The dynamics of knowledge behaviors: exploring drivers, triggers and paradoxes in knowledge sharing, hiding, hoarding and sabotage Open Access

In today’s rapidly evolving organizational environments, knowledge is recognized as a vital intangible asset that enables firms to anticipate change, respond to it with agility and maintain a long-term competitive advantage (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990; Hitt, Ireland, and Hoskisson, 1999; Thomas, 2024a). As industries become increasingly knowledge-driven, organizations are compelled to leverage internal expertise not only to navigate disruption but also to foster continuous innovation (Vittori et al., 2024). Rooted in the knowledge-based view (KBV) of the firm, which sees knowledge as the most strategically significant resource (Grant, 1996; Kearns and Sabherwal, 2006), knowledge sharing is promoted as a central organizational practice that enhances decision-making, stimulates innovation and strengthens collective performance (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Cabrera and Cabrera, 2005; Davenport and Prusak, 1998).

These outcomes are achieved through collaborative platforms, leadership initiatives and cultural practices that enable the open flow of insights across individual, team and organizational levels. When effectively supported, knowledge becomes a dynamic and renewable asset that reinforces organizational resilience. This includes both tacit knowledge, which is experiential, intuitive and exchanged through interaction and explicit knowledge, which is codified and shared through formal mechanisms such as manuals or databases (Polanyi, 1966; Del Giudice, 2015; Thomas and Gupta, 2022). While knowledge sharing can foster collaboration and improve organizational effectiveness, it can also trigger counterproductive behaviors such as knowledge hiding, hoarding and sabotage, particularly in environments marked by power asymmetries, competition and unclear incentives (Wang and Noe, 2010; Connelly et al., 2012; Serenko and Bontis, 2016; Thomas, 2023). Understanding these dualities is essential for advancing knowledge behavior scholarship and designing more resilient knowledge ecosystems. Although knowledge behaviors have received growing attention, only a few studies have explored them through a paradoxical lens (e.g. Schad et al., 2016; Zhao and Xia, 2017; Xia et al., 2019; Masood et al., 2023; Smith and Tracey, 2016; Liu et al., 2025; Chin et al., 2025) and even fewer have adopted a qualitative approach to unpack the complex, often contradictory dynamics of knowledge behavior. The digitalization of knowledge work has further intensified these tensions, making this study a significant and timely contribution (Thomas, 2024a). While digital platforms enhance knowledge accessibility, they have also introduced new mechanisms that allow employees to selectively restrict access to knowledge, hoard knowledge for themselves and tarnish the collective knowledge base with misinformation (McKellar et al., 2024). This study seeks to explore the drivers of knowledge sharing and the triggers that cause employees to transition from knowledge sharing to its counterproductive forms, while also identifying a few paradoxical factors that enable the coexistence of both productive and counterproductive knowledge-sharing behaviors. Despite an increasing focus on knowledge management in the literature, several gaps persist in understanding these behavioral transitions. First, while knowledge hiding and hoarding have been widely studied, knowledge sabotage remains an underexplored phenomenon, particularly in terms of its strategic and intentional aspects. Second, prior research often examines these behaviors in isolation, but there is limited understanding of how knowledge behaviors evolve over time and under what conditions employees shift between sharing and restriction. Third, most existing studies rely on quantitative methods, which, while useful, often fail to capture the deeper psychological and social processes behind these behaviors. Finally, the impact of digital transformation, remote work and AI-driven knowledge management systems on counterproductive knowledge behaviors remains an evolving challenge that organizations must navigate (Raisch and Krakowski, 2021; Anand, 2024; McKellar et al., 2024). To address these gaps, this study investigates the key drivers of knowledge sharing and the triggers that lead to its counterproductive behaviors, including knowledge hiding, hoarding and sabotage. By adopting a qualitative approach, it aims to provide a nuanced understanding of the psychological, organizational and technological factors influencing knowledge behaviors. The findings will contribute to existing literature by offering an integrated framework that explains the non-linear transition between knowledge sharing and counterproductive behaviors. Furthermore, this study extends paradox theory (Smith and Lewis, 2011) by identifying performing, belonging, organizing, learning and digital paradox in the context of knowledge-sharing behavior (Lewis, 2000; Jarzabkowski, Lê, and Van de Ven, 2013; Schad et al., 2016). In addition to its theoretical aspect, this research makes a practical contribution by helping organizations design knowledge-sharing strategies that balance openness with safeguards against counterproductive behaviors.

The next section reviews the literature on knowledge sharing and its counterproductive forms. The methodology outlines the qualitative design, data collection and coding approach. This is followed by the findings, presented across individual, team and organizational levels, and the identification of key paradoxes emerging from these behaviors. The discussion and implications sections explore how organizations can navigate competing demands and behavioral complexities to foster sustainable and inclusive knowledge environments. The paper concludes by summarizing key contributions, reflecting on limitations and offering directions for future research.

Knowledge sharing is the process of exchanging information, expertise and insights among individuals, teams and organizations to enhance collective learning and improve decision-making. Researchers have long debated whether knowledge and information are distinct, some define knowledge as processed, meaningful information (Nonaka, 1994), while others see little practical need to separate the two (Alavi and Leidner, 2001; Bartol and Srivastava, 2002). Wang and Noe, 2010 in their review, similarly view knowledge as information shaped by individual experience and judgment. In this study, respondents used the terms “knowledge” and “information” interchangeably during interviews. However, the main objective was not to distinguish between the two, but to explore and understand the individual, team and organizational drivers and triggers behind productive and counterproductive knowledge-sharing behaviors. Further, knowledge sharing fosters collaboration, innovation and efficiency, ensuring that knowledge is not lost or housed in institutional silos but captured, made available across the organization and continuously built upon. However, not all knowledge behaviors are constructive, as certain actions, like knowledge hoarding, hiding and sabotage, restrict the flow of knowledge rather than facilitate knowledge sharing. Knowledge hoarding refers to the retention of knowledge that could be shared, often driven by factors such as concerns about job security, the desire to retain power and career advancement (Yang et al., 2024). Employees engage in knowledge hoarding as a means of maintaining a competitive advantage, preventing their expertise from being widely shared to ensure that they remain indispensable within the organization (Evans et al., 2015). The phenomenon can manifest in two primary ways: withholding requested knowledge and strategically retaining unrequested knowledge (Sarwar et al., 2017). Digital hoarding has also emerged as a workplace challenge, where employees accumulate vast amounts of digital information due to concerns about data loss or future uncertainty (McKellar et al., 2020). This excessive accumulation can result in inefficiencies, reduced collaboration and increased cybersecurity risks. Research also shows that Machiavellian personality traits contribute to knowledge hoarding, as individuals with high Machiavellian tendencies view knowledge as a bargaining tool for workplace influence (Yang et al., 2024). Furthermore, cognitive processes such as rumination have been linked to hoarding behavior, with individuals obsessively retaining information due to fear of losing control over knowledge resources (Portero et al., 2015). Knowledge hiding on the other hand is an intentional act where individuals withhold or conceal knowledge that has been explicitly requested by others (Connelly et al., 2012). It often stems from a desire for self-preservation, competitive advantage and a sense of psychological ownership of knowledge, leading employees to limit access to valuable information (Serenko and Bontis, 2016). Knowledge hiding can take different forms, including playing dumb (pretending not to know), evasive hiding (providing misleading information) and rationalized hiding (justifying non-disclosure with logical reasoning) (Connelly et al., 2012). At the organizational level, knowledge hiding can negatively impact team performance, erode trust and hinder innovation, creating inefficiencies in decision-making and collaboration (Bogilović et al., 2017). Employees who feel that sharing knowledge reduces their influence may engage in this behavior to maintain a sense of power within their teams (Černe et al., 2014). Moreover, workplace environments characterized by low trust, high competition and weak leadership support tend to encourage knowledge hiding, further obstructing knowledge flow and reducing learning opportunities (Hernaus et al., 2019). Although knowledge hiding is often viewed as harmful, it can be beneficial in some cases, such as when employees withhold information to protect sensitive data, maintain confidentiality or prevent knowledge misuse (Serenko and Bontis, 2016). Therefore, organizations must create a trust-based knowledge-sharing culture, implement clear ethical guidelines and encourage open communication to minimize knowledge hiding and improve collaboration (Černe et al., 2014). Recent research also suggests that, rather than being solely counterproductive, knowledge hiding may function as a coping mechanism for workplace stressors such as exclusion, power imbalances or perceived exploitation (Dutta et al., 2024). Finally, existing research on knowledge sabotage has identified it as an extreme form of counterproductive knowledge behavior, where employees intentionally conceal, distort or manipulate knowledge to serve personal or strategic interests (Serenko, 2019; Serenko and Choo, 2020). Prior studies have linked knowledge sabotage to personality traits such as narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy (Serenko and Choo, 2020; Islam et al., 2025) and identified workplace ostracism and distrust as key antecedents of the behavior (Tan et al., 2024; Perotti et al., 2022). However, limited attention has been given to competitive insecurity as a primary driver, where employees sabotage knowledge flow due to fear of replacement and the need to maintain exclusivity over expertise. In addition, while research has examined knowledge sabotage in traditional workplaces, little is known about how digital transformation and AI-driven knowledge systems facilitate new forms of strategic knowledge restriction and misinformation (Raisch and Krakowski, 2021, Wang et al., 2024; Abdillah et al., 2024).

