Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This paper aims to examine the personal, interpersonal, and organizational predictors of knowledge hiding behaviors in organizations. The results of a three-wave longitudinal study indicated that (i) the dark triad personality (Machiavellianism and psychopathy) was positively associated with knowledge hiding behaviors (evasive and playing dumb); (ii) organizational communication climate partially mediated the link between dark triad personality and knowledge hiding, but not humor styles; and (iii) humor style (aggressive) and organizational communication climate sequentially mediated the relation between dark triad personality and knowledge hiding. This study advances an understanding of the organizational communication climate and knowledge hiding through the theoretical lens of personal and interpersonal constructs.

Plain language summary

Does humor affect the hiding of knowledge at work? The significance of personality and workplace atmosphere

This paper looks at why people hide knowledge at work, and what factors contribute to this behavior. After studying this over three time periods, we found that (i) certain personality traits, like being manipulative or lacking empathy, are linked to knowledge hiding; (ii) the way communication works in a company can make a difference in how much knowledge is hidden, but not necessarily someone’s sense of humor; and (iii) a particular type of humor and how communication is at work can together affect how much knowledge is hidden by someone with those personality traits. This study helps us understand more about how workplace communication and personality traits affect knowledge hiding.

Keywords

organizational communication dark triad humor styles knowledge hiding behavior

Introduction

In the current information and communication age, knowledge is regarded as the key to competitiveness, and it becomes apparent that an organization requires a comprehensive array of knowledge to effectively fulfill its functions (Dirik, 2019). In an organization, the flow of business and operations-related knowledge among individuals is one of the most crucial issues in terms of organizational efficiency and functionality. Studies indicated that knowledge hiding negatively impacts innovative working behavior (Zhang & Wang, 2021) and organizational performance (Chatterjee et al., 2021; Wen & Ma, 2021) by decreasing employees’ (Khoreva & Wechtler, 2020; Xu et al., 2024) and teams’ performance (Huo et al., 2016).

Knowledge circulation and flow among individuals, their combination with organizational routines and practices, and the transformation of knowledge into financial benefits depend entirely on employees’ knowledge-sharing behaviors and tendencies (Su, 2021). However, although businesses are implementing practices to encourage knowledge-sharing, employees’ tendency to hide information from their colleagues or managers continue (Černe et al., 2014). Connelly et al. (2012, p. 65) defined knowledge hiding as “an intentional attempt by an individual to withhold or conceal knowledge that has been requested by another person.” In this context, knowledge hiding also appears to involve an individual’s reduced effort to contribute to organizational cumulative knowledge. In other words, it reflects a negative perspective on knowledge-based contribution to work-related issues (Ladan et al., 2017).

In addition to being intentional, knowledge hiding emerges in various forms. Accordingly, three types of knowledge hiding behaviors have been identified: Playing dumb, evasive hiding, and rationalized hiding (Connelly & Zweig, 2015). In the knowledge hiding type, which can be explained as playing dumb, the employee exhibits a form of deception by pretending to be ignorant of the requested information, despite knowing it (Venz & Nesher Shoshan, 2022). The employee acts indifferent to the request made, and the needed knowledge is not granted (Khan et al., 2020) (e.g., Pretending that she/he does not know the information). In the evasive hiding behavior, the person asked provides false/partial information to the requesting person or tries to avoid providing the knowledge by delaying it to another time. However, in reality, sharing the promised information at a future date is never intended (e.g., Giving incomplete information or sometimes wrong information that mislead the knowledge seeker, even though you know about it.) (Connelly et al., 2012). As for the rationalized hiding type, the knowledge holder will present a logical/understandable explanation for hiding the knowledge or attribute the refusal of sharing to an external or a third party (Dirik, 2019) (e.g., Telling him or her that the boss would not let anyone share this knowledge). Thus, this factor is not considered a voluntary deception attempt (Connelly & Zweig, 2015).

The predictors of knowledge hiding intention might be personal, interpersonal, and organizational (Rezwan & Takahashi, 2021). Despite the awareness of this multidimensional structure of knowledge hiding, there is limited studies examining these dynamics within a single model by indicating their interactions and impact on knowledge hiding (Bernatovic et al., 2021). Few studies regarding the personal determinants of knowledge hiding are thus far limited to factors including personality (Altınkaynak & Tutar, 2019; Demirkasimoglu, 2016), psychological ownership of knowledge (Peng, 2013), psychological entitlement (Khalid et al., 2021), creativity (Černe et al., 2014), fear of job security loss or decrease, lack of awareness of knowledge value among other employees, and a sense of excessive ownership over intellectual property (İspirli, 2014). Although, the dispositional perspective of behavioral sciences (Staw, 2004) posits that personality traits significantly predict employees’ work-related behaviors, surprisingly, there are few studies examining the relationship between personality and knowledge hiding. These limited previous studies have demonstrated that the dark triad personality traits, rather than the other personality traits (e.g., Big Five personality traits), are more predictive of negative behaviors such as knowledge hiding (Karim, 2020; Pan et al., 2018). Thus, it could be expected that dark-triad personality can be predictive on knowledge hiding behavior. Exploring this issue would advance our theoretical and practical understanding of the personality perspective in knowledge hiding behaviors. Moreover, it would be beneficial to provide a more comprehensive overview of the how these personality traits can affect the knowledge hiding behaviors in interpersonal and organizational settings.

In terms of interpersonal relations, the studies related to the antecedents of knowledge hiding seem to concentrate on variables such as relational perceptions (Han & Pashouwers, 2018), professional and personal trust (Alexopoulos & Buckley, 2013; Lin & Hsiao, 2014; Strik et al., 2021), conflict and interpersonal competition perception (Boz Semerci, 2018; Venz & Nesher Shoshan, 2022). These studies are valuable in revealing that knowledge hiding behaviors can emerge not only as a result of personal approach but also from interpersonal relationships. Even if humor is a crucial component in human social interaction, it is observed that the literature on humor and knowledge hiding behavior is quite limited. In another words, emerging studies focusing on interpersonal dynamics in knowledge hiding literature have been mostly examined variables such as distrust, competition, and conflict, however, a concept that could enhance communication, be perceived as inclusive and supportive, such as humor, has not been examined. There are a few studies examining the impact of a leader’s humor on employees’ knowledge sharing or hiding behaviors (Abdillah, 2021; Xu et al., 2023). Expanding on these research lines, this study posits that understanding employees’ knowledge hiding behaviors requires the examination of humor behaviors among employees.

Furthermore, it is observed that these few studies overlook organizational dynamics while explaining interpersonal relationships. This results in an incomplete theoretical account of multifaced nature of knowledge hiding. Among the factors that enhance knowledge hiding behaviors are organizational climates dominated by insufficient communication and deficient feedback (Černe et al., 2014), low organizational justice (Mahmood et al., 2023), high-level competitiveness (Hernaus et al., 2018), hierarchical structure and organizational size (İspirli, 2014), and organizational cultures dominated by ostracism practices and incivility (Shah & Hashmi, 2019). The organizational climate describes how employees view the rules, regulations, and guidelines as well as the acceptable, encouraged, and accepted actions in the workplace. Although studies examining the impact of organizational climate on knowledge-sharing behaviors exist, these studies have been found to investigate the effect of organizational climate on knowledge-sharing behaviors through trust (Jain et al., 2015; Pascoe & More, 2005); and commitment (Van Den Hooff & De Ridder, 2004). Nevertheless, the way individual and interpersonal dynamics influence organizational climate, and how this cumulative effect impacts knowledge-hiding behavior, has not been examined.

Therefore, this study aims to investigate the impact of the dark triad personality on knowledge hiding behaviors, with individuals’ humor styles and organizational communication climate as mediators. Both researchers and practitioners will benefit from this study’s findings in several ways. First, understanding the role of personality on knowledge hiding behaviors may help recognize the reason employees with specific personalities are more likely to hide knowledge. As suggested by Pan et al. (2018), the research linking personalities to knowledge hiding is still in its early stages and requires more empirical evidence. Second, this study is the first to examine knowledge hiding from the employees’ humor style perspective. Although the existing studies have begun to investigate the interpersonal antecedents of knowledge hiding, such as workplace ostracism (Riaz et al., 2019; Zhao et al., 2016), competition (Boz Semerci, 2018; Han et al., 2020), and distrust (Farooq & Sultana, 2021), humor style of employees has not yet been studied in terms of knowledge hiding. Accordingly, this study examines the relationship between organizational communication climate and knowledge hiding through the theoretical lens of personal and interpersonal constructs. Consequently, this study enriches the growing body of research that attempts to examine the predictors of knowledge hiding by utilizing a comprehensive model and analyses based on multiple mediation models.

