Abstract

For maintaining a competitive mindset in a company there are different kinds of tactics used for knowledge sharing in an organization but there is a new concept known as knowledge hiding and we would be discussing how knowledge hiding could be beneficial for an organization. For better understanding and results this study is also supported by questionnaire data. The sample size comprised 123 respondents. The results indicate that knowledge hiding is negatively linked with project success and results further confirm the moderating role of task interdependence between knowledge hiding and project success.

Key Words

Knowledge hiding, Project Success, Task Interdependence

Introduction

The idea of knowledge hiding is quite old in the knowledge management (KM) field. As increasingly gaining popularity this topic i.e., knowledge hiding, among the researchers (Connelly and Zweig 2015), “an intentional attempt by an individual to withhold or conceal knowledge that has been requested by another person” 

A project is defined as, “A project is a unique, transient endeavour, undertaken to achieve planned objectives, which could be defined in terms of outputs, outcomes or benefits. A project is usually deemed to be a success if it achieves the objectives according to its acceptance criteria, within an agreed timescale and budget.

Task interdependence is explained by another group member (Thompson, 1967).

process of acquiring, maintaining, and becoming the most important factor in increasing and maintaining a company's competitive advantage. Sharing knowledge in an organization depends on the type of knowledge that needs to be shared, i.e., silent or explicit. Researchers who share knowledge have different views about the intentions of tacit or intention to share knowledge because people can adjust their intentions in order to share knowledge in silent and explicit knowledge sharing activities to meet different resource needs. A new concept in the management of organizational knowledge is Knowledge hiding. Although the nature of the relationship between members of projects different                                                               Knowledge characteristics can affect knowledge hiding. Building on the behaviours of team members in a project, sharing knowledge has several advantages, e.g., B. Good performance review stand awards for sharing knowledge with team members and supporting the company, organizing and developing core networks in companies that do so are part of the ability of structural knowledge.

Hiding information does not allow colleagues to generate creative ideas, but there may be some opposite consequences for creativity to crawl knowledge. Draw social sharing in theory, there is a supposition that employees who hide knowledge cause mutual distrust. A cycle where coworkers are reluctant to share knowledge with them. We also offer that this effect depends on creativity itself increases in a climate of performance and increases in an expert climate.

In most organizations, knowledge is set to be one of the most powerful and meaningful competitive advantages. Knowledge management is an important factor for company success as well as for products and services. The social capital created in virtual groups takes up a significant proportion when people share information they focus on the corporation and mutual trust. They tend to share reliable information. In community associations, it is very important when exchanging knowledge to build good relationships between partners in various projects. The exchange of knowledge is very important for organizational training and increasing the huge profits of the associations. Large multinational organizations with high topographic distribution are very independent of the exchange of useful knowledge between employees, teams and departments. Project implementation is closely related to knowledge exchange and for each project, they must also recognize the importance of the project manager for project success. In addition, the power needed for project resources must be delegated to the project manager.

When needed, documentation is always useful for management to review their strategies and guidelines for project success.

Obvious in many cases, employees are not prepared to convey knowledge, even when organizations allow practices that intend to facilitate transfers.







Problem Statement

In the past decades, there has been done no study on the impact of knowledge hiding. The major problem that is faced by the employees due to knowledge hiding in teamwork is that they can’t give their desired outputs, and knowledge hiding creates barriers to employee’s performance. Knowledge management is an important factor for the project's success because it helps the employees to be more creative. However, a number of viewpoints connected to knowledge management are still not investigated. On one side the examination of success in teamwork is a hazy area, likewise, a moderating role of task interdependence is totally immaculate.




Significance 

Project’s success by providing more theoretical and practical content to projects and additionally will provide more significant evidence that how project's success and failure are directly related to knowledge hiding or sharing. The study also opens up new facets of knowledge management to be studied more in-depth in the coming time. It will be advantageous for project-based organizations in Pakistan to anticipate the importance of managing knowledge in the projects efficiently and successfully. Every project’s main priority is to achieve high performance and this study will give certain insight and administration with regard to enhanced project performance through efficient knowledge management at all levels of the project.