This study used a qualitative research methodology to explore knowledge sharing and counterproductive behaviors within knowledge-intensive environments. The study followed an exploratory design, aiming to gain in-depth understanding of complex knowledge behaviors in real-world organizational settings. A purposive sampling technique was used to deliberately select participants with direct experience in knowledge-related practices, ensuring rich, context-specific insights. Most interviewees had over 15 years of professional experience, while a few had 5–15 years. Participants included senior engineers, senior developers, team leaders, assistant managers, mid-level managers, directors and country heads. Most were used in knowledge-intensive sectors such as IT and consulting, working within top multinational corporations (MNCs) recognized for their global operations and expertise-driven environments. In addition, three participants were from knowledge-based organizations that were not MNCs; two of them held senior roles (Deputy General Manager and Sales Head). The sample also included a small number of academicians who also worked as researchers. This population was purposefully selected due to their active involvement in knowledge-based environments, making them well-positioned to provide rich insights into knowledge behaviors and paradoxes. Participants were drawn from Poland, Germany, Amsterdam (The Netherlands), India and Dubai (UAE). A total of 33 interviews (represented as R1 to R33) were conducted via Zoom, face-to-face meetings and phone calls, with durations ranging from 20 min to 1 h. Before the interviews, participants were assured of anonymity and confidentiality, ensuring they could express their views freely without concerns about judgment. This was a crucial step in encouraging honest reflections on knowledge-sharing behaviors and counterproductive practices of knowledge sharing, such as hoarding, hiding and sabotage. All recordings were transcribed using Microsoft 365 transcription tools, ensuring accurate and organized textual data for analysis. The data was analyzed using the Gioia methodology (Gioia et al., 2013), involving coding to develop a structured data framework comprising first-order concepts, second-order themes and aggregate dimensions (see Table 1). This study adopted an abductive approach, combining the inductive structure of the Gioia methodology (Gioia et al., 2013) with insights from existing literature during the interpretation phase. While the initial coding process was grounded in participants’ language and experiences, the emergent patterns were iteratively compared with prior research to enhance conceptual depth. The study adhered to the saturation principle (Guest et al., 2006), meaning that interviews continued until no new insights emerged.

Guided by the Gioia methodology (Gioia et al., 2013), the author analyzed the data to shine a light on (a) factors enabling productive behaviors such as knowledge sharing, (b) triggers contributing to counterproductive knowledge behaviors including knowledge hoarding, hiding and sabotage, (see Figure 1) and (c) paradoxes that arise when organizational efforts to promote knowledge sharing simultaneously enable counterproductive behaviors.

This section presents the main drivers that influence how employees engage in productive knowledge-sharing behaviors. These insights highlight the structural and behavioral enablers of effective knowledge sharing across diverse organizational contexts.

At the individual level, knowledge sharing is driven by intrinsic motivation, career visibility and the desire for expertise development. Digital tools support this process by enabling continuous, collaborative updates to evolving knowledge systems.

Employees often engage in knowledge-sharing behaviors because they derive personal satisfaction from helping others and contributing to a collective learning environment. For instance, respondent (R²) emphasized the intrinsic reward of helping others, while R16, R33 mentioned the sense of personal fulfillment that comes from seeing others benefit as a result of the knowledge imparted on them. These intrinsic motivations coexist with extrinsic motivations, as employees are typically driven to share knowledge for a number of reasons (Lin, 2007; Thomas and Gupta, 2022). R1 highlighted this, noting that “Employees enjoy the process of sharing but also seek rewards such as recognition and career growth.”

Knowledge sharing can also contribute to career visibility and reputation, which encourages individuals to share their expertise proactively. As noted by some of the responses (R23, R10, R14, R28, R19), one of the main reasons for sharing knowledge is to enhance one’s professional visibility, specifically at the early career stage. This makes employees more noticeable to leadership and decision-makers. It also positions employees as valuable contributors within the organization, which further improves their long-term career prospects (George, 1992; Zhang et al., 2013).

Although intrinsic motivation involves sharing knowledge for the enjoyment of helping others, this study reveals a deeper form of motivation linked to personal and self-fulfillment (Baygi et al., 2017). As participants explained, sharing knowledge helps them grow professionally, feel purposeful and strengthen their identity at work. Employees are also motivated to share knowledge as a way of developing their professional expertise. Many employees find satisfaction in mentoring others, as seen in R14, who takes pride in training interns and guiding them through research processes. Similarly, R13 mentioned the role of early career mentorship in shaping their inclination to help others in the same way. Collectively, these drivers suggest that knowledge sharing at the individual level is a self-reinforcing cycle, where individuals share because they enjoy the process, seek career recognition and value the long-term expertise they acquire from it.

Digital tools and virtual work environments have transformed knowledge sharing into an ongoing, interactive process (Thomas, 2023; Thomas, 2024a). The results of the study show that employees no longer view knowledge as static, but as a network of information that evolves through collective input. One respondent (R12) referred to knowledge as a “live document.” Rather than a series of formal documents that remain unchanged, these knowledge bases are approached as ongoing projects. R12 describes this process in their organization, explaining that “Every time a new channel joins in, they go to the onboarding document and update it with new information.” This collaborative approach is enabled primarily by the shift away from analog and offline documentation tools to cloud-based services that allow multiple authors to work on the same files simultaneously. Services like Google Drive, Google Docs and Google Sheets allow even large teams to have access to the same documents and modify, annotate or add to them in real time.

At the team level, collaboration, shared goals, trust, reciprocity, efficiency and digital tools all play a central role in shaping knowledge-sharing behaviors.

The findings of this study show that the shared vision and collective goals further strengthen knowledge-sharing behaviors within teams. As one respondent (R5) pointed out, sharing knowledge helps teams function more effectively by allowing multiple groups to work as a unified entity rather than in isolation. Similarly, R7 noted that the success of a team directly translates into success for its individual members, which makes knowledge exchange a mutually beneficial practice. According to R28, knowledge sharing happens organically when teams are aligned with a shared vision, as individual members recognize the collective value of exchanging information and sharing their expertise (Thomas, 2023). Furthermore, Employees tend to share knowledge more freely when they see that collaboration is beneficial to their work processes. R3, for instance, observed that knowledge sharing was not always encouraged in individualistic work environments, but nevertheless, they personally feel that collaboration improved efficiency and outcomes. Similarly, R11 described knowledge exchange as a reciprocal process, where employees share with the expectation of receiving insights from others. R20 further emphasized that strong collaboration and bonding among team members can facilitate seamless knowledge sharing.

Trust and reciprocity are critical factors for knowledge sharing among team members (Chang and Chuang, 2011). Their presence encourages a collaborative atmosphere where individuals to provide information and lend their expertise more freely, while their absence leads to a more guarded attitude among team members. R21, for instance, shared an anecdote in which they were initially enthusiastic about sharing freely and openly, but became more reserved after realizing their efforts were not reciprocated.

Knowledge sharing also improves efficiency by reducing redundant work. R² pointed out that, while sharing knowledge requires an initial investment of time, it ultimately prevents repetitive explanations and makes future processes more efficient (Thomas, 2024a). These efficiency gains are magnified by the use of digital tools, which greatly facilitate knowledge exchange among teams. R20 mentioned, for example, that platforms like Confluence and knowledge gardens help structure knowledge effectively, making it easier to refer back to key insights. R30 noted that e-mail, Slack and shared drives simplify knowledge retrieval, helping remote teams collaborate more effectively. However, it should be noted that these tools by themselves do not realize gains in efficiency. Their effectiveness relies on consistent engagement and proper use by team members. Finally, both formal and informal interactions contribute to knowledge sharing in team settings. As R25 stated, knowledge sharing occurs through casual discussions, coffee table conversations, brainstorming sessions and structured appraisals, reinforcing the idea that both structured and unstructured interactions contribute to collective learning.