Personal Antecedent of Knowledge Hiding: Dark Triad Personality

Dark personality traits are related to some features such as callousness, hostility, manipulation, enjoyment of cruelty, and misconduct. The phrase “dark triad” which includes Machiavellism, Narcissism, and Psychopathy is used to describe these characteristics. Paulhus and Williams (2002) describe these three characteristics as the dark triad by examining the degree of hostility/reluctance/aversion from a social perspective. Machiavellians’ beliefs that other people are naive and lack the intelligence to defend their rights lead them to manipulative behaviors. Narcissists’ motivation to inflate their external image depending on their illusion of high self-esteem turns to a desire to advertise themselves and become the center of attention. Psychopaths, on the other hand, are inclined to anti-social behaviors due to their disregard for social norms.

LeBreton et al. (2018) have stated that, in their literature review on dark-triad personality, possessing dark personality traits has several consequences in terms of personal, social or bilateral relations, and organizational aspects. For instance, Machiavellians are inclined to take revenge (Nathanson, 2008) and regularly lie to others (Michels et al., 2020). By threatening their egos, narcissists tend to become hostile and aggressive, and more egocentric and unfaithful in their emotional relationships (Miller et al., 2010). Psychopaths, on the other hand, are susceptible to crimes including sexual assault and murder (Megargee, 2009).

Consistently, it is possible to extend the disorder associated with the interpersonal relations of dark personalities into the organizational context. All dark personality traits are directly related to the satisfaction level emerging from the suffering of others (i.e., schadenfreude). In other words, employees who possess high levels of dark personality traits experience increased amusement/satisfaction/content or happiness when their colleagues exhibit low performance (LeBreton et al., 2018). Several scholars (Deshong et al., 2015; Heijnis, 2009; O’Boyle et al., 2012) also found that narcissistic, Machiavellianism, and psychopathic personality traits positively affected the counterproductive work behaviors of employees. Considering that dark personalities are egocentric, strategic thinkers, long-term goal estimators, pretentious, and often insensitive to social norms, they can be expected to exhibit behaviors such as knowledge hiding.

The Social Interdependence Theory (developed by Deutsch, 1949) puts forward several opinions/views to explain this relationship. Accordingly, employees regulate their behavior to be situationally appropriate to ensure it does not limit their ability to achieve their individual goals. Therefore, many reasons can be affirmed, such as gaining competitive advantage, maximizing self-interest, undermining the performance of others, having to submit to social norms and leader demands, not sharing information due to the lack of personal benefits or fear of negative consequences, taking revenge for a past event against the person requesting information, a simple personal dislike feeling, or believing information is a valuable resource. For these reasons, while considering the characteristics that define dark personalities together, it can be predicted that Machiavellians, narcissists, and psychopaths may tend to hide knowledge.

Individuals with Machiavellianism traits might be expected to refuse help, be uncooperative, and therefore be more inclined to withhold information (Chawla & Gupta, 2018; Pan et al., 2018). In another words, they will hide knowledge for their interests due to their highly self-focused nature. In terms of narcissism, especially individuals with competitive personalities seek to maximize their interests and gain an advantage over others because they aim to achieve individual recognition, status, and reward (Hernaus et al., 2018). Narcissists may deliberately withhold information, as they tend to display aggressive and hostile attitudes when their prestige is shaken, or their egos reduced. Psychopaths act on impulse and do not respect traditions. In this context, they may exhibit high degrees of knowledge hiding behavior due to problematic interpersonal relations.

The dark personality traits may have both direct and indirect effects on knowledge hiding behavior. These personality traits may not only directly lead employees to hide knowledge for various reasons but also affect their day-to-day interpersonal relationships. Individuals use humor in their daily interactions and these humor-expressing means may be the reflection of their personalities, which in turn will affect knowledge hiding behaviors.

Interpersonal Antecedent of Knowledge Hiding: Humor Styles

Humor is a complicated and multifaceted phenomenon that does not lend itself to a single generalized definition (Cooper, 2005; Romero & Cruthirds, 2006). Some of its agreed upon characteristics include “amusing communications that unite, direct, and energize people in ways that benefit the individual, group or organization” (Romero & Pearson, 2004, p. 53). Many definitions in the literature positively consider humor in organizations as an essential aspect of workplace culture and communication (Heiss & Carmack, 2012) that promotes employees well-being. Generally, activities consisting of laughter, fun, or amusement in a work environment are termed workplace humor or organizational humor (Duncan et al., 1990). Romero and Cruthirds (2006, p. 59) put it in a very general form by proposing “that organizational humor consists of amusing communications that produce positive emotions and cognitions in the individual, group, or organization.”

Humor can be experienced in people’s daily lives; however humor styles vary significantly among individuals. Humor styles refer to individual differences in the ways people use humor. Martin et al. (2003) humor styles model takes a dual structure approach and assesses it on the basis of “focus” and “structure.” The focus category refers to the question of at whom the humor is directed. The first distinction within this question emphasizes Self-oriented Humor and Interpersonal Humor. On the other hand, the questioning of humor’s structure which refers to whether humor is beneficial or harmful forms the other axis of the model with the distinction between positive and negative humor (Evans & Steptoe-Warren, 2018; Robert et al., 2016).

The positive humor category comprises two types, self-enhancing and affiliative humor. Self-enhancing humor, which is a positive and self-oriented humor type, refers to the use of humor as a defense mechanism to escape from negative emotions. In addition to humor’s self-enhancing dimension, it also carries a coping strategy characteristic. Individuals use humor to reduce stress, overcome negative emotions, and perceive themselves and their relationships from a different perspective. On the other hand, affiliative humor refers to adopting a humorous approach to regulating one’s relationships with others without ignoring one’s own needs and wants. Mesmer-Magnus et al. (2012), in their meta-analytical study on positive humor, reported that this humor type consists of individuals ridiculing themselves, entertaining others, using a humorous style in their relationships, and preventing possible tensions through humor while protecting their self-esteem. In this context, affiliative humor is based on the principle of tolerance and caring for others (Miczo & Welter, 2006). The experiences of individuals adopting this humor type with themselves, and their circles are determined by positive emotions and processes such as extroversion, joy, self-esteem, intimacy, and the ability to establish relationships.

On the other hand, the negative humor category consists of self-defeating and aggressive humor (Martin et al., 2003). Self-defeating humor, a self-oriented and negative humor type, comprises an individual’s effort to entertain others at the expense of ignoring and despising one’s self. Accordingly, individuals employing this type of humor tend to suppress their feelings, problems, and negative thoughts through humor. Even though these individuals are considered entertaining by their circles, they possess insecure and unsatisfied personality traits. Finally, aggressive humor, a negative and interpersonal humor type, is mixed with offensive styles such as sarcasm, contempt, mockery, ridicule, and humiliation (Cann et al., 2009). In this form, humor is used to threaten others as a mockery element and a way to feel superior to others. Individuals with an aggressive humor approach tend not to dwell on the possibility of hurting others when making jokes.

Affiliative and aggressive humor subtitles were used in this study. This is attributed to the research scope and conceptual framework surpassing individual humor by relating to humor styles reflected on others. In this context, both are humor forms exhibited towards others, and it is presumed they will affect individuals’ perceptions and behaviors within the organization.

Humor serves various functions in human interactions. Several studies concluded that humor is functional at the organizational level (Taylor et al., 2022), strengthens teamwork, promotes team cohesion (Cooper, 2008) and triggers team creativity (Holmes, 2007), assists employees to cope with stress (Cann & Kuiper, 2014), and generally contributes to organizational development. However, assuredly, not all communication involving humor represents effective and positive uses of humor. It has been long recognized that humor could be used in harmful ways during interactions. The Superiority model of humor (Foot, 1986) is based on the notion that humor could be used to ridicule and make others feel inferior to one’s self. Superiority models are generally based on components such as victory, competition, pleasure from others falling into difficult situations, and superiority. Based on the superiority model, humor can function as a social abrasive creating friction and conflict within a social group for individuals with the dark triad personality traits (Knight, 2015). Individuals with the dark triad personality may utilize negative humor, especially the aggressive form, to differentiate themselves or their groups by attacking others using humor (Zeigler-Hill et al., 2016).