In a project, every sub-jobs and tasks are highly dependent on one another and this aspect needs to be considered while seeing social exchange relationship amongst the employees. This study will expedite the realization of the importance of keeping knowledge intact and how the social calibration is important for a project's performance in regard to task interdependence. This is the era of creativity, advancement in technology, and aggressive competition so this study will profoundly provide important findings to avoid knowledge hiding especially in project-based organizations by knowing its drawbacks in tasks of every level in the organization. Such effective knowledge management will definitely compound the creativity, uniqueness of the project which consequently will result in project performance and success. This study also sheds light on the aspect that knowledge is very important for project success. Performance of the project is certainly measured by the management of knowledge and task interdependence in the project throughout the project life span. This zone is not being explored yet in Pakistan so this study will surely compound in this area and can open up new doors of arguments about project performance and own competitive advantage. In addition, this research will encourage other researchers to put their attention towards this area of study to explore such intangible assets which create new opportunities for projects and achieve competitive advantage.




Supporting Theory

The theory that can best explain and support our research variables is “Social exchange theory” this theory contains most of the related variables of this study area under its wings in an appropriate manner as it depicts emotional exchanges, behaviour, non-material and material goods and things and how they have an impact on each other.




Social Exchange Theory

QBC 1937 and QDA 1976 are one in the same except QDA 1976 has a few new additions but does not conflict with the previous code of QBC 1937.




Research

Organizations do not “own” “intellectual assets” the force conveys of the organization. the focus of the study is on relationship success may be moderate the said relationship between hiding knowledge and the success of the project. 




Research Questions

Q 1: Relationship between “knowledge hiding “, “project success”?

Q 2: Interdependence as a moderator for “knowledge hiding”, “project success”?




Objectives

• To determine the “knowledge hiding”, “project success”.

• To identify if “knowledge hiding”, “project success”.

Literature Review

Knowledge Hiding

Firstly, behaviour such as knowledge hiding could be explained via the lens of psychological knowledge ownership. It refers to the cognitive-affective state, which refers to when individuals feel that particular thing. This might be felt for tangible intangible stuff including information, knowledge. Basically, this is regarded in terms of as it may engage employees for owning organization (Avey et al., 2009) and may help them understand the subordinate and may involve in fair behaviour like knowledge sharing (Han et al., 2010) nevertheless can work vice versa.

Some employees might hide knowledge in order to protect their and their organization`s interests or might hide the knowledge to retaliate against other employees. Managers can really change this attitude of the employees by attempts to increase the trustworthiness of their colleagues, by reminding them about their similarly shared identity or even by high pointing when trustworthiness is signified (the reward given to someone which he was promised previously). It might also be enforced as making sure not to give incentives to employees who battery their coworkers (e.g.: to discourage the salesperson from approaching other coworkers `customers).

Furthermore, managers can ensure less practice of knowledge hiding by giving support for sharing the knowledge and by providing more opportunities for social interactions (Connelly & Kelloway, 2003).

Social exchange theory may also explain various human psychological behaviour including knowledge sharing (Liuetal, 2012; LinandLo,2015; SerenkoandBontis,2016). This says that subordinates be prone to share knowledge with their coworkers with the intention to get something valuable in response. Theoretically grounded debates reciprocation has much importance in attitude Whereas they not only can reciprocate positively but negatively too.




Project Success

Before going towards the relation between knowledge hiding and project success. First, we need to shed light on the project itself. “A project is a time and cost-constrained operation to realize a set of defined deliverables up to quality standards and requirements”.

