed this scale to assess leaders’ work family conflict, reporting a good reliability among items. Cronbach’s αs for WIF and FIW were 0.936 and 0.945, respectively.
3.2.1 Leaders’ knowledge hiding
We originally adopted the 12-item scale developed by Connelly et al. (2012) to measure the three forms of knowledge hiding behavior (i.e., evasive hiding, playing dumb, and rationalized hiding). However, in line with recent empirical evidence suggesting that a shortened four-item version provides comparable validity (Wang et al., 2019; Jiang et al., 2022), we used four items in the present study. To better match the project settings, the items were started with a situation: “For a moment when one of your subordinates requested knowledge from you and you refused.” Cronbach’s α for knowledge hiding was 0.922.
3.2.2 Affective organizational commitment
We used a five-item scale to evaluate affective organizational commitment. The five items were taken from the eight original items of Meyer et al. (1990) and two of them were reversely worded. Project leaders were required to evaluate the extent to which they were emotionally attached to their employing organizations and willing to solve organizations’ problems. Cronbach’s α for affective organizational commitment was 0.880.
3.2.3 Organization-based self-esteem
A four-item scale developed by Ekrot et al. (2016) was adopted to assess leaders’ organization-based self-esteem. Project leaders were asked to evaluate the extent to which they believe themselves to be valuable and important as a project leader. Cronbach’s α for organization-based self-esteem was 0.880.
In the above scales, each item was rated on a seven-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
3.2.4 Control variables
According to previous studies, individuals’ demographic characteristics of individuals (e.g., age, gender, and tenure) may have influences on their knowledge hiding behaviors (Huo et al., 2016; Peng, 2013). Additionally, project managers’ behaviors may vary depending on their work pressure (Xia et al., 2018). Turner and Mariani (2016) argued that, in contrast to small-size projects, managers working in large-size projects may experience greater pressure. It is necessary to take into account project features when study behaviors of leaders. Therefore, age (continuous variables in years), gender (coded as dummy variable; 1 = male, 0 = female), tenure (continuous variables), project team size (continuous variables in years), and product duration (continuous variables in months) were considered to be control variables of this study.
3.3 Common method bias
As mentioned previously, single source self-report data may lead to CMV. Time-lagged design for data collection is an effective ex-ante remedy for avoiding CMV. In addition, we also used Harman’s one-factor test as an ex post remedy for CMB (Podsakoff and Organ, 1986). The results of one factor analysis showed that eigenvalues of five factors exceeded 1.0, which is equal to the number of constructs. The contribution values of five factors to the variance were 25.156% (lower than the criterion of 50%), 24.165%, 12.470%, 10.763%, 8.731%, respectively. This result implied that no single factor could account for the majority of the covariance. Therefore, common method bias was not a big concern to our research.
4 Results
This study employed PLS-SEM to examine our theoretical model for two concerns. SmartPLS 4.1 software was used for examining the hypotheses depicted in our research model. We adopted the outer model to estimate the reliability and validity of each construct and applied the inner model to examine the assumptions for direct and moderating effects (Hair et al., 2011).
4.1 Measurement model
To examine the measurement model, we calculated the reliability, convergent, and discriminant validity of the survey data. Table 2 showed the Cronbach’s coefficient alphas, composite reliability (CR), average variance extracted (AVE), and factor loadings for items. According to Benitez et al. (2020), the minimum value of factor loadings should exceed the recommended threshold of 0.707. One item from the affective organizational commitment scale was removed due to a low factor loading (0.52). All the Cronbach’s coefficient alphas and CR values of studied variables are greater than the recommended threshold of 0.7 (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988). In addition, the minimum value of AVE was 0.647, surpassing the recommended threshold of 0.5. Thus, the results indicated good reliability and convergent validity of the data. Moreover, Fornell-Larker criterion was employed to assess the discriminant validation. According to Table 3, square roots of AVE for latent constructs were obviously greater than their relevant coefficients of cross-correlations, verifying good discriminant validity of the measurement model.
Table 2. The indices for construct reliability and convergent validity.
Table 3. The indices for discriminant validation.