Office work is increasingly being done in virtual platforms like Slack, Microsoft Teams and SharePoint. This allows employees to collaborate closely and interact in real-time even if they are working remotely or in different company locations (Thomas, 2024a). These virtual spaces also streamline knowledge sharing within teams, since individuals can contribute instantly without having to call formal meetings or relying on slower means of communication, such as e-mail. However, as the study shows, virtual workspaces should not be treated as substitutes for more formal documentation. Communications that take place in these spaces are ephemeral and critical insights shared during sessions can become lost over time. To prevent this, teams should adopt structured documentation procedures, such as a recording important meetings or archiving knowledge-sharing sessions for easy retrieval. R7 described following such a procedure: “There is a practice which we follow right now that every KT session should be recorded and uploaded to SharePoint where each and every person can access it anytime.” Likewise, R20 stressed the importance of creating reference points that can be referenced as needed, stating that “Platforms like Confluence and knowledge gardens help structure knowledge effectively, making it easier to refer back to key insights.”

At the organizational level, leadership encouragement, structured processes, incentives and corporate culture play a pivotal role in fostering knowledge-sharing behaviors.

Leadership plays a key role in setting the tone for a knowledge-sharing culture (Yang, 2007). R16 noted that supportive leadership makes employees feel more comfortable sharing knowledge, while R14 emphasized that organizational culture shapes whether employees engage in knowledge-sharing or knowledge-restricting behaviors. If knowledge hoarding and sabotage become the norm, employees will hesitate to contribute knowledge openly. The overall corporate culture also influences knowledge-sharing behavior among employees. R25 highlighted that commitment-based work conditions, financial security and emotional well-being create an environment where knowledge is exchanged freely and openly. Employees who feel secure in their roles and valued by their organization are less likely to hoard knowledge as a means of self-preservation.

Incentives and recognition systems further encourage employees to engage in knowledge-sharing behaviors (Thomas, 2024a). Employees are more likely to share knowledge when they see tangible benefits from doing so. R12 mentioned that they reward employees for their knowledge-sharing efforts through appraisals, which encourages ongoing engagement. However, R9 cautioned against relying too heavily on extrinsic motivators. When incentives become overly competitive, employees may withhold knowledge to gain a personal advantage.

Structured processes, such as training programs and documentation systems, also enhance knowledge-sharing practices. R12 pointed out that their organization treats knowledge as a living document, with new employees updating onboarding materials to ensure continuous improvement. Similarly, R10 stated that both formal training and informal peer-to-peer interactions contribute to knowledge transfer, highlighting the need for structured sharing processes without downplaying the importance of informal interactions. Furthermore, the physical design of the workspace can also have an impact on the flow of knowledge. R25 noted that office spaces with open designs promote feedback, discussion and collaboration, all of which can lead to spontaneous knowledge sharing. In contrast, highly fragmented or closed office environments often discourage open interactions, limiting the natural flow of ideas.

This section presents the key findings on counterproductive knowledge-sharing behaviors across individual, team and organizational levels. The analysis reveals how knowledge hoarding, hiding and sabotage are triggered by structural, relational and psychological factors. These insights illustrate how workplace conditions, digital practices and social dynamics can restrict knowledge flow and undermine collaborative intent.

At the individual level, knowledge hoarding is driven by job insecurity, career competition, cognitive overload, fear of judgment and favoritism. Employees strategically withhold knowledge to protect their position, maintain a competitive edge or avoid additional workload and scrutiny. Digital platforms and virtual workspaces further enable hoarding by allowing selective documentation, private storage and informal communication that bypasses shared repositories.

One of the strongest triggers of knowledge hoarding is a perceived lack of job security and a fear of replacement. Under these conditions, employees may view knowledge as a form of intellectual property that renders them essential as the owners of that property. R² stated that “For some, it is important to keep the knowledge for themselves. Security is money.” This implies that those who hoard knowledge often do so to protect their position and secure their livelihood. Similarly, R7 acknowledged that some employees fear becoming redundant if they share knowledge too freely: “If the knowledge is there, the company is hiring you for that. Moreover, you could be easily replaceable.” When employees feel that the information they hold is what makes them indispensable, they may become prone to knowledge-based psychological ownership, the belief that knowledge, once shared, reduces its exclusivity and weakens their career positioning. Employees may also strategically withhold knowledge due to career competition. As one respondent (R9) put it, “If I know that the person I am training today may become my competition tomorrow, I will definitely think twice before sharing everything.” This reflects the phenomenon of knowledge hoarding as a self-protection strategy, where individuals control the flow of knowledge to maintain their competitive edge (Alicke and Sedikides, 2009). In other words, employees may deliberately create knowledge asymmetry to protect their access to future opportunities. Selectively doling out knowledge minimizes the threat of competition from coworkers and team members.

Time constraints and cognitive overload also contribute significantly to knowledge hoarding. Employees who feel overburdened with work responsibilities may place a lower priority on knowledge sharing, viewing it as secondary to competing their immediate task. They may also actively avoid it, perceiving it as an impediment to accomplishing the core features of their job. R25 described their experience with this phenomenon, “There are situations where an employee might be handling multiple tasks and tied up with too many assignments. I become hesitant to share knowledge.” This aligns with cognitive load theory, which suggests that individuals can only handle a certain amount of cognitive tasks before becoming overwhelmed by them (Sweller, 2011). In this case, excessive mental demands result in employees deliberately avoiding additional cognitive activities, which can include providing feedback to a colleague, contributing to documentation or taking on formal or informal mentoring roles.

Another major driver of individual knowledge hoarding is the fear of embarrassment. Employees who lack confidence in their expertise often prefer to remain silent rather than risk making an error or revealing a lack of knowledge when providing input. R8, for instance, stated, “If I’m not confident enough about my knowledge, I may actually let someone make mistakes. I don’t want to be responsible for that.” This aligns with knowledge risk aversion, which holds that employees perceive knowledge sharing as a potential liability rather than an opportunity for collaboration. Finally, favoritism can result in knowledge hoarding at the individual level. Employees will often restrict the flow of knowledge to close colleagues, withholding it from other members of the organization. This can result in knowledge silos, where close-knit teams effectively hoard knowledge among themselves without making it accessible to others. One respondent (R20) found this to be typical in their organization, stating that “I see knowledge sharing happening only with close team members, not with the larger organization.” This exclusionary behavior reinforces workplace knowledge inequalities, where information access depends more on informal networks than formal structures.

As knowledge-sharing tools become increasingly digital, so do the means of restricting the flow of knowledge (Thomas, 2023). Employees who engage in knowledge hoarding will often do so by controlling access to information in digital environments. The digitization of information has made it easier to store, transmit and communicate, but has also given rise to new hoarding behaviors, where employees decide to store select information on personal drives, in private e-mails, or stashed away in hidden folders rather than publishing them to shared repositories. R30 reiterated this fact, stating that “While digital tools make it easier to share knowledge, they also allow people to hoard knowledge by keeping private records.” R20 further emphasized that “Some employees deliberately avoid documenting knowledge in shared tools, ensuring exclusive control over information.” R13 speculated about the motivations behind this type of hoarding behavior, noting that “Digital tools have made knowledge transfer easy, but some employees use them to create dependency. If knowledge is only accessible through them, they become indispensable.” This highlights the way that digital platforms can be a “double-edged sword.” While they are designed to ease collaboration, make knowledge more accessible and allow information to flow freely, they can also be used to monopolize knowledge.

Knowledge hoarding takes on a more subtle character in virtual work environments. Employees who wish to intentionally exclude documentation from shared knowledge bases can do so by transmitting information using ephemeral communication tools. For instance, they may share knowledge with another employee over chat rather than contributing to a formal document that would be accessible across the organization. As R17 explained, “Documents get lost in emails, and nobody revisits them unless an auditor asks. If knowledge is not properly recorded, it becomes easier to hoard.” This demonstrates how virtual workspaces can create a fragmentation of knowledge, which can contribute to knowledge hoarding, even in cases where the hoarding is unintentional. As R18 pointed out, employees are also able to use virtual workspaces to evade sharing responsibility for contributing or collaborating: “When we shifted to remote work, it became easier for people to say ‘I didn’t hear that’ or ‘I lost the message’”.

