Paradoxical leadership and employee

creativity: knowledge sharing and hiding

as mediators
N. Chitra Devi

N. Chitra Devi is based at Abstract

the VIT Business School, Purpose – This study aims to explore the mediating role played by the contradictory behaviour of knowledge
Vellore Institute of sharing and knowledge hiding in the relationship between paradoxical leadership and employee creativity.
Technology, Chennai, India. Design/methodology/approach – A survey was conducted with 276 employees working in information
technology firms in India. ‘‘To assess the relationship between the constructs, single and parallel mediation
analysis of structural equation modelling (SEM) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) have been performed’’.
Findings – This study found that paradoxical leadership is significantly associated with employee
creativity. Besides, it has also been found that knowledge sharing has emerged as a mediator that
explains the relationship between paradoxical leadership and creativity, while knowledge hiding has not
been a mediator to explain the relationship between paradoxical leadership and creativity among
employees. According to the study, it was found that discouraging knowledge-hiding behaviour can
increase employee knowledge sharing, which in turn fosters employee creativity.
Research limitations/implications – Research has examined the relationship between paradoxical
leadership and employee creativity in this paradigm, as well as the roles of knowledge sharing and
knowledge hiding as mediators.
Practical implications – The results of this study will help top management to create strategies for
enhancing the relationship between a leader and their subordinates by using effective knowledge
management strategies that foster employee creativity. Employee creativity would be facilitated
effectively by the paradoxical leader who regulates knowledge-hiding behaviour among employees and
promotes knowledge-sharing behaviour.
Originality/value – This study addresses the gap in prior research by investigating the role of paradoxical
leadership in managing the contradictory behaviours of knowledge sharing and hiding and their impact on
employee creativity. As the motivation for knowledge sharing and hiding are inherently distinct, leaders with
paradoxical qualities foster a culture of openness and trust to encourage knowledge-sharing while discouraging
knowledge-hiding behaviour. By controlling knowledge-hiding behavior empowers employees to make
meaningful contributions to the organization’s success through effective collaboration and teamwork, allowing
for a more innovative and creative workplace. Because preventing knowledge-hiding behaviour is a means to
promote knowledge sharing and ultimately foster creativity in an organisation. Overall, this paper offers unique
insights into the intricate dynamics of knowledge management and provides valuable recommendations for
leaders managing employees exhibiting contradictory behaviours in the workplace.
Keywords Paradoxical leadership, Knowledge sharing, Knowledge hiding, Employee creativity
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
In the knowledge-driven economy, organisations adapt to rapid technological development,
international rivalry and economic ambiguity by instigating creative ideas, products and
Received 3 October 2022
Revised 8 December 2022 services. Employees are known to be a major source of innovation, thus coming up with fresh,
1 March 2023 worthwhile ideas is essential for maintaining an edge over the competition and ensuring
5 April 2023
Accepted 28 April 2023 the longevity of an organisation (Amabile, 1988; Liu et al., 2023; Nguyen et al., 2023;

PAGE 312 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 28 NO. 2 2024, pp. 312-340, © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 1367-3270 DOI 10.1108/JKM-10-2022-0779
Schmidt-Keilich et al., 2023; Shalley, 1995). Specifically, creative employees are considered a
precious resource for an organisation that adapts to the value of diversity, innovation and
flexibility (Gilbert et al., 1996). Previous research has highlighted the importance of employee
creativity for the success and efficiency of a business (Ouakouak and Ouedraogo, 2017; Liu
et al., 2012; Yoshida et al., 2014). Creative work requires the combination of knowledge,
creative effort, creative thinking and motivation (Amabile and Mueller, 2008). Motivating
employees to achieve their full potential is especially important when it comes to creative work;
otherwise, unmotivated employees are unlikely to come up with novel solutions to problems.
Previous research on leadership and employee creativity has found a positive relationship
between leadership and employee creativity, specifically ethical leadership (Yidong and
Xinxin, 2013), inclusive leadership (Javed et al., 2021) and servant leadership (Yang et al.,
2017). It also implies that through role modelling, mentoring, support and job autonomy,
employee creativity is promoted. However, many studies on the subject have yielded
contradictory findings, including negative findings (Basu and Green, 1997) as well as no
relationship at all (Wang and Rode, 2010). Furthermore, negative supervisory and
leadership behaviours, such as abusive supervision (Liu et al., 2012; Rousseau and Aube ,
2018), reduce employee creativity and innovation. It can be difficult for leaders to nurture
and focus on the creative talents of their employees because domain expertise and
knowledge are fundamental to all creative work (Cheung et al., 2008). Domain knowledge is
considered to be a crucial component of creativity according to the componential model of
creativity (Amabile, 1988). In the age of the knowledge economy, information has become a
vital economic resource and source for businesses to gain a competitive advantage
(Chatterjee et al., 2021). Knowledge management is a critical managerial competency and
a key element of enterprise management (Ode and Ayavoo, 2020). Knowledge
management is a quantitative and qualitative process that involves gathering, producing,
exchanging, integrating, storing, accessing, updating and inventing knowledge and
information within a company to establish a cycle of organisational wisdom based on the
accumulation of both individual and corporate knowledge. Knowledge management can be
divided into two categories: knowledge sharing and knowledge concealment. Knowledge
owners engage in this act of information sharing to transfer knowledge from the level of
individual experience to the level of the organisation (Singh et al., 2021).
As the knowledge provider is an integral part of the sharing process, the decision to share
knowledge depends on their perception of the costs and rewards involved, as well as
personal factors (personality traits, intrinsic motivation) that influence the decision. Hence,
knowledge sharing is a situational and episodic behaviour influenced by interactions
between knowledge providers and recipients, as well as other organisational factors. Thus,
the act of sharing knowledge does not necessarily follow a homogeneous pattern and can
lead to a variety of diverse trajectories in different contexts when it is influenced by various
factors. Knowledge sharing increases the likelihood that they will synthesise these
resources into new bodies of domain knowledge, which fosters creativity. Employee
interaction also exposes them to a wide range of ideas and thinking styles that are relevant
to the task or problem they are tackling at work (Amabile and Khaire, 2008; Gong et al.,
2012; Zhang and Bartol, 2010). Having a high degree of knowledge sharing facilitates the
learning process of individual employees and enhances the creative skills of individuals,
another aspect of creativity (Gong et al., 2012). An advantage of combining knowledge
from many sources is that it encourages the growth of higher degrees of creativity (Smith
and Paquette, 2010; Tiwana and McLean, 2005). Therefore, according to researchers, an
employee is more likely to come up with original and innovative ideas if they can interact
with others who have a variety of specialties and gain access to a variety of knowledge and
information (Gibson and Gibbs, 2006). For example, new knowledge can be created
through socialising one’s tacit knowledge with others or externalising one’s tacit knowledge
to become explicit knowledge for delivery reasons (Nonaka et al., 1994). Given the clear

VOL. 28 NO. 2 2024 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 313

 advantages of knowledge, businesses have been urged to invest in processes that promote
knowledge sharing through effective knowledge management practices (Nonaka et al.,
1994). It is crucial to make clear that there are a variety of factors at play, including
employees’ self-interest being protected rather than their work being intensified (Cooke
et al., 2002) and also losing the potential rewards that come with it.
Knowledge hiding is the deliberate concealment or covering up of information in response to
a co-worker’s inquiry for clarification or information (Connelly et al., 2012). Knowledge hiding,
on the contrary, refers to the act of a knowledge owner concealing his competence from
others. Knowledge sharing emphasises voluntary behaviour, in which knowledge owners
actively share their experience. Organisations are making considerable attempts to develop
innovative methods of knowledge sharing to encourage creativity. Employees continue to
resist engaging in knowledge-sharing activities despite the detrimental effects that result
from impeding it and organisational efforts to promote a widespread sharing culture
(Connelly et al., 2012). This knowledge withholding leads to a lack of creativity among the
employees as a result of practices (Kang, 2016). Moreover, the knowledge-hiding process
also leads to a reciprocal distrust loop which further promotes knowledge-hiding (Cerne 
et al. (2017). In the workplace, employees are not unusual in being reluctant to share
information with co-workers (Mettler and Winter, 2016; Webster et al., 2008a, 2008b). The
decision to share or not to share knowledge at the individual level is often outside the control
of the organisation (de Geofroy and Evans, 2017).
Knowledge sharing and knowledge hiding are two different concepts that are not completely at
odds with one another (Hao and Luanluan, 2019). Invariably, the literature on knowledge sharing
and hiding emphasises the role of people’s motivations in the decision to share or hide
knowledge (Siemsen et al., 2008). Moreover, the incentives for knowledge sharing and hiding
are quite different (Connelly et al., 2012). Following the self-exchange theory, persons avoid
behaviours where costs outweigh benefits and divulge those where advantages outweigh costs
(net profit) (net loss). It indicates that employees in an organisation engage in both knowledge
sharing and knowledge hiding, depending on the circumstances and the benefits or costs
associated with each type of behaviour. A responsible leader can promote knowledge-sharing
behaviour by giving job autonomy, and importance to others and controlling knowledge- hiding
behaviour by enforcing strict rules and regulations. According to the ambidexterity theory,
leaders who can promote both open- and closed-ended behaviour and also effective at
encouraging their teams’ and their employees’ creative thinking (Zacher and Rosing, 2015). By
encouraging followers to try new things and do things differently, by allowing for individual
thinking and acting, and by supporting followers’ attempts to challenge the status quo, open
leadership behaviours encourage variation in followers’ behaviours (Rosing et al., 2011). Closing
leadership is a leader taking corrective action, establishing rules and keeping track of goal
accomplishment to decrease variation in followers’ behaviours (Rosing et al., 2011).
However, because of the conflicting forces that employees in an organisation must balance,
including their rigidity brought on by maintaining their perfection (DeLong and DeLong,
2011), their wants to be both good citizens and top achievers (Bergeron, 2007) and the
demands to uphold various identities that they must manage (Kets de Vries, 2012), a
paradoxical leader is ambidextrous by nature and may both encourage employee’s social
behaviour while tamping down the antisocial behaviour. The team leader, however, has the
power to significantly influence the level of knowledge sharing (Srivastava et al., 2006). A
leader who can tackle integration and differentiation parameters for fostering knowledge-
sharing and reducing knowledge-hiding behaviour in an organisation. It is leaders who
create knowledge by presenting chances and procedures that encourage and nurture
knowledge exchange among team members (Lee et al., 2010). The degree to which human
behaviour is regulated as opposed to autonomous is determined, following the social
exchange theory. Knowledge sharing and knowledge hiding are two distinct ideas (Connelly
et al., 2012) that depend on either autonomous motivation (joyful or rewards) or controlled