4.2 Structural model
We used a bootstrapping method with 5,000 steps to calculate the effect size for each relationship. According to Cohen’s (1988) criteria, an effect size above 0.1 is small, 0.3 is moderate, and 0.5 is strong, providing a practical interpretation of path magnitudes. Figure 1 shows the path coefficients of relationships between studied variables in two models. In Model 1 (baseline model), the influences of WIF on knowledge hiding and affective organizational commitment were null (βH1a = 0.079, non-significant; βH2a = 0.95, non-significant), rejecting H1a and H2a. By contrast, FIW had a moderate positive effect on knowledge hiding (βH1b = 0.300, p < 0.01) and a small-to-moderate negative effect on affective commitment (βH2b = −0.207, p < 0.05), supporting H1b and H2b.
Figure 1. Models used for hypothesis testing.
As proposed previously, affective organizational commitment was negatively related to knowledge hiding and mediated the relationships between (a) WIF and (b) FIW and knowledge hiding. According to path coefficients displayed in Model 2 (the complete model), the association between affective organizational commitment and knowledge hiding was significantly negative (βH3 = −0.220, p < 0.05), supporting H3. This represents a small-to-moderate effect, suggesting that leaders’ affective organizational commitment plays a meaningful role in reducing knowledge hiding behavior. Moreover, the indirect effect of WIF and FIW on knowledge hiding through affective organizational commitment were −0.020 (βH4a, non-significant) and 0.045 (βH4b, p < 0.05), respectively. H4a was rejected and H4b was supported, indicating a partial mediation for FIW.
According to Model 2 (complete model), the effect of the product term between WIF and organization-based self-esteem was null (βH5a = 0.093, non-significant), rejecting H5a. Given that H5a (moderation) acts as the precondition of H6a (moderated mediation), H6a was also rejected. As expected, organization-based self-esteem significantly moderated the FIW-knowledge hiding relationship (βH5b = 0.214, p < 0.05), showing a small-to-moderate buffering effect, thereby supporting H5b. Following the suggestions of Aiken et al. (1991), the simple slope analysis of the moderating effects of organization-based self-esteem was described in Figure 2. To test the hypothesized moderated mediation (H6b), the bootstrapping method recommended by Preacher et al. (2007) was conducted.
Figure 2. Interaction of FIW and organization-based self-esteem for knowledge hiding.
We also computed the conditional indirect effects of FIW on knowledge hiding via affective organizational commitment across different levels of organization-based self-esteem (i.e., Mean−1SD, Mean and Mean+1SD). It was found that the indirect effect size of FIW on knowledge hiding significantly varied according to different levels of organization-based self-esteem (Mean−1SD = 2.77, significant; Mean = 4.00, significant; Mean+1SD = 5.25, non-significant). Therefore, H6b was supported.
5 Discussion and conclusion
5.1 Theoretical contribution
To our knowledge, this study is the first to explore the conflict-related antecedents of leaders’ counterproductive behavior in the context of innovative project teams. Therefore, our findings can contribute to extant literature on organizational behavior in several ways. First, this study enriches the understanding of the antecedents of leaders’ knowledge hiding. Studies have explored the consequences of leaders’ knowledge hiding (Arain et al., 2019, 2020; Singh, 2019; Zhang and Min, 2024a), whereas quantitative evidence on its antecedents remains scarce. Our study indicates that family interference with work and affective organizational commitment are significantly associated with knowledge hiding. These conclusions can enrich the literature on managing leaders’ knowledge hiding in projects. Moreover, research on knowledge hiding has demonstrated that interpersonal and task conflicts sourcing from excessive job demands predict knowledge hiding (Losada-Otálora et al., 2020; Peng et al., 2021; Semerci, 2019; He et al., 2024). In addition to work domain conflicts, job demands also lead to work family interference that causes problems of knowledge hiding. Our findings verified the differential effects of bidirectional work family conflicts on leaders’ knowledge hiding, therefore providing empirical evidence of cross-domain effects of work demands.