At the team level, knowledge hoarding is shaped by trust, reciprocity, favoritism and through Selective Virtual Collaboration. Employees assess whether knowledge sharing would likely be beneficial before deciding to contribute. As such, certain team dynamics can limit the flow of knowledge.

Lack of trust or reciprocity is one of the most frequent team-level triggers. When employees perceive an imbalance in the exchange of knowledge, they may withhold information to maintain fairness. R12, for instance, recounts holding back on knowledge sharing after realizing their colleagues were unlikely to reciprocate. Likewise, R11 noted that “If I share knowledge with two people and they don’t pass it on to others in the team, then I will feel like I was wrong to trust them.” This finding aligns with social exchange theory, which suggests that employees evaluate fairness before engaging in reciprocal knowledge-sharing behaviors (Holten et al., 2016).

Favoritism and unequal access to knowledge is another major factor in team-level knowledge hoarding. Employees who feel excluded from privileged information networks often respond by restricting their own knowledge contributions. As R11 put it, “If I feel that management is favoring certain people and not recognizing my contributions, then why would I share knowledge?” This creates a self-reinforced knowledge gatekeeping, where knowledge is being deliberately restricted in response to the already selective sharing of knowledge. Hierarchical control and top-down knowledge asymmetry also influence team-level knowledge hoarding. Managers and senior employees often control the flow of knowledge as a way to retain authority and strengthen their decision-making power. R13 noted this, stating that “In some teams, the higher-ups decide what knowledge should be shared and what should be limited.” This reflects a managerial monopolization of knowledge, where company leaders regulate access to knowledge to maintain control over their employees or the organization. Finally, power play and strategic withholding shape knowledge hoarding in competitive team environments. For instance, R9 noted that, in their industry, “information is currency,” meaning that being stingy when doling out knowledge can provide a strategic advantage. This demonstrates a form of knowledge-based power retention, where employees leverage knowledge as a means of having influence in the workplace.

Virtual teams are able to share knowledge seamlessly and with incredible efficiency. However, they also have far fewer face-to-face interactions, which creates the opportunity to hoard knowledge by only sharing within trusted circles. When teams work in person, individuals have to go to greater lengths to conceal their selective communications. The risk of getting caught by coworkers can be enough to discourage or at least minimize this type of knowledge hoarding. In virtual spaces, however, it is far easier to create side channels, private group chats or communicate outside of the organization’s platforms.

At the organizational level, knowledge hoarding is influenced by workplace politics, uncertain job prospects, recognition gaps, inefficient knowledge-sharing policies and virtual workspaces.

The finding of this study shows that office politics is one of the strongest organizational-level triggers for knowledge hoarding. Employees will restrict the flow of knowledge if they feel that sharing could jeopardize their standing in the organization. R4 found this to be the case, noting that “Sometimes, you cannot share certain information because things may be going on that are difficult to communicate.” This indicates a type of political knowledge hoarding, where employees leverage their knowledge in workplace power struggles. Economic uncertainty and job market instability also drive knowledge hoarding. During layoffs or periods of economic downturn, employees are more likely to hoard knowledge as a self-protection strategy. R11 confirmed this in their case, noting that a rough job market makes them feel like they need to “hold on to knowledge.” Likewise, R² noted the risk of making oneself replaceable after sharing knowledge.

The study also shows that a lack of recognition can contribute to knowledge hoarding. Employees expect their contributions to be acknowledged. When they feel their input has not been adequately recognized, they become more selective about sharing. R27 recounted their personal experience with this, stating that “After my detailed documentation was used without credit, I became more selective about sharing.” This underscores the need for transparent recognition mechanisms to ensure that employees receive credit for their intellectual efforts.

Many organizations rely on virtual meetings and digital interactions as means of collaboration and communication (Thomas, 2024a). However, these tools are often implemented without a structured documentation process, which creates situations in which knowledge may be hoarded unintentionally. For instance, meetings might not be recorded, digital communications may not be saved, and knowledge shared in private virtual interactions might not be made accessible to others in the organization. As R18 explained, a lack of formal documentation procedure contributes to unintentional knowledge hoarding: “We are supposed to record meetings and store discussions, but unless there is structured follow-up, knowledge often disappears into lost emails and unrecorded conversations.” Ineffective documentation can also create a sort of unintentional digital hoarding, where information is recorded but not made sufficiently accessible. R17 noted this phenomenon in their workplace, stating that “Employees don’t revisit recorded sessions unless they need them, making knowledge accessibility dependent on immediate relevance rather than structured sharing”.

This study findings categorize knowledge hiding triggers into individual, team and organizational levels.

At the individual level, knowledge hiding is primarily driven by a desire for self-preservation, career considerations, a sense of psychological ownership and strategic evasion.

Employees who see knowledge as an asset that provides them with professional leverage may choose to share it selectively or conceal information from others. For instance, some employees believe that excessive knowledge sharing could reduce their importance in the organization or make them easily replaceable. As one participant (R²) noted, “If I share too much, I may lose my position of advantage.” Similarly, R4 explained that “If I share certain information, it may weaken my position, or someone else may use it against me in a competitive environment.” When knowledge is seen as a competitive advantage, individual employees may engage in knowledge hiding to protect their current position, maintain their standing or advance their career. Fear of judgment and misinterpretation also leads employees to hide knowledge, particularly when they believe that their contributions might be misunderstood or criticized. R8 described this concern by saying, “Sometimes misunderstandings happen, not because people want to hide knowledge, but because they fear they might be judged.” This risk can feel even more significant when digital communication is used. E-mails, chat logs and recordings of virtual meetings can heighten an individual’s worry about making an error, since their mistake will not only be heard by the colleagues who are present but also preserved as part of a digital document. R13 highlighted this, pointing out that people often choose to hide information during virtual meetings because they fear criticism, not because of any malicious intent.

Psychological ownership also plays a crucial role in individual knowledge hiding (Xia et al., 2019). Employees who have invested significant effort in developing knowledge may be reluctant to share it freely, fearing that others will take credit for their work. R4 expressed this sentiment, stating, “I know that people sometimes hesitate to share materials, feeling that they spent hours developing them, and they don’t want others to just take credit.” Employees who wish to avoid additional workload or responsibilities might attempt to do so through strategic evasion. R20 noted this phenomenon, stating that “People pretend not to know something to avoid getting new tasks assigned when we were sharing knowledge across platforms.” This illustrates how knowledge hiding is sometimes less about protecting personal expertise or advancing one’s position and more about avoiding unnecessary burdens. Taken together, these findings reveal a common thread. Employees engage in knowledge hiding when they perceive risks associated with sharing, whether in terms of job security, workload or personal reputation. This issue has also been exacerbated by the use of digital tools. While virtual workspaces are meant to facilitate collaboration and the recording of information, they have also introduced convenient means of strategic evasion. Workers who wish to avoid sharing knowledge can do so by using common issues or the inherent limitations of digital tools as excuses to evade this responsibility. R13, for example, described a common scenario in which employees will pretend to be dealing with network issues or claim not to have heard a question during virtual meetings to avoid sharing knowledge with others. Likewise, R12 mentioned that people use the ephemeral or unreliable nature of digital communication as a cover for strategic evasion, using excuses like “the file must have gotten lost in emails”.

At the team level, knowledge hiding is influenced by trust issues, concerns about reciprocity, exclusionary behaviors and selective sharing within subgroups.

Employees assess whether sharing knowledge will likely be beneficial based on their past experiences with colleagues and the overall team environment. As such, a lack of reciprocity often leads employees to withhold knowledge to avoid feeling exploited when their contributions are not met with equal exchange. R5 experienced this firsthand, stating, “If you are sharing something with other people but don’t see their activity in return, then I don’t see the point. I don’t want to be the only point of knowledge.” Exclusionary behavior further reinforces knowledge hiding within teams, as employees deliberately limit access to information as a way of maintaining control or ensuring that they are indispensable to others. R8 described this phenomenon, saying, “I have seen people deliberately withholding information because they want to ensure that others depend on them.” This strategy is often linked to informal power structures within teams, where certain individuals or groups retain control over the flow of information and restrict access to knowledge for their own benefit. Digital tools can facilitate this type of behavior, since documentation still requires human input, which relies on individual judgment and decisions. For example, employees may opt to deliberately omit key details from documentation while making it appear complete, as noted by R12.