There are certain factors that play role in a project`s success, three top critical factors include being able to communicate at multiple levels, coordinate with all in an organization and effective leadership (Saadé at el.,2015) he further said “coordination is a logistics trait which can be trained and acquired completely through experience. Every great project success is the product of worthwhile talent, but it takes a team with many different talents to bring those efforts to fruition. That is why getting the right people doing the right job is essential to a project's success” (Saadé et al.,2015).




Knowledge Hiding and Project Success

Opposite of knowledge hiding is knowledge sharing and this mechanism can be defined as “an informal mechanism for sharing, integrating, interpreting and applying to know what, know-how and know-why embedded in individuals will support in the performance of project tasks”. For actual accurate execution project sharing, contractor and team on the same project are necessary (Hong, Doll, Revilla &Nahm 2011). Team members who are in the project stay connected with each other before the project Completes and social structure is in use for knowledge sharing then stops (Wickramasingh & Widyaratne, 2012). The success of a project is in regard to budget, schedule and shareholder demands can be fulfilled by sharing of knowledge among team members and their collaboration (Suppiah & Sandhu, 2010). Knowledge sharing is now considered the main factor in project success. Every project has some source of knowledge like team members or project achievements (Park, Lee 2013).

Performance in a project is quite related to the shared information. A high interdependency is really important when tacit information should be shared as collaboration in the project (Niedergassel, Leker, 2011). When there are strong social networks in the organization it ultimately leads to more results in organizational performance or project success (Swift & Hwang 2013).




Task 

Its level is related to others' efforts. Member group shall interact more to accomplish the task when the interdependence is high (Tesluk, Mathieu, Zaccaro, & Marks, 1997). Group members are considered task interdependent when they exchange knowledge, resources in order to get their desired outcome. (Pinjani, P., Palvia, P.;2013).




Task Interdependence and Project Success

The importance of task interdependence in impacting team performance and task success arises from the magnitude to modulate the single perception of following members of group behaviour (Bachrach, Powell, 2006). Members who are task interdependent are reliant on one another to perform the task/ project successfully (Kiggundu, 1983; Wageman, 1995).

The task interdependence results from group member communication, affective group member interaction (Guzzo & Shea, 1992). Greater task interdependence requires greater interaction between group members to carry out the task successfully (Pearce & Gregersen, 1991). Therefore, in the case of knowledge hiding greater task interdependence, more chances would be project success. It shows task interdependence is negatively related to project success in the case of knowledge hiding.

H2 Task interdependence is negatively associated to project success.




Task Interdependence as a Moderator

This can be explained as the higher the task interdependence more the team goal commitment (knowledge sharing, among members) is linked to team performance and vice versa (Caroline Aube.,2005). Individuals who corporate with each other are more likely to do the project better (Ng, K.Y., Van Dyne, L.:2005). Thus, more coordination, sharing of knowledge better the bonding between members and better the output by them for the successful project accomplishment.

Therefore, the higher the task interdependence more the information to be shared for better performance (project success) (Sharma, R., Yetton, P.:2003).

H3 knowledge



Methodology

Intro

This technique is to describe findings of knowledge hiding. This methodology chapter deals with the design of research and strategy.

 

Design

This is a structure of research action research design, that incorporates time horizon, unit of analysis and type of study setting. Which are discussed below.

 

Study Setting

Questionnaires were used for data collection. Questionnaires were adapted from previous literature. 150 questionnaires were distributed but only 123 were properly filled. The response rate was 82%. Data was collected by Google forms.

 

Time Horizon

The time period spent on data collection was one month.

 

Unit

This can be project organization, group, an individual or culture which is of the different based organization like telecom industry (Ufone, jazz) private organizations, health organizations, NGOs of Balochistan Quetta. That is a developing place in Pakistan.

 

Sample

Population

The population includes public and private sector organizations of the developing city of Quetta Baluchistan.

 

Sample

This is a composition of the population that represents the whole population. Data is collected through survey questionnaires. 150 Questionnaires were distributed through the convenience sampling technique.