Second, this study extends our knowledge of the role played by affective commitment in interpreting work family conflict-knowledge hiding relationship. Previous studies have made efforts to understand the mediating role of employees’ state of being toward work in the relation between various types of conflict and knowledge hiding, such as individuals’ positive wellbeing (Losada-Otálora et al., 2020), envy (Peng et al., 2021), and emotional exhaustion (Zhao and Jiang, 2022). However, the factors above mainly focus on the state being toward work. Our understanding about the role of the individuals’ state of being toward organizations remains unknown. The findings indicate that organizational commitment mediates the positive relation between FIW and knowledge hiding, offering complementary insights into the underlying mechanisms linking conflict and knowledge hiding.
Third, this study verifies the additional proposition of COR in the field of knowledge hiding by examining the moderating roles of organization-based self-esteem in the direct and indirect paths between work family conflict knowledge hiding. COR argued that self-esteem, a typical form of individual characteristic resource, is important for stress resistance (Hobfoll, 1989). According to our findings, organization-based self-esteem weakens the direct effect of FIW on affective organizational commitment. Additionally, as organization-based self-esteem increases, the indirect effect of FIW on knowledge hiding decreases. These results confirm and extend the applicability of COR theory in knowledge management research.
Fourth, while prior research on cross-domain conflicts has emphasized the negative influence of work–family conflicts on project professionals’ creative and helping behaviors (Lin et al., 2022; Novieto and Kportufe, 2022; Yoon et al., 2024), our results suggest that these detrimental effects may not necessarily extend to counterproductive behaviors. Specifically, we found that the direct effect of WIF on leaders’ knowledge hiding (H1a) was not significant. One possible explanation lies in cultural context. In Eastern societies such as China, work tends to be highly prioritized over family responsibilities due to cultural values and economic insecurity (Zhang et al., 2012). In such contexts, using knowledge hiding as a strategy to compensate for the loss of family resources by preserving work-related resources becomes less necessary. Moreover, because knowledge hiding can undermine interpersonal trust and relationships at work (Zhang and Min, 2024a), cultural norms emphasizing work centrality may further discourage leaders from engaging in such behaviors, even when they experience work–family interference. Consequently, our findings suggest that cultural values may function as boundary conditions that help buffer the translation of family–work stressors into counterproductive knowledge behaviors.
5.2 Empirical implications
Our findings can also provide managerial implication for managing leaders’ knowledge hiding in innovative project teams. First, compared to WIF, FIW is more likely to result in leaders’ knowledge hiding behavior. It is necessary for organizations engaged in innovation projects to adopt family-supportive policies (e.g., welfare regimes and flexible working time) to mitigate the family work conflicts originating from family roles. Additionally, more supportive practices can be adopted according to the situations of a specific project. For example, if a forthcoming project requires its project manager to experience a long-term separation, organizations are encouraged to extend the interval between the former project and latter project, which allows the project manager to have plenty of time to spend with family (Turner et al., 2008).
In terms of results, affective organizational commitment reduces knowledge hiding and mediates the indirect effect of FIW on knowledge hiding. When designing knowledge management practices to mitigate knowledge hiding, it is suggested to consider their effectiveness in fostering leaders’ affective commitment. This is particularly relevant for innovative project teams, where high task interdependence and rapid problem-solving demand a strong emotional attachment from managers to their organizations, which in turn fosters continuous knowledge exchange (Xia et al., 2018). For example, the effectiveness of knowledge management practices can benefit from enriching individuals’ perceived organizational support, which augments individuals’ affective commitment (Jeung et al., 2017).
Moreover, organization-based self-esteem serves as a contingency in the relationship between FIW and knowledge hiding. Leaders are more effective in dealing with negative emotions arising from family work conflict. When firms assign managers for projects, individuals who strongly believe themselves to be competent, important and valued in their employing organizations should be selected. Moreover, when training leaders’ expertise and management skills, organizations are encouraged to offer programs to enhance leaders’ organization-based self-esteem.
Finally, although our study was conducted within the Chinese context, these implications also extend to global organizations. Multinational firms face increasingly diverse workforces within which family–work conflicts are prevalent. To mitigate knowledge hiding in such organizations, it is necessary to adopt HR practices that acknowledge cultural diversity and address cross-border work–family challenges. Specifically, HR policies such as international relocation support, cultural adjustment training, and global mobility programs can reduce strain and help leaders remain effective across borders (Hsiao, 2022; Mendenhall and Reiche, 2025), thereby alleviating family–work conflicts, thereby alleviating family–work conflicts. Accordingly, global organizations are encouraged to implement these practices to foster a more collaborative and sustainable knowledge-sharing environment.