Within diverse teams, social and cultural boundaries can influence knowledge-sharing behaviors as well. Employees naturally form subgroups based on shared backgrounds, which can lead to siloed knowledge-sharing patterns. R8 noted that “When people from diverse geographies are part of a team, they form groups within their comfort zones.” While these “comfort zones” are understandable and can be beneficial for team members, they run the risk of creating favoritism that impedes the free flow of information. As R12 pointed out, this can involve the creation of private channels in collaborative tools like Slack and Teams where a small subset of team members can hold “hidden discussions” and secretly share knowledge among themselves. Collectively, these insights demonstrate that team-level knowledge hiding is largely shaped by perceptions of trust and fairness, along with social structures that form within teams.

At the organizational level, knowledge hiding is often driven by business strategy, hierarchical control, workplace politics and concerns about confidentiality. Employees may withhold information not for personal gain but to align with broader organizational policies and protect sensitive data.

Protecting business strategy is a key reason employees engage in knowledge hiding, particularly when disclosing information could benefit competitors or external stakeholders. R9 describes one such tactic, stating that “If my competitor asks about a project I am working on, I will pretend I don’t know much rather than giving them leverage.” Unlike some other forms of knowledge hiding, this type of concealment is not driven by a desire to secure personal gain but to safeguard the organization and its interests.

Hierarchical structures and workplace culture also have an effect on knowledge-hiding behaviors. Organizations sometimes create environments where selective sharing is encouraged, whether through its culture or the incentives it sets up for employees. R3 found this to be the case in their workplace, noting that “Each consultant was working individually and delivering the project. Sharing knowledge was not encouraged.” This shows how some organizations can unintentionally reinforce knowledge hiding by promoting certain values, such as fostering independent work rather than collaboration. In these organizations, employees may become dependent on the digital resources they can access independently, since they have limited opportunities to get information or assistance from their coworkers. As R13 noted, this results in employees often using outdated materials. Office politics plays a significant role in strategic knowledge concealment, particularly when employees use knowledge as a bargaining tool or means of influence. R4 related that “Sometimes, you cannot share certain information because things may be going on that are not easily shared or that are difficult to communicate.” This statement reflects how knowledge hiding is often used as a mechanism for navigating power dynamics within organizations. Finally, concerns about confidentiality and data security further contribute to intentional knowledge hiding, as employees may be restricted from openly discussing certain topics. R25 explained, “If the information is of a confidential nature, we usually never allow for an open discussion.” In such cases, knowledge hiding is less about individual motivations and more about adhering to organizational policies.

Many organizations use cloud-based platforms to store collective knowledge and ensure that it can be readily accessed by employees (Thomas, 2024a). However, these databases can also be used to hide knowledge rather than share it. As R12 stated, employees are now able to store knowledge in folders that have restricted access. These folders are visible in shared drives, making it appear as though the information is freely available, but only those who are granted permission will actually be able to acquire it.

At the individual level, knowledge sabotage stems from competitive insecurity, self-preservation and deliberate misinformation to maintain personal advantage.

Employees often feel threatened by the rising expertise of colleagues and respond by disrupting the learning process to prevent their peers from surpassing them. They may do this by engaging in selective knowledge disclosure, where they share fragments of information to maintain the superficial appearance of collaboration while keeping crucial details hidden. They may also provide outdated or incorrect information to mislead colleagues, either to maintain their own position or to ensure that others make errors that slow down their work. For instance, “Giving the wrong information, spreading wrong rumors to talk bad about people or entire departments it happens more than we think.”-R4. This tactic is especially prevalent in highly competitive workplaces where reputation and recognition play a crucial role in career growth.

Another form of individual-level sabotage is the ego-driven restriction of knowledge flow. Senior employees or those in influential positions may perceive junior colleagues as a threat, particularly when the latter demonstrate high levels of competence or a capability for innovative thinking. In response, the senior employees may downplay the value of the knowledge these individuals bring or create unnecessary bureaucratic barriers that make it difficult for them to access important information. Ego-driven sabotage not only stifles the professional growth of emerging talent but also prevents fresh ideas from being incorporated into the workplace. Employees may also engage in deliberate non-disclosure of critical information, ensuring that when they are absent or leave the company, their knowledge gap creates significant operational inefficiencies. This form of sabotage is especially damaging in industries where expertise is concentrated in a few individuals, leading to business disruptions when knowledge holders intentionally restrict knowledge sharing by avoiding documentation or refusing to mentor others.

Within teams, knowledge sabotage takes the form of power struggles, exclusionary behaviors and strategic knowledge manipulation.

Team members may intentionally restrict access to knowledge to consolidate influence and prevent others from gaining decision-making authority. R3 mentioned “It’s about maintaining power in the group.” In some cases, knowledge hoarding within teams is structured around informal alliances, where select members control valuable information while others are left in the dark. This dynamic reinforces hierarchical inequalities, making certain team members indispensable while marginalizing others. Another common theme in team-based sabotage is the deliberate introduction of misinformation to gain control over decision-making processes. Employees who want to secure leadership opportunities or influence key business strategies may intentionally distort facts or misrepresent knowledge to persuade colleagues or supervisors to favor them. This tactic is often used when team members compete for promotions, limited resources or visibility in high-impact projects. In extreme cases, misinformation is used to undermine the credibility of competitors, ensuring that decision-makers perceive them as less competent.

Exclusion from knowledge networks is another major issue in team-based sabotage. Employees may restrict knowledge-sharing to an inner circle, ensuring that information remains within a select group while others are denied access. “Some people deliberately withhold information to create monopolies in their team.”-R3. This behavior is particularly damaging in cross-functional teams, where knowledge exchange is crucial for innovation and efficiency. Strategic knowledge gatekeeping ensures that those outside the dominant group remain dependent on them, limiting their ability to make informed decisions or contribute effectively. In addition, knowledge sabotage within teams is reinforced by group loyalty and informal agreements to withhold knowledge from certain individuals. Some teams function like closed networks, where members agree not to share sensitive information with outsiders or even with management, ensuring that control over knowledge remains locked into their trusted circle. This practice is often justified under the premise of self-protection or avoiding unnecessary scrutiny from leadership, but ultimately leads to organizational inefficiencies and workplace silos.

At the organizational level, knowledge sabotage becomes a structural issue embedded in corporate politics, leadership manipulation and competitive business strategies.

Office politics play a significant role in shaping knowledge behaviors, as employees may engage in intentional misinformation or suppression of knowledge to align with political alliances and secure career advancement. Strategic misinformation is particularly prevalent in power-sensitive environments, where employees spread false information or selectively manipulate knowledge to shape perceptions and decision-making at the leadership level. Leaders themselves may contribute to knowledge sabotage by controlling or distorting information flow to maintain authority and ensure compliance. R10 quoted: “Sometimes leaders try to misguide and say, ‘Oh, what you are doing is not correct,’ even when it actually is. That’s a hidden way of sabotage.” Some managers use gaslighting tactics, misleading employees about the validity of their work or the importance of specific knowledge areas to maintain control over workplace narratives (Abramson, 2024). This behavior creates an environment of uncertainty and distrust, where employees struggle to differentiate between genuine leadership guidance and strategic misdirection, which here can also be referred to as gaslighting in some instances. In such environments, knowledge is no longer a tool for growth and collaboration but a mechanism for reinforcing control and silencing dissent.

In some cases, organizations may engage in strategic knowledge concealment to protect business interests. “Not all sabotage is outright malicious, sometimes it’s just about securing your own position.” – R9. While withholding sensitive business intelligence from competitors is a justified practice, internally restricting knowledge access to maintain control over employees can be highly detrimental. This approach often results in bureaucratic bottlenecks, where employees struggle to access necessary information, leading to delays in execution and inefficiencies in problem-solving. In addition, knowledge sabotage at the organizational level often manifests in selective knowledge sharing with certain employees, reinforcing workplace inequalities. Some leaders provide privileged knowledge access to a select few, creating an elite circle of employees with insider information while others remain excluded from key decision-making processes. This imbalance in knowledge distribution further fuels workplace distrust, as employees perceive leadership decisions as biased and unfair. Another significant factor in organizational knowledge sabotage is the use of knowledge as a tool for competitive disadvantage. Employees may intentionally mislead competitors, including external stakeholders, business partners or even rival departments within the organization, by sharing incorrect or misleading knowledge to weaken their position. While external deception may sometimes be a strategic business move, when applied internally, it creates silos and discourages knowledge exchange between departments, ultimately stifling innovation and collaboration (See Figure 1 for the coding).