Since “aggressive humor is a disintegrative form of humor that diminishes morale and creates distance in relational bonds” (Miczo et al., 2009, p. 445), individuals using this humor style are more likely to demonstrate higher knowledge hiding behaviors as following detrimental behaviors. In other words, it can be assumed that individuals using aggressive humor tend to denigrate, despise, discredit, or oppress others and are more susceptible to alienate, offend, and upset people by hiding knowledge. Overall, people with dark-triad personality traits are more likely to express aggressive humor in social interactions, threaten their relationship and consequently, lead them to knowledge hiding behaviors. Therefore, in this hypothesis, which is one of the main objectives of the study and will explain knowledge hiding from individual and interpersonal perspectives, we predict,

H1: Humor style will mediate the relation between dark triad personality and knowledge hiding behaviors, whereas individuals with a high level of dark triad personality would report high aggressive humor style and thereafter high level of knowledge hiding behaviors.

Organizational Antecedent of Knowledge Hiding: Organizational Communication Climate

Organizational climate is a concept developed for an organization’s internal functioning and members’ interactions rather than its external attributes. It is also concerned with the way employees perceive organization-related events with their corporate, individual, and group identities and the attitudes they develop towards them (Viđak et al., 2021). Whereas organizational communication climate refers to employees’ perceptions regarding the quality of mutual relations and communication in an organization (Brawley Newlin & Pury, 2020; Nordin et al., 2021). The findings of organizational climate studies revealed that an innovative and cooperative climate is positively related to social interaction, which in turn decreases knowledge hiding. On the other hand, a considerable body of research indicates that effective communication is crucial for establishing a collaborative and motivational organizational climate (Kim & Park, 2020). Thus, the organizational atmosphere categorized by concentrating on outperforming others will most likely enhance knowledge hiding behaviors.

Numerous researchers have noted that personality influences the manner employees interpret their organizational environment, hence, shaping their behaviors in light of those interpretations (Bowling & Jex, 2013; Furnham, 2012, 2017; Roberts, 2006). The dark triad personality is often associated with coldhearted, self-beneficial, and manipulative behaviors in social contexts (Paulhus & Williams, 2002). Horan et al. (2015) in their empirical study related to the role of dark-triad personality in relationships, reported that all three personality dimensions were negatively related to reports of agreeableness, empathy, and honesty/humility. Dark personalities generally seem to have negative perceptions of others, leading to unfavorable judgments or disliking them. Hence, it might be expected that individuals with dark triad personalities would report low levels of a pleasant working atmosphere; that is organizational communication climate. Altogether, it is suggested that the communication climate may develop due to employees’ personality traits, which consequently can influence the degree to which employees demonstrate knowledge hiding behaviors. In another words, people with dark-triad personality traits are more likely to perceive the communication climate negatively, which can promote the knowledge hiding behaviors. Therefore, the following is proposed;

H2: Organizational communication climate will mediate the relation between dark triad personality and knowledge hiding behaviors.

Although the perceived communication climate is related to individuals’ personality traits, the interpersonal communication style may also be influential on these perceptions. Organizational communication climate is not so much a specific factor contributing to the psychosocial work environment as a summation of how the psychosocial work environment and its impact are perceived by employees. This is affected and even created by employees and is based on the quality of the internal environment of the organization. This internal environment is formed from the relationship between individuals which is not determined by the policies and procedures in the organizations. Humor has a social function that includes the formation of an atmosphere in organizations. Some research suggests that the use of humor can be effective while communicating. Humor is defined as a coping skill by which the users have a more positive view of themselves, are more satisfied with their relationships, and feel a greater sense of mastery over their environment (Kirsh & Kuiper, 2003). However, other studies indicated that not every use of humor might result in the same positive emotions and perceptions. The humor style plays a crucial role in this stage.

People who negatively use humor and direct it against others tend to be at a greater risk for interpersonal difficulties and negative perceptions of the environment (Mauriello & McConatha, 2007). Individuals with affiliative humor styles utilize humor to accomplish relational or societal gains. On the contrary, individuals with aggressive humor styles employ humor as a method to censure or control others. This humor style has been demonstrated to be a hindrance to relational connections (Cann et al., 2011). Therefore, the humor style that individuals use will probably reveal their aims and perspectives on communication. In other words, individuals’ humor styles may predict their organizational communication climate perceptions.

Based on the above explanations, when considering the impact of (I) dark personality traits on humor styles, (II) the impact of both dark-triad personality traits and humor styles on the organizational communication climate, and (III) the impact of all these (personal, interpersonal, and organizational) variables on knowledge-hiding behavior, a sequential mediation model assumption emerges in the current study. Sequential mediation occurs when the effect of an independent variable on a dependent variable is transmitted through multiple mediators (humor and org. communication climate), each influencing the next in a chain-like fashion. Therefore, a mediation process can be anticipated as: Individuals, who hold dark-triad personality characteristics, would be susceptible to negative humor styles during their interactions; this humor style can impair their perceptions on organizational communication atmosphere, thus leading to some negative behaviors in organizations. Consequently, it would be extremely easy for them to hide knowledge for any reason. Thus, it is proposed that (Figure 1);

H3: Humor style and organizational communication climate will mediate not only in parallel but also sequentially the link between dark triad personality and knowledge hiding behaviors.

Figure 1.

The proposed research model.

Method

Participants

Participants were employees working in different private and public sector organizations in Turkey. A random sampling strategy was employed to acquire a representative sample of the working individuals. All ethical permission from local (university) ethical committee was obtained before study was conducted. In the data collection procedure, the purpose of the study and the purely academic aim of this research were explained to managers and participants. The participants were also informed of the purpose of the study and an assurance of confidentiality. Similar data collection procedures were used across waves. Of the 310 participants, 208 (110 men (53.8%) and 98 women (46.1%)) participated in the assessments in Wave 2 and Wave 3, respectively. The first survey was conducted during June-July in 2022. All eligible participants at Wave 1 were reassessed after 6 months (Wave 2), and after 6 months of Wave 2, Wave 3 assessment was conducted.

Measures

All scales, the details of which will be specified below, have promising initial psychometric properties and they have been revalidated in multiple publications.

Dark-triad personality in Wave 1 was measured with the scale developed by Jones and Paulhus (2014). The scale consists of 27 questions, 9 items for each of dark-triad personality (machiavelism, narcissim, and psychopathy). Responses were collected on a Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Özsoy et al. (2017) conducted the Turkish adaptation and assessments of the scale. High scores indicate high dark-triad personality.

Humor styles in Wave 2 were measured via the instrument developed by Martin et al. (2003). As mentioned earlier, since the research scope and conceptual framework of this study are focused on the humor styles that are reflected on others rather than individual humor, two type of humor styles (affiliative and aggressive) were used. The Turkish adaption of this scale was carried out by Yerlikaya (2003). Responses were collected on a Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) where high scores indicate high affiliative or aggressive humor styles.

Organizational communication climate in Wave 2 was measured with the scale developed by Bartels et al. (2007). The scale developed based on Dennis (1974) and Smidts et al. (2001). It consists of 9-items that measure the employees’ perceived communication climate in the organization. The translation of items into Turkish were done by using the collaborative translation technique. First, two bilingual researchers translated the scale independently and one graduate business administration student explained which translation better reflected the meaning of the items. No analogous items were identified and as a result, the comparability of the translations was assumed. Responses were collected on a Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). High scores indicate high levels of appraisal on a pleasant communication atmosphere.

Knowledge-hiding behavior in Wave 1 and Wave 3 was measured via Connelly et al.’s (2012) three-dimensional (evasive hiding, playing dumb, and rationalized) 12-item instrument. The respondents were asked to rate their degree of agreement with 12 items on a five-point Likert-type scale anchored by endpoints “strongly disagree” and “strongly agree.” The Turkish adaptation of this scale was done by (Demirkasimoglu, 2016). High scores indicate high levels of knowledge hiding behaviors. The composite average score of knowledge-hiding behaviors assessed in Wave 1 was used as the baseline in the model.

Analyses

Prior to the hypotheses analysis, measures and common method bias were tested by confirmatory factor analysis. The reliability was measured with the Cronbach Alpha coefficient, after that the variables were generated, and the correlation analyzes were performed. To test our hypothesized model, we used a Bootstrap analysis to test the multiple mediation model using Model 6 of the SPSS (24.0) PROCESS macro (Hayes, 2013) and structural equation modeling (AMOS 24.0).