5.3 Limitations and future research
Similar to previous studies, our study also has several limitations. First, although self-report surveys are widely used in knowledge hiding research and have been recommended as an efficient method to capture different forms of knowledge hiding behavior (Peng, 2013; Connelly et al., 2012), they may still be subject to social desirability bias given the sensitivity of the construct. To reinforce the robustness and generalizability of our conclusions, future studies are strongly encouraged to complement self-reports with alternative approaches, such as behavioral experiments or observational methods.
Second, affective organizational commitment did not explain the total effect of WIF on knowledge hiding (partial mediation). To better fertilize our knowledge about the whole story of how work family conflict leads to knowledge hiding, scholars should explore other potential variables interpreting the residual effects of WIF from more theoretical lenses.
Third, our study focuses on project managers’ general knowledge hiding in response to subordinates’ requests and does not distinguish between explicit and tacit forms of hidden knowledge. While our findings indicate that general knowledge hiding can be reduced through affective organizational commitment, this approach cannot capture the potentially differential effects of predictors on distinct types of knowledge hiding. Future research could provide more fine-grained insights by explicitly separating explicit knowledge hiding from tacit knowledge hiding, thereby revealing whether their antecedents vary across different contexts.
Fourth, the data used for hypothesis testing were collected from project managers in China. Given the substantial cultural distance between China and Western countries, the conclusions may not be fully generalizable to project managers outside mainland China. In particular, the differing cultural values associated with collectivism and individualism may lead to distinct behavioral responses to family–work conflicts. Therefore, future research is encouraged to replicate our findings in Western contexts or to conduct cross-cultural comparative studies to enhance the generalizability of the results.
Finally, our sample data were collected from project leaders in China. Therefore, our conclusions and implications may not be applied to the situation of project leaders outside mainland China. Further studies should test the findings of our work in a different national and cultural background, especially in western countries.
5.4 Conclusion
This study examines how and when cross-domain conflicts influence leaders’ knowledge hiding by adopting conservation of resources theory as a theoretical perspective. The findings highlight that family interference with work, rather than work interference with family, increases leaders’ knowledge hiding through reduced affective organizational commitment, while organization-based self-esteem mitigates this indirect effect. These results advance theoretical understanding by revealing the cross-domain and cultural boundary conditions under which work–family stressors shape counterproductive knowledge behaviors. Practically, the study provides actionable insights for organizations to design family-supportive and esteem-enhancing HR practices that reduce leaders’ knowledge hiding and foster a more open and collaborative knowledge-sharing environment.
Data availability statement
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.
Author contributions
MM: Conceptualization, Data curation, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. KF: Data curation, Investigation, Writing – original draft. ZZ: Methodology, Writing – review & editing. ZX: Investigation, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article. This study was supported by the Ningbo Department of Philosophy and Social Sciences Planning, grant number: G2024113.
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 authors declare that no Generative 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.
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
Aiken, L. S., West, S. G., and Reno, R. R. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. London: Sage.