 

Characteristics of Sample

The following table indicates the characteristics of the sample respondents from whom the data was received




Frequencies

Table 1. Statistics

Respondents  Gender Percentage		Respondents  age percentage	Respondents          Qualification Percentage	Respondents Experience Percentage
N             Valid Missing	123 0	123 0	123 0	123 0

 

Frequency Table

Male or Female

Table 2

Fq	%	Valid %	total	Fq
Valid          men	52	42	42.3	42.3
women	71	57.7	57.7	100.0
all	123	100.0	100.0

 




Table 2 Shows the gender configuration of males in the sample which is 42% whereas the female is   

57%.




 

Age

Table 3.  Percentage

	Fq	%	correct	Total
Correct  18-25	81	65	65.9	65.9
26-33	36	29.3	29.3	95.1
34-41	5	4.1	4.1	99.2
50 and above	1	.8	.8	100
total	123	100.0	100.0

 




Table 3 Shows the age-wise configuration in which 65.9% of respondents had age group of 18-25, 29.3% were of 26-33 years of age, 4.1% in the age group of 34-41years in the age of 42-49 years is 0%.

 

Qualification

The next demographic aspect was the configuration of the sample pertaining to respondent’s qualification.




Table 4. Respondents' Qualification Percentage

	Frequency	Percentage	Valid Percentage	Cumulative Percentage
Valid         Matric	5	4.1	4.1	4.1
Intermediate	20	16.3	16.3	20.3
Bachelor	60	48.8	48.8	69.1
MS/MPhil	28	22.8	22.8	91.9
PhD	10	8.1	8.1	100.0
Total	123	100.0	100.0

 




 

 

Table 4 describes that 4.1% of respondents were matric degree holders, 16.3% were intermediate degree holders, 48.8% of respondents were holding a bachelor’s degree, 22.8% possesses MS/MPhil degree, and 8.1% with PhD level degree.




 

Experience

Table 5: Respondents' Experience Percentage

	Frequency	Percentage	Valid Percentage	Cumulative Percent
Valid 5 and	88	71.5	71.5	71.5
less	28	22.8	22.8	94.3
6-13	5	4.1	4.1	98.4
14-21	1	.8	.8	99.2
22-29	1	.8	.8	100.0
30 and above	123	100.0	100.0
Total

 




Table 5 shows the experience conformation of the respondents who have 5 or less experience was 71.5%, 22.8% were in the range of 6-13 years, 4.1% were in 14-21 years range, .8% respondents were having work experience range 22-29 years and .8% had work experience of 30 years and above. This shows most of the respondents belong in the range of 5 and fewer years of work experience.

 

Instrumentation

knowledge hiding and task interdependence. The items of the questionnaire were responded to by using 5 ranges.

 

Hiding of knowledge

This includes, “he/she works only the hours set out in his/her contract and no more”. “His/her commitment to the company is defined by his/her contract”. “He/she only carries out what is necessary to get the job done”. “His/her loyalty to the company is contract specific”. “During the task, I agreed to help my coworker but never really intended to”. “I offered my coworkers some other information instead of what he/she really wanted”.

 

Task Interdependence

We measured task interdependence by a 5-item scale developed by Pearce, J.L (1991). The sample item includes, “I work closely with others in doing my work”. “The way I perform my job has a significant impact on others”.

 

Project Success

We measured project success on an 8-item scale. This scale was adopted from the sample item is “The outcome of the project is likely to be sustained”. “The project was completed on time”. “The project was completed accordingly to the budget allocated”.

Results

Reliability of Knowledge Hiding

Table 6. Knowledge Hiding

Reliable Stats
Alpha	Items
0.66	07

 

Task Interdependence

Table 7. Task Interdependence

Reliable Stats
Alpha	Items
0.64	05

 

Project Success

Table 8. Project Success

Reliable Stats
Alpha	Items
0.6801	08

Descriptive Analysis

Knowledge hiding, task interdependence. “Strongly Disagree”

 “Strongly Agree”. concentration. The mean values of knowledge hiding were 2.608. The mean values of task interdependence were 3.766.