PAGE 314 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 28 NO. 2 2024

motivation (penalty or punishment) (Hagger et al., 2014). Knowledge sharing and hiding may be
motivated by different factors within an organization, as employees may have varying reasons
for sharing or concealing information. It is important to note that effective knowledge
management is closely associated with innovation performance, as the ability to share
knowledge and ideas freely can promote creative thinking and problem-solving. The alignment
between the successful implementation of knowledge management and innovation
performance, therefore, remains equivocal and may be more complex (Andries et al., 2019)
without supportive leadership. We have selected paradoxical leadership qualities that can
bridge the gap between knowledge management and creativity because paradoxical leaders
simultaneously guide knowledge-sharing activities and instructions and pressures for
knowledge-hiding behaviour.
This study assumes that employees’ behaviour of hiding and sharing knowledge is common in
an organisation, but the intention for sharing and hiding knowledge differs greatly. The intent of
employees who share knowledge is pro-social, whereas the intention of those who hide it is anti-
social (Ahmad and Karim, 2019; Nguyen et al., 2019). A leader can encourage the sharing of
knowledge while discouraging the hiding of knowledge. Paradoxical leadership is developed as
a result of dealing with the paradox behaviour of employees in an organisation by showing
concern, taking into account their individualization within a company, and granting them
sufficient sovereignty, while retaining control over them when they deviate from expected
organisational behaviours. Paradoxical leadership is linked to improved team and employee
performance, including effectiveness in job-related tasks, inventiveness and innovative actions
(Zhang and Jiang, 2015; Yang et al., 2021a, 2021b). For the goal of gaining from the paradox’s
intended outcome, paradoxical leadership attributes behaviourally integrate and embrace
opposing demands concurrently. This is an attempt to study the influence of paradoxical
leadership on employee creativity with the mediating factors of knowledge sharing and
knowledge hiding with the ongoing change in the business environment, it is essential to have a
leader who can deal with a variety of moral contradictions and difficulties that employees exhibit
at the workplace. The capacity to approach those difficulties from a paradoxical standpoint
gave a rise to the paradox theory of leadership. Paradox theory can explain the relationship
between paradoxical leadership on employees’ motivations and behaviours at work (Zhang
et al., 2021). Employees often exhibit both knowledge-sharing and hiding behaviours and it
depends on the benefits and costs earned by employees. Knowledge sharing and hiding are
not opposite concepts and however requires two different kinds of motivation (Webster et al.,
2008a, 2008b). Therefore, our study applies primarily the paradox theory of leadership, which
argues that paradoxical leaders can handle contradictions like being both directive and
empowering (Shao et al., 2019) when it comes to knowledge management practices.
The study provides several contributions to the existing literature on leadership, knowledge
management and employee creativity. Firstly, it reveals a link between paradoxical
leadership and employee creativity, demonstrating that leaders who embrace seemingly
incongruous behaviours can motivate their employees to think creatively and come up with
novel solutions Secondly, the study clarifies the part of paradoxical leadership play in
knowledge management particularly in terms of knowledge sharing and knowledge hiding.
Finally, the study identifies knowledge-sharing and hiding behaviours are important
mediators between paradoxical leadership and employee creativity. It demonstrates that a
paradoxical leader can encourage knowledge-sharing behaviours and discourage
knowledge-hiding behaviours, which can lead to increase employee creativity.

2. Review of literature
2.1 Paradoxical leadership and employee creativity
As the knowledge-based economy grows in the era of digitalisation, it is crucial to understand
how dynamic interactions between personal and environmental factors affect creative
performance. Leadership has typically been viewed as the most important factor influencing

VOL. 28 NO. 2 2024 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 315

 employee creativity (Herrmann and Felfe, 2013; Gilson and Shalley, 2004; Shalley and Gilson,
2004; Qu et al., 2015). Many different leadership philosophies, including empowering
leadership, transformational leadership and transactional leadership, have been used to
exercise managers’ formal authority and position power, which has largely had a favourable
impact on employee creativity (Gong et al., 2009; Zhang and Bartol, 2010). The relationship
between creativity and servant leadership, however, remains unclear (Newman et al., 2018).
Furthermore, transformational leadership negatively impacts creativity because of followers’
dependence on the leader (Kollmann et al., 2013). It has been found, however, that kind of
leadership has a positive effect on the creativity of employees. A high level of identification and
autonomy at work, along with playing a creative role, strengthens this link, whereas a low level
of identification weakens it (Wang and Cheng, 2010). However, the relationship is unclear
between creativity and servant leadership (Newman et al., 2018). On contrary, kind leadership
has a favourable effect on employees’ creativity (Wang et al., 2019). The episodic nature of
employee behaviour within an organisation necessitates empirical research to determine the
relationships between leadership philosophies and creativity. A leader who can handle both
extremes of employees can motivate and bring an environment that are encouraging creativity.
Leaders must take on a variety of contradictory roles (Denison et al., 1995) and engage in
paradoxical conduct to effectively respond to paradoxical situations (Lewis et al., 2014; Zhu
et al., 2020). Paradoxical leaders acknowledge the enduring contradiction between
paradoxical situations and work to synergize and integrate them into a bigger system, as
opposed to making calculated decisions or compromising (Zhang et al., 2015).
Paradoxical leadership, on the contrary, creates vertical structural relationships between status
and authority and exerts uniform treatment of employees for control, while simultaneously
maintaining personalised consideration, and autonomy, and trying to minimise differences in
status to employees’ needs. It is found that paradoxical leadership positively affected
employee proactivity, proficiency and adaptability when compared with conventional
leadership strategies such as transformational and transactional leadership (Zhang et al.,
2015). Employees’ proactivity and adaptability make workers feel secure in their workplace
and produce pleasant energy (Walumbwa et al., 2018). However, some employees may
experience subjective ambivalence as a result of the paradoxical leadership behaviour and
employees who experience ambivalence will subsequently exhibit higher inventiveness as they
look for (Zhang et al., 2022) discomfort (Zhang et al., 2022). Further studies also revealed
contradictory links between autonomy/freedom and control/restriction and creativity, with both
good and negative impacts (Caniëls and Rietzschel, 2015; Roskes, 2015; Rosso, 2014).
In this study, the researcher hypothesizes that paradoxical leaders have a substantial creative
influence on their followers. Paradoxical leaders assist and motivate their staff in a variety of
ways, including assigning tasks, attending to their needs and maximizing their efforts.
Paradoxical leadership has been described as a catalyst for innovation and an exceptional
organisational skill that is essential to the integration of creativity (Papachroni et al., 2015). A
paradoxical leader is a leader of initiating two complementary mechanisms that motivate
employees to perform better than expected outcome and stimulates employees to be
proactive to reach the level of outcome expected in an organisation. By understanding the
mechanisms of intrinsic motivation and extrinsic requirements of employees, a paradoxical
leader can encourage employees to enhance their creativity (Zhang and Liu, 2022).
Second, a paradoxical leader provides followers with the autonomy and freedom to
communicate their concerns and needs, to listen to subordinates and to support them to
manage organisational paradoxes. As a result, paradoxical leadership is linked to higher
team and employee performance, including job role performance, creativity and innovative
behaviours (Shao et al., 2019; Yang et al., 2021a; Zhang et al., 2015). Third, paradoxical
leaders enhance workers’ task performance by creating an environment where paradoxical
behaviour is accepted as natural and persistent. Employees may view competing and
conflicting demands as being a natural part of organisations (Miron-Spektor et al., 2018;

PAGE 316 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 28 NO. 2 2024

Smith and Lewis, 2011) and they may combine different demands so that the conflict
between them becomes productive rather than unresolvable (Smith and Lewis, 2011).
Fourth, the social exchange theory (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005) highlights that
paradoxical leaders often treat their subordinates courteously and acceptably and listen to
their subordinates’ suggestions, and it may be used to explain the relationship between
paradoxical leaders and employees’ creativity. A paradoxical leader encourages
employees hard work and smart work in an organisation and therefore improves employees’
creativity (Houyong et al., 2023). In light of this justification, our suggestion is:
H1. Paradoxical leadership has a positive influence on employee creativity.

2.2 Paradoxical leadership and knowledge sharing

Knowledge management is the process of discovering the knowledge a company has that can
be helpful to others and developing plans for making it readily available to everyone involved
(Liss, 1999). A crucial aspect of knowledge management is the effectiveness of knowledge
sharing. In addition to communicating and networking with others, knowledge sharing can be
accomplished in a variety of ways, including documenting, organising and capturing knowledge;
solving problems; providing assistance to others; and acquiring new skills and developing
competencies from experts and colleagues (Cummings, 2004; Davenport and Prusak, 1998). It
is clear that knowledge sharing does not take place automatically in a team and that the leader
plays an important role in making it possible. Therefore, for knowledge sharing to occur, team
leaders should encourage or facilitate it (Sveiby, 2007). There was a positive correlation between
leaders’ attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioural control and intentions to share
knowledge. When it comes to formal interactions within teams or across work units, rewards can
be partly contingent upon knowledge-sharing behaviour, as in merit pay. However, rewards
based on collective performance are also likely to be effective in fostering a sense of
cooperation, ownership and commitment among employees. The enhancement of knowledge
sharing within and across work units would be particularly beneficial for success of an
organisation. Hence, leaders are the knowledge creators; they offer their insight on technical
matters, grow the team’s knowledge, look around for fresh concepts, keep an eye on the calibre
of the team’s work, and suggest novel methods for group assignments(Bain et al., 2005). In
professional service firms, Chen (2004) looked at the connection between leadership behaviours
and knowledge sharing. The findings revealed that leadership styles are a strong predictor of
internal knowledge sharing, and contingent reward leadership styles are significantly and
positively connected with both internal and external information sharing.
Leaders with paradoxical leadership styles treat their subordinates equally and take in
consideration the individual characteristics of their employees to create a good working
atmosphere, inspire employees to follow in their footsteps and create a good working
environment (Jia et al., 2018). The employees are therefore free to share their innovative
ideas and happy to share some insightful and creative knowledge. When leaders adopt
paradoxical behaviour, employees are more likely to engage into promotive voice
behaviour; however, employees’ prohibitive voice behaviour is reduced when their leaders
adopt paradoxes in leadership behaviour (Xue et al., 2020). Moreover, stronger paradoxical
leadership is connected with a high degree of knowledge sharing (Yi et al., 2019).
Therefore, we postulate the hypothesis as:
H2. Paradoxical leadership has a positive association with employees’ knowledge-
sharing behaviour.