Aleksić, D., Rangus, K., and Slavec Gomezel, A. (2022). Microfoundations of SME open innovation: The role of help, knowledge sharing and hiding. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 25, 178–203. doi: 10.1108/EJIM-10-2020-0411
Andres, M., Moelker, R., and Soeters, J. (2012). The work–family interface and turnover intentions over the course of project-oriented assignments abroad. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 30, 752–759. doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.01.006
Arain, G. A., Bhatti, Z. A., Ashraf, N., and Fang, Y. H. (2020). 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 164, 611–625. doi: 10.1007/s10551-018-4056-2
Arain, G. A., Bhatti, Z. A., Hameed, I., and Fang, Y. H. (2019). Top-down knowledge hiding and innovative work behavior (IWB): A three-way moderated-mediation analysis of self-efficacy and local/foreign status. J. Knowl. Manag. 24, 127–149. doi: 10.1108/JKM-11-2018-0687
Aryee, S., Fields, D., and Luk, V. (1999). A cross-cultural test of a model of the work-family interface. J. Manag. 25, 491–511. doi: 10.1177/014920639902500402
Bagozzi, R. P., and Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 16, 74–94. doi: 10.1007/BF02723327
Benitez, J., Henseler, J., Castillo, A., and Schuberth, F. (2020). How to perform and report an impactful analysis using partial least squares: Guidelines for confirmatory and explanatory IS research. Inf. Manag. 57:103168. doi: 10.1016/j.im.2019.05.003
Bruck, C. S., and Allen, T. D. (2003). The relationship between big five personality traits, negative affectivity, type A behavior, and work–family conflict. J. Vocat. Behav. 63, 457–472. doi: 10.1016/S0001-8791(02)00040-4
Byron, K. (2005). A meta-analytic review of work–family conflict and its antecedents. J. Vocat. Behav. 67, 169–198. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2004.08.009
Cao, Y. (2022). Effect of interpersonal injustice on knowledge hiding behavior: Moderating role of high-performance work stress. Front. Psychol. 13:858669. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.858669
Chatterjee, S., Chaudhuri, R., Thrassou, A., and Vrontis, D. (2021). Antecedents and consequences of knowledge hiding: The moderating role of knowledge hiders and knowledge seekers in organizations. J. Bus. Res. 128, 303–313. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.02.033
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd Edn. Hillsdale, N.J: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Connelly, C. E., Zweig, D., Webster, J., and Trougakos, J. P. (2012). Knowledge hiding in organizations. J. Organ. Behav. 33, 64–88. doi: 10.1002/job.737
Ekrot, B., Rank, J., and Gemünden, H. G. (2016). Antecedents of project managers’ voice behavior: The moderating effect of organization-based self-esteem and affective organizational commitment. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 34, 1028–1042. doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.10.011
Feng, J., and Wang, C. (2019). Does abusive supervision always promote employees to hide knowledge? From both reactance and COR perspectives. J. Knowl. Manag. 23, 1455–1474. doi: 10.1108/JKM-12-2018-0737
Fong, P. S., Men, C., Luo, J., and Jia, R. (2018). Knowledge hiding and team creativity: The contingent role of task interdependence. Manag. Decis. 56, 329–343. doi: 10.1108/MD-11-2016-0778
Frone, M. R., Russell, M., and Cooper, M. L. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes of work-family conflict: Testing a model of the work-family interface. J. Appl. Psychol. 77, 65–78. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.77.1.65
Grandey, A. A., and Cropanzano, R. (1999). The conservation of resources model applied to work–family conflict and strain. J. Vocat. Behav. 54, 350–370. doi: 10.1006/jvbe.1998.1666
Greenhaus, J. H., and Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Acad. Manag. Rev. 10, 76–88. doi: 10.5465/amr.1985.4277352
Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., and Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 19, 139–152. doi: 10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202
Hall, G. B., Dollard, M. F., Tuckey, M. R., Winefield, A. H., and Thompson, B. M. (2010). Job demands, work-family conflict, and emotional exhaustion in police officers: A longitudinal test of competing theories. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 83, 237–250. doi: 10.1348/096317908X401723
He, P., Jiang, C., Xu, Z., and Shen, C. (2021). Knowledge hiding: Current research status and future research directions. Front. Psychol. 12:748237. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.748237
