Abusive supervision and knowledge sharing: the moderating role of organizational tenure

DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1108/PR-08-2016-0199
Date05 February 2018
Pages22-38
Published date05 February 2018
AuthorSeckyoung Loretta Kim,Seung Yeon Son,Seokhwa Yun
Subject MatterHR & organizational behaviour,Global HRM
Abusive supervision and
knowledge sharing: the moderating
role of organizational tenure
Seckyoung Loretta Kim
College of Business Administration, Incheon National University,
Incheon, South Korea
Seung Yeon Son
Graduate School of Defense Management, Korea National Defense University,
GoYang-si, South Korea, and
Seokhwa Yun
Department of Business Administration, Seoul National University,
Seoul, South Korea
Abstract
Purpose Drawing on social exchange theory (SET) and conservation of resources (COR) theory,
the purpose of this paper is to examine the negative consequence of abusive supervision on knowledge
sharing. Further, this paper explores the moderating role of organizational tenure in the relationship between
abusive supervision and employeesknowledge sharing behavior applying sense-making theory.
Design/methodology/approach The hypotheses were tested using regression analysis across two
independent studies conducted in South Korea.
Findings The authors found evidence that there was a negative relationship between abusive supervision
and employeesknowledge sharing behavior. Furthermore, the aforementionedrelationship was strengthened
for those with longer organizational tenure.
Originality/value This research deepens our understanding of the negative consequences of abusive
supervision on employeesknowledge sharing behavior by drawing on SET and COR theory. Through two
independent studies, the results demonstrated that employees who receive abusive treatment from their
supervisors tend to reduce their knowledge sharing behavior. Furthermore, this detrimental effect is stronger
for key knowledge providers, namely long-tenured employees.
Keywords Quantitative, Knowledge sharing, Abusive supervision, Organizational tenure, Sense-making theory,
Social exchange theory (SET)
Paper type Research paper
In the knowledge-based society, knowledge sharing becomes increasingly important for
organizations to survive and succeed in the competitive environment (Cabrera and Cabrera,
2005; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). However, encouraging employeesknowledge sharing
behavior is not easy, because knowledge is regarded as a unique resource and the
competitive advantage of each employee (Chowdhury, 2005; Kim et al., 2017; Wang et al.,
2014). Knowledge sharing is referred to as sharing task-relevant ideas, information, and
suggestions with each other(Srivastava et al., 2006, p. 1241). People share and initiate the
knowledge sharing process; thus, it is necessary to understand the factors that may
influence employeesknowledge sharing behavior to achieve the organizational
effectiveness (Cabrera et al., 2006 ; Nonaka, 1994). Previous research in vestigated
environmental, motivational, and individual factors as predictors of knowledge sharing
(Wang and Noe, 2010). In particular, as environmental factors, scholars examined how
Personnel Review
Vol. 47 No. 1, 2018
pp. 22-38
© Emerald PublishingLimited
0048-3486
DOI 10.1108/PR-08-2016-0199
Received 11 August 2016
Revised 12 February 2017
1 May 2017
Accepted 30 May 2017
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0048-3486.htm
This work was supported by Incheon National University (International Cooperative) Research Grant
in 2016.
22
PR
47,1
organizational context as well as interpersonal and cultural characteristics are significantly
related to knowledge sharing. However, studies examining the factors preventing
employees from sharing their knowledge are scarce (Kim et al., 2015). Although knowledge
sharing benefits the organization, employees may decide not to share their knowledge, since
it is a challenging task and requires much time and effort (Szulanski, 2000; Kim et al., 2017).
Furthermore, knowledge sharing is viewed as a discretionary behavior in the workplace,
meaning it is not mandatory but voluntary, despite its high contribution to the organization
(Connelly and Kelloway, 2003; Liu and Liu, 2011). Thus, it is not likely that employees
automatically share their valuable knowledge with others (Srivastava et al., 2006).
According to the social exchange theory (SET) and the norm of reciprocity (Blau, 1964;
Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005), when individuals provide benefits to others, they expect to
receive benefits as reciprocity in the future. From the SET perspective, employees may
choose to engage in discretionary behaviors such as knowledge sharing when they perceive
positive treatment or benefits from their supervisor or organization. Thus, SET could be a
useful theoretical perspective to explain when employees may or may not engage in
knowledge sharing at the workplace. Furthermore, based on the conservation of resources
(COR) theory (Hobfoll, 1989), employees may not use their resources for knowledge sharing
when they perceive a lack of resources. Among the various actors in the workplace, leaders
are considered critical, since they make important decisions related to promotion, incentives,
and rewards (Banks et al., 2016). In this regard, a leaders behavior is likely to be influential
in determining employeesdiscretionary behavior such as knowledge sharing (Srivastava
et al., 2006). Particularly, a leaders destructive behavior is likely to be a barrier to an
employees knowledge sharing behavior. However, more research is needed on leader
behavior, specifically on destructive behavior such as abusive supervision to deepen our
understanding of knowledge sharing (Wang and Noe, 2010).
Prior research reported that more than 13 percent of employees experience abusive
supervision in the US workforce (Schat et al.,2006;Tepperet al., 2011). Although abusive
supervision is a low base-rate phenomenon in most organizations, it is still meaningful to
examine the leadersabusive behaviors, as the consequences are detrimental (Aryee et al., 2007,
2008; Tepper, 2000, 2007; Tepper et al., 2001, 2006; Zellars et al., 2002; Zhang and Liao, 2015).
Previous studies demonstrated the negative relationship between abusive supervision and
various individual and organizational outcomes (e.g. Gregory et al., 2013; Harris et al., 2007;
Mackey et al., 2015; Walter et al., 2015). Similar to previous studies, we expect that abusive
supervision is likely to have a negative effect on knowledge sharing. Based on SET (Blau, 1964;
Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005), when employees experience abusive treatment from their
supervisors, they are likely to reduce their knowledge sharing behavior as negative reciprocity.
Moreover, employees are likely to view abusive supervision as a workplace stressor (Wu and
Hu, 2009). From a COR theory perspective, as employees tend to perceive a resource loss in the
context of abusive supervision, they may decide to decrease their knowledge sharing behavior
to conserve their valuable resource (Hobfoll, 1989).
Although abusive supervision is presumed harmful to all employees, the negative effects of
abusive supervision are assumed to differ between employees (Hu, 2012; Frieder et al.,2015).
Recognizing the critical role of individual factors, previous studies showed how individuals cope
with stressful situations such as abusive supervision (Chi and Liang, 2013). Depending on their
abilities, motivations, or characteristics, individuals respond to abusive supervision in different
ways. Scholars identified emotional contagion, negative reciprocity beliefs, and emotional
intelligence as the key moderators in the relationship between abusive supervision and
outcomes (Chi and Liang, 2013; Frieder et al., 2015; Nandkeolyar et al., 2014; Mitchell and
Ambrose, 2007). For example, Wu and Hu (2009) determined that the positive relationship
between abusive supervision and emotional exhaustion was stronger for individuals with a
high susceptibility to emotional contagion. Since these individuals are easily affected by other
23
Abusive
supervision
and knowledge
sharing

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT