IntroductionThe has become very interdependent because of organizations
IntroductionThe workplace is an important social context where individuals spend a most of their time and interact with one another. It is important for employees to create positive working relationships as the quality of the relationship can greatly affect an individual’s workplace attitudes and behaviors.
Since work has become very interdependent because of organizations frequently implementing teamwork; it is essential that working relationships are supportive and alliance in order to achieve organizational performance. Consequently, as maintaining favorable working relationships are deceives for one’s performance, Fox andStallworth (2005) mentioned that the workplace is one of the most important social contexts where ostracism occurs; thereby, workplace ostracism has gained some attraction as studies have found workplace ostracism to negatively affect workplace attitudes and behaviors. Ostracism is a common situation that humans can experience. Ostracism is a part of human life and can come in different forms such as exile and relegation on one extreme and complete end while simply being given the silent treatment or avoiding eye contact from a minimal end (Ferris et al., 2008).Previous studies have examined the direct effects of workplace ostracism to various attitudinal and detectable outcomes such as psychological well-being, job attitudes, job withdrawal, and workplace digressive behavior (e.
g., Ferris, Brown, Berry, & Lian, 2008; Hitlan & Noel, 2009). Although studies have derive the negative effects of workplace ostracism, research has not clearly provided the underlying mechanisms that can further explain the relationships. In this notion, recent research has suggested there are potential mediator that can further help understand the effects of workplace ostracism (Robinson,O’Reilly, ; Wang, 2013; Zhao, Peng, ; Sheard, 2012).Organizations do not ”own” the ”intellectual assets” of employees, and as such, cannot constrain workers to transfer their knowledge to other organizational members (Kelloway ; Barling, 2000). Despite efforts designed to enhance knowledge transfer within organizations, success has been elusive (Hislop, 2002).
This disinclination to transfer knowledge persists even when employees are encouraged and rewarded for doing so (e.g., Bock, Zmud, Kim, ; Lee,2005; Swap, Leonard, Shields, ; Abrams, 2001).We define knowledge hiding as an intentional attempt by an individual to withhold or conceal knowledge that has been requested by another person. We are taking knowledge hiding as a strong mediator between workplace ostracism and hurt relationship, future withholding. Knowledge hiding has received some attention from practitioners (e.
g., Davenport ; Prusak, 1997) and has been acknowledged as an area requiring research attention (e.g.
, Greenberg, Brinsfield, ; Edwards, 2007; Schein, 2004; Webster, Brown, Zweig, Connelly, Brodt, ; Sitkin, 2008). Further, a recent newspaper poll of over 1700 readersrecommend that 76 per cent of employees withhold knowledge from fellow workers (The Globe ; Mail, 2006)Knowledge may be withheld because employee withhold knowledge from someone due to fear that in future that person will hold his knowledge from him or due to differences in personality, perceptions of unfairness, distrust, reciprocity, or power (Connelly, Zweig, ; Webster,2006). .
We consider employees who obstruct knowledge transfer in organizations by withholding their knowledge, either through hiding or hoarding their knowledge. We examine the results of future withholding between individuals relationship in organizations by considering future withholding as an independent variable with workplace ostracism as a dependent variable.Humans have a basic need to connect socially with others/ make relationship with others. (Williams, 2001) Ostracism –being ignored and prohibit–along with rejection and other forms of social exclusion1, threatens this need of connect socially , activate painful feelings, hurt relationship and elicits a wide range of negative effects such as knowledge hiding SmartRichman and Leary (2009 Relevant to knowledge hiding is the fact that self-construals and particularly relational self-construals can affect perceptions of interpersonal conflict (Gelfand et al., 2001).
Workplace ostracism is a pervasive organizational situation that reduces employee engagement and the resulting performance of a service organization (Leung et al., 2011; Zhao et al., 2013).
SmartRichman and Leary (2009) concluded that workplace ostracism effects interpersonal interactions among members of an organization. When faced with workplace ostracism, an employee will be more ready to withhold knowledge requested by others..
According to Chang (2000) service industry is the lifeblood of the economy and important for the success of other related sectors. Thus, improve the image of the country. Financial sector of Pakistan incorporate of regulators, micro finance companies, traditional banks, foreign banks, Islamic banks, stock markets and development finance institutions. At the present there are 39 schedule banks, 7 micro finance banks and 8 development institutions functioning in Pakistan .
