Competition within Cross-Functional Teams: A Structural Equation Model on Knowledge Hiding
Abstract
:1. Introduction
Literature Review and Hypotheses
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Material
2.2. Procedure
2.3. Structural Equation Model
3. Results
3.1. Model Fit Value
3.2. Hypothesis Testing
4. Discussion
4.1. Theoretical Implications
4.2. Practical Implications
4.3. Research Limitations and Future Research Suggestions
- Individuals who have a competitive supervisor are more antagonistic.
- Individuals who have a competitive supervisor hide knowledge more often.
- Individuals who are highly antagonistic hide knowledge more often.
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A. Structured Questionnaire
Classification | Items | 11 Point Likert Scale (0 = I Don’t Agree; 11 = I Fully Agree | Source | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0 | 2 | … | … | 10 | 11 | ||||
Antagonism | Deceitfulness | I often make up things about myself to help me get what I want. | Maples et al. 2015 | ||||||
I don’t hesitate to cheat if it gets me ahead. | |||||||||
I use people to get what I want. | |||||||||
I’ll stretch the truth it’s to my advantage. | |||||||||
Grandiosity | To be honest, I’m just more important than other. | ||||||||
I’m better than almost everyone else. | |||||||||
I deserve special treatment. | |||||||||
I often have to deal with people who are less important than me. | |||||||||
Manipulativeness | I’m good at making people do what I want them to do. | ||||||||
Sweet-talking others helps me get what I want. | |||||||||
I’m good at conning people. | |||||||||
It is easy for me to take advantage of others. | |||||||||
Competitive supervisor | My manager frequently compares my results with those of others | Brown et al. 1998 | |||||||
The amount of recognition you get in this company depends on how your rank compared to others | |||||||||
Everybody is concerned with finishing at the top of the rankings | |||||||||
Individual competition | Performing better than others on a task is important for me | author | |||||||
If I do a good job, it can open up new career paths for me later on | |||||||||
I try harder when I am in competition with other people. | |||||||||
If I meet the goals that my supervisor gives me, that will help me later on in my career. | |||||||||
Knowledge hiding | Rationalizes hiding | In this specific situation, I explained that I would like to tell him/her, but was not supposed to | Connelly et al. 2012 | ||||||
In this specific situation, I explained that the information is confidential and only available to people on a particular project | |||||||||
In this specific situation, I told him/her that my boss would not let anyone share this knowledge | |||||||||
In this specific situation, I said that I would not answer his/her questions | |||||||||
Playing dumb | In this specific situation, I pretended that I did not know the information | ||||||||
In this specific situation, I said that I did not know, even though I did | |||||||||
In this specific situation, I pretended I did not know what s/he was talking about | |||||||||
In this specific situation, I said that I was not very knowledgeable about the topic | |||||||||
Evasive hiding | In this specific situation, I agreed to help him/her but never really intended to | ||||||||
In this specific situation, I agreed to help him/her but instead gave him/her information different from what s/he wanted | |||||||||
In this specific situation, I told him/her that I would help him/her out later but stalled as much as possible | |||||||||
In this specific situation, I offered him/her some other information instead of what he/she really wanted |
References
- Ambos, Tina C., Kristiina Mäkelä, Julian Birkinshaw, and Pablo D’Este. 2008. When Does University Research Get Commercialized? Creating Ambidexterity in Research Institutions. Journal of Management Studies 45: 1424–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ambrose, Scott C., Lucy M. Matthews, and Brian N. Rutherford. 2018. Cross-functional teams and social identity theory: A study of sales and operations planning (S&OP). Journal of Business Research 92: 270–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amirazodi, Fatemeh, and Maryam Amirazodi. 2011. Personality traits and Self-esteem. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 29: 713–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- An, David, Markus Kreutzer, and Sven Heidenreich. 2020. Always play against par? The effect of inter-team coopetition on individual team productivity. Industrial Marketing Management 90: 155–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andriopoulos, Constantine, and Marianne W. Lewis. 