Poole and Van de Ven (1989) and Smith and Lewis (2011) both emphasize paradox as an inherent and persistent characteristic of organizational life, where contradictory yet interdependent forces exist simultaneously. Rather than being problems to be solved, paradoxes must be managed dynamically, as they evolve over time due to external pressures, structural conditions and individual agency. Smith and Lewis (2011) propose a dynamic equilibrium model, arguing that paradoxes intensify under conditions of plurality (conflicting stakeholder demands), change (organizational transitions) and scarcity (resource limitations), requiring continuous organizational adaptation. Meanwhile, Poole and Van de Ven (1989) suggest that paradoxes can be understood through different levels of analysis namely individual, team and organizational, each influencing how contradictions manifest in workplace behaviors. While knowledge behaviors are often studied as linear processes, there is a need to explore whether they follow a more complex, non-linear trajectory, particularly in response to changing workplace conditions. The study finding shows the five paradoxes – Ostracism and Social Exclusion, Leadership Encouragement, Incentives and Rewards, Transparency and Open Communication, and Digitalization (see Figure 2).

While knowledge sharing fosters collaboration, it can paradoxically lead to selective access, exclusion and knowledge silos, reinforcing hidden power structures within organizations (Ashforth and Reingen, 2014; Schad et al., 2016). This aligns with the belonging paradox, where the desire for inclusion inadvertently creates exclusivity. As Lewis (2000, p. 764) notes, belonging paradoxes emerge when individuals strive for group inclusion while also trying to preserve their distinct identity, which, based on the results of this study, can lead to unintended exclusion and fragmentation in knowledge-sharing contexts. Employees are motivated to share their expertise to gain recognition, establish credibility and build stronger workplace relationships. However, these same motivations can cause employees to withdraw into smaller groups, developing inner circles where knowledge sharing is restricted to a privileged few and access to shared resources becomes more selective (Smith and Berg, 1987).

Early in the formation of a team, employees will engage in knowledge-sharing behaviors with the expectation that it will enhance their workplace connections and foster an environment of mutual trust and learning. They contribute openly, believing that their insights will be valued and their efforts reciprocated. R31 illustrates this perspective expectation and what happens when it is disappointed: “I initially shared my knowledge openly, trying to integrate with my team, but when I noticed that my contributions were being ignored, I withdrew and stopped sharing altogether.” This highlights the fact that knowledge sharing involves making a social investment to gain inclusion and recognition. However, the success of this investment depends on their contributions being acknowledged, appreciated and reciprocated by their colleagues. When they fail to be, employees who were eager to share their knowledge can become more reserved and reluctant to contribute. R30 describes how this violation of reciprocity fuels knowledge withdrawal: “At first, I shared knowledge freely, but when I saw that some people were leveraging my insights for their own benefit while giving nothing in return, I stopped engaging.”As this demonstrates, without reciprocity, knowledge-sharing becomes a system where individuals extract value from others without contributing in return. When employees recognize this imbalance, they become more cautious, guarded and selective in their knowledge-sharing practices, ultimately reinforcing workplace isolation and knowledge fragmentation. As teams evolve, informal networks begin to shape how knowledge is accessed and distributed. While some employees gain privileged access to key information, others are gradually excluded from important discussions, creating a divide between insiders and outsiders. Over time, knowledge-sharing becomes selective and imbalanced, reinforcing social and hierarchical power structures within the team. R15 describes the frustration of being one of the outsiders: “When you realize that the same group of people always get access to critical knowledge while you are left out, you stop contributing because it feels pointless.” This formation of knowledge cliques marks the shift from an inclusive knowledge culture to a privileged system, where access is dictated by social standing and relationships rather than collective openness. Employees who feel excluded begin to withdraw from knowledge-sharing activities, since they feel their contributions are undervalued or deliberately ignored (Zhao and Xia, 2017). As this exclusion deepens, employees who once shared knowledge freely start developing defensive knowledge behaviors to protect themselves. Instead of openly contributing, they begin hoarding knowledge to maintain their professional leverage, engage in selective sharing with their own circle of trusted individuals and seek external collaborations to bypass internal exclusions. R10 captures how these exclusions create a sense of otherness among employees: "I feel more comfortable sharing knowledge with external teams than with my own department.” As this response shows, when internal trust is eroded, employees redirect their efforts externally, where knowledge sharing is less politically charged. As Smith and Berg (1987) note, unresolved paradoxes of group belonging often manifest in defensive individual behavior and deteriorating collective cohesion. This pattern can create or reinforce organizational silos, further fragmenting knowledge flow and weakening cross-team collaboration. This paradox, in which the desire for inclusion results in exclusionary behavior, challenges the assumption that knowledge-sharing inherently strengthens team cohesion; instead, it can create hidden barriers that reinforce inequality, favoritism and disengagement.

Leadership encouragement for knowledge sharing is traditionally viewed as a mechanism for fostering transparency, collaboration and trust within organizations. Leaders actively promote knowledge-sharing cultures, believing that open exchanges improve learning, enhance innovation and strengthen team synergy. When implemented effectively, this creates an environment where employees feel valued for their contributions, motivating them to share insights and best practices freely. However, leadership encouragement for knowledge sharing often increases scrutiny and performance pressures, leading employees to strategically withhold knowledge to protect themselves (Lewis, 2000; Sundaramurthy and Lewis, 2003; Smith and Lewis, 2011). This reflects a performing paradox, where trust-based collaboration clashes with competitive performance evaluations. This aligns with Smith and Tracey’s (2016) argument that organizational success depends on leaders’ ability to navigate persistent, interdependent tensions without fully resolving them. R30 captures this contradiction, stating, “While leadership pushes for open knowledge-sharing, some employees become more cautious, fearing that their inputs will be scrutinized.” While the intent of leadership encouragement is to break down knowledge barriers, employees may believe that this increased leadership oversight turns knowledge sharing into an evaluative process, where employees are judged and assessed on the quality of their contributions. When employees believe they are subject to such scrutiny, they may shift from open sharing to controlled disclosure, limiting what they reveal in an effort to protect themselves. This is not simply a misconception but knowledge sharing is not always a risk-free activity. When knowledge sharing is tied to performance reviews, competition or promotions, leadership encouragement can cause employees to become more guarded. R29 highlights the way this can create unintended performance pressures: “Leadership encouragement actually makes employees more cautious about sharing knowledge when it’s linked to evaluation and competition.” This reflects the reinforcing cycles of control and collaboration paradoxes identified by Sundaramurthy and Lewis (2003), where efforts to enhance performance through oversight inadvertently undermine trust and openness. Further, Liu et al. (2025) also demonstrate that, in under performance-driven environments, abusive supervision triggers capability-based face threats, prompting knowledge hiding as a self-protective response. In these cases, employees fear that too much transparency could expose their weaknesses, increase their workload or diminish their professional value. This leads them to curate their contributions, revealing only what they deem to be safe, beneficial or necessary. This selective approach to knowledge-sharing is further influenced by workplace dynamics such as trust, perceived job security and organizational politics. When job security is uncertain, employees are more likely to view leadership encouragement as a control mechanism. If they sense instability, favoritism or potential layoffs, they may become even more protective of their knowledge, seeing it as a safeguard against professional risks. As R20 points out, these instabilities can be devastating for the open sharing of knowledge: "There were times when management planned to trim the existing team, and we saw employees becoming more cautious about sharing knowledge.” In other words, when employees perceive knowledge sharing as a vulnerability rather than a strength, they may restrict access, share only within trusted inner circles or withhold specialized expertise to protect their position.