While discussing the financial sector of Pakistan, it is analyzed that banks play powerful and useful role in the growth and strength of a developing country . Bank refers to a term we generally use for different kind of financial institutions.The objective of the study is to determine the effect of Workplace ostracism on future withholding and hurt relationship with the mediating effect of knowledge hiding. Knowledge hiding is first time using as a mediator b/w workplace ostracism and hurt relationship and future withholding.Due to collectivism there is a negative leadership in Pakistan (House, 1995) we discuss workplace ostracism in banking sector.
Problem statementSupervisor play very vital, effective, efficient and critical role in any organizations by using effective leadership skills which enable them to manage successful organization. An effective supervisor is responsible to manage performance of employees to produce desired outcome. if supervision style is positive then employee outcome behavior is also positive but if supervision style is negative then it is obvious that employee outcome behavior. Based on existing problem of bank e,ployees due to growing trend of dark side of supervision in banking sector of Pakistan quality of banks decline and patients suffers.
This study is identifying negative supervision in banks and help banks to rectify on it and to remove unnerve of Pakistani bank employees and increase quality of their banks. Definition of iv. Significance of the study .
15.2. Managerial significanceRising interest in the dark side of supervision suggest major paradigm which supervisor exert over employees. Examining darker side of supervision is more important because it directly effect on employees which seriously effect on organization performance (Morrison, 2004).
Workplace ostracism is a pervasive organizational phenomenon that reduces employee engagement and the resulting performance of a service organization (Leung et al., 2011; Zhao et al., 2013). Our study help organizations to cure on despotic supervision and how work place ostracism effect on the knowledge of employees and these hiding convert to some specific behavior like hurt relationship and employee future withholding behavior with the role of perceived organizational politics.Contextual significanceMany researchers argued that dark supervision is more proficient in culture that are collectivist ,low power distance, and high uncertainty avoidance.( Luthans, Peterson, andIbrayeva 1998; Hofstede, 1991). Past studies (House,1995; Ospina ; Foldy,2009)concluded that literature on supervision comes from North American samples and cultures that are more individualistic (Hofstede, 2001, 2011), and thus it is understandable that results vary from culture to culture.
so to explain different behavior of supervisor and its outcome (House, 1995)we are carrying this study in collectivist culture. Very skimpy amount of literature is present in Pakistani context (Leung et al., 2011; Zhao et al., 2013)Research questionDoes Workplace ostracism impact on outcomes (Future withholding and Hurt relationship)?Does Workplace Ostracism impact on Knowledge hiding?Does Knowledge hiding have impact on outcomes (Future Withholding and Hurt relationship)?Does moral knowledge hiding mediates the relationship between Workplace Ostracism and its outcomes(Future withholding and Hurt relationship)Objectives of the study are as under: ? To empirically investigate the relationship between Workplace ostracism and outcomes (Future Withholding and hurt relationship). ? To investigate and understand the mediating effect of Knowledge hiding in relationship between Workplace Ostracism and outcomes(Hurt relationship and Future Withholding).Literature ReviewWork place ostracism and knowledge hidingWork place ostracism refers to the extent to which an individual perceived that he/she is rejected, ignored or exclude by others in workplace (Ferris et al., 2008;Williams, 2007) Work ostracism defined as the extent to which an individual perceives that he or she is ignored or exclude by others in workplace (Ferris et al.
, 2008; p. 1348)”Knowledge hiding is an intentional attempt by an individual to withhold or conceal knowledge that has been requested by another person.”It is predicted that workplace ostracism may affect knowledge hiding (a specific interpersonal behavior in workplace; Connelly et al., 2012). . According to Gouldner’s (1960) norms of reciprocity, people should treat others in the same way or attitude .
Specifically, people should not do harm to those who help you (i.e., positive reciprocity beliefs), but for those who have hurt you, people can take retaliatory strategy (i.
e., negative reciprocity beliefs) . As workplace ostracism is an unfavorable interpersonal experience, an ostracized employee will perceive those who are ostracizing he/she as interpersonal harm. This perception will create negative reciprocity beliefs and then, it is acceptable that the excluded employee engages in the same interpersonal mistreatment (such as ostracism, knowledge hiding, or interpersonal counterproductive behaviors) in return.Connelly et al. (2012) also suggested that the history of reciprocity among colleagues can affect the relationship of an employee’s knowledge hiding behaviors.
Specifically when they faced with a request for knowledge, the ostracized employees tend to be uncooperative, withholding knowledge via evasive hiding because they faced ostracism in past.According to the transaction theory of process employees perceived ostracism as an unavoidable stressor relative to insufficient resources (lacking ability, required equipment).It also leads to the development of anxiety ,depression and distress(Ferris et al., 2008).
Employees carry out a secondary appraisal and opt for the use of behavioral disengagement (Kish-Gephart et al., 2009). While using this coping strategy, employees observe defensive silence and withhold knowledge, concepts, queries, concerns, or ideas on issues related to their job or organization (Brinsfield, Edwards, ;Greenberg, 2009).According to COR theory, an employee will protect his or her remaining resources through specific measures such as depersonalization, reducing efforts, and knowledge hiding (Wright and Hobfoll, 2004). As an important resource, knowledge can enhance an individual’s bargaining power within organization (Congerand Kanungo 1988, Inkpen and Beamish 1997).
Knowledge hiding enables an employee to increase their control over the proprietary knowledge, thereby improving his or her influence and power within the organization (Burkhardt and Brass, 1990). Evans et al. (2015) also found that knowledge hiding by an employee can enhance his or her job performance through increasing the employee’s influence within organization. If the levels of ostracism perceived by employees are very low, their social resources will not be threatened by exclusion.
As such, these employees would keep up with the ordinary way(e.g., knowledge hiding) to conserve knowledge and enhance bargaining power.As ostracism moves from low to moderate levels, employees may perceive that they will suffer from further resource losses COR theory posits that an individual will invest his or her remaining resources to inhibit resource losses, to recover from losses(Hobfoll, 2001). In this situation, when ostracism moves from low to moderate levels, an employee will decrease knowledge hiding to react to the social exclusion within workplace.However, as ostracism moves from moderate to high levels, the image of being rejected or excluded becomes more salient and imminent.Williams and Sommer (1997) tells that “if an individual endures long-term ostracism, attempts to regain these needs may give way to despair and helplessness”.
Following the premises of COR theory, the employee with continued ostracism will burn out and reconsider the previous way (such as investment of resources) to deal with ostracism (Siegall and McDonald, 200In this case, the ostracized employees may feel that controlling more knowledge to increase personal bargaining power may be a better way to react to workplace ostracism (Evans et al., 2015).H1: There is a relationship b/w workplace ostracism and knowledge hiding .Workplace ostracism and hurt relationshipTopic of ostracism originates from the attention to interpersonal negative treatment and has become an increasingly research hotspot in organizational field (Ferris et al.
, 2008; Wu et al., 2012).As a form of emotional abuse, workplace ostracism can be define in three ways (Ferris et al., 2008; Wu et al.
, 2012). First, workplace ostracism is not perpetrated individual may be ostracized by supervisors, colleagues or customers. Second, an individual’s perception of whether being ostracized or not is subjective. Third, those individuals who perceive themselves as being ostracized may characterize interpersonal interactions as negative, painful, and hurt relationship . It is generally accepted that ostracism can hurt physical and psychological health, damage job satisfaction organizational commitment, and also hurt employees relationship, inhibit organizational citizenship behaviors, and decrease service performance (Ferris et al., 2008; Wu et al.
, 2012;Leung et al., 2011).Workplace ostracism refers to the extent to which an individual group member thinks that he or she is ignored or excluded by other members of the workgroup (Williams, 2001).
Typical workplace ostracism behaviors include avoiding eye contact with, deliberate isolation, neglect of and/or disregard for the ostracized person. Workplace ostracism, as a pervasive organizational phenomenon has also been found to bring negative consequences on employees’ attitudes and behaviors, such as lower job satisfaction, hurt relationship, organizational commitment (Ferris et al.,2008), organizational identification (Wu et al., 2012) and more counterproductive behavior.
(Hitlan and Noel, 2009; Zhao et al., 2013), and decreased job performance (Wuet al., 2011).Empirical researches have also found that ostracism among employees can affect their attitudes and behaviors (Lam et al.
, 2011;Spence et al., 2011). Employees who experienced ostracism will likely generate a social comparison file that contains information concerning whether other group members have the same experience. If other group members have the same experience, the negative influence of ostracism on belongingness may be weakened. Similar speculation goes with group cohesion, when other group members show strong cohesiveness while one feel out of place, feelings of exclusion will be amplified.
The belongingness theory (Baumeister and Leary, 1995) advocates that humans have an inherent need to belong, to establish social relations. Relations are considered essential/necessary to a well-functioning life. The need for belongingness drives people to take part in meaningful and supportive relationships. A sense of belongingness is among the most great sources of human motivation (Baumeister and Leary, 1995; Thau et al., 2007). And the desire to satisfy this need may be the reason employees help/cooperate with one another (Kramer, 1993).
In an organizational context, a strong sense of belongingness (Ashforth andMael, 1989) or inclusion (Cropanzano et al., 2001) can be conceptualized as a source of acceptance within the organization. According to Williams (2001, 2007) need-threat theoretical framework, ostracismthreatens four fundamental needs of individuals, namely, the need to belong, the need to maintain self-esteem, the need to perceive personal control and the need for a meaningful existence. Among these four needs, the need to belong is most directly and important related to the impact of ostracism (Blackhart et al., 2009; Gerber and Wheeler, 2009).
Many prior studies yield support for the negative influence of social ostracism on belongingness/hurt relationship.For example, Geller et al. (1974) found that female participants ignored by two female confederates subsequently reported feeling more alone, dull, anxious and withdrawn than those who were not ignored.
Samolis and Williams (1994) found that participants ostracized reported more sadness, disengagement, passivity, rejection, loneliness and feelings of worthlessness than those who experienced successful at conversation. These findings are consistent with propositions that interpersonal rejection is painful, anxiety, depressing, producing and causing feelings of hurt and loneliness (Baumeister and Leary, 1995; Learyet al., 1998).In group settings, members often try to create and maintain relationships with other group members to get integrated into the collective. The experience of ostracism makes members believe that they are excluded or ignored, part of the out-group or different fromother members (Hogg and Abrams, 1988; Tajfel and Turner, 1986). In addition ostracized individuals have difficulty in maintaining positive interpersonal relationships, which will make them feel that they are not valued (Hitlan et al.
,2006; Leung et al., 2011). Thus, workplace ostracism may make individual members detached from the whole group and thwart group members’ belongingness and hurt their relationship.
H2: There is a relationship b/w workplace ostracism and hurt relationship.Workplace Ostracism and future withholdingWorkplace ostracism is an organizational behavior that may take different forms (Duffy et al., 2002), expressed as direct actions and/or withholding behaviors means withhold information(Hiltan etal., 2006).
In both cases, it “can be a unique painful experience” for its targets (Robinson etal., 2012, p. 204), significantly influencing their attitude and behavior. In organizations, both peers and supervisors comprise the source of job and organization-related information, as a great amount of information is communicated through workplace relationships (Sias, 2005).Therefore, information exchange – referring to the deliberate attempts to share and exchange work-related information, ideas and knowledge (Bunderson, 2002) – is considered to be important for organizational development (Gely and Bierman, 2004). In case of ostracism, however, employees that are excluded by colleagues are unlikely to believe that they should not share information they hold.
In accordance with the social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) and the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960), ostracized employee who feel ‘out of the loop’ (Jones et al., 2009), are less likely to exchange information with those who have already kept information away from them and more likely to keep it to themselves. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that ostracism will hamper targets’ tendency to exchange information with their peers who excluded, rejected or ignore them.Additionally, since self-serving behavior prioritizes the self against workgroup benefits and interests (Rus et al., 2010a), ostracized employees are likely to withhold information that would have a value for their peers. Besides, researchers tells that social ties play an important role in both ameliorating the quality of information and promoting information exchange (Cross and Cummings, 2004; Hansen, 1999; Lin, 1999; Podolny and Baron, 1997;Reagans and McEvily, 2003).According to social capital theory, most employees have different contacts with others individuals within or outside the group in which they belong (Burt, 2000); the positive contacts which a group member has with other members within a group are called closured ties, while the contacts that are frequent with different people outside the group are called bridging ties (Oh et al.
, 2006).Combined, these contacts constitute the member’s personal network in which important benefits are included (Lin et al., 1981a;Burt, 2000). These benefits include approach to information, control over resources, power, support and mutual trust (Burt, 1992; Seibert et al., 2001; Coleman, 1990). Kanter believes that approach to structural benefits (e.g.
resources, information and opportunities) is possible by the degree of informal power an employee has in the workplace. Informal power comes when an employee has a network of interpersonal relationships with in the the organization (sponsors, peers and subordinates. This study selected three important benefits of networks which can help individuals in getting their tasks and goals, which are access to opportunity and access to power through information, resources and support (Burt, 1992; Kanter, 1993; Seibert et al., 2001;Spreitzer, 1996) Access to information is described as the data, technical knowledge and expertise required for completing the job effectively (Kanter, 1979; Chandler, 1986; Laschinger, 1996; Spreitzer, 1996). This study shows That due to workplace ostracism there is lack to access to empowerment structure means there is lack to access to opportunity and access to power through information, resources and support.
Once an employee is being ostracized by in-group members, her/his access to personal network benefits will be lost (Robinson et al., 2013). This is of course to happen because workplace ostracism reduces the employee’s opportunity to establish positive interpersonal relationships and cuts social ties which they have with other organizational members (Williams, 2001; Wu et al.