Results

After the data screening (missing data, outliers, normality, and multicollinearity), a series of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were performed in order to examine factor structure and verify distinctiveness of the study variables. The items loaded significantly on their underlying factors with loadings ranging from 0.54 to 0.81 for dark-triad personality W1, from 0.57 to 0.92 for humor style W2, from 0.74 to 0.91 for organizational communication climate W2, from 0.57 to 0.92 for knowledge-hiding W1 and from 0.67 to 0.88 for knowledge-hiding W3. The Harman’s one-factor test was also performed to examine whether common method variance have increased the strength of the correlations (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). All items were entered together into an exploratory factor analysis. The results indicated that there is not any single factor accounted for the majority of the covariance and no general factor was apparent, suggesting that common method variance is not a serious threat in this study. All Cronbach’s alpha values are well above the limit of .7 to ensure the constructs’ internal consistency (Table 1).

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics, Cronbach Alpha Coefficients, and Correlations Between Variables.

Variables	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
1. Machiavellism W1	(.87)
2. Narcissism W1	.42**	(.85)
3. Psychopathy W1	.48**	.43**	(.82)
4. Affiliative Humor W2	−.11	.12	−.28*	(.81)
5. Aggressive Humor W2	.39**	.24*	.41**	−.42**	(.83)
6. Org. Comm. Climate W2	−.41**	−.26*	−.43**	.17	−.46**	(.78)
7. Evasive Hiding W1	.44**	.11	.49**	−.11	.41***	−.40**	(.77)
8. Playing Dumb W1	.46**	.12	.49**	−.13	.49**	−.42**	.48**	(.75)
9. Rationalized W1	.11	.38**	.06	−.18	.06	−.38**	.35*	.37**	(.73)
10. Evasive Hiding W3	.54**	.11	.51**	−.13	.51***	−.43**	.49**	.41**	.42**	(.78)
11. Playing Dumb W3	.62**	.13	.49**	−.19	.49**	−.44**	.45**	.52**	.40**	.49**	(.75)
12. Rationalized W3	.12	.28**	.09	−.20	.08	−.40**	.43**	.46**	.45**	.40**	.40**	(.71)
Mean	2.67	2.18	2.40	2.85	2.75	2.42	2.06	2.12	2.01	2.13	2.04	2.00
SD	0.68	0.59	0.48	0.71	0.40	0.93	0.63	0.67	0.61	0.60	0.62	0.62

Note. N = 208. The values given in parentheses are the Cronbach alpha values of the variables. Org. Comm. Climate = Organizational Communication Climate; SD = standard deviation.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Table 1 provides descriptive statistics and correlations among variables. Overall, the correlations among variables were consistent with our expectations. Specifically, dark-triad personality dimensions W1 (Machiavellism, narcissism, psychopathy) were positively related to aggressive humor style W2 (r = .39, p < .01; r = .24,p < .01; r = .41, p < .01). Machiavellism and psychopathy were also positively related to evasive hiding W1 (r = .54, p < .01; r = .51, p < .01) and playing dumb W1 (r = .62, p < .01; r = .49, p < .01), but narcissism W1 was only correlated to rationalized knowledge hiding W1 (r = .28, p < .01). All dark-triad personalities W1 were negatively associated with organizational communication climate W2 (r = −.41, p < .01; r = −.26, p < .01; r = −.43, p < .01). Aggressive humor style W2 is negatively associated with organizational communication climate W2 (r = −.46, p < .01) and positively associated with evasive hiding W3 (r = .51, p < .01) and playing dumb W3 (r = .49, p < .01). Organizational communication climate W2 is negatively associated with all knowledge-hiding W3 dimensions (r = −.43, p < .01; r = −.44, p < .01; r = −.40, p < .01). Gender was controlled as a demographic and there were no significant gender differences on any variable.

Regarding the hypotheses testing, the PROCESS macro developed by Hayes (2013) provides not only parameter estimates for individual structural paths but also confidence intervals to determine the significance of indirect effects for simple and sequential mediations proposed in this study. Combining the contributions of the group of mediators is the primary goal of sequential mediation analysis (VanderWeele & Vansteelandt, 2014) and appropriate for this study since it proposes humor style and organizational communication climate would mediate sequentially the link between dark triad personality and knowledge hiding behaviors. As the results in Figure 2 reveal, Machiavellism and psychopathy were positively related to aggressive humor style (b = 0.14, p < .01; b = 0.11, p < .01), but aggressive humor style was not associated with knowledge hiding behaviors, which does not support the H₁ posits the mediation role of humor style between dark triad personality and knowledge hiding. Meanwhile, Machiavellism and psychopathy were negatively associated with organizational communication climate (b = −0.10, p < .05; b = −0.09, p < .05), and organizational communication climate in turn was negatively related to evasive hiding (b = −0.22, p < .01) and playing dumb (b = −0.17,p < .01) knowledge hiding behaviors. Moreover, Machiavellism and psychopathy were positively related to evasive hiding (b = 0.18, p < .01; b = 0.13, p < .01) and playing dumb (b = 0.17, p < .01; b = 0.14, p < .01), after controlling for knowledge-hiding behaviors in Wave 1. That suggested that organizational communication climate only partially mediated the link between dark-triad personality (Machiavellism and psychopathy) and knowledge hiding (evasive hiding and playing dumb). This finding partially supports H₂.

Figure 2.

The multiple mediation model.

Moreover, we bootstrap confidence intervals to determine the significance of indirect effects for sequential mediation proposed in Hypothesis 3. Table 2 indicates these sequential mediation pathways. The bootstrap analyses revealed that the positive indirect effects of Machiavellism on evasive hiding through aggressive humor and organizational communication climate were significant (b = −0.24, SE = 0.11, p = .02, LLCI = −0.26, ULCI = −0.02). These results indicate that both aggressive humor and organizational communication climate partially and sequentially mediated the effects of Machiavellism on evasive hiding. Similarly, the positive indirect effects of psychopathy on evasive hiding through aggressive humor and organizational communication climate were significant (b = −0.27, SE = 1.22, p = .03, LLCI = −0.16, ULCI = −0.03), support the sequential and partial mediation role of aggressive humor and organizational communication climate between psychopathy and evasive hiding.

Table 2.

The Bootstrap Results of the Multiple Mediation Models.

Direct and Indirect Effects	b	SE	95% LLCI	95% ULCI
Direct effects
Machiavellism W1 → Evasive Hiding W3	0.26	0.10	0.12	0.32
Machiavellism W1 → Playing Dumb W3	0.22	0.11	0.14	0.31
Machiavellism W1 → Rationalized W3	0.02	0.06	−0.01	0.11
Narcissism W1 → Evasive Hiding W3	0.01	0.05	−0.02	0.09
Narcissism W1 → Playing Dumb W3	0.01	0.06	−0.02	0.13
Narcissism W1 → Rationalized W3	0.00	0.05	−0.01	0.07
Psychopathy W1 → Evasive Hiding W3	0.22	0.10	0.10	0.22
Psychopathy W1 → Playing Dumb W3	0.20	0.09	0.14	0.31
Psychopathy W1 → Rationalized W3	0.00	0.08	−0.00	0.10
Indirect effects (sequential mediation pathways)
Machiavellism W1 → Affiliative Humor W2 → Org. Com. Climate W2 → Evasive Hiding W3	−0.07	0.05	−0.17	0.02
Machiavellism W1 → Affiliative Humor W2 → Org. Com. Climate W2 → Playing Dumb W3	−0.06	0.05	−0.21	0.04
Machiavellism W1 → Affiliative Humor W2 → Org. Com. Climate W2 → Rationalized W3	−0.02	0.11	−0.15	0.06
Narcissism W1 → Affiliative Humor W2 → Org. Com. Climate W2 → Evasive Hiding W3	−0.05	0.12	−0.13	0.09
Narcissism W1 → Affiliative Humor W2 → Org. Com. Climate W2 → Playing Dumb W3	−0.02	1.01	−0.15	0.06
Narcissism W1 → Affiliative Humor W2 → Org. Com. Climate W2 → Rationalized W3	−0.03	0.11	−0.15	0.06
Psychopathy W1 → Affiliative Humor W2 → Org. Com. Climate W2 → Evasive Hiding W3	−0.05	0.11	−0.11	0.11
Psychopathy W1 → Affiliative Humor W2 → Org. Com. Climate W2 → Playing Dumb W3	−0.06	0.04	−0.21	0.10
Psychopathy W1 → Affiliative Humor W2 → Org. Com. Climate W2 → Rationalized W3	−0.04	0.10	−0.15	0.08
Machiavellism W1 → Aggressive Humor W2 → Org. Com. Climate W2 → Evasive Hiding W3	−0.24*	0.11	−0.26	−0.02
Machiavellism W1 → Aggressive Humor W2 → Org. Com. Climate W2 → Playing Dumb W3	−0.20*	0.22	−0.22	−0.08
Machiavellism W1 → Aggressive Humor W2 → Org. Com. Climate W2 → Rationalized W3	−0.02	0.31	−0.21	0.03
Narcissism W1 → Aggressive Humor W2 → Org. Com. Climate W2 → Evasive Hiding W3	−0.02	1.01	−0.11	0.13
Narcissism W1 → Aggressive Humor W2 → Org. Com. Climate W2 → Playing Dumb W3	−0.03	0.17	−0.12	0.07
Narcissism W1 → Aggressive Humor W2 → Org. Com. Climate W2 → Rationalized W3	−0.04	1.07	−0.11	0.13
Psychopathy W1 → Aggressive Humor W2 → Org. Com. Climate W2 → Evasive Hiding W3	−0.27*	1.22	−0.16	−0.03
Psychopathy W1 → Aggressive Humor W2 → Org. Com. Climate W2 → Playing Dumb W3	−0.19^*	0.29	−0.12	−0.06
Psychopathy W1 → Aggressive Humor W2 → Org. Com. Climate W2 → Rationalized W3	−0.04	0.14	−0.17	0.01