He, P., Zhou, H., Zhou, Q., Jiang, C., and Anand, A. (2024). Why do employees hide knowledge after working hours? Linking non-working time ICT demands to deceptive knowledge hiding. J. Knowl. Manag. 28, 2062–2091. doi: 10.1108/JKM-05-2023-0393
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. Am. Psychol. 44, 513–524. doi: 10.1037//0003-066x.44.3.513
Hsiao, H. (2022). A cross-cultural study of organizational work–family initiatives, work demands and conflict, and job-related outcomes among working parents across 24 countries. Cross-Cult. Res. 56, 268–300. doi: 10.1177/10693971221075208
Huo, W., Cai, Z., Luo, J., Men, C., and Jia, R. (2016). Antecedents and intervention mechanisms: A multi-level study of R & D team’s knowledge hiding behavior. J. Knowl. Manag. 20, 880–897. doi: 10.1108/JKM-11-2015-0451
Jeung, C. W., Yoon, H. J., and Choi, M. (2017). Exploring the affective mechanism linking perceived organizational support and knowledge sharing intention: A moderated mediation model. J. Knowl. Manag. 21, 946–960. doi: 10.1108/JKM-12-2016-0530
Jiang, J. J., Wu, F., Yin, M., Yang, X., and Wang, H. R. (2022). Crippling influence of knowledge hiding on the innovative performance of GDAD group. Knowl. Manag. Res. Pract. 20, 449–460. doi: 10.1080/14778238.2021.1983480
Kim, S. L., Lee, S., Park, E., and Yun, S. (2015). Knowledge sharing, work–family conflict and supervisor support: Investigating a three-way effect. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 26, 2434–2452. doi: 10.1080/09585192.2015.1020442
Lapointe, É,Vandenberghe, C., and Boudrias, J. S. (2013). Psychological contract breach, affective commitment to organization and supervisor, and newcomer adjustment: A three-wave moderated mediation model. J. Vocat. Behav. 83, 528–538. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2013.07.008
Lin, Q., Guan, W., and Zhang, N. (2022). Work–family conflict, family well-being and organizational citizenship behavior: A moderated mediation model. Int. J. Confl. Manag. 33, 47–65. doi: 10.1108/IJCMA-04-2021-0064
Losada-Otálora, M., Pena-Garcia, N., and Sanchez, I. D. (2020). Interpersonal conflict at work and knowledge hiding in service organizations: The mediator role of employee well-being. Int. J. Qual. Serv. Sci. 13, 63–90. doi: 10.1108/IJQSS-02-2020-0023
Mendenhall, M. E., and Reiche, B. S. (2025). Restoring a parched tributary in global mobility research: The study of expatriates as leaders. J. Glob. Mobil. 13, 154–173. doi: 10.1108/JGM-06-2024-0062
Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., and Gellatly, I. R. (1990). Affective and continuance commitment to the organization: Evaluation of measures and analysis of concurrent and time-lagged relations. J. Appl. Psychol. 75, 710–720. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.75.6.710
Nauman, S., Tahir, M. Z., Ali, F. H., and Sumbal, M. S. U. K. (2025). The missing link: Knowledge hiding behavior and project performance. Manag. Decis. 63, 2536–2554. doi: 10.1108/MD-12-2023-2381
Netemeyer, R. G., Boles, J. S., and McMurrian, R. (1996). Development and validation of work–family conflict and family–work conflict scales. J. Appl. Psychol. 81, 400–410. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.81.4.400
Nguyen, T. M., Malik, A., and Budhwar, P. (2022). Knowledge hiding in organizational crisis: The moderating role of leadership. J. Bus. Res. 139, 161–172. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.09.026
Novieto, D. T., and Kportufe, G. S. (2022). Work-family conflict and project performance of construction professionals in a developing country: Testing the mediating–moderating effect of project management self-efficacy. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 29, 3331–3344. doi: 10.1108/ECAM-01-2021-0074
Offergelt, F., Spörrle, M., Moser, K., and Shaw, J. D. (2019). Leader-signaled knowledge hiding: Effects on employees’ job attitudes and empowerment. J. Organ. Behav. 40, 819–833. doi: 10.1002/job.2343
Peng, H. (2013). Why and when do people hide knowledge? J. Knowl. Manag. 17, 398–415. doi: 10.1108/JKM-12-2012-0380
Peng, H., Bell, C., and Li, Y. (2021). How and when intragroup relationship conflict leads to knowledge hiding: The roles of envy and trait competitiveness. Int. J. Confl. Manag. 32, 383–406. doi: 10.1108/IJCMA-03-2020-0041
Pierce, J. L., and Gardner, D. G. (2004). Self-esteem within the work and organizational context: A review of the organization-based self-esteem literature. J. Manag. 30, 591–622. doi: 10.1016/j.jm.2003.10.001
Pierce, J. L., Gardner, D. G., Cummings, L. L., and Dunham, R. B. (1989). Organization-based self-esteem: Construct definition, measurement, and validation. Acad. Manag. J. 32, 622–648. doi: 10.5465/256437