 

Table 9. Stats

Stats
N		Min	Max	Mean	Std. Deviation
Knowledge Hiding	123	1.00	4.00	2.6086	0.65970
Task Interdependence	123	1.60	5.00	3.7675	0.52752
Project Success	123	1.00	5.00	3.7033	0.47730

 

Correlation Analysis

Table 10. Correlation

Variable	1	2	3
Knowledge Hiding	1	-	-
Task Interdependence	0.26*	1	-
Project Success	-0.32*	-0.34**	1

 




There is positive Knowledge Hiding and task interdependence however it was significant (0.26, p<0.05) and their a Negative correlation between knowledge hiding  (r=-0.32, p<0.01). However, task interdependence is negatively correlated. There is no multicollinearity between variables because all variables are less than 0.7.

Test of Hypothesis

Results showed negative reaction and associated (.25). Associated significance (?= -0.315, p<0.001). H3 is Task interdependence as a moderator between knowledge hiding.




 

Baseline

Table 11. Coefficients

Structure	Coefficient
Knowledge Hiding                       Project Success	-0.25*
Task Interdependence                 Project Success	-0.31***
KH x TI                  Project Success	0.63**

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

 




Hypothesis Summary

H1 project success is associated negatively with knowledge hiding (Accepted)

H2  project success is negatively associated with Task interdependence. (Accepted)

H3 Task interdependence as a moderator between knowledge hiding and project success (Accepted)

 

 

Implications

No such literature was present which would talk about the influence of hiding knowledge on the success of the project. success in the presence of task independence as a moderator. At hand, the study has many implications for the organization. It confirms that knowledge hiding will lead to project failure so it suggests that in project-based organizations managers should encourage to share knowledge. Successful implications of the project consequently allow the organization to get the desired objective of the project.

 

Limitations, Future Directions

We had a limited amount of data available to us, considering the time constraint. Future researchers can improve the model by using other mediators like self-creativity, involvement. Moreover, the factors triggering knowledge hiding behaviour can be examined and identified further by researchers in future which will give a broader picture of the study. Furthermore, the sample size can be increased by considering a diverse group of employees in project-based organizations all around Pakistan that would give better and more accurate results. Due to Covid-19, we could not collect data by approaching respondents one on one so that can be improved in future.

Discussion

The very first hypothesis in success has been accepted which means that for project success, knowledge hiding will not be a

good option. Project-based organizations have to have a very corporative and helping environment where continuously knowledge is shared among the employees. Organizations have to support subordinates to share information (Yang, Chen and Wang2012). In projects, employees work in closely related teams and for better performance sharing of knowledge is very essential, having good relations with subordinates is important for project success (Park and Lee, 2013). Knowledge is considered an important factor in an organization to grow and maintain a competitive advantage. Managers shall provide such an environment where knowledge sharing is promoted and employees would get better social interaction opportunities (Connelly & Kelloway, 2003). Knowledge hiding will decrease creativity in the organization.

The second hypothesis was concerned with the association of task interdependence with project success. More tasks are interrelated more project success will be negatively associated keeping in view the presence of knowledge hiding. Tasks dependence results from team member interactions (Guzzo & Shea, 1992). There are three basic factors that play an important role in project success i.e. good communication in the overall organization, coordination among different levels in an organization and thirdly a strong leadership in the organization (Saadé et al.,2015). For the actual and accurate execution of performance for project success, there must be sharing of knowledge which represents greater interdependence of task, so team members have to interact more often (Hong, Doll, Revilla &Nahm, 2011). A high interdependency is important when tacit knowledge is involved in project related tasks (Niedergassel, Leker,2011). The third hypothesis states “task interdependence as a moderator between knowledge hiding and project success” and our results show this is a moderator between these two. The negative sign in the table shows that the higher the task interdependence more will be the goal commitment, and this is linked to team performance and vice versa (Caroline Aube, 2005). Employees who coordinated with one another are more likely to do their tasks better (Ng, KY., Van Dyne, L.,2005). Task interdependent projects require knowledge to be shared more rather than knowledge to hide knowledge from one another in the organization

Conclude

To find accurate results, we distributed 150 questionnaires and got only 123 responses for analysis. According to the results, H1, H2, and H3 are accepted.