2.3 Paradoxical leadership and knowledge hiding

Land et al. (2007) proposed that knowledge management is connected to several actions,
including the acquisition, creation, diffusion, storage, concealment, disposal, sharing and

VOL. 28 NO. 2 2024 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 317

 control over the use of knowledge. Organisations are striving harder to design a variety of
new knowledge-sharing techniques to foster creativity. Regardless of organisational efforts
to foster a broad knowledge-sharing culture, employees still resist engaging in knowledge-
sharing practices (Connelly et al., 2012). Employee resistance to sharing knowledge with
co-workers is a common occurrence in the workplace setting (Mettler and Winter, 2016;
Webster et al., 2008a, 2008b)
The leader fosters mutual respect and interpersonal trust with the follower and encourages
the latter to participate in interpersonal knowledge sharing by offering the necessary
coaching and demonstrating compassion. For instance, a paradoxical leadership style has
a strong impact on employees’ promotive and prohibitive behaviour (Li et al., 2020)
because followers are given the chance to influence decisions. According to the social
learning theory, followers learn and feel secure being open to others through regular
interactions with the leader. Furthermore, leaders can shape followers’ psychological safety
and influence knowledge-hiding behaviours. When a follower feels psychologically safe, he/
she does not feel the need to protect himself/herself by hiding knowledge because he/she
is confident that the interpersonal relationships surrounding them are not threatening
(Zhang et al., 2010). In designing an innovative workplace, it is critical to consider the
causes of knowledge hiding. There are many potential causes of knowledge-hiding
practices, but some research has indicated that a lack of participation and engagement in
timely information transfer increases knowledge-hiding behaviour (Irum et al., 2020).
Knowledge-hiding behaviour is increased when employees are exposed to passive
leadership because of chronic stress for employees, and becomes difficult to regain control
over their work (Mubarak et al., 2021). On contrary, knowledge-hiding behaviour is
diminished when a reciprocal social exchange or a dominant mastery environment exists

(Cerne et al., 2014). We have considered knowledge hiding as a behaviour prevalent
among employees who intentionally hide their knowledge from others. Because knowledge
hiding relates to employee behaviour, it has been suggested that employees’ behaviours
can be influenced and moulded by leadership in the organisation (Yukl et al., 2019).
Because of this paradoxical nature of leading, we assume that paradoxical leaders are
capable of controlling and reducing knowledge hiding behaviour. Hence, we assume that:
H3. Paradoxical leadership has a negative association with knowledge-hiding behaviour.

2.4 Mediating role of knowledge-sharing behaviour on employee creativity

Many scholars have concentrated on the link underlying knowledge management and
innovation because it makes perfect sense and is commonly quoted as a significant
predictor of innovation performance. According to social capital theory, combining and
exchanging knowledge within organisations is a critical aspect of building organisational-
level intellectual capital, which is a crucial component of knowledge management success
(Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995b; Wang et al., 2014).
Regardless of the degree or level of sharing, sharing of knowledge strongly indicates a
Cognito-behavioural activity involving people (Ipe, 2003).
Because individual-level information sharing serves as the foundation for all higher-level
knowledge sharing in an organisation’s value generation, it has significant relevance (de
Long and Fahey, 2000; Huber, 2001). Higher level information sharing enhances each
individual’s skill set and helps employees become subject matter experts in their field. For
instance, Dong et al. (2010) found a positive relationship between individual skills
development and creativity that is moderated by knowledge sharing in the team. Thus,
access to the varied knowledge of team members is made possible through knowledge
sharing, which enhances individual creativity (Tiwana and McLean, 2005). Knowledge
creation has an indirect impact on creativity; however, knowledge donating does not
directly affect individual donors’ creativity (Park et al., 2014). Creativity is cultivated in an

PAGE 318 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 28 NO. 2 2024

environment where employees are encouraged to engage with one another, share their
knowledge and get rewarded for doing so. This type of workplace atmosphere encourages
the development of fresh, important ideas that may be discussed with co-workers and
senior management and, if feasible, successfully implemented (Hon, 2011). The ability to
set standards for followers by one’s actions and to provide followers with the flexibility to
collaborate and exchange knowledge with one another in the workplace are both
characteristics of effective leadership. It also highlights how crucial it is to cooperate, share
knowledge and have the chance to learn new abilities when working in a team (Wang et al.,
2019). Employees who work for a company with a paradoxical leader can be free to discuss
their original concepts and are pleased to impart some insightful wisdom that will help them
become more creative. Thus, we suggest the following hypothesis:
H4. There is a mediation effect of knowledge sharing between paradoxical leadership
and employee creativity.

2.5 Mediating role of knowledge-hiding behaviour on employee creativity

Knowledge hiding is not only the absence of sharing but the deliberate endeavour to
withhold or conceal the information that another person has requested (Connelly et al.,
2012). Individuals either share their information or keep it to themselves, but these two
concepts are conceptually separate from one another and are not mutually exclusive.
Knowledge hiding may be driven by a variety of motives, including prosocial, practical and
lazy (Webster et al., 2008a, 2008b). Despite having somewhat similar behaviours, the
motivations for information hiding and a lack of knowledge sharing are very different.
Employees need information about the problems and tasks at hand to come up with new
ideas at work (Amabile, 1983). Consequently, people seek knowledge from several sources of
information nearby, including their co-workers (Alavi and Leidner, 2001). Employees’
deliberate withholding of information from one another when it is asked by others limits the

potential of co-workers to be creative (Cerne et al., 2017; Bogilovic et al., 2017). Because
creativity is closely related to explorative and exploitative actions, knowledge hiding by
employees resulted in a reduction in creativity among team members (Fong et al., 2018).

Cerne et al. (2014) found that knowledge hiding behavior have a negative impact on creativity,
ultimately reducing the level of creativity among employees (Bari et al., 2020). From the social
dilemma perspective, individuals may have contradictory reasons for sharing and hiding, as
they are put in a position to gain from selfish behaviour at the expense of their communities
and resources. A leader who is paradoxical and can control employees’ knowledge-hiding
behaviour as well as encourage their self-motivated creative abilities:
H5. There is no mediation effect of knowledge hiding between paradoxical leadership
and employee creativity.

3. Methodology and data analysis

3.1 Data collection and analysis
The structured questionnaire was built based on the literature and experience and was
used to collect data directly from individuals working for information technology (IT)
organisations. To eliminate bias based on a common methodology, data on information
sharing and hiding is gathered from South India at different times. Prior approval from the
human resource (HR) manager was obtained to meet the employees. Employee email
addresses were also obtained to share the employees’ responses to the questionnaires and
also through direct meetings with the employees on the company campus. We selected a
list of software companies based on the number of organisations that have maintained
knowledge management systems for at least five years. The survey was conducted
voluntarily without any financial compensation, and participants may complete the survey at

VOL. 28 NO. 2 2024 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 319

 any time with the permission of the HR manager. The employees of South Indian IT
companies were given a total of 310 survey questionnaires via mail and in-person meetings.
We excluded incomplete replies from the survey because they lack the validity needed to
accurately reflect the population, and 276 employees in total responded. In total, 95% of the
study’s participants responded.
3.1.1 Sample selection. In the IT park in Chennai, one of India’s major cities, the companies
were selected based on their maintenance of knowledge management techniques for at
least five years in the IT industry. We have selected five different IT organisations with a
track record of maintaining knowledge management practices for a minimum of five years.
Employees in Grades I and II who works for a team leader were chosen for the sample
based on particular requirements linked to their job responsibilities. By offering new
viewpoints, being receptive to novel concepts and technologies, taking chances and
learning from failures, entry-level and Grade II employees can enhance employee creativity.
Depending on the size of the company and the availability of participants who met the
selection requirements, different companies had different numbers of employees. The total
number of employees meeting those criteria is kept as confidential information of the
company. However, we have collected email addresses and details of the employees from
the HR manager and explained the aim of doing the research. We have circulated
questionnaires to 310 employees who satisfied our selection criteria and were employed in
the team responsible for developing the programme as Grade I and Grade II employees.
We noted that job grades and levels might differ between businesses and made clear that
at some IT firms, the Grade III level may be regarded as a team leader position, in charge of
directing and leading a group of IT specialists under the direction of higher-level managers
or executives. Hence, we restricted the sample to Grade I and Grade II employees.
3.1.2 Measures. The questionnaire consists of two sections: Section I contains five
demographic variables, and Section II contains variables related to paradoxical leadership,
knowledge sharing, knowledge hiding and employee creativity. Measurement items previously
validated in the literature were used with minor modifications to assess each variable. The
questionnaire items are Paradoxical Leadership, Knowledge Sharing, Knowledge Hiding and
Employee Creativity. Items were assessed on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 “strongly
disagree” to 5 “strongly agree”.
3.1.2.1 Paradoxical leadership. Paradoxical leadership (PL) has been measured using the
scale developed by Zhang et al. (2015). Zhang et al. (2015) have developed five constructs
for paradoxical leadership and a multidimensional measure of paradoxical leader behaviour
with five dimensions:

1. combining self-centredness with other-centredness;

2. maintaining both distance and closeness;

3. treating subordinates uniformly, while allowing individualization;

4. enforcing work requirements, while allowing flexibility; and

5. maintaining decision control while allowing autonomy.

Out of the five dimensions measuring paradoxical leadership, we have used two specific
dimensions of paradoxical leadership, namely, the combination of self-centredness with
other-centredness and maintaining decision control while allowing autonomy. These
dimensions were selected based on their significance in the literature on paradoxical
leadership. Items have been rephrased to fit into the leadership-promoting creativity
framework.
3.1.2.2 Knowledge sharing and knowledge hiding. To measure knowledge sharing, four items
have been adapted from Ho and Ganesan (2013). From the scale of Connelly et al. (2012), two

PAGE 320 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 28 NO. 2 2024

sub-constructs, such as Playing numb and Evasive Hiding, were adopted to measure
knowledge hiding.
3.1.2.3 Employee creativity (EC). Based on Zhang and Bartol (2010) a five-item scale is
adopted for measuring employee creativity. We reviewed the constructs and modified them
as necessary to reflect the viewpoints of the employees working in the IT sector.

3.2 Descriptive study of the respondents

According to Table 1, there were 75.00% of male respondents and 25.00% of female
respondents. The data shows that out of all the respondents, 6.88% belong to the age group of
below 25 years, 34.78% belong to the age group of 26-35 years, 32.61% belong to the age group
of 36-45 years, and 25.73% are above the age of 45 years. According to their educational
backgrounds, 31.52% have degrees, 11.96% have diplomas or other credentials and 56.52%
have master’s degrees. Employee experience reveals that 27.54% have less than 5 years,
53.62% have between 5 and 10 years and 18.83% have more than 10 years of experience.

3.3 Data analysis

The construct reliability, factor loading and model fit were examined using confirmatory
factor analysis (CFA). The causal connections between the latent variables were assessed
using structural equation modelling (SEM). The parameter estimates of the direct and
indirect relationships between observable variables in SEM are applied using AMOS 24. In
recent years, researchers are increasingly turning to SEM to conduct mediation analyses
because it is a faster method of analysing the step-by-step approach proposed by Baron
and Kenny (1986). As a result, it is capable of testing the most complex models with
multiple mediators very easily. SEM is an approach in which the dependent variable (DV),
which is present in one equation of the model, can change into an independent variable (IV)
in other components of the system (Bollen, 1989; Kowalski and Tu, 2008). It is, therefore,
possible to test the causal relationships among paradoxical leadership, knowledge sharing,
knowledge hiding and employee creativity using this approach. We used SEM to analyse
both the direct and indirect effects of paradoxical leadership on employee creativity in this
study. In addition to SEM, a parallel mediation analysis was conducted to examine each
mediating factor, including knowledge sharing and knowledge hiding.
3.3.1 Correlation among the constructs. A descriptive analysis of the constructs is shown in
Table 2, together with the mean, standard deviation and inter-factor correlation matrix for the
components under investigation. The inter-construct correlation coefficients demonstrate a
favourable association between paradoxical leadership and employee innovation as well as

Table 1 Descriptive statistics

Category Demographic measures Frequency (f) %

Gender Male 207 75

Female 69 25
Age Below 25 years 19 6.88
26–35 years 96 34.78
36–45 years 90 32.61
Above 45 years 71 25.73
Educational background Master degree 156 56.52
Degree 87 31.52
Diploma/Others 33 11.96
Experience Less than 5 years 76 27.54
5–10 years 148 53.62
More than 10 years 52 18.83
Source: Author’s compilation

VOL. 28 NO. 2 2024 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 321

 Table 2 Inter-factor correlation matrix
Constructs Mean Std. dev PL KS KH EC

PL 2.73 1.34 1
KS 3.53 1.27 0.3632 1
KH 2.79 1.50 0.2296 0.1415 1
EC 3.93 1.06 0.1577 0.5120 0.0752 1
Source: Author’s compilation from AMOS output

information sharing. Paradoxical leadership, however, preserves a hidden negative relationship with
knowledge.
3.3.2 Confirmatory factor analysis. A statistical method called CFA is used to assess the
factor structure of the collection of observed data. In CFA, it is measured the extent to which
items are loaded onto factors to measure a single construct. As part of the conceptual
model developed, CFA also allows the researcher to assess the association between the
observed variable and latent components. It is ideal to have goodness-of-fit values greater
than 0.9, which include the Chi-Square, Goodness of Fit Index (GFI), Comparative Fit Index
(CFI) and Tucker Lewis Index (TLI). Several studies have indicated that the cut-off value
should be less than 0.08 (Hair et al., 1998). Besides, Root Mean Square Error of
Approximation (RMSEA) and Root Mean Square Residual (RMR), which should be as close
to zero as possible, are used to judge the quality of a model.
The CFA model results shows that the model is a good fit as evidenced by the following
indices: x2 = 413.037, df = 183, x2/df = 2.25, GFI = 0.871, CFI = 0.969, TLI = 0.965,
RMSEA = 0.068 (PCLOSE = 0.001) and RMR = 0.058. All of the indices were below the
allowable threshold that the tool’s creators had set. It indicates that each item strongly and
independently explains its construct. Additionally, measurements show that the four
constructs are not related to one another.
By examining the construct’s validity, it was determined to what extent the construct’s items
could appropriately assess the notion being studied. Composite reliability (CR) was calculated
to assess the factors’ internal consistency; outcomes that dependable outcomes are those with
values better than 0.70. Convergent and discriminant validity were calculated using the Fornell
and Larcker technique (1981). When the average variance extracted (AVE) exceeds the
maximum shared squared variance (MSV) or average shared squared variance, this method is
considered to have true discriminant validity. AVE must be less than CR and equal to or more
than 0.50 for convergence validity to exist.
Table 3 shows the factor loading and reliability score of CFA for each item. It was discovered
that factor loading exceeded 0.50. The reliability score for the eight items used to test the
paradoxical leadership construct is 0.974 and factor loadings range from 0.937 to 0.838. The
knowledge-sharing construct, which was tested using four questions, received a reliability
score of 0.953 and factor loading that ranged from 0.903 to 0.926. The knowledge-hiding
construct was assessed using four questions, with factor loading ranging from 0.968 to 0.893
and a reliability score of 0.969. The five items used to assess employee creativity have factor-
loading ranges and a reliability score of 0.828. Figure 1 displays the factor loadings of each
construct obtained from the CFA, illustrating the strength of the relationship between each item
and its corresponding construct.

3.4 Hypothesis testing

Sharing of knowledge is essential for industries that largely rely on innovation as a competitive
advantage (Martini, 2016). In the knowledge-intensive field of software development,
innovation is the key factor that boosts business performance (Crawford et al., 2013).
Therefore, leaders must inspire and urge their teams to share knowledge while also exerting

PAGE 322 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 28 NO. 2 2024

Table 3 Result of confirmatory factor analysis and reliability score
Average
variance
Latent Composite extracted Factor
construct Items Description reliability (AVE) loading

Paradoxical I Combining self-centredness and other 0.974 0.822

leadership centredness
(PL) PL1 My manager demonstrates a willingness to 0.915
take the lead and allow subordinates to lead
PL2 My manager enjoys being the centre of 0.910
attention and at the same time letting others
come into the limelight
PL3 My manager insists on receiving respect from 0.923
others and giving respect to others
PL4 My manager possesses an opinion of himself/ 0.937
herself but accepts knowledge of others
II Maintaining decision control while allowing
autonomy
PL5 My manager oversees significant work 0.912
concerns but delegates responsibility for
handling details
PL6 My manager delegated several work 0.914
processes to subordinates but made the final
decisions
PL7 My manager makes significant decisions, but 0.903
smaller decisions are given to subordinates
PL8 My manager keeps overall authority but offers 0.838
subordinates freedom
Knowledge Knowledge sharing (KS) 0.953 0.834
sharing (KS) KS1 My manager motivates us to share a 0.926
significant amount of knowledge and skills
KS2 My manager rewards me if I share advanced 0.913
knowledge and skills with my fellow friends in
the team
KS3 My manager encourages us to share 0.924
knowledge and skills of significant value
KS4 My manager facilitates us to share knowledge 0.903
that contributes our work performance
Knowledge Knowledge hiding (KH) 0.969 0.887
hiding (KH) I Evasive hiding
KH1 My manager takes action when I not intended 0.968
to share the information
KH2 My manager punishes me if I provide 0.957
information that is contrary to what the person
desired
II Playing numb
KH3 My manager discourages me if I make a false 0.942
claim that I am ignorant of the facts
KH4 My manager controls me if I acknowledge 0.893
that my expertise in the subject is limited
Employee Employee creativity (EC) 0.960 0.828
creativity EC1 I offer fresh approaches to completing duties 0.962
(EC) at work
EC2 I stimulate new, useful suggestions for raising 0.950
performance
EC3 I am creative in my work 0.838
EC4 I frequently approach issues at work with a 0.914
unique outlook
EC5 My manager approach issues at work with a 0.866
unique outlook
Source: Author’s compilation from SPSS and AMOS output

VOL. 28 NO. 2 2024 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 323

 Figure 1 Confirmatory factor analysis

control over them when they try to keep it to themselves. As a result, a Structure Equation
Modelling (SEM) technique is created in AMOS 24 to analyse the model’s fitness and look at
the causal relationship between the latent variables following the proposed hypothesis.
3.4.1 H1. There is a positive association between paradoxical leadership and employee
creativity. Table 4 shows the standardised regression coefficient for H1 with a p-value of
0.013, which according to the standard cut-off (p-value < 0.01) is acceptable. Model fitness
for H1 is examined using the indices of x2 = 183.061, df = 64, x2/df = 2.860, GFI = 0.901,
CFI = 0.974, TLI = 0.98, RMSEA = 0.082 (PCLOSE = 0.000) and RMR = 0.052. Hence, we
can say there is a positive association between Paradoxical Leadership and Creativity
among Employees. To demonstrate the mediation effects, certain requirements need to be

Table 4 Paradoxical leadership and employee creativity

Description Estimate SE CR p

EC / PL 0.130 0.052 2.488 0.013

Note:  Significance at 5% level
Source: Author’s compilation from AMOS output

PAGE 324 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 28 NO. 2 2024

 Figure 2 Paradoxical leadership and employee creativity

met, as outlined by Baron and Kenny, 1986. Firstly, there must be a significant correlation
between the independent variable (IV) and the dependent variable (DV). Secondly, there
must be a significant correlation between the IV and the presumed mediator (PM). Finally, in
the presence of the mediator and the DV, the previous significant relationship between the
IV and the DV should no longer be significant, or the strength of the association should be
significantly reduced.
Figure 2 shows the direct relationship between Paradoxical Leadership (PL) and Employee
Creativity (EC). The first requirement of significant relationship between the IV (Paradoxical
Leadership) and the DV is met, according to Baron and Kenny (1986) examination of mediation
(Employee Creativity). In the absence of mediators, exposure to paradoxical leadership has a
direct impact on employee creativity. According to Kollmann et al. (2013), the findings are erratic.
Nevertheless, the outcomes of the present study support the findings that there is a positive
association between paradoxical leadership and employee creativity (Wang and Cheng, 2010).
3.4.2 H2. There is a positive association between paradoxical leadership and knowledge
sharing. According to Table 5, the standardized regression coefficient for H2 is 0.327 with a
p-value of 0.000, which according to the standard cut-off (p-value < 0.001) is acceptable.
H2 is accepted and it is proved with the indices of the goodness of model fit. The results
indicate that x2 = 110.597, df = 53, x2/df = 2.087, GFI = 0.935, CFI = 0. 986, TLI = 0.939,
RMSEA = 0.063 (PCLOSE = 0.097) and RMR = 0.043. Hence, we can say there is a positive
association between paradoxical leadership and knowledge sharing. Figure 3 shows the
association between Paradoxical Leadership (PL) and Knowledge Sharing (KS).
Knowledge sharing is taken into account as a DV and paradoxical leadership as an IV in the
model. The findings show a strong correlation between paradoxical leadership and
knowledge sharing. The findings demonstrate that paradoxical leaders treat their staff

Table 5 Paradoxical leadership and knowledge sharing

Description Estimate SE CR p


KS / PL 0.327 0.052 6.315
Note:  At 5% level of significance
Source: Author’s compilation from AMOS output

VOL. 28 NO. 2 2024 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 325

 Figure 3 Paradoxical leadership and knowledge sharing

members fairly and equally while also inspiring and motivating them to freely impart their
knowledge to other team members. The results prove that paradoxical leader treats their
subordinates equally and fairly and creates a working climate in which employees are
inspired and motivated to share their knowledge freely with team members. The results are
consistent with the findings of the studies (Jia et al., 2018; Xue et al., 2020; Yi et al., 2019).
3.4.3 H3. The direct effect of paradoxical leadership and knowledge hiding. Table 6 shows
that the standardised regression coefficient for the hypothesis between paradoxical leadership
and knowledge hiding is 3.673 with a p-value of 0.000, which is acceptable by the
established cut-off (p-value 0.001) between paradoxical leadership and knowledge hiding.
Model fitness for H3 was examined, and it provided an acceptable fit to the data, i.e. the
indices were as value of x2 = 143.240, df = 53, x2/df = 2.703, GFI = 0.919, CFI = 0.980,
TLI = 0.975, RMSEA = 0.079 (PCLOSE = 0.001) and RMR = 0.058. Thus, the CFA model is
accepted. Hence, we can say that there is a significant negative association. Figure 4
shows the relationship between Paradoxical Leadership (PL) and Knowledge Hiding (KH).
In this model, to identify the direct effect, knowledge hiding is considered a DV and
paradoxical leadership is considered an IV. The results indicate that paradoxical leadership is
highly associated with knowledge hiding. Therefore, the second condition of a significant
relationship must exist between the (Paradoxical Leadership) IV and the presumed mediator
(Knowledge Sharing) (Baron and Kenny, 1986). The results prove that a paradoxical leader
can control and mould the employees to reduce knowledge-hiding behaviour. The findings are
supported that a leader can mould the behaviour of employees (Yukl et al., 2019).
3.4.4 H4. There is a mediation effect of knowledge sharing on employee creativity Table 7
shows the standardized regression coefficient between paradoxical leadership and

Table 6 Paradoxical leadership and knowledge hiding

Description Estimate SE CR p


KH / PL 0.264 0.072 3.673
Note:  Significance at 5% per cent level
Source: Author’s compilation from AMOS output

PAGE 326 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 28 NO. 2 2024

 Figure 4 Paradoxical leadership and knowledge hiding

knowledge sharing is positive and it is significantly influenced by a p-value of 0.000, which

according to the standard cut-off (p-value < 0.001) is acceptable. Similarly, knowledge
sharing has a significant and positive influence on Employee Creativity with a p-value of
0.000, which according to the standard cut-off (p-value < 0.001) is acceptable. However,
paradoxical leadership has a negative influence on employee creativity. It shows that
effective knowledge management practices with the best leadership motivation have a
strong influence on employee creativity.
The model is a good fit as evidenced by the indices such as x2 = 0.281, df 116, x2/df = 2.614,
GFI = 0.980, CFI = 0. 980, TLI = 0.963, RMSEA = 0.077 (PCLOSE = 0.000) and RMR = 0.058.
Hence, it is concluded that there is no direct relationship between paradoxical leadership and
employee creativity. However, with effective knowledge management practices, paradoxical
leadership has a strong positive association with employee creativity.
Figure 5 shows the mediation effect of knowledge sharing. The results indicate that
paradoxical leadership and employee creativity are fully mediated by knowledge sharing.
Firstly, paradoxical leadership and creativity have a significant relationship, and secondly,
knowledge sharing, which is considered a mediator, needs to be associated with paradoxical
leadership. In addition, the previous connection between paradoxical leadership and creativity
becomes insignificant when a mediator of knowledge sharing is present between paradoxical
leadership and employee creativity. The findings of the study shows that knowledge sharing
serves as a perfect mediator between paradoxical leadership and employee creativity. The
outcomes are in line with the research of Park et al. (2014).
3.4.5 H5. There is no mediation effect of knowledge hiding on employee creativity Table 8
indicates that the standardised regression coefficient for the interaction effect of
paradoxical leadership and knowledge hiding shows that it is negative with a p-value of

Table 7 Mediation effect of knowledge sharing

Description Estimate SE CR p


KS / PL 0.329 0.052 6.332

EC / KS 0.485 0.053 9.188
EC / PL 0.042 0.044 0.953 0.341
Note:  Indicates 5% level of significance
Source: Author’s compilation from AMOS output

VOL. 28 NO. 2 2024 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 327

 Figure 5 Mediation effect of knowledge sharing

0.000, which according to the standard cut-off (p-value < 0.001) is acceptable. It is
evidence that paradoxical leaders can control the knowledge-hiding behaviour in the
organisation. At the same time, knowledge-hiding behaviour exhibits a negative and
insignificant association with employee creativity. However, paradoxical leadership has a
significant association with employee creativity. The model fit is supported by the indices of
x2 = 277.569, df = 116, x2/df = 2.39, GFI = 0.921, CFI = 0.861, TLI = 0.969, RMSEA = 0.071
(PCLOSE = 0.001) and RMR = 0.058. Hence, we can say that there is a negative indirect
association between paradoxical leadership, knowledge hiding and employee creativity.
Figure 6 shows the mediation effect of knowledge hiding. The mediation effect is justified
when there is a significant relationship exists between an IV and DV and also the
introduction of a mediator should show that the direct relationship should be weaker (Baron
and Kenny, 1986). Firstly, a significant direct negative relationship is found between IV
(paradoxical leadership) and mediator (knowledge hiding). Secondly, there is an
insignificant negative relationship is found between knowledge hiding (Mediator) and
employee creativity which is considered as a mediator. Thirdly, the relationship between
paradoxical leadership and employee creativity is also significant in the presence of the
mediator. The results of the findings do not meet the third and fourth conditions of mediation
analysis. As a significant relationship is found in the presence of a mediator which indicates
that knowledge hiding is not the mediator between paradoxical leadership and employee

Table 8 Mediation effect of knowledge hiding

Description Estimate SE CR p


KH / PL 0.264 0.072 3.673
EC / KH 0.035 0.041 0.872 0.383
EC / PL 0.108 0.048 2.241 0.025
Note:  5% level of significance
Source: Author’s compilation from AMOS output

PAGE 328 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 28 NO. 2 2024

 Figure 6 Mediation effect of knowledge hiding

creativity. It indicates the paradoxical leader has the power to control and mould
knowledge-hiding behaviour and motivate employees to share knowledge freely. The
results are inconsistent with the previous studies of Cabrera and Cabrera (2002) and Cress
et al. (2009).

3.4.6 Full-fledged structural equation model – parallel mediation analysis. The following
model exhibits the relationship between paradoxical leadership and employee creativity
using knowledge sharing and knowledge hiding as mediators. More complex models such
as parallel mediation can include more than one mediator (Hayes, 2013). These mediators
are allowed to correlate with one another but not to influence each other in causality (Hayes,
2013). In this research also, we have considered knowledge sharing and knowledge hiding
as mediators and found two different contradictory results. The results indicates that
knowledge sharing is a mediator and knowledge hiding is not significantly mediating the
relationship between paradoxical leadership and employee creativity. The findings are
given in Table 9.
A parallel mediation analysis was conducted to examine the relationships between
paradoxical leadership, employee creativity and knowledge sharing and hiding as
mediators, with the results shown in Figure 7.

Table 9 Interactive effects of paradoxical leadership among knowledge sharing, hiding

and employee creativity
Description Estimate SE CR p


KS / PL 0.329 0.052 6.339

KH / PL 0.265 0.072 3.686

EC / KS 0.484 0.053 9.167
EC / KH 0.012 0.035 0.326 0.744
EC / PL 0.045 0.045 0.990 0.322
Note:  Significance level at 5% level of significance
Source: Author’s compilation from AMOS output

VOL. 28 NO. 2 2024 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 329

 Figure 7 Interactive effects of paradoxical leadership among knowledge sharing, hiding
and employee creativity

4. Discussion
Organisation growth depends on the ability to generate novel ideas and implement those
ideas to survive and get success (Anderson et al., 2014). Creativity requires the support of
knowledge and creativity itself is the result of knowledge creation (Wang and Noe, 2010)
According to the componential theory of creativity, domain knowledge, skills and intrinsic
motivation are three major components of creativity. In light of the crucial role of knowledge
management in the current organisational context (Kanawattanachai and Yoo, 2007), there
is a need to understand the role of leadership in encouraging people to share knowledge
and discouraging knowledge-hiding behaviour. Commonly, motivation for sharing and
hiding knowledge are quite different in organisational work settings. A leader who can
consider both integration and differentiation parameters need to guide and motivate
employees to share knowledge-sharing behaviour and control knowledge-hiding behaviour.
The theory of paradox highlights the significance of exploring the interrelationships among
paradoxical leadership, knowledge sharing, knowledge hiding, and their impact on
creativity. This can provide valuable insights into how leadership can foster knowledge
sharing while discouraging knowledge hiding, which can impede the creative process. It is
a need for keeping a paradoxical leadership trait that can control knowledge-hiding
behaviour and allow knowledge-sharing behaviour freely which motivates creativity.
Knowledge sharing and hiding are not opposite concepts and require two different kinds of
motivation (Webster et al., 2008a, 2008b). Knowledge sharing and hiding may be driven
differently, and work design elements may have an impact on the motivation to share
knowledge with peers (Connelly et al., 2012). Because autonomous motivation may
motivate employees to share knowledge while controlled motivation requires reducing

PAGE 330 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 28 NO. 2 2024

knowledge-hiding behaviour of employees. Therefore, the researcher aims at examining the
theoretical and empirical relationship among the DV (Employee Creativity), IV (Paradoxical
Leadership) and mediators (Knowledge Sharing and Knowledge Hiding), which was found
unexplored in IT firms and discussion about the results are presented in the following
sections.
The hypothesis framed is paradoxical leadership influences employee creativity positively.
The analysis’s findings support the hypothesis and demonstrate that paradoxical leadership
and employee creativity have a positive and significant association. Leadership has
frequently been cited as a major component in fostering employee creativity (Herrmann and
Felfe, 2013). The social exchange theory affirms that if leaders demonstrate trust, support
and the greatest organisational climate, followers would work hard to show creativity in
initiatives and demand rewards (Xu et al., 2017). A paradoxical leader supports others while
letting others shine through their work by displaying creativity. The results support the
findings that a paradoxical leader has been proposed as a driver of innovation and plays a
critical role in employee creativity (Papachroni et al., 2015). The findings prove that a
paradoxical leader giving full consideration and autonomy at work elevates employee
creativity. The findings are inconsistent with the leadership that negatively impacts creativity
because of the dependence followers have on the leader (Kollmann et al., 2013).
The hypothesis of paradoxical leadership and knowledge sharing has a positive association.
Many researchers have put a lot of effort into exploring the antecedents of knowledge
sharing (Wang et al., 2010). Out of many antecedents considered for the study to analyse
the knowledge sharing of employees, the influence of leadership has increasingly received
the attention of researchers. This hypothesis is also framed to discuss how paradoxical
leadership style influences the knowledge sharing of employees. The results are also
accepting that a paradoxical leader has a significant and positive association with
knowledge sharing. It indicates that knowledge builders who lead teams indirectly improve
knowledge sharing by increasing everyone’s readiness to rely on and share thoughts and
information with the team (Lee et al., 2010). Paradoxical leader treats their subordinates
equally and creates a working environment in which employees are free to share their ideas
and happy to share some insightful knowledge. The findings are consistent with the results
of employees’ promotive voice behaviour improved (Xue et al., 2020).
The hypothesis of paradoxical leadership and knowledge hiding has a negative
association. The result also shows that a paradoxical leader can control knowledge-hiding
behaviour. Before they can more effectively analyse the ideas and come to a sensible
conclusion, employees who are engaged in the creative process may be more inspired by
a leader to share their knowledge and ideas with others. However, leadership can promote
knowledge sharing but does not stop employees from hiding their knowledge (Tan et al.,
2022). The results on the correlation between paradoxical leadership and knowledge hiding
suggest that paradoxical leadership has a detrimental effect on employee knowledge
hiding. Because of strong procedures and punishments implemented to control knowledge-
hiding behaviour, the paradoxical leader is considered an abusive leader from the
perspective of knowledge hiders (Liu et al., 2012). Behaviour of employees can be moulded
through leadership in an organisation (Yukl et al., 2019). The results indicate that a
paradoxical leader can control and reduce knowledge-hiding behaviour significantly.
Because in the dominant mastery atmosphere, knowledge hiding can be minimised

(Cerne et al., 2014).
Creativity in IT is one of the demanded skills that bring out innovative solutions and create
opportunities for companies. Because, creative employees are the source of inspiration that
requires collaborative work to convert imaginative skills of innovation to turn to become
reality. A leader who demonstrates concern and shares the power to make decisions
motivates the followers to share knowledge and valuable information that enables the team
to implement creative practices for team productivity (Lin et al., 2020). Knowledge sharing

VOL. 28 NO. 2 2024 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 331

 enhances employees’ skill set and become experts in their field and in turn, domain
knowledge and expertise enhances creativity. This finding is consistent with the findings
that creativity and knowledge sharing are significantly correlated (Dong et al. (2010). A
workplace that encourages employees to share their knowledge, interact with each other
and receive rewards for sharing knowledge fosters creativity. Knowledge sharing is an
important mediator that explains significant association between paradoxical leadership
and employee creativity.
The concept of knowledge hiding is presented as a mediator of employee creativity. It is
possible to increase the interdependence of teamwork inside the team and prevent
knowledge hiding by imposing external constraints, such as punishment. A paradoxical
leader can promote individuality and knowledge sharing with others while maintaining
control over knowledge-hiding behaviour. The relationship between paradoxical
leadership’s effect on knowledge hiding and employee creativity demonstrates that
paradoxical leaders discourage followers when they hide knowledge from others by
enforcing strict rules against knowledge hiders. As might be expected, knowledge hiding
harms employee creativity. Individuals often hide a great deal of information, which harms

their creativity (Cerne et al., 2014). The insignificant negative association between
knowledge hiding and employee creativity indicates that knowledge hiding is not a mediator
that explains the relationship between paradoxical leadership and creativity. It indicates the
paradoxical leader has the power to control and mould the knowledge hiding behaviour and
motivate employees to share knowledge freely. The results are inconsistent with the
previous studies (Cabrera and Cabrera, 2002; Cress et al., 2009).
Drawing on the social exchange theory, it is stated that sharing knowledge fosters creativity
and that keeping knowledge to oneself encourages a reciprocal effect in which other co-
workers are less willing to share their ideas, knowledge and information with the knowledge-
hoarder. To encourage knowledge sharing and control knowledge-hiding behaviour, a
leader who can manage employees’ contradictory knowledge-sharing and knowledge-
hiding behaviours must use a variety of employee motivator strategies. The results also
show that paradoxical leadership, which promotes open knowledge sharing while
maintaining control over employees that directly affects employee creativity hidden, has a
negative significant impact on employee creativity.

5. Theoretical implications
This study contributes to the field of leadership on knowledge management by showing how
a leader with the paradoxical nature can successfully traverse complex and dynamic
organisational contexts, encourage knowledge sharing and regulate knowledge-hiding
behaviour. Moreover, this study sheds light on the impact of knowledge management on
employee creativity. The findings of the study imply that knowledge sharing among
employees enhances employee creativity and knowledge hiding deters employee
creativity. To the best of our knowledge, there is no previous study that simultaneously
examines the knowledge sharing and hiding parameters on employee creativity. This study
helps us to understand the role of knowledge management behaviour in industries where
knowledge management plays a significant role in fostering creativity in addition to the IT
sector. As it emphasises the value of balancing competing demands in intricate
organisational systems, this finding has significant implications for organisational theory and
practice and helps leaders to develop effective leadership strategies that promote
knowledge-sharing culture and ultimately enhance employee creativity.

6. Practical implications
The current study emphasises the need for paradoxical leaders in fostering knowledge
sharing and restraining employees’ knowledge-hiding behaviours to boost employee

PAGE 332 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 28 NO. 2 2024

creativity. The effectiveness of leaders is becoming a key issue for inspiring employees’
creativity in organisations as paradoxical difficulties are ubiquitous at both the
organisational and employee levels. In an organisation, paradoxical leadership must be
integrated to increase knowledge-sharing activities, which in turn boost creativity. To foster
effective decision-making, management should support leaders who embrace
contradictory perspectives and encourage healthy conflict among team members. This
approach can lead to increased participation and engagement among team members,
ultimately leading to better decision-making outcomes. Team members feel acknowledged
by management when they participate in decision-making, which also helps to prevent
antisocial behaviour. The study found that knowledge-sharing initiatives should be regularly
undertaken inside the business to develop a unified and knowledgeable staff. The results of
this study would also augment the body of knowledge on HR practices in the IT sector.
The study’s conclusions will aid the top management of the organisations in developing
strategies to enhance their senior–subordinate relationships and how to encourage
knowledge sharing and prevent knowledge hiding to foster innovation. According to the
study, constant knowledge-sharing strategies among team members enhance employee
creativity and improves an organisation’s success.
Finally, by examining other performance enhancers besides knowledge-sharing methods
(such as working practices, learning and development, organisational identification,
work–life balance, as well as empowerment), the study will assist top management in
developing a framework or model for enhancing employee creativity (Saleem and
Mahmood, 2018). Though the IT sector in southern India was the focus of the study, it can
be claimed that most firms strive to develop original and creative solutions for projects that
present a variety of business opportunities. As a result, the research can be used to design
creative methods for knowledge sharing and concealment that boost employee creativity in
various industries across international borders.

7. Limitations and direction for the future research

The study, which demonstrates how perceptions of a leader may alter over time, is carried
out in the IT sector, which is thought of as a highly organised area. Therefore, it is possible
to view the likelihood that the study will be compromised over its leader as a key limitation.
The findings cannot be applied to all leader–follower interactions because paradoxical
leadership involves a two-way relationship between the leader and follower and it may vary
over time and in different sectors.
Previous studies have shown that no research has been done in India’s IT industry that takes
into account both knowledge-hiding and knowledge-sharing behaviour. This study can be
used as a guide for enhancing creativity in the field of IT. To improve employee creativity in
software firms, additional antecedents might also need to be taken into account. Research has
examined the relationship between paradoxical leadership and employee creativity in this
paradigm, as well as the roles of knowledge sharing and knowledge hiding as mediators. To
improve the relationship between the constructs, further research can be done to examine the
strategies that boost knowledge sharing and controls knowledge hiding to enhance creativity.

8. Conclusion
A paradoxical leader is needed to execute effective knowledge management techniques
that promote information sharing and control knowledge hiding while fostering employee
creativity in the complicated and rapidly changing business environment that firms must
contend with. In the present day, organisational leadership is crucial in motivating followers
and encouraging them to develop innovative problem-solving abilities. The study leads to
the conclusion that paradoxical leadership has a direct impact on employee creativity, but
that this relationship is completely mediated when knowledge sharing is used as a

VOL. 28 NO. 2 2024 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 333

 mediator. The link between paradoxical leadership and employee creativity, however,
changes for the better with the addition of knowledge hiding as a mediator. This study
shows that knowledge sharing has a mediating influence and that there is a causal
association between paradoxical relationships, knowledge sharing, hiding and employee
creativity. This research can be used in more detail to have a better understanding of the
roles that a paradoxical leader can play in enhancing knowledge-sharing behaviour and
regulating knowledge-hiding behaviour while developing creative projects.

References
Ahmad, F. and Karim, M. (2019), “Impacts of knowledge sharing: a review and directions for future
research”, Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 31 No. 3.

Alavi, M. and Leidner, D.E. (2001), “Knowledge management and knowledge management systems:
conceptual foundations and research issues”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 107-136.

Amabile, T.M. (1983), “The social psychology of creativity: a componential conceptualization”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 45 No. 2, p. 357.

Amabile, T.M. (1988), “A model of creativity and innovation in organizations”, Research in Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 123-167.
Amabile, T.M. and Khaire, M. (2008), “Your organization could use a bigger dose of creativity”, Harvard
Business Review, , Vol. 86 No. 10, pp. 101-109.
Amabile, T.M. and Mueller, J.S. (2008), “Studying creativity, its processes, and its antecedents: an
exploration of the componential theory of creativity”, Handbook of Organizational Creativity, Elsevier
Science, Cham, p. 3162.
 nik, K. and Zhou, J. (2014), “Innovation and creativity in organizations: a state-of-the-
Anderson, N., Potoc
science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework”, Journal of Management, Vol. 40
No. 5, pp. 1297-1333.

Andries, P., de Winne, S. and Bos-Nehles, A. (2019), “Knowledge management practices for
stimulating incremental and radical product innovation”, Strategic Renewal, Routledge, London,
pp. 100-118.
Bain, P., Mann, L., Atkins, L. and Dunning, J. (2005), “R&D project leaders: roles and responsibilities”,
Leadership, Management, and Innovation in R&D Project Teams, Praeger, Westport, p. 49-70.

Bari, M.W., Ghaffar, M. and Ahmad, B. (2020), “Knowledge-hiding behaviors and employees’ silence:
mediating role of psychological contract breach”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 24 No. 9.

Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, p. 1173.

