The influence of self-promotion tendencies on knowledge sharing behavior:a moderated mediation model (https://doi.org/10.63386/621340)

Ningxin Jin^1,#, Yumei Wang ^2,# , Yixin He^3,* and Xutong Jiang^3,*

¹