Incentive structures designed to encourage knowledge sharing often unintentionally promote knowledge hoarding as they cause employees to perceive knowledge as a competitive asset rather than a shared resource (Schad et al., 2016). This represents a performing paradox, where personal career gains conflict with organizational knowledge goals. As Lewis (2000, p. 765) explains, performing paradoxes arise when competing demands such as individual success and collective goals are juxtaposed, often resulting in contradictory behaviors like selective knowledge sharing. R30 captured this paradox, stating: “If rewards are individual-based, employees may hoard knowledge to secure recognition rather than openly contribute.” This suggests that when employees believe that sharing knowledge will reduce their competitive advantage, they become more hesitant to contribute freely. Instead of fostering collective learning, incentives can inadvertently encourage individuals to monopolize knowledge, particularly in workplaces where career growth and performance evaluations are tied to unique expertise rather than shared contributions. R24 highlighted this, stating, "Rewards may not always work in the right direction when it comes to sharing knowledge.” Misaligned incentive structures can create internal competition, which encourages knowledge hoarding rather than collaboration. Zhang and Min (2021) show that rewards can lead to opposing knowledge behaviors, though not framed as a paradox. Further, the response from R9 shows that these unintended consequences can take time to manifest: “At first, knowledge sharing was rewarding, people appreciated it, and the company even acknowledged it. But when rewards became more competitive, people started withholding information to stay ahead.” This means that incentive programs with a positive initial effect can still gradually devolve and cause employees to withhold knowledge to gain a personal advantage over others. This paradox demonstrates how organizations must design their reward systems carefully. Without the right incentives, these systems risk encouraging competition and selective withholding of knowledge rather than the intended outcome of collaborative knowledge sharing. Thomas (2024a) highlighted the importance of a shift from individual-based incentives to team-based reward systems, which may help mitigate this paradox by aligning personal motivation with collective knowledge-sharing goals.

Excessive transparency, while meant to improve knowledge access, can trigger workplace competition, increase knowledge hoarding and heighten interpersonal conflicts, as employees fear losing their unique expertise or professional leverage (Farjoun, 2010; Smith and Lewis, 2011; Masood et al., 2023). This reflects an organizational paradox, where efforts to enhance openness unintentionally fuel restriction. Farjoun (2010) argues that stability and change are interdependent, and effective systems achieve dynamic stability by embracing variation and adaptability within structured boundaries. R3 further explained this paradox: “Initially, you have knowledge sharing, but at some point, it turns into hoarding. A lot of knowledge is available, and now people start keeping things to themselves.” As this demonstrates, transparency initially fosters openness. However, in excess, high levels of transparency can trigger self-protection, as employees fear losing their uniqueness or professional leverage when all their knowledge is freely available to others. Similarly, R4 noted that transparency can lead to workplace tension: “Transparency is a mission statement, but at the same time, it leads to new conflicts. People start comparing too much like who is getting what, who is receiving recognition”. Employees being hyper-aware of disparities in recognition can cause resentment and increase competition, which in turn can discourage openness and collaboration. As R13 said, “Sometimes, if you share too much, someone else gets ahead of you.” In this line, several respondents also shared that they initially communicated openly and shared knowledge freely, hoping to help, learn and build mutual trust. However, when their efforts were not reciprocated or others gained more visibility or advancement from their contributions, which respondents described as an outcome imbalance, they felt exploited. This gradually eroded their willingness to continue sharing openly, leading them to become more selective, guarded and cautious in their communication. R8 pointed out how transparency could lead to exploitation: “There’s always a risk that when people know you share openly, they may exploit that.” Employees who consistently contribute to open knowledge-sharing environments may eventually feel taken advantage of, leading them to retreat into selective sharing behaviors. This Transparency and open communication Paradox illustrates that while openness can be beneficial for knowledge sharing, it must be tempered with some degree of privacy to avoid creating hoarding, resentment and strategic knowledge restriction.

Digital tools have revolutionized knowledge sharing but have also enabled new forms of knowledge hoarding, selective disclosure and digital silos, limiting spontaneous interpersonal exchanges (Orlikowski and Scott, 2015; Schad et al., 2016). This exemplifies a learning paradox, where digital efficiency both enhances and restricts knowledge flow. As Lewis (2000, p. 763) explains, learning paradoxes reflect tensions between exploiting current knowledge and exploring new insights, which is reflected in how digital platforms promote structured sharing while limiting spontaneous, tacit exchange. Furthermore, by integrating digital solutions into their workflows, organizations have ensured that knowledge is easily accessible, structured and widely available. Employees can now document best practices, collaborate in real-time and update and learn critical information with very little effort, creating a dynamic, learning and ever-evolving knowledge ecosystem. However, these same tools have also introduced new barriers to the flow of information and counterproductive knowledge-sharing behaviors. Rather than ensuring unrestricted knowledge flow, digitalization has also created more sophisticated methods of knowledge hoarding, caused critical insights to not be recorded and reduced interpersonal exchanges, leading to digital silos and selective knowledge retention. These unintended consequences subtly shape organizational behavior in ways that contradict the original intent of digital transformation.

At its best, digital transformation creates a live and continuously evolving knowledge environment. Digital tools democratize knowledge, allowing employees to contribute, refine and access valuable insights in real time. R12 captures this optimism in their description of digital documentation: “The first thing we always tell people is that knowledge is always a live document. Every time a new channel joins in, they go to the onboarding document and update it with new information.” When implemented properly, digitalization creates a self-sustaining knowledge-sharing system, where contributions are iterative and collective. This ensures that knowledge is never static but constantly improving. As more employees participate in these collective efforts, knowledge expands, evolves and remains up to date, strengthening collaborative problem-solving and informed decision-making across teams and departments. While these benefits are characteristic of these digital tools, a contradictory pattern emerges. While digital platforms are designed to enhance openness, they also create new opportunities for knowledge control, restriction and selective withholding. R30 highlights this paradox: “While digital tools make it easier to share knowledge, they also allow people to hoard knowledge by keeping private records.” Similarly, R20 describes how employees are able to deliberately bypass shared repositories: “I have seen people not creating documents on tools rather than keeping them on their personal laptops and not sharing those documents with anyone.” Rather than fostering collective intelligence, digital tools can unintentionally reinforce individual control over knowledge, allowing employees to withhold critical insights for personal advantage, maintain private archives or strategically restrict access to knowledge that would otherwise be shared collectively. These behaviors contradict the fundamental purpose of digitalization – knowledge openness and instead promote selective retention and digital hoarding. A more subtle form of knowledge restriction emerges not from deliberate hoarding but from assumptions about others’ level of expertise. Employees may refrain from documenting essential insights because they assume others already know the information, thereby making documentation redundant. Likewise, the reliance on documented knowledge can create the illusion of completeness, where critical tacit insights remain undocumented and inaccessible to those who truly need them. This contributes to knowledge fragmentation, as key expertise is inadvertently lost rather than shared. Another unintended consequence of digital reliance is the reduction of direct, interpersonal knowledge exchanges. While digital platforms increase efficiency, they also make knowledge-sharing feel transactional rather than relational, weakening informal learning and experiential knowledge transfer. R13 describes this: “When we started using digital tools more frequently, we realized that some employees started depending entirely on documentation and stopped engaging in direct knowledge exchange.” This transition toward “passive knowledge consumption” results in employees relying solely on digital records, diminishing their engagement in active discussions, mentorship and spontaneous problem-solving. When this happens, tacit knowledge remains untapped, since it can be difficult to capture in digital documents. Knowledge gaps also widen, as employees assume that all essential information is already recorded and will be accessible as needed. Finally, the reduction of interactions among employees can weaken interpersonal relationships, which can erode trust, collaboration and cross-team communication over time. Ultimately, digital reliance transforms knowledge-sharing from an interactive, social process into a static, detached one, reducing its effectiveness. These dynamics reflect what Faraj et al. (2018) describe as algorithmic opacity and anticipatory control, and what Raisch and Krakowski (2021) term the automation–augmentation paradox, where AI and digital systems, despite enhancing access, paradoxically suppress tacit knowledge and interpersonal exchange. Finally, this paradox leads employees to avoid real-time discussions, favor passive knowledge consumption and depend on incomplete or outdated digital records. When implemented properly, digital tools can greatly enhance the flow of knowledge. However, when not carefully managed, digitalization can reinforce restrictive behaviors and limit the dynamic exchange of expertise within organizations.