Basu, R. and Green, S.G. (1997), “Leader-member exchange and transformational leadership: an
empirical examination of innovative behaviors in leader-member dyads”, Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 477-499.
Bergeron, D.M. (2007), “The potential paradox of organizational citizenship behavior: good citizens at
what cost?”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 1078-1095.
Bogilovic 
, S., Cerne, M. and Škerlavaj, M. (2017), “Hiding behind a mask? Cultural intelligence,
knowledge hiding, and individual and team creativity”, European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 710-723.
Bollen, K.A. (1989), Structural equations with latent variables, John Wiley and Sons, Vol. 210.

Cabrera, A. and Cabrera, E.F. (2002), “Knowledge-sharing dilemmas”, Organization Studies, Vol. 23
No. 5, pp. 687-710.

Caniëls, M.C.J. and Rietzschel, E.F. (2015), “Organizing creativity: creativity and innovation under
constraints”, Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 184-196.

Cerne, M., Hernaus, T., Dysvik, A. and Škerlavaj, M. (2017), “The role of multilevel synergistic interplay
among team mastery climate, knowledge hiding, and job characteristics in stimulating innovative work
behavior”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 281-299.

PAGE 334 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 28 NO. 2 2024


Cerne, M., Nerstad, C.G.L., Dysvik, A. and Škerlavaj, M. (2014), “What goes around comes around:
knowledge hiding, perceived motivational climate, and creativity”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 172-192.
Chatterjee, S., Chaudhuri, R., Vrontis, D. and Piccolo, R. (2021), “Enterprise social network for knowledge
sharing in MNCs: examining the role of knowledge contributors and knowledge seekers for cross-country
collaboration”, Journal of International Management, Vol. 27 No. 1, p. 100827.
Chen, L.-Y. (2004), “An Examination of the Relationships among Leadership Behaviors, Knowledge
Sharing, and Organization’s Marketing Effectiveness in Professional Service Firms That Have Been
Engaged in Strategic Alliances”, Nova Southeastern University.
Cheung, P.-K., Chau, P.Y.K. and Au, A.K.K. (2008), “Does knowledge reuse make a creative person more
creative?”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 219-227.
Connelly, C.E., Zweig, D., Webster, J. and Trougakos, J.P. (2012), “Knowledge hiding in organizations”,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 64-88.
Cooke, P., Davies, C. and Wilson, R. (2002), “Innovation advantages of cities: from knowledge to equity in five
basic steps”, European Planning Studies, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 233-250.

Crawford, B., Barra, C.L., dela Soto, R., Dorochesi, M. and Monfroy, E. (2013), “The role of knowledge
management in agile software development”, International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction,
Springer, pp. 17-21.

Cress, U., Kimmerle, J. and Hesse, F.W. (2009), “Impact of temporal extension, synchronicity, and group size
on computer-supported information exchange”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 731-737.
Cropanzano, R. and Mitchell, M.S. (2005), “Social exchange theory: an interdisciplinary review”, Journal
of Management, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 874-900.
Cummings, J.N. (2004), “Work groups, structural diversity, and knowledge sharing in a global
organization”, Management Science, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 352-364.
Davenport, T.H. and Prusak, L. (1998), Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They
Know, Harvard Business Press, Boston, MI.
de Geofroy, Z. and Evans, M.M. (2017), “Are emotionally intelligent employees less likely to hide their
knowledge?”, Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 81-95.

de Long, D.W. and Fahey, L. (2000), “Diagnosing cultural barriers to knowledge management”, Academy
of Management Perspectives, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 113-127.
DeLong, T.J. and DeLong, S. (2011), “Managing yourself: the paradox of excellence”, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 2011, pp. 119-123.
Denison, D.R., Hooijberg, R. and Quinn, R.E. (1995), “Paradox and performance: toward a theory of
behavioral complexity in managerial leadership”, Organization Science, Vol. 6 No. 5, pp. 524-540.
Dong, G., Liem, C.G. and Grossman, M. (2010), “Knowledge-sharing intention in Vietnamese
organizations”, VINE, Vol. 40 No. 3/4, pp. 262-276.
Fong, P.S.W., Men, C., Luo, J. and Jia, R. (2018), “Knowledge hiding and team creativity: the contingent
role of task interdependence”, Management Decision, Vol. 56 No. 2, pp. 329-343.

Gibson, C.B. and Gibbs, J.L. (2006), “Unpacking the concept of virtuality: the effects of geographic
dispersion, electronic dependence, dynamic structure, and national diversity on team innovation”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 451-495.

Gilbert, F.W., Prenshaw, P.J. and Ivy, T.T. (1996), “A preliminary assessment of the effectiveness of
creativity training in marketing”, Journal of Marketing Education, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 46-56.
Gilson, L.L. and Shalley, C.E. (2004), “A little creativity goes a long way: an examination of teams’
engagement in creative processes”, Journal of Management, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 453-470.
Gong, Y., Cheung, S.-Y., Wang, M. and Huang, J.-C. (2012), “Unfolding the proactive process for
creativity: integration of the employee proactivity, information exchange, and psychological safety
perspectives”, Journal of Management, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 1611-1633.
Gong, Y., Huang, J.-C. and Farh, J.-L. (2009), “Employee learning orientation, transformational
leadership, and employee creativity: the mediating role of employee creative self-efficacy”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 52 No. 4, pp. 765-778.

VOL. 28 NO. 2 2024 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 335

 Hagger, M.S., Hardcastle, S.J., Chater, A., Mallett, C., Pal, S. and Chatzisarantis, N.L.D. (2014),
“Autonomous and controlled motivational regulations for multiple health-related behaviors: between-and
within-participants analyses”, Health Psychology and Behavioral Medicine, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 565-601.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1998), “Factor analysis, multivariate data
analysis”, NJ Prentice-Hall, Vol. 3, pp. 98-99.
Hao, L. and Luanluan, L. (2019), “Influence of prevention focus and motivational climate on knowledge
hiding in enterprises”, Science Research Management, Vol. 40 No. 4, p. 245.
Hayes, A.F. (2013), “Mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis”, Introduction to Mediation,
Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach Edn, Vol. 1, New York,
Guilford Publications, p. 20.
Herrmann, D. and Felfe, J. (2013), “Moderators of the relationship between leadership style and
employee creativity: the role of task novelty and personal initiative”, Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 25
No. 2, pp. 172-181.
Ho, H. and Ganesan, S. (2013), “Does knowledge base compatibility help or hurt knowledge sharing
between suppliers in coopetition? The role of customer participation”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 77 No. 6,
pp. 91-107.
Hon, A.H.Y. (2011), “Enhancing employee creativity in the Chinese context: the mediating role of
employee self-concordance”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 30 No. 2,
pp. 375-384.
Houyong, T., Qianqian, W. and Wenfang, H. (2023), “Impacts of paradoxical leadership behavior on
employee creativity”, Management Review, Vol. 34 No. 2, p. 215.

Huber, G.P. (2001), “Transfer of knowledge in knowledge management systems: unexplored issues and
suggested studies”, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 72-79.
Ipe, M. (2003), “Knowledge sharing in organizations: a conceptual framework”, Human Resource
Development Review, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 337-359.
Irum, A., Ghosh, K. and Pandey, A. (2020), “Workplace incivility and knowledge hiding: a research
agenda”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 27 No. 3.
Javed, B., Fatima, T., Khan, A.K. and Bashir, S. (2021), “Impact of inclusive leadership on innovative
work behavior: the role of creative self-efficacy”, The Journal of Creative Behavior, Vol. 55 No. 3,
pp. 769-782.
Jia, J., Yan, J., Cai, Y. and Liu, Y. (2018), “Paradoxical leadership incongruence and Chinese individuals’
followership behaviors: moderation effects of hierarchical culture and perceived strength of human
resource management system”, Asian Business & Management, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 313-338.
Kanawattanachai, P. and Yoo, Y. (2007), “The impact of knowledge coordination on virtual team
performance over time”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 783-808.
Kang, S.-W. (2016), “Knowledge withholding: psychological hindrance to the innovation diffusion within
an organisation”, Knowledge Management Research & Practice, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 144-149.

Kets de Vries, M.F.R. (2012), “The psychopath in the C suite: redifining the SOB”, INSEAD Working
Paper.
Kollmann, T., Stöckmann, C., Krell, P., Peschl, A. and Buchwald, S. (2013), “Integrating dependency on
the leader and empowerment into transformational leadership-creative performance relationship”,
Central European Business Review, Vol. 2 No. 1.
Kowalski, J. and Tu, X.M. (2008), Modern Applied U-statistics, John Wiley and Sons.
Land, F., Amjad, U. and Nolas, S.-M. (2007), “The ethics of knowledge management”, International
Journal of Knowledge Management (Management), Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 1-9.
Lee, P., Gillespie, N., Mann, L. and Wearing, A. (2010), “Leadership and trust: their effect on knowledge
sharing and team performance”, Management Learning, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 473-491.

Lewis, M.W., Andriopoulos, C. and Smith, W.K. (2014), “Paradoxical leadership to enable strategic
agility”, California Management Review, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 58-77.
Li, X., Xue, Y., Liang, H. and Yan, D. (2020), “The impact of paradoxical leadership on employee voice
behavior: a moderated mediation model”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 11, p. 537756.

PAGE 336 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 28 NO. 2 2024

Lin, M., Zhang, X., Ng, B.C.S. and Zhong, L. (2020), “To empower or not to empower? Multilevel effects of
empowering leadership on knowledge hiding”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 89,
p. 102540.
Liss, K. (1999), “Do we know how to do that? Understanding knowledge management”, Harvard
Management Update, Vol. 4 No. 12, pp. 1-4.
Liu, D., Liao, H. and Loi, R. (2012), “The dark side of leadership: a three-level investigation of the
cascading effect of abusive supervision on employee creativity”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 55 No. 5, pp. 1187-1212.

Liu, X., Huang, Y., Kim, J. and Na, S. (2023), “How ethical leadership cultivates innovative work behaviors
in employees? Psychological safety, work engagement and openness to experience”, Sustainability,
Vol. 15 No. 4, p. 3452.

Martini, L. (2016), “Knowledge sharing in a creative city”, Procedia Computer Science, Vol. 99, pp. 79-90.
Mettler, T. and Winter, R. (2016), “Are business users social? A design experiment exploring information
sharing in enterprise social systems”, Journal of Information Technology, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 101-114.
Miron-Spektor, E., Ingram, A., Keller, J., Smith, W.K. and Lewis, M.W. (2018), “Microfoundations of
organizational paradox: the problem is how we think about the problem”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 26-45.

Mubarak, N., Osmadi, A., Khan, J., Mahdiyar, A. and Riaz, A. (2021), “What makes people hide
knowledge? Influence of passive leadership and creative self-efficacy”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 12,
p. 740880.

Nahapiet, J. and Ghoshal, S. (1998), “Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational
advantage”, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 242-266.