2010. Managing Innovation Paradoxes: Ambidexterity Lessons from Leading Product Design Companies. Long Range Planning 43: 104–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bengtsson, Maria, Tatbeeq Raza-Ullah, and Vladimir Vanyushyn. 2016. The coopetition paradox and tension: The moderating role of coopetition capability. Industrial Marketing Management 53: 19–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bentler, Peter M. 1990. Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin 107: 238–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bentler, Peter M., and Douglas G. Bonett. 1980. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin 88: 588–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berry, Christopher M., Deniz S. Ones, and Paul R. Sackett. 2007. Interpersonal deviance, organizational deviance, and their common correlates: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology 92: 410–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blankenship, Albert. 1942. Psychological Difficulties in Measuring Consumer Preference. Journal of Marketing 6: 66–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boz Semerci, Anil. 2019. Examination of knowledge hiding with conflict, competition and personal values. International Journal of Conflict Management 30: 111–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, Steven P., William L. Cron, and John W. Slocum. 1998. Effects of Trait Competitiveness and Perceived Intraorganizational Competition on Salesperson Goal Setting and Performance. Journal of Marketing 62: 88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Černe, Matej, Christina G. L. Nerstad, Anders Dysvik, and Miha Škerlavaj. 2014. What Goes Around Comes Around: Knowledge Hiding, Perceived Motivational Climate, and Creativity. Academy of Management Journal 57: 172–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, Guoquan, Dean Tjosvold, and Chunhong Liu. 2006. Cooperative Goals, Leader People and Productivity Values: Their Contribution to Top Management Teams in China*. Journal of Management Studies 43: 1177–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Connelly, Catherine E., David Zweig, Jane Webster, and John P. Trougakos. 2012. Knowledge hiding in organizations: Knowledge Hiding in Organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior 33: 64–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Connelly, Catherine E., Dianne P. Ford, Ofir Turel, Brent Gallupe, and David Zweig. 2014. ‘I’m busy (and competitive)!’ Antecedents of knowledge sharing under pressure. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 12: 74–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Costa, Paul T., and Robert R. McCrae. 2008. The Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R). In The SAGE Handbook of Personality Theory and Assessment: Volume 2—Personality Measurement and Testing. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications Ltd., pp. 179–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crego, Cristina, and Thomas A. Widiger. 2015. Five Factor Model of Personality, Personality Disorder. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (Second Edition) 2015: 242–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crick, James M., and Dave Crick. 2020. Coopetition and COVID-19: Collaborative business-to-business marketing strategies in a pandemic crisis. Industrial Marketing Management 88: 206–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deese, James, and Roger A. Kaufman. 1957. Serial effects in recall of unorganized and sequentially organized verbal material. Journal of Experimental Psychology 54: 180–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Dugan, Riley, Maria Rouziou, and Bryan Hochstein. 2019. It is better to be loved than feared: Machiavellianism and the dark side of internal networking. Marketing Letters 30: 261–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eisenhardt, Kathleen M., Nathan R. Furr, and Christopher B. Bingham. 2010. CROSSROADS—Microfoundations of Performance: Balancing Efficiency and Flexibility in Dynamic Environments. Organization Science 21: 1263–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ernst, Holger, Wayne D. Hoyer, and Carsten Rübsaamen. 2010. Sales, Marketing, and Research-and-Development Cooperation Across New Product Development Stages: Implications for Success. Journal of Marketing 74: 80–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Galpin, Timothy, Rod Hilpirt, and Bruce Evans. 