Choosing a better communication style: revealing the relationship between communication style and knowledge hiding behaviour

The study addresses why and when employees engage in knowledge hiding within organizations, focusing on how different communication styles influence this behavior. In the knowledge-driven economy, firms rely on employees’ information sharing, yet knowledge is individually owned and often deliberately concealed. Prior research has examined antecedents of knowledge hiding from knowledge characteristics, interpersonal dynamics (e.g., trust, fairness), and organizational climate, but has insufficiently explored the role of communication style and channels. The paper proposes that cooperative communication (inclusive, participatory) will discourage knowledge hiding, while competitive communication (coercive, authority-driven) will encourage it. It also examines whether online communication has a direct effect on knowledge hiding and whether it moderates the effects of cooperative and competitive styles. The purpose is to fill this gap and provide guidance for internal communication and knowledge management.

The literature distinguishes knowledge hiding from knowledge sharing, emphasizing its intentional and sometimes non-malicious nature (e.g., white lies) but noting its detrimental effects on trust, knowledge transfer, innovation, and performance. Antecedents include knowledge characteristics, interpersonal relationships (trust, justice), and organizational climate. Organizational communication can be categorized by direction, channel (direct/indirect), content, and form, and by style into cooperative versus competitive. Prior studies suggest cooperative communication supports fairness, trust, and knowledge dissemination; competitive communication can increase perceived inequality and hinder knowledge transfer. The rise of online communication introduces new dynamics: some evidence points to complementary effects with offline communication and potential reductions in knowledge hiding, though limitations in emotional conveyance may constrain benefits. Based on these streams, hypotheses are developed: H1 cooperative communication reduces knowledge hiding; H2 competitive communication increases knowledge hiding; H3 online communication reduces knowledge hiding; H4a online communication weakens the inhibitory effect of cooperative communication on knowledge hiding; H4b online communication alleviates the inducing effect of competitive communication on knowledge hiding.

Design: Quantitative, two-stage survey to mitigate common method bias. Stage 1 (April 2021, 13 days): measures of cooperative communication, competitive communication, and online communication. Stage 2 (July 2021, 9 days): measures of employee knowledge hiding. Participants and sampling: Targeted 200 companies across diverse industries in major Chinese cities (Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Wuhan); 147 firms participated. In Stage 1, 650 questionnaires distributed, 499 returned, 476 valid. In Stage 2, the same 476 contacted; 363 returned, 350 valid after quality checks. Final sample: 350 employees from 91 companies. Respondent demographics included gender, age, education, tenure, and position; firm descriptors included size, age, ownership, and industry. Measures: Cooperative and competitive communication measured using Lovelace et al. (2001) scale adapted via translation/back-translation and item wording (11 items across the two constructs). Online communication measured with a 3-item scale covering email, social media, and online meetings (based on Zhang & Venkatesh, 2013). Knowledge hiding adapted from Connelly et al. (2012); a streamlined 6-item version following Wang et al. (2019) capturing declarative, deafness, and reason hiding facets. Control variables: firm-level (size, age, ownership, industry) and individual-level (gender, age, education, position). Data quality and validity: Pilot test with 30 MBA managers established clarity. Reliability: Cronbach’s alpha > 0.7 for all constructs; item CITC mostly > 0.5. CFA: factor loadings > 0.5, p < 0.001; AVE adequate and greater than squared inter-construct correlations, supporting discriminant validity. Multicollinearity: all VIF < 5. Consistency check: variance analysis across stages showed no significant differences. Analysis: Hierarchical regression models (Models 1–5) tested direct effects and moderation; interaction terms mean-centered prior to estimation to reduce multicollinearity.

• Cooperative communication negatively predicts knowledge hiding (Model 2: β = -0.176, t = -3.562, p < 0.01), supporting H1. - Competitive communication positively predicts knowledge hiding (Model 2: β = 0.619, t = 16.958, p < 0.01), supporting H2. - Online communication does not have a significant direct effect on knowledge hiding (Model 3: β = 0.062, t = 1.211, ns), not supporting H3. - Online communication moderates the effect of cooperative communication, weakening its inhibitory effect (Model 4: CoopC × OC β = 0.309, t = 4.850, p < 0.01), supporting H4a. - Online communication moderates the effect of competitive communication, alleviating its inducing effect (Model 5: CompC × OC β = -0.131, t = -3.400, p < 0.01), supporting H4b. - Model fit statistics: R² = 0.585 (Model 2), 0.587 (Model 3), 0.320 (Model 4), 0.584 (Model 5); control-only Model 1 R² = 0.051. - Significant controls: firm age negatively associated with knowledge hiding across models (e.g., Model 2: β = -0.137, p < 0.01); employee age sometimes negative; industry occasionally positive. - Comparative magnitude: The positive effect of competitive communication on knowledge hiding is stronger than the negative effect of cooperative communication, suggesting avoiding competitive communication is especially critical. - Visualization showed flatter slopes under high online communication for both styles, indicating attenuation of both relationships.

The findings confirm that communication style is a meaningful antecedent of knowledge hiding. Cooperative communication fosters inclusiveness, fairness, and trust, reducing concealment, while competitive communication heightens power distance and perceived inequity, increasing concealment. Online communication does not directly change knowledge hiding but has a double-edged moderating role: it dampens the benefits of cooperative communication (by limiting rich emotional and relational cues) yet mitigates the harms of competitive communication (by softening emotional conflict and reducing perceived coercion). These results address the research question by linking specific communication styles and channels to knowledge hiding behavior and clarifying when online tools help or hinder. The study advances theory by integrating communication style and channel into knowledge-hiding antecedents and suggests that organizational climate, structure, leadership, and culture may mediate or moderate these effects, highlighting complex, context-dependent dynamics.

This study contributes by (1) evidencing that cooperative communication reduces, and competitive communication increases, employee knowledge hiding; (2) showing that online communication has no direct effect but moderates style–hiding links in opposite directions; and (3) revealing a double-edged sword effect of online tools in knowledge management. Practically, firms should cultivate cooperative communication climates, avoid coercive/authority-driven interactions, and deploy online communication judiciously—favoring offline for consensus-critical, emotion-rich discussions and online for routine matters or to buffer coercive dynamics. Future research should refine the theoretical framework by examining mediators (e.g., trust, justice perceptions, climate), additional communication dimensions (frequency, content), industry/region contingencies, and differential effects on distinct types and motives of knowledge hiding, as well as linking style-induced knowledge hiding to innovation and performance outcomes.

• Sampling and data collection: Did not systematically stratify by industry/region; self-report surveys entail subjectivity despite two-stage design and variance checks. Future work should incorporate objective data and targeted sampling. - Theoretical scope: Focused on style and channel; omitted other communication dimensions (frequency, content) and potential third variables (organizational climate, structure, power distance). - Outcomes: Studied antecedents without examining how communication-induced knowledge hiding affects performance, innovation, and trust within the same model. - Construct granularity: Collapsed different types and motives of knowledge hiding; future studies should differentiate declarative, deafness, and reason hiding and consider benevolent versus malevolent motives.