Newman, A., Herman, H.M., Schwarz, G. and Nielsen, I. (2018), “The effects of employees’ creative self-
efficacy on innovative behavior: the role of entrepreneurial leadership”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 89, pp. 1-9.
Nguyen, N.T.H., Nguyen, D., Vo, N. and Tuan, L.T. (2023), “Fostering public sector employees’ innovative
behavior: the roles of servant leadership, public service motivation, and learning goal orientation”,
Administration & Society, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 30-63.
Nguyen, T.-M., Nham, T.P., Froese, F.J. and Malik, A. (2019), “Motivation and knowledge sharing: a meta-
analysis of main and moderating effects”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 23 No. 5.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), “The knowledge-creating company: how Japanese companies
create the dynamics of innovation”, New York, NY.
Nonaka, I., Byosiere, P., Borucki, C.C. and Konno, N. (1994), “Organizational knowledge creation theory:
a first comprehensive test”, International Business Review, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 337-351.
Ode, E. and Ayavoo, R. (2020), “The mediating role of knowledge application in the relationship between
knowledge management practices and firm innovation”, Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, Vol. 5 No. 3,
pp. 210-218.
Ouakouak, M.L. and Ouedraogo, N. (2017), “Antecedents of employee creativity and organisational
innovation: an empirical study”, International Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 21 No. 7,
p. 1750060.
Papachroni, A., Heracleous, L. and Paroutis, S. (2015), “Organizational ambidexterity through the lens of
paradox theory: building a novel research agenda”, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 51
No. 1, pp. 71-93.
Park, C.H., Song, J.H., Lim, D.H. and Kim, J.W. (2014), “The influences of openness to change,
knowledge sharing intention and knowledge creation practice on employees’ creativity in the
Korean public sector context”, Human Resource Development International, Vol. 17 No. 2,
pp. 203-221.
Qu, R., Janssen, O. and Shi, K. (2015), “Transformational leadership and follower creativity: the mediating
role of follower relational identification and the moderating role of leader creativity expectations”, The
Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 286-299.

Rosing, K., Frese, M. and Bausch, A. (2011), “Explaining the heterogeneity of the leadership-innovation
relationship: ambidextrous leadership”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 956-974.

VOL. 28 NO. 2 2024 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 337

 Roskes, M. (2015), “Constraints that help or hinder creative performance: a motivational approach”,
Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 197-206.
Rosso, B.D. (2014), “Creativity and constraints: exploring the role of constraints in the creative processes
of research and development teams”, Organization Studies, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 551-585.

Rousseau, V. and Aube , C. (2018), “When leaders stifle innovation in work teams: the role of abusive
supervision”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 151 No. 3, pp. 651-664.

Saleem, M. and Mahmood, F. (2018), “Transformational leadership and employees’ creativity: a multi-
mediation model”, Journal of Management and Research, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 1-21.
Schmidt-Keilich, M., Buhl, A. and Süßbauer, E. (2023), “Innovative green employees: the drivers of
corporate eco-innovation?”, International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, Vol. 17
Nos 1/2, pp. 182-204.
Shalley, C.E. (1995), “Effects of coaction, expected evaluation, and goal setting on creativity and
productivity”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 483-503.
Shalley, C.E. and Gilson, L.L. (2004), “What leaders need to know: a review of social and contextual
factors that can foster or hinder creativity”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 33-53.

Shao, Y., Nijstad, B.A. and Täuber, S. (2019), “Creativity under workload pressure and integrative
complexity: the double-edged sword of paradoxical leadership”, Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, Vol. 155, pp. 7-19.
Siemsen, E., Roth, A.V. and Balasubramanian, S. (2008), “How motivation, opportunity, and ability drive
knowledge sharing: the constraining-factor model”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 26 No. 3,
pp. 426-445.

Singh, S.K., Gupta, S., Busso, D. and Kamboj, S. (2021), “Top management knowledge value,
knowledge sharing practices, open innovation and organizational performance”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 128, pp. 788-798.
Smith, S. and Paquette, S. (2010), “Creativity, chaos and knowledge management”, Business Information
Review, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 118-123.
Smith, W.K. and Lewis, M.W. (2011), “Toward a theory of paradox: a dynamic equilibrium model of
organizing”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 381-403.
Srivastava, A., Bartol, K.M. and Locke, E.A. (2006), “Empowering leadership in management teams:
effects on knowledge sharing, efficacy, and performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 49
No. 6, pp. 1239-1251.
Sveiby, K.E. (2007), “Disabling the context for knowledge work: the role of managers’ behaviors”,
Management Decision, Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley.
Tan, K.-L., Hii, I.S.H. and Cheong, K.C.-K. (2022), “Knowledge ‘hiding and seeking’ during the
pandemic: who really wins in the new normal?”, VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge
Management Systems.
Tiwana, A. and McLean, E.R. (2005), “Expertise integration and creativity in information systems
development”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 13-43.

Walumbwa, F.O., Christensen-Salem, A., Hsu, I.-C. and Misati, E. (2018), “Creative self-efficacy and
creative performance: understanding the underlying mechanisms”, Academy of Management
Proceedings, Vol. 2018, Academy of Management Briarcliff Manor, New York, NY 10510, p. 10208.
Wang, A. and Cheng, B. (2010), “When does benevolent leadership lead to creativity? The moderating
role of creative role identity and job autonomy”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 31 No. 1,
pp. 106-121.

Wang, P. and Rode, J.C. (2010), “Transformational leadership and follower creativity: the moderating
effects of identification with leader and organizational climate”, Human Relations, Vol. 63 No. 8,
pp. 1105-1128.
Wang, S. and Noe, R.A. (2010), “Knowledge sharing: a review and directions for future research”, Human
Resource Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 115-131.
Wang, S., Tomlinson, E.C. and Noe, R.A. (2010), “The role of mentor trust and prote g e internal
locus of control in formal mentoring relationships”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 95 No. 2,
p. 358.

PAGE 338 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 28 NO. 2 2024

Wang, Y., Tang, C., Naumann, S.E. and Wang, Y. (2019), “Paternalistic leadership and employee creativity: a
mediated moderation model”, Journal of Management & Organization, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 137-156.
Wang, Z., Wang, N. and Liang, H. (2014), “Knowledge sharing, intellectual capital and firm performance”,
Management Decision, Vol. 52 No. 2.
Webster, J., Brown, G., Zweig, D., Connelly, C., Brodt, S. and Sitkin, S. (2008a), “Beyond knowledge
sharing: knowledge hiding and hoarding at work”, Research in Personnel and Human Resources
Management, Vol. 27, Elsevier, Cham, p. 1.
Webster, J., Brown, G., Zweig, D., Connelly, C.E., Brodt, S. and Sitkin, S. (2008b), “Beyond knowledge
sharing: withholding knowledge at work”, Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management,
Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley.

Xu, B.-D., Zhao, S.-K., Li, C.-R. and Lin, C.-J. (2017), “Authentic leadership and employee creativity:
testing the multilevel mediation model”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 38
No. 3.

Xue, Y., Li, X., Liang, H. and Li, Y. (2020), “How does paradoxical leadership affect employees’ voice
behaviors in workplace? A leader-member exchange perspective”, International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 17 No. 4, p. 1162.
Yang, J., Liu, H. and Gu, J. (2017), “A multi-level study of servant leadership on creativity: the roles
of self-efficacy and power distance”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 38
No. 5.
Yang, Y., Li, Z., Liang, L. and Zhang, X. (2021a), “Why and when paradoxical leader behavior impact
employee creativity: thriving at work and psychological safety”, Current Psychology, Vol. 40 No. 4,
pp. 1911-1922.
Yang, Y., Zhuang, Y. and Pan, Y. (2021b), “Multiple knowledge representation for big data artificial
intelligence: framework, applications, and case studies”, Frontiers of Information Technology & Electronic
Engineering, Vol. 22 No. 12, pp. 1551-1558.
Yi, L., Mao, H. and Wang, Z. (2019), “How paradoxical leadership affects ambidextrous innovation: the
role of knowledge sharing”, Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, Vol. 47 No. 4,
pp. 1-15.
Yidong, T. and Xinxin, L. (2013), “How ethical leadership influence employees’ innovative work behavior:
a perspective of intrinsic motivation”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 116 No. 2, pp. 441-455.
Yoshida, D.T., Sendjaya, S., Hirst, G. and Cooper, B. (2014), “Does servant leadership foster creativity
and innovation? A multi-level mediation study of identification and prototypicality”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 67 No. 7, pp. 1395-1404.
Yukl, G., Mahsud, R., Prussia, G. and Hassan, S. (2019), “Effectiveness of broad and specific leadership
behaviors”, Personnel Review, Vol. 48 No. 3.
Zacher, H. and Rosing, K. (2015), “Ambidextrous leadership and team innovation”, Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, Vol. 36 No. 1.
Zhang, W., Liao, S., Liao, J. and Zheng, Q. (2021), “Paradoxical leadership and employee task
performance: a Sense-Making perspective”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 12, p. 753116.
Zhang, X. and Bartol, K.M. (2010), “Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: the
influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 107-128.
Zhang, X. and Jiang, J.Y. (2015), “With whom shall I share my knowledge? A recipient perspective of
knowledge sharing”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 19 No. 2.
Zhang, Y. and Liu, S.-M. (2022), “Balancing employees’ extrinsic requirements and intrinsic
motivation: a paradoxical leader behavior perspective”, European Management Journal, Vol. 40
No. 1, pp. 127-136.
Zhang, Y., Fang, Y., Wei, K.-K. and Chen, H. (2010), “Exploring the role of psychological safety in
promoting the intention to continue sharing knowledge in virtual communities”, International Journal of
Information Management, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 425-436.

Zhang, Y., Waldman, D.A., Han, Y.-L. and Li, X.-B. (2015), “Paradoxical leader behaviors in people
management: antecedents and consequences”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 538-566.

VOL. 28 NO. 2 2024 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 339

 Zhang, Y., Zhang, Y., Law, K.S. and Zhou, J. (2022), “Paradoxical leadership, subjective ambivalence,
and employee creativity: effects of employee holistic thinking”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 59
No. 3, pp. 695-723.
Zhu, J., Xu, S. and Zhang, B. (2020), “The paradoxical effect of inclusive leadership on subordinates’
creativity”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 10, p. 2960.

Further reading
Xiao, M. and Cooke, F.L. (2019), “Why and when knowledge hiding in the workplace is harmful: a review
of the literature and directions for future research in the Chinese context”, Asia Pacific Journal of Human
Resources, Vol. 57 No. 4, pp. 470-502.

Corresponding author
N. Chitra Devi can be contacted at: chitranagarajan80@gmail.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

PAGE 340 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 28 NO. 2 2024