2007. The connected enterprise: Beyond division of labor. Journal of Business Strategy 28: 38–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghazinejad, Masoumeh, Bassam A. Hussein, and Youcef J.-T. Zidane. 2018. Impact of Trust, Commitment, and Openness on Research Project Performance: Case Study in a Research Institute. Social Sciences 7: 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ghobadi, Shahla, and John D’Ambra. 2012a. Knowledge sharing in cross-functional teams: A coopetitive model. Journal of Knowledge Management 16: 285–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghobadi, Shahla, and John D’Ambra. 2012b. Coopetitive relationships in cross-functional software development teams: How to model and measure? Journal of Systems and Software 85: 1096–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghobadi, Shahla, and John D’Ambra. 2013. Modeling High-Quality Knowledge Sharing in cross-functional software development teams. Information Processing & Management 49: 138–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, Zi-Lin, and Poh-Kam Wong. 2004. Exploration vs. Exploitation: An Empirical Test of the Ambidexterity Hypothesis. Organization Science 15: 481–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henson, Reilly V., Kelly M. Cobourn, Kathleen C. Weathers, Cayelan C. Carey, Kaitlin J. Farrell, Jennifer L. Klug, Michael G. Sorice, Nicole K. Ward, and Weizhe Weng. 2020. A Practical Guide for Managing Interdisciplinary Teams: Lessons Learned from Coupled Natural and Human Systems Research. Social Sciences 9: 119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hernaus, Tomislav, Matej Cerne, Catherine Connelly, Nina Poloski Vokic, and Miha Škerlavaj. 2019. Evasive knowledge hiding in academia: When competitive individuals are asked to collaborate. Journal of Knowledge Management 23: 597–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Joyner, Keanan J., Allison M. Daurio, Emily R. Perkins, Christopher J. Patrick, and Robert D. Latzman. 2021. The difference between trait disinhibition and impulsivity—And why it matters for clinical psychological science. Psychological Assessment 33: 29–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Knein, Ernesto, Andrea Greven, David Bendig, and Malte Brettel. 2020. Culture and cross-functional coopetition: The interplay of organizational and national culture. Journal of International Management 26: 100731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, Sherman A., and Gayle T. Dow. 2011. Malevolent Creativity: Does Personality Influence Malicious Divergent Thinking? Creativity Research Journal 23: 73–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maples, Jessica L., Nathan T. Carter, Lauren R. Few, Cristina Crego, Whitney L. Gore, Douglas B. Samuel, Rachel L. Williamson, Donald R. Lynam, Thomas A. Widiger, Kristian E. Markon, and et al. 2015. Testing whether the DSM-5 personality disorder trait model can be measured with a reduced set of items: An item response theory investigation of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5. Psychological Assessment 27: 1195–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pei-Lee, Teh, Chen Yong Chen, Wei Chong Chin, and Yong Yew Siew. 2017. Do the big five personality factors affect knowledge sharing behavior? A study of malaysian universities. Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science 16: 47–62. [Google Scholar]
- Podsakoff, Philip M., Scott B. MacKenzie, and Nathan P. Podsakoff. 2012. Sources of Method Bias in Social Science Research and Recommendations on How to Control It. Annual Review of Psychology 63: 539–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Podsakoff, Philip M., Scott B. MacKenzie, Jeong-Yeon Lee, and Nathan P. Podsakoff. 2003. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88: 879–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robinson, Sandra L., and Rebecca J. Bennett. 1995. A Typology of Deviant Workplace Behaviors: A Multidimensional Scaling Study. Academy of Management Journal 38: 555–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Serenko, Alexander, and Nick Bontis. 2016. Understanding counterproductive knowledge behavior: Antecedents and consequences of intra-organizational knowledge hiding. Journal of Knowledge Management 20: 1199–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sethi, Rajesh, Daniel C. Smith, and C. Whan Park. 2001. Cross-Functional Product Development Teams, Creativity, and the Innovativeness of New Consumer Products. Journal of Marketing Research 38: 73–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spurk, Daniel, Anita C. Keller, and Andreas Hirschi. 