The findings indicate a significant shift in knowledge-sharing behaviors, largely influenced by digitalization, leadership involvement and workplace structures. While investments in digital tools and deliberate efforts to encourage knowledge-sharing are laudable, they can inadvertently push employees to hoard, hide or sabotage knowledge rather than share it freely and openly. Troublingly, this counterproductive behavior occurs at all levels among individual employees, within teams and across organizations as a whole. This study has endeavored to untangle these paradoxes. First, by identifying the motivators that drive employees to share knowledge. Organizational leaders should understand and leverage these to encourage an open sharing of ideas and expertise among their employees, allowing the organization to realize gains in productivity and innovation. Second, the findings also identify the conditions that lead employees and teams to engage in counterproductive knowledge behavior. These are the features of the work environment, company incentive structure and broader job market that cause knowledge sharing endeavors to backfire, resulting in a restriction of knowledge, to the detriment of the organization. At the individual level, knowledge sharing is driven by a combination of intrinsic motivation, like the desire to help colleagues and feel like part of the team, and extrinsic motivators, like recognition and career visibility. Employees tend to find fulfillment in contributing to the collective knowledge base, mentoring others and imparting their expertise on them, and positioning themselves as experts in their field. While this drive to share knowledge can be accelerated by the use of digital tools that make communication and documentation easier than ever, these same tools have also introduced new methods of controlling the flow of information. Employees can now withhold information by storing critical insights in personal drives, communicating them over private e-mails, or hiding them in plain sight behind restricted-access folders. This gives employees a convenient way to maintain control over their expertise while still maintaining the appearance of openness, since they are still communicating and recording knowledge while also locking some of it away so it can not be accessed by their teams. In addition, collaborating in virtual workspaces has created new opportunities for strategic evasion, with employees restricting the flow of knowledge by delaying their responses, claiming to have lost or never received certain e-mails, or avoiding documentation. The findings of the study also show that cognitive overload is a key factor in this type of behavior. Employees struggling with excessive work demands may deprioritize knowledge sharing, seeing it as an added burden rather than a responsibility. At the team level, collaboration, trust and reciprocity are crucial drivers of knowledge sharing. Virtual tools like Confluence and SharePoint have also encouraged a greater exchange of knowledge by streamlining documentation. However, employees also risk developing an over-reliance on these tools, passively consuming knowledge that has been stored and documented rather than engaging in direct knowledge exchange with other team members. This has contributed to a reduction in the frequency of interpersonal interactions and the erosion of tacit knowledge-sharing. Digitalization has also enabled new forms of counterproductive behaviors among teams. Team members may gatekeep knowledge by sharing knowledge only within a trusted circle, deliberately excluding some members of the team. Hierarchical structures can further restrict the flow of knowledge among teams. Rather than sharing knowledge openly, senior employees can control access to critical information to preserve their influence and authority. However, not every form of counterproductive behavior is intentional. Some of it results from the absence of a diligent and structured approach to documentation, creating fragmented digital repositories that make knowledge retrieval difficult, leading to unintentional knowledge loss. At the organizational level, the study reveals that leadership plays a paradoxical role in knowledge sharing efforts. While encouragement from leadership fosters transparency, excessive pressure to share knowledge can lead to selective disclosure and knowledge restriction. Employees may fear that sharing too much could expose them to scrutiny, increase their workload or reduce their professional leverage. This causes them to filter their contributions as a self-protection strategy. Leadership-driven knowledge-sharing initiatives can also backfire if they are perceived to be a form of performance monitoring rather than an effort to generate genuine collaboration, reinforcing employee caution rather than openness. Digitalization has also introduced new forms of leadership-driven knowledge monopolization, where managers use digital tools to regulate the flow of knowledge to maintain control over decision-making. The use of restricted cloud access, selective documentation practices and private repositories allows organizations to keep a tight rein on organizational knowledge, potentially hindering innovation and collaboration. These findings highlight the fact that, while digitalization and structured knowledge-sharing mechanisms have improved accessibility, they have also introduced new barriers to the flow of knowledge. Employees can use the features built into digital platforms to subtly engage in strategic knowledge hoarding and hiding, without ever having to engage in outright refusal to share, collaborate or contribute. These paradoxes underscore the need for balanced knowledge-sharing strategies that encourage transparency and openness while mitigating the unintended consequences brought about by digital transformation, workplace politics and leadership control over information flow. Organizations must rethink their knowledge management policies, ensure fair recognition for individual contributions and create an inclusive environment where knowledge sharing is not only encouraged but also safeguarded from misuse.

This study grounds its emergent findings in the KBV of the firm (Grant, 1996), which positions knowledge as a critical strategic asset for organizational performance. While KBV emphasizes the value of knowledge creation, sharing and integration across the organization, the findings of this study extend this view by uncovering the behavioral, digital and structural complexities that shape how knowledge is actually managed within organizations. The Gioia-derrived model reveals that knowledge is not only shared for innovation and collaboration but also hoarded, hidden or sabotaged for personal security, team dynamics or political leverage. These actions are amplified in digital environments, where platforms designed to enable openness also allow for covert restriction of knowledge. In doing so, this study problematizes KBV’s assumption of rational, seamless knowledge flows and suggests a more nuanced understanding of knowledge as a power-laden, politically navigated resource. By capturing the multi-level triggers and tensions that influence knowledge behaviors, the study offers a deeper behavioral and paradoxical perspective to the KBV framework. Further, this study also contributes to the literature on knowledge management by highlighting the paradoxical role of digitalisation, leadership encouragement and workplace structures in shaping knowledge-sharing behaviors. The findings reinforce Paradox Theory, demonstrating how knowledge-sharing initiatives can simultaneously promote openness while fostering knowledge hoarding, selective sharing and other counterproductive behaviors. Unlike traditional models that assume knowledge sharing is driven solely by intrinsic motivation and organizational support, this study shows that employees also make strategic decisions about knowledge sharing based on workplace dynamics, digital constraints and leadership influence. The findings of the study have several practical implications for organizations seeking to foster a sustainable knowledge-sharing culture while mitigating the unintended consequences that can arise from deliberate efforts to encourage openness and transparency. First, companies must rethink their digital knowledge management strategies to prevent knowledge fragmentation and hoarding. While digital tools enhance knowledge accessibility, leaders and managers must understand that they can also enable strategic withholding. Organizations should implement structured knowledge repositories with clear accountability mechanisms to ensure that employees contribute knowledge openly rather than storing or sharing critical insights in private channels. Second, leadership must shift from pressure-driven knowledge-sharing incentives to fostering psychological safety and reciprocity. Employees need to feel that their contributions will not lead to increased scrutiny or competition. This requires organizations to abandon performance-based knowledge-sharing metrics in favor of promoting collaborative knowledge ecosystems, where knowledge sharing is recognized as a collective project rather than an individual effort. Leaders should also model open knowledge behaviors by ensuring that their own knowledge-sharing practices are transparent and inclusive. Third, organizations must address the unintended consequences of digital transformation on knowledge-sharing. Virtual workspaces have made knowledge more accessible and removed barriers to communication among team members, but have also reduced the interpersonal exchanges, tacit knowledge transfer and real-time discussions that can significantly contribute to innovation and improve mentoring. To counter this, companies should balance their use of digital tools with human approaches to knowledge sharing, integrating structured documentation with interactive knowledge-sharing forums, peer mentoring and informal discussion spaces to preserve tacit knowledge flow. Finally, organizations should establish clear knowledge attribution and recognition systems to prevent selective sharing and hidden contributions. Employees are more likely to engage in knowledge sharing when they feel acknowledged for their intellectual efforts. Companies should implement transparent crediting mechanisms in shared repositories, publications and corporate knowledge bases to ensure that contributions are visible and rewarded. This study offers important insights into how knowledge-sharing behaviors are shaped by perceptions of fairness, recognition and trust in digital and organizational environments. It shows that well-intentioned practices can unintentionally lead to exclusion, selective sharing and knowledge hoarding. These dynamics not only affect organizational performance but also raise broader concerns about equity and ethical practice in the workplace. The findings contribute to ongoing efforts to design more inclusive, responsible and socially aware knowledge cultures.

This study provides a detailed and multi-layered analysis of both knowledge sharing and its counterproductive behaviors, including hoarding, hiding, and sabotage, examined across individual, team and organizational levels. By unpacking the factors influencing knowledge behavior, the study offers one of the more comprehensive investigations into how intentions to share can be disrupted by social dynamics, digital practices and workplace conditions. These insights contribute to creating more inclusive, ethical and socially responsive knowledge cultures. Importantly, this study also bridges the gap between paradox theory and knowledge management by categorizing knowledge behavior into five paradox types (belonging, performing, organizing, learning and digital), drawn from organizational research. In doing so, it offers a novel framework to better understand the contradictory dynamics that shape knowledge behaviors in contemporary workplaces.

A key limitation of the study is that it focused on participants from knowledge-intensive firms, which may not fully represent knowledge behaviors in other sectors such as healthcare or manufacturing. While the study included respondents from diverse countries, it was not designed as a comparative cross-national analysis. Future research could build on these findings by systematically comparing knowledge behaviors across countries and industries to provide deeper insights into how cultural and institutional differences shape both productive and counterproductive knowledge practices, enhancing the global and practical relevance of this work.

The author would like to thank all the experts for their valuable insights during the interview. This would not have been possible without their contributions.