Note. N = 208. SE = standard error; b = unstandardized regression coefficient; LLCI = confidence interval lower bound; ULCI = confidence interval upper bound; Org. Com. Climate = Organizational Communication Climate.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

In terms of playing dumb, the results indicated that the positive indirect effects of Machiavellism on playing dumb were sequentially and partially mediated by aggressive humor and organizational communication climate variables (b = −0.20, SE = 0.22, p = .02, LLCI= −0.22, ULCI = −0.08). Moreover, the relationship between psychopathy and playing dumb were sequentially mediated by aggressive humor and organizational communication climate (b = −0.19, SE = 0.29, p = .03, LLCI = −0.12, ULCI = −0.06). The indirect effects of Machiavellism and psychopathy on rationalized hiding through aggressive humor and organizational communication climate were not significant. There were not any significant direct or indirect effects of narcissism on knowledge-hiding behaviors. Table 3 indicates the amount of explained variances by indirect effects.

Table 3.

The Proportion of Variance Explained in the Indirect Effects (Sequential Mediation).

Outcome variables	Predictors	R-squared
Evasive Hiding W3	Machiavellism W1Narcissism W1Psychopathy W1Affiliative Humor W2Org. Com. Climate W2	.11
Playing Dumb W3	Machiavellism W1Narcissism W1Psychopathy W1Affiliative Humor W2Org. Com. Climate W2	.10
Rationalized W3	Machiavellism W1Narcissism W1Psychopathy W1Affiliative Humor W2Org. Com. Climate W2	.09
Evasive Hiding W3	Machiavellism W1Narcissism W1Psychopathy W1Aggressive Humor W2Org. Com. Climate W2	.38
Playing Dumb W3	Machiavellism W1Narcissism W1Psychopathy W1Aggressive Humor W2Org. Com. Climate W2	.27
Rationalized W3	Machiavellism W1Narcissism W1Psychopathy W1Aggressive Humor W2Org. Com. Climate W2	.12

Discussion

The present study was undertaken to investigate the relationships among dark-triad personality, humor styles, and perceived organizational communication climate and knowledge hiding behaviors through a short-term longitudinal design in a Turkish sample. In this section, the findings of the study will be evaluated one by one, and theoretical and practical contributions will be provided.

Theoretical Implications

The first finding of the study pertains to the relationship between dark triad personality and knowledge-hiding behavior. The dark-triad personalities have been well studied and in organizational settings, one or more of the dark triad personalities have been found to be correlated with counterproductive behavior (O’Boyle et al., 2012). However, it is not often linked with knowledge hiding behaviors. The results of current study indicated that Machiavellianism and psychopathy were positively correlated to evasive hiding and playing dumb dimensions of knowledge hiding, but not significantly associated with rationalized knowledge hiding. One plausible reason is that rationalized knowledge hiding is an expression of the intention to hide knowledge innocently. Connelly et al. (2012) differentiated the rationalization dimension from the other two dimensions. They state that in the evasive or playing dumb dimensions the person has the intention to deceive the person requesting the knowledge, but in rationalized knowledge hiding the individual tries to offer a logical/comprehensible explanation for why she/he cannot give the knowledge instead of deception. It is believed that the rationalized knowledge hiding will not cause to be retaliated by the other party, to deteriorate the future bilateral relationship, and therefore the attempt to hide knowledge will not return negatively to him/her (Connelly & Zweig, 2015). Consistently with the core of Machiavellianism and psychopathy as disagreeableness, strategic and manipulative thinking capacity, lack of empathy, and social exploitation, it is understandable to see more malevolent knowledge hiding behaviors within those with these personalities. Thus, they ignore knowledge requests evasively or defectively if it does not benefit them personally.

On the other hand, narcissism was only related to rationalized hiding. This finding is consistent with Pan et al. (2018) results. Thomaes and Brummelman (2016) state that narcissists want to be the socially dominant person and see themselves as more competent than others. In addition, narcissists are ostentatious and love to attract attention. Therefore, instead of hiding knowledge with malicious intent, like Machiavellian and psychopaths do, they hide knowledge by rationalized that they are superior to those who request knowledge.

As Pan et al. (2018) have suggested that beside the personality, interpersonal, and organizational dynamics would also affect individual’s knowledge hiding in the workplace and have argued that a more thorough investigation is necessary to advance this stream of literature. We argue that the reason why people with the dark triad of personality traits are likely to hide knowledge is attributed to their interpersonal relations and organizational perceptions. Our second findings supported this prediction. All dark-triad personality dimensions (Machiavellism, narcissism, psychopathy) were positively related to aggressive humor style and negatively related to organizational communication climate. It is not so surprising that because of the socially aversive nature, the dark-triad personality was related to greater level of expressed negativity in interpersonal relationship and organizational perceptions. These findings also indicate consistency with previous studies on humor and dark-triad personality (Martin et al., 2012; Veselka et al., 2010). However, we did not find any expected negative relationship in the dark-triad personalities–affiliative humor style and positive relationship in the affiliative humor-organizational communication climate paths. This is because negative personality disposition lead people to focusing on negative events and attributes (Updegraff & Taylor, 2021). In another words, individuals with high scores on dark-triad personalities tend to laugh and joke frequently with others in an aggressive manner rather than being in affiliative form, which in turn, leads the negative perceptions on organizational communication climate.

Finally, the impacts of Machiavellism and psychopathy on evasive hiding and playing dumb was sequentially mediated through aggressive humor style and organizational communication climate. This result suggests that individuals who are Machiavellian and psychopaths have aggressive humor style, which drive them to perceive low-level of organizational communication climate, which in turn is associated with high evasive hiding and playing dumb behaviors. The finding that aggressive humor style and organizational communication climate are sequential mediators highlights the two major effects of Machiavellism and psychopathy—interpersonal relations and organizational perceptions. Machiavellians and psychopaths do not believe in the norm of reciprocity. They tend to choose their interpersonal relationship as tactical and impulsive, thus ultimately exacerbating aggressive humor and thereby negative communication perceptions. Correspondingly, these states result in increase in knowledge hiding.