2016. Do Bad Guys Get Ahead or Fall Behind? Relationships of the Dark Triad of Personality With Objective and Subjective Career Success. Social Psychological and Personality Science 7: 113–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Strese, Steffen, Marcel W. Meuer, Tessa C. Flatten, and Malte Brettel. 2016. Organizational antecedents of cross-functional coopetition: The impact of leadership and organizational structure on cross-functional coopetition. Industrial Marketing Management 53: 42–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sutin, Angelina R., Paul T. Costa, Richard Miech, and William W. Eaton. 2009. Personality and career success: Concurrent and longitudinal relations. European Journal of Personality 23: 71–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Thimm, Jens C., Stian Jordan, and Bo Bach. 2016. The Personality Inventory for DSM-5 Short Form (PID-5-SF): Psychometric properties and association with big five traits and pathological beliefs in a Norwegian population. BMC Psychology 4: 61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tjosvold, Dean, Zi-you Yu, and Chun Hui. 2004. Team Learning from Mistakes: The Contribution of Cooperative Goals and Problem-Solving. Journal of Management Studies 41: 1223–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ton, Anh Don, and Laszlo Hammerl. 2021. Knowledge management in the environment of cross-functional team coopetition: A systematic literature review. Knowledge and Performance Management 5: 14–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsai, Wenpin. 2002. Social Structure of “Coopetition” Within a Multiunit Organization: Coordination, Competition, and Intraorganizational Knowledge Sharing. Organization Science 13: 179–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Watson, David, and Lee A. Clark. 1984. Negative affectivity: The disposition to experience aversive emotional states. Psychological Bulletin 96: 465–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Widiger, Thomas A., and Joshua R. Oltmanns. 2019. Five-Factor Model antagonism. In The Handbook of Antagonism. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 25–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zawawi, Azlyn Ahmad, Zaherawati Zakaria, Nur Zafifa Kamarunzaman, Nazni Noordin, Mohd Zool Hilmie Mohamed Sawal, Natrah Mat Junos, and Nurul Shahida Ahmad Najid Najid. 2011. The Study of Barrier Factors in Knowledge Sharing: A Case Study in Public University. Management Science and Engineering 5: 59–70. [Google Scholar]
- Zhao, Hongdan, Qing Xia, Peixu He, Geoff Sheard, and Pei Wan. 2016. Workplace ostracism and knowledge hiding in service organizations. International Journal of Hospitality Management 59: 84–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Variable | M | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Cronbach’s α | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Antagonism | 3.82 | 2.22 | 1 | 0.95 | |||
2 | Individual competition | 7.7 | 1.78 | 0.34 ** | 1 | 0.78 | ||
3 | Knowledge hiding | 4.29 | 2.36 | 0.64 ** | 0.19 * | 1 | 0.93 | |
4 | Competitive supervisor | 5.2 | 2.54 | 0.39 ** | 0.24 ** | 0.46 ** | 1 | 0.83 |
Model | Description | χ2 | CFI | TLI | SRMR | RMSEA |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 3 modification covariances added | 114.17 | 0.94 | 0.92 | 0.06 | 0.08 |
2 | 2 modification covariances added | 127.73 | 0.93 | 0.91 | 0.08 | 0.09 |
3 * | 1 modification covariance added | 190.72 | 0.87 | 0.83 | 0.15 | 0.13 |
4 * | Hypothesized model | 210.17 | 0.85 | 0.81 | 0.19 | 0.14 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Ton, A.D.; Szabó-Szentgróti, G.; Hammerl, L. Competition within Cross-Functional Teams: A Structural Equation Model on Knowledge Hiding. Soc. Sci. 2022, 11, 30. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci11010030
Ton AD, Szabó-Szentgróti G, Hammerl L. Competition within Cross-Functional Teams: A Structural Equation Model on Knowledge Hiding. Social Sciences. 2022; 11(1):30. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci11010030
Chicago/Turabian StyleTon, Anh Don, Gábor Szabó-Szentgróti, and Laszlo Hammerl. 2022. "Competition within Cross-Functional Teams: A Structural Equation Model on Knowledge Hiding" Social Sciences 11, no. 1: 30. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci11010030
APA StyleTon, A. D., Szabó-Szentgróti, G., & Hammerl, L. (2022). Competition within Cross-Functional Teams: A Structural Equation Model on Knowledge Hiding. Social Sciences, 11(1), 30. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci11010030