Pierce, J. L., Gardner, D. G., Dunham, R. B., and Cummings, L. L. (1993). Moderation by organization-based self-esteem of role condition-employee response relationships. Acad. Manag. J. 36, 271–288. doi: 10.5465/256523
Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., and Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 88, 879–903. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Podsakoff, P. M., and Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. J. Manag. 12, 531–544. doi: 10.1177/014920638601200408
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., and Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivar. Behav. Res. 42, 185–227. doi: 10.1080/00273170701341316
Semerci, A. B. (2019). Examination of knowledge hiding with conflict, competition and personal values. Int. J. Confl. Manag. 30, 111–131. doi: 10.1108/IJCMA-03-2018-0044
Singh, S. K. (2019). Territoriality, task performance, and workplace deviance: Empirical evidence on role of knowledge hiding. J. Bus. Res. 97, 10–19. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.12.034
Turner, M., and Mariani, A. (2016). Managing the work-family interface: Experience of construction project managers. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 9, 243–258. doi: 10.1108/IJMPB-07-2015-0057
Turner, R., Huemann, M., and Keegan, A. (2008). Human resource management in the project-oriented organization: Employee well-being and ethical treatment. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 26, 577–585. doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.05.005
Wang, Y., Han, M. S., Xiang, D., and Hampson, D. P. (2019). The double-edged effects of perceived knowledge hiding: Empirical evidence from the sales context. J. Knowl. Manag. 23, 279–296. doi: 10.1108/JKM-04-2018-0245
Xia, N., Zhong, R., Wang, X., and Tiong, R. (2018). Cross-domain negative effect of work-family conflict on project citizenship behavior: Study on Chinese project managers. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 36, 512–524. doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.11.005
Xu, A., Zeng, H., Zheng, Q., and Su, X. (2022). The influence of leader–signaled knowledge hiding on tourism employees’ work withdrawal behavior: A moderated mediating model. Front. Psychol. 13:1032845. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1032845
Yoon, S., Kim, S. L., and Yun, S. (2024). Supervisor knowledge sharing and creative behavior: The roles of employees’ self-efficacy and work–family conflict. J. Manag. Organ. 30, 1920–1935. doi: 10.1017/jmo.2022.85
Zhang, M., Griffeth, R. W., and Fried, D. D. (2012). Work-family conflict and individual consequences. J. Manag. Psychol. 27, 696–713. doi: 10.1108/02683941211259520
Zhang, Z., and Min, M. (2024a). The effect of top-down knowledge hiding on subordinates’ task performance in Chinese R&D projects: The mediating role of leader-member ‘guanxi’. RD Manag. 54, 161–177. doi: 10.1111/radm.12652
Zhang, Z., and Min, M. (2024b). Why project managers’ knowledge hiding is harmful to NPD projects: Resilient team resource caravans as an explanatory mechanism. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 44, 2013–2035. doi: 10.1108/IJOPM-01-2023-0018
Zhang, Z., Min, M., Cai, X., and Qiu, H. (2022). Mitigating the negative performance effect of project complexity through an informal mechanism: The conditional mediating role of knowledge hiding. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 40, 192–204. doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2022.01.002
Zhao, H., and Jiang, J. (2022). Role stress, emotional exhaustion, and knowledge hiding: The joint moderating effects of network centrality and structural holes. Curr. Psychol. 41, 8829–8841. doi: 10.1007/s12144-021-01348-9
Keywords: work-family conflicts, affective organizational commitment, self-esteem, knowledge hiding, innovative team leader, conservation of resources theory
Citation: Min M, Fang K, Zhang Z and Xu Z (2025) Work-family interfaces and leaders’ knowledge hiding: underlying mechanisms and contingencies. Front. Psychol. 16:1666321. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1666321
Received: 15 July 2025; Accepted: 15 October 2025;
Published: 06 November 2025.
Edited by:
You-Yu Dai, Shandong Jiaotong University, ChinaReviewed by:
Wenli Xie, Taizhou Polytechnic College, ChinaFarah Chalida Hanoum, Universitas PGRI Semarang, Indonesia
Sanggari Krishnan, Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman, Malaysia
Copyright © 2025 Min, Fang, Zhang and Xu. 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: Zhen Zhang, MzMwNzY0OTA3QHFxLmNvbQ==