This study has several theoretical implications. The current study is broader and more encompassing than previous studies by investigating the personal, interpersonal, and organizational aspects of knowledge hiding. While a limited amount of research has integrated dark-triad personality traits into knowledge-hiding research (Karim, 2020; Pan et al., 2018; Soral et al., 2022), this is the first longitudinal study that indicates the indirect impacts of dark-triad personality through humor and organizational climate factors on knowledge-hiding. Although, Pan et al. (2018) have investigated the relationship between dark-triad personality dimensions and knowledge-hiding with the mediator role of transactional psychological contract, the study mainly focused on intrapersonal variables. Furthermore, differently from Soral’s et al. (2022) study, the dark-triad personality of potential knowledge hider was examined rather than managers’ dark-triad personality impact on employees’ knowledge hiding behavior. Similarly, although H. H. Lin and Wang (2012) have studied the interpersonal implication of Big Five personality with the mediating role of social identity, the current study extends the focus by integrating humor style and organizational climate.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to investigate the humor style as basis of employees’ knowledge hiding behavior. The humor style has investigated not only with its positive meaning and superficial connotations, but also with its multidimensional structure that can cause negative emotions. Furthermore, this study does not examine the role of humor style hold by the leaders, managers towards the employees on organizational outcomes (Kangasharju & Nikko, 2009; Neves & Karagonlar, 2020), but revealed the perceived humor styles between all employees that leads to the communication climate jointly produced. In this way, the dynamic and various nature of communication between employees in organizational processes has been revealed. This emphasizes the novel approach taken by this research to comprehend the employees’ multifaceted relationships in the workplace.

The methodology of the study enables the examination of indirect effects and mediation processes over multiple stages. This sequential mediation design provides insights into the temporal sequence of relationships among the variables, contributing to a deeper understanding of the underlying mechanisms. That is, this approach allows for a nuanced understanding of the complex interrelationships among these variables.

Practical Implications

From a practical viewpoint, this study also has important implications for managers. The findings of this study may help managers to better understand why employees with specific personalities are likely to hide knowledge. It may be suggested to design new techniques in personnel recruitment processes to detect these personalities. Early identification of individuals with high levels of narcissism, Machiavellianism, or psychopathy can help prevent potential issues related to knowledge hiding and other counterproductive behaviors in the workplace. Managers can provide training and awareness programs to employees to educate them about dark triad personality traits and their potential impact on workplace dynamics. By increasing awareness, employees can better understand the behaviors associated with these traits and their consequences.

The study highlights the importance of humor styles in shaping communication climate and influencing knowledge-hiding behaviors. Managers should carefully identify the humor style they use in their relations with the employees and the humor styles of the employees to each other. In this sense, managers should not prefer to use and participate in aggressive humor interactions. This certainly does not mean that managers should control the employees’ interactions with intrusive and censoring attitudes. Rather, managers need to be aware of those humorous interactions may result in negative emotions and low-level of communication climate. Although we cannot recommend managers to completely eliminate aggressive humor style because of the dynamism and uncontrollable nature of interpersonal relations, managers can decrease its destructive effects by creating a communication climate built on trust in which it can be discussed and resolved without creating negative perceptions and counterproductive working behaviors (such as knowledge hiding). One feasible strategy to build such a communication environment is to establish qualitative and quantitative knowledge systems that help to storage, utilization, and transfer of knowledge. These systems may also help managers to increase knowledge for the individual, group, and organization concerned.

A positive communication climate characterized by trust and openness fosters an environment where employees feel comfortable sharing knowledge. However, as stated by Ciobanu et al. (2019) employees do not respond uniformly to the same set of practices. Therefore, parallel to the findings of this study, supportive work environment focuses more on the psycho-sociological profile of the employees positively impacts employees’ performance, self-efficacy, and job satisfaction (Ciobanu et al., 2019). Establishing effective conflict resolution mechanisms can also help address interpersonal conflicts that may arise due to differences in personality or communication styles. By providing employees with the tools and support they need to resolve conflicts constructively, managers can prevent these conflicts from escalating and contributing to knowledge hiding behaviors.

Overall, the insights gained from this study can guide organizations in developing evidence-based strategies and interventions to address knowledge hiding and promote a culture of transparency, trust, and ethical behavior in the workplace. By recognizing the interconnectedness of personality traits, communication dynamics, and behavioral outcomes, organizations can create environments where employees feel valued, respected, and motivated to contribute their knowledge and expertise openly.

Limitations and Future Research

There are several limitations of the current study. Firstly, the participants were limited individuals working in different private sector organizations in Turkey. It restricts generalizability and may hinder the applicability of the findings to broader populations or organizational contexts outside of Turkey. The specific cultural, economic, and organizational characteristics unique to Turkey may influence participant responses and behaviors, potentially limiting the extent to which the findings can be implemented to other cultural or geographical settings. Accordingly, future research should include a wider range of participants in the Turkey and even worldwide and may consider the other measure of variables, which may enable the gather more comprehensive information.

Secondly, there are many other personality measures, interpersonal relations constructs, and organizational factors. Thus, all relevant contextual factors that could influence the relationships under investigation (such as organizational culture, leadership style, or industry-specific dynamics) could impact the findings but could not be fully addressed and/or controlled in the study. We believe it to be of value to carry out more research including additional variables to explore the various antecedents of knowledge hiding behaviors.

Although this study overcame the limitations of cross-sectional studies to some extent, it should be noted that all the measures in the current study were self-reported by individuals. Participants may provide responses that are socially desirable rather than reflective of their true attitudes or behaviors. Furthermore, although factor analysis revealed the presence of multiple factors, suggesting that the results may not be significantly affected by common method variance, the reliance on self-reporting may introduce a common method variance (CMV) issue, potentially inflating the strength of associations Therefore, it is recommended that the future research can be conducted by including other sources of information, such as managers reports or observations, or by adding behavioral experiments.

Conclusion

The current study is the first to simultaneously examine multiple mediation in a longitudinal design to disentangle the complex mechanisms by which three key factors (dark-triad personality, humor style, and organizational communication climate) interact with one another to predict knowledge hiding behaviors of employees. These results suggest the promising value of personal, interpersonal, and organizational variables in reducing knowledge hiding behaviors in organizations; hence further research is needed to replicate the findings with longitudinal data in different contexts.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all of the participants in our study, who generously shared their time, experiences, and insights with us.

ORCID iDs

Anıl Boz Semerci

Alper Güney

Gülümser Burcu Vural

Ethical Considerations

Ethical approval for this study was obtained from Hacettepe University, Social Sciences and Humanities Researches Ethics Board (ID No. 2023-0012232-945).

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

References

Abdillah

M. R.

(2021). Leader humor and knowledge sharing behavior: The role of leader-member exchange. Jurnal Manajemen, 25(1), 76–91.

Alexopoulos

A. N.

Buckley

(2013). What trust matters when: The temporal value of professional and personal trust for effective knowledge transfer. Group & Organization Management, 38(3), 361–391. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601113488939

Altınkaynak

Tutar

(2019). The effect of personality characteristics of accounting professionals on knowledge hiding behavior. Journal of Current Research on Social Sciences, 9(4), 123–136.

Bartels

Pruyn

De Jong

Joustra

(2007). Multiple organizational identification levels and the impact of perceived external prestige and communication climate. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 28(2), 173–190. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.420

Bernatovic

Slavec Gomezel

Černe

(2021). Mapping the knowledge-hiding field and its future prospects: A bibliometric co-citation, co-word, and coupling analysis. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 20(3), 394–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/14778238.2021.1945963

Bowling

N. A.

Jex

S. M.

(2013). The role of personality in occupational stress: A review and future research agenda. In Christiansen

N. D.

Tett

R. P.

(Eds.), Handbook of personality at work (pp. 692–717). Routledge.

Boz Semerci

. (2018). Examination of knowledge hiding with conflict, competition and personal values. International Journal of Conflict Management, 30(1), 111–131. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCMA-03-2018-0044

Brawley Newlin

A. M.

Pury

C. L

. (2020). All of the above?: An examination of overlapping organizational climates. Journal of Business and Psychology, 35, 539–555.

Cann

Davis

H. B.

Zapata

C. L.

(2011). Humor styles and relationship satisfaction in dating couples: Perceived versus self-reported humor styles as predictors of satisfaction. Humor, 24(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1515/humr.2011.001

10.

Cann

Kuiper

N. A.

(2014). Research on the role of humor in well-being and health. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 10(3), 412–428. https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v10i3.818

11.

Cann

Zapata

C. L.

Davis

H. B.

(2009). Positive and negative styles of humor in communication: Evidence for the importance of considering both styles. Communication Quarterly, 57(4), 452–468. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463370903313398

12.

Černe

Nerstad

Dysvik

Skerlavaj

(2014). What goes around comes around: Knowledge hiding, perceived motivational climate, and creativity. The Academy of Management Journal, 57(1), 172–192. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.0122

13.