In project-based organizations, knowledge hiding will lead to project failure in the presence of moderating role of task interdependence. So, it suggests that managers should focus to create a corporative environment, where employees should share knowledge, in order to get the desired results and to have a successful outcome. Sometimes it is also important to make the employees realize how essential it is and to ensure a healthy corporative environment in the organization in order to attain and sustain success. Future research can be done to identify the factors triggering knowledge hiding behaviour and variables can be added like self-creativity, involvement etc. 

References

• APM (2012). Body of Knowledge. Association for Project Management.
• Aubé, C., & Rousseau, V. (2005). Team Goal Commitment and Team Effectiveness: The Role of Task Interdependence and Supportive Behaviors. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 9(3), 189- 204. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089- 2699.9.3.189
• Bachrach, D. G., Powell, B. C., Collins, B. J., & Richey, R. G. (2006). Effects of task interdependence on the relationship between helping behavior and group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6), 1396-1405. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021- 9010.91.6.1396
• Boh, W. F. (2007). Mechanisms for sharing knowledge in project-based organizations. Information and Organization, 17(1), 27-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.20 06.10.001
• Carlson, J. R., & George, J. F. (2004). Media Appropriateness in the Conduct and Discovery of Deceptive Communication: The Relative Influence of Richness and Synchronicity. Group Decision and Negotiation, 13(2), 191-210. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:grup.0000021 841.01346.35
• Chong, C., & J, B. (2014). Challenges of knowledge sharing in the petrochemical industry. Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An International Journal, 171-187. https://doi.org/10.34105/j.kmel.2014.06. 012
• Connelly, C. E., & Kevin Kelloway, E. (2003). Predictors of employees' perceptions of knowledge sharing cultures. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 24(5), 294-301. https://doi.org/10.1108/0143773031048 5815
• Connelly, C. E., & Zweig, D. (2014). How perpetrators 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
• Davenport, T. H., & Klahr, P. (1998). Managing Customer Support Knowledge. California Management Review, 40(3), 195-208. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165950
• Guzzo, R. A., & Shea, G. P. (2009). Group performance and intergroup relations in organizations. Consulting Psychologists Press, 269-313. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1993- 97201-005
• Holzmann, R. (2013). Global pension systems and their reform: Worldwide drivers, trends and challenges. International Social Security Review, 66(2), 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1111/issr.12007
• Homans, G. C. (1958). Social Behavior as Exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 63(6), 597-606. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2772990
• Kelloway, E. K., & Barling, J. (2000). Knowledge work as organizational behavior. International Journal of Management Reviews, 2(3), 287-304. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468- 2370.00042
• Kline, P. (2015). A Handbook of Test Construction (Psychology Revivals): Introduction to Psychometric Design (1st ed.). Routledge.
• Liebowitz, J. (1999). Key ingredients to the success of an organization's knowledge management strategy, 6(1), 37-40. https://files.stample.co/browserUploa d/ca681f9d-87d4-4d96-a839- 15027de42fa4
• Pearce, J. L., & Gregersen, H. B. (1991). Task interdependence and extrarole behavior: A test of the mediating effects of felt responsibility. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(6), 838-844. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021- 9010.76.6.838
• Swift, P. E., & Hwang, A. (2013). The impact of affective and cognitive trust on knowledge sharing and organizational learning. The Learning Organization, 20(1), 20-37. https://doi.org/10.1108/0969647131128 8500