, 2011;Ferris et al., 2008).Therefore, ostracism may be one of the reasons why an individual lost part of their informal power within the organization, which in turn difficult their access to empowerment structures (access toopportunity and access to power through information, resources and support) (Kanter, 1993).According to Robinson et al.
(2013), the pragmatic impact of ostracism spoil the ability of an employee to access the task-related resources, power and opportunity that comes from being connected to others.In addition, Jones et al. (2009) indicate that being excluded from the informational and resource loop at work is a specific type of ostracism.H3:Thre is a relationship b/w workplace ostracism and future withholding.Knowledge hiding and Hurt RelationshipReduction in the quality of knowledge being shared or knowledge hiding may could hurt the performance and relationship of the team and could reduce the team member intention to remain in team because they could frustrated with the knowledge hiding.
Research indicate that when there is a discrepancy between the way employee hope to seen and how they are currently seen employee are more likely to hide their knowledge (Leary and Kowalski,1990; Bolino et al., 2016). “Knowledge hiding is an intentional attempt by an individual to withhold or conceal knowledge that has been requested by another person.” (Connelly et al., 2012; p.
65). Connelly et al. (2012).
When other colleagues ask them for knowledge sharing, failing to share knowledge may hurt their relationship with employees and will be viewed as disturbed person. Therefore we assert that the potential damage of personal image will motivate the employees to engage in hiding the useful knowledge. For example under the request the knowledge by others, employees may claim to be unfamiliar with the topic or may provide incorrect information or suggest that he/ she is unable to do so. Connelly et al.
(2012) suggest that the reciprocity among the colleagues may affected the likelihood of an employee knowledge hiding behaviors. .Specially when faced with a request for knowledge the ostracized employees tend to be uncooperative, withhold knowledge via evasive hiding and playing dumb.
Connelly, C. F., Zweig, D., Webster, J.
, ; Trougakos, J. P. (2012).
Knowledge hiding is not a simply absence of knowledge hedge sharing but rather involve a an intentional attempt to withhold knowledge .The predictors of knowledge hiding include the many of the factors such as the quality of relationship between the donor and the recipient.H4:There is a relationship b/w knowledge hiding and hurt relationshipKnowledge Hiding and Future WithholdingIt is intentional concealment and unintentional hoarding of knowledge for personal gain or contributing less knowledge than is needed (Webster et al., 2008; Lin and Huang, 2010; Tsay et al.
, 2014; Wang et al., 2014; Kang, 2016). Reactionary defense a passive form of defense refers to the act of taking reactionary measures after personal knowledge is used or stolen by another person (Brownet al, 2005) because reactionary measures protects individuals ownership it can increase knowledge withholding .If an organizational member is worried about invading another person territory or fear the strong reactionary defense with which an opponent may respond to an infringement he or she may intentionally hide knowledge. “Refuse to grant, as of a petition or request” Empirical fact shows that employee frequently engage in reciprocating counterproductive work behavior because this simply makes them feel better (Tepper, Mitchell, ; Almeda, 2011) or to punish unfair people in social setting (Kahneman,Knetsch, ; Thaler, 1986).
“Knowledge hiding is an intentional attempt by an individual to withhold or conceal knowledge that has been requested by another person.” When coworkers hide knowledge Connelly et al. (2012) tells that the history of reciprocity among the colleagues may affect the likelihood of an employee’s engaging in hiding behaviors.In other words we can say that employees hide knowledge from those whom they distrust, which predicts future intention to withhold knowledge (Connelly et al., 2012).
“To refrain from granting giving or allowing information in future.” Negative emotions which may be caused by undesirable co-workers (e.g when they intentionally hide their knowledge) narrow the thought action repertories, focus on personal benefit and reduce the likelihood of knowledge reciprocation. It is for this reason social exchange theory distinguishes b/w positive reciprocity and negative reciprocity. Negative reciprocity involves tendency to return negative treatment for negative treatment (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005, p.
878). Thus when employees realized that his or her colleagues intentionally conceal his or her knowledge, he or she reciprocate in the same manner by hiding his or her knowledge in return. In other words when intra hiding take place an individual employee notice knowledge hiding action of his or her colleagues and retaliates by also withhold his/her knowledge in future of each individual member. Trappmann, B., Gautrot, J. E., Connelly, J.
T., Strange, D. G.
, Li, Y., Oyen, M. L., ..
. & Spatz, J. P. (2012). Extracellular-matrix tethering regulates stem-cell fate. Nature materials, 11(7), 642H5: There is a relationship b/w knowledge hiding and future withholding.