Chatterjee

Chaudhuri

Thrassou

Vrontis

(2021). Antecedents and consequences of knowledge hiding: The moderating role of knowledge hiders and knowledge seekers in organizations. Journal of Business Research, 128, 303–313.

14.

Chawla

Gupta

(2018). Relationship of individual and organizational factors with knowledge hiding in IT sector organizations. International Journal of Social Sciences Review, 7(2), 209–216.

15.

Ciobanu

Androniceanu

Lăzăroiu

(2019). An integrated psycho-sociological perspective on public employees’ motivation and performance. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 36. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00036

16.

Connelly

C. E.

Zweig

(2015). How perpatrators and targets construe knowledge hiding in organizations. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24(3), 479–489. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2014.931325

17.

Connelly

C. E.

Zweig

Webster

Trougakos

J. P.

(2012). Knowledge hiding in organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 3(1), 64–88. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.737

18.

Cooper

(2005). Just joking around? Employee humor expression as an ingratiatory behavior. Academy of Management Review, 30(4), 765–776. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2005.18378877

19.

Cooper

(2008). Elucidating the bonds of workplace humor: A relational process model. Human Relations, 61(8), 1087–1115. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726708094861

20.

Demirkasimoglu

(2016). Knowledge hiding in academia: Is personality a key factor? International Journal of Higher Education, 5(1), 128–140. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v5n1p128

21.

Dennis

H. S.

(1974). A theoretical and empirical study of managerial communication climate in complex organizations [Unpublished doctoral thesis, Xerox University Microfilms].

22.

DeShong

H. L.

Grant

D. M.

Mullins-Sweatt

S. N.

(2015). Comparing models of counterproductive workplace behaviors: The Five-Factor Model and the Dark Triad. Personality and Individual Differences, 74, 55–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.10.001

23.

Deutsch

(1949). An experimental study of the effects of cooperation and competition upon group process. Human Relations, 2, 199–231. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872674900200301

24.

Dirik

(2019). Örgütsel Adalet Algısı ve Bilgi Saklama Davranışı Arasındaki İlişkilerde Algılanan Örgütsel Politikanın RolüÜzerine Bir Araştırma [The moderating role of perceived organizational politics on the relationship between organizational justice perceptions and knowledge hiding behavior]. Turkish Studies, 14(2), 296–312. https://doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.14932

25.

Duncan

W. J.

Smeltzer

L. R.

Leap

T. L.

(1990). Humor and work: Applications of joking behavior to management. Journal of Management, 16(2), 255–278. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639001600203

26.

Evans

T. R.

Steptoe-Warren

(2018). Humor style clusters: Exploring managerial humor. International Journal of Business Communication, 55(4), 443–454. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488415612478

27.

Farooq

Sultana

(2021). Abusive supervision and its relationship with knowledge hiding: The mediating role of distrust. International Journal of Innovation Science, 13(5), 709–731.

28.

Foot

(1986). Humour and laughter. In Hargie

(Ed.), A handbook of communication skills (pp. 355–382). New York University.

29.

Furnham

(2012). The psychology of behaviour at work: The individual in the organization. Psychology Press.

30.

Furnham

(2017). Does it matter who we are? 17 Personality at work. In Chmiel

Fraccaroli

Sverke

(Eds.), An introduction to work and organizational psychology: An international perspective (pp. 317–334). John Wiley & Sons.

31.

Han

Pashouwers

(2018). Willingness to share knowledge in healthcare organisations: The role of relational perception. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 16(1), 42–50.

32.

Han

M. S.

Masood

Cudjoe

Wang

(2020). Knowledge hiding as the dark side of competitive psychological climate. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 42(2), 195–207. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-03-2020-0090

33.

Hayes

A. F.

(2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. The Guilford Press.

34.

Heijnis

(2009). The dark side of personality and counterproductive behavior [Unpublished master thesis, University of Amsterdam].

35.

Heiss

S. N.

Carmack

H. J.

(2012). Knock, knock; who’s there? Making sense of organizational entrance through humor. Management Communication Quarterly, 26(1), 106–132. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318911414914

36.

Hernaus

Cerne

Connelly

Vokic

N. P.

Škerlavaj

(2018). Evasive knowledge hiding in academia: When competitive individuals are asked to collaborate. Journal of Knowledge Management, 23(4), 597–618. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-11-2017-0531

37.

Holmes

(2007). Making humour work: Creativity on the job. Applied Linguistics, 28(4), 518–537. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amm048

38.

Horan

S. M.

Guinn

T. D.

Banghart

(2015). Understanding relationships among the dark triad personality profile and romantic partners’ conflict communication. Communication Quarterly, 63(2), 156–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2015.1012220

39.

Huo

Cai

Luo

Men

Jia

(2016). Antecedents and intervention mechanisms: A multi-level study of R&D team’s knowledge hiding behavior. Journal of Knowledge Management, 20(5), 880–897.

40.

İspirli

(2014). Knowledge as an object of psychological ownership and knowledge hiding via territoriality among knowledge workers [Unpublished master thesis, Celal Bayar University, Institute of Social Sciences].

41.

Jain

K. K.

Sandhu

M. S.

Goh

S. K.

(2015). Organizational climate, trust and knowledge sharing: Insights from Malaysia. Journal of Asia Business Studies, 9(1), 54–77.

42.

Jones

D. N.

Paulhus

D. L.

(2014). Introducing the short dark triad (SD3) a brief measure of dark personality traits. Assessment, 21(1), 28–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191113514105

43.

Kangasharju

Nikko

(2009). Emotions in organizations: Joint laughter in workplace meetings. Journal of Business Communication, 46(1), 100–119. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021943608325750

44.

Karim

D. N.

(2020). Effect of dark personalities on knowledge hiding behaviour at higher education institutions. Journal of Information & Knowledge Management, 19(4), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219649220500318

45.

Khalid

Gulzar

Khan

A. K.

Abbas

(2021). Psychological entitlement and knowledge-hiding behaviours: Role of job stress and living a job calling. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 20(3), 474–485. https://doi.org/10.1080/14778238.2021.2007810

46.

Khan

A. N.

Khan

N. A.

Soomro

M. A.

(2020). The impact of moral leadership on construction employees' psychological behaviors. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 69(6), 2817–2825.

47.

Khoreva

Wechtler

(2020). Exploring the consequences of knowledge hiding: An agency theory perspective. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 35(2), 71–84.

48.

Kim

E. J.

Park

(2020). Transformational leadership, knowledge sharing, organizational climate and learning: An empirical study. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 41(6), 761–775.

49.

Kirsh

G. A.

Kuiper

N. A.

(2003). Positive and negative aspects of sense of humor: Associations with the constructs of individualism and relatedness, Humor, 16(1), 33–62. https://doi.org/10.1515/humr.2003.004

50.

Knight

J. E.

(2015). The role of social exclusion as a mediator of humor style among dark triad personalities [Master's thesis, Marietta College].

51.

Ladan

Nordin

N. B.

Belal

H. M.

(2017). Does knowledge based psychological ownership matter? Transformational leadership and knowledge hiding: A proposed framework. Journal of Business and Retail Management Research JBRMR, 11(4), 60–67. https://doi.org/10.24052/JBRMR/V11IS04/DKBPOMTLAKHAPF

52.

LeBreton

Shiverdecker

L. K.

Grimaldi

E. M.

(2018). The dark triad and workplace behavior. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5(1), 387–414. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104451

53.

Lin

H. H.

Wang

Y. S.

(2012). Investigating the effect of university students’ personality traits on knowledge withholding intention: A multi-theory perspective. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 2(4), 354–357.

54.

Lin

R. S. J.

Hsiao

J. K.

(2014). The relationships between transformational leadership, knowledge sharing, trust and organizational citizenship behavior. International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, 5(3), 171–174. https://doi.org/10.7763/IJIMT.2014.V5.508

55.

Mahmood

Rehman

A. U.

Sabir

Rauf

Afthanorhan

Nawal

(2023). Does organizational justice facet matters in knowledge hiding? Heliyon, 9(8).

56.

Martin

R. A.

Lastuk

J. M.

Jeffery

Vernon

P. A.

Veselka

(2012). Relationships between the Dark Triad and humor styles: A replication and extension. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(2), 178–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.10.010

57.

Martin

R. A.

Puhlik-Dorris

Larsen

Gray

Weir

(2003). Individual differences of uses of humor and their relation to psychological well-being: Development of the Humor Styles Questionnaire. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 48–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00534-2

58.

Mauriello

McConatha

J. T.

(2007). Relations of humor with perceptions of stress, Psychological Reports, 101(3), 1057–1066. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.101.4.1057-1066

59.

Megargee

E. I.

(2009). A life devoted to crime. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91(2), 95–107.

60.

Mesmer-Magnus

Glew

D. J.

Viswesvaran

(2012). A meta-analysis of positive humor in the workplace. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 27(2), 155–190. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683941211199554

61.

Michels

Molz

genannt Bermpohl

F. M.

(2020). The ability to lie and its relations to the dark triad and general intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 166, Article 110195.

62.

Miczo

Averbeck

J. M.

Mariani

(2009). Affiliative and aggressive humor, attachment dimensions, and interaction goals. Communication Studies, 60(5), 443–459. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510970903260301

63.

Miczo

Welter

R. E.

(2006). Aggressive and affiliative humor: Relationships to aspects of intercultural communication. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 35(1), 61–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/17475740600739305

64.

Miller

J. D.

Widiger

T. A.

Campbell

W. K.

(2010). Narcissistic personality disorder and the DSM-V. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 119(4), 640.

65.

Nathanson

(2008). Exploring the dynamics of revenge [Doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia].

66.

Neves

Karagonlar

(2020). Does leader humor style matter and to whom?. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 35(2), 115–128. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-12-2018-0552

67.

Nordin

S. M.

Rizal

A. R. A.

Rashid

R. A.

Che Omar

Priyadi

(2021). Incidents and disaster avoidance: The role of communication management and the organizational communication climate in high-risk environments. Sustainability, 13(18), Article 10138.

68.

O’Boyle

E. H.

Forsyth

D. R.

Banks

G. C.

McDaniel

M. A.

(2012). A meta-analysis of the dark triad and work behaviour: A social exchange perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(3), 557–579. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025679

69.

Özsoy

Rauthmann

J. F.

Jonason

P. K.

Ardıç

(2017). Reliability and validity of Turkish version of Dark Triad Dirty Dozen (DTDD-T), Short Dark Triad (SD3-T) and Single Item Narcissism Scale (SINS-T), Personality and Individual Differences, 117, 11–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.05.019

70.

Pan

Zhang

Teo

T. S.

Lim

V. K.

(2018). The dark triad and knowledge hiding. International Journal of Information Management, 42, 36–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.05.008

71.

Pascoe

(2005). Communication climate and organisational knowledge sharing. Journal of Information & Knowledge Management, 4(04), 247–255.

72.

Paulhus

D. L.

Williams

K. M.

(2002). The dark triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36(6), 556–563. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00505-6

73.

Peng

(2013). Why and when do people hide knowledge? Journal of Knowledge Management, 17(13), 398–415. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-12-2012-0380

74.

Podsakoff

P. M.

Organ

D. W.

(1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531–544. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920638601200408

75.

Rezwan

R. B.

Takahashi

(2021). The psychology behind knowledge hiding in an organization. Administrative Sciences, 11(2), 57.

76.

Riaz

Hussain

(2019). Workplace ostracism and knowledge hiding: The mediating role of job tension. Sustainability, 11(20), Article 5547.

77.

Robert

Dunne

T. C.

Iun

(2016). The impact of leader humor on subordinate job satisfaction: The crucial role of leader–subordinate relationship quality. Group & Organization Management, 41(3), 375–406. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601115598719

78.

Roberts

B. W.

(2006). Personality development and organizational behavior. Research in Organizational Behavior, 27, 1–40.

79.

Romero

E. J.

Cruthirds

K. W.

(2006). The use of humor in the workplace. IEEE Engineering Management Review, 34(3), 58–69. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2006.20591005

80.

Romero

E. J.

Pearson

T. R.

(2004). The relationship between humor and group productivity: An exploratory study. Journal of Management Research, 4(1), 53–61.

81.

Shah

Hashmi

M. S.

(2019). Relationship between organizational culture and knowledge hiding in software industry: Mediating role of workplace ostracism and workplace incivility. Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences (PJCSS), 13(4), 934–952.

82.

Smidts

Pruyn

A. T. H.

Van Riel

C. B. M.

(2001). The impact of employee communication and perceived external prestige on organizational identification. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1051–1062. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069448

83.

Soral

Pati

S. P.

Kakani

R. K.

(2022). Knowledge hiding as a coping response to the supervisors’ dark triad of personality: A protection motivation theory perspective. Journal of Business Research, 142, 1077–1091. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.12.075

84.

Staw

B. M.

(2004). The dispositional approach to job attitudes: An empirical and conceptual review. In Schneider

Smith

D. B.

(Eds.), Personality and organizations (pp. 187–216). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

85.

Strik

N. P.

Hamstra

M. R. W.

Segers

M. S.

(2021). Antecedents of knowledge withholding: A systematic review & integrative framework. Group & Organization Management, 46(2), 223–251. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601121994379

86.

(2021). To share or hide? A social network approach to understanding knowledge sharing and hiding in organizational work teams. Management Communication Quarterly, 35(2), 281–314. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318920985178

87.

Taylor

Simpson

Hardy

(2022). The use of humor in employee-to-employee workplace communication: A systematic review with thematic synthesis. International Journal of Business Communication, 62(1), 106–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/23294884211069966

88.

Thomaes

Brummelman

(2016). Narcissism. In Cicchetti

(Ed.), Developmental psychopathology (Vol. 3, pp. 679–725). Wiley.

89.

Updegraff

J. A.

Taylor

S. E.

(2021). From vulnerability to growth: Positive and negative effects of stressful life events. In Harvey

Miller

(Eds.), Loss and trauma (pp. 3–28). Routledge.

90.

Van Den Hooff

De Ridder

J. A

. (2004). Knowledge sharing in context: The influence of organizational commitment, communication climate and CMC use on knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowledge Management, 8(6), 117–130.

91.

VanderWeele

Vansteelandt

(2014). Mediation analysis with multiple mediators. Epidemiologic Methods, 2(1), 95–115.

92.

Venz

Nesher Shoshan

(2022). Be smart, play dumb? A transactional perspective on day-specific knowledge hiding, interpersonal conflict, and psychological strain. Human Relations, 75(1), 113–138. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726721990438

93.

Veselka

Schermer

J. A.

Martin

R. A.

Vernon

P. A.

(2010). Relations between humor styles and the Dark Triad traits of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 48(6), 772–774. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.01.017

94.

Viđak

Barać

Tokalić

Buljan

Marušić

(2021). Interventions for organizational climate and culture in academia: A scoping review. Science and Engineering Ethics, 27(2), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00298-6

95.

Wen

(2021). Antecedents of knowledge hiding and their impact on organizational performance. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 796976. http://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.796976

96.

Gong

Sun

(2023). Using leader affiliative humor to encourage employee knowledge sharing: The multilevel role of knowledge sharing self-efficacy and team psychological safety. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 8(3), 100408.

97.

Ahmed

Bari

M. W.

Akmal

(2024). Mediating role of knowledge hiding behaviors between cronyism and job performance: an evidence from public sector universities. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 15(4), 18328–18349.

98.

Yerlikaya

E. E.

(2003). The adaptation of Humor Style Questionnaire into Turkish language [Unpublished master thesis, Çukurova University].

99.

Zeigler-Hill

Besser

Morag

Campbell

W. K.

(2016). The Dark Triad and sexual harassment proclivity. Personality and Individual Differences, 89, 47–54.

100.

Zhang

Wang

(2021). Effect of knowledge hiding on knowledge innovative behavior of innovative team members. Scientometrics, 126(8), 6423–6442.

101.

Zhao

Xia

Sheard

Wan

(2016). Workplace ostracism and knowledge hiding in service organizations. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 59, 84–94.

Does Humor Style Affect Knowledge Hiding Behavior? The Roles of Personality and Communication Climate in Organizations

Abstract

Plain language summary

Keywords

Introduction

Personal Antecedent of Knowledge Hiding: Dark Triad Personality

Interpersonal Antecedent of Knowledge Hiding: Humor Styles

Organizational Antecedent of Knowledge Hiding: Organizational Communication Climate

Method

Participants

Measures

Analyses

Results

Discussion

Theoretical Implications

Practical Implications

Limitations and Future Research

Conclusion

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

ORCID iDs

Ethical Considerations

Funding

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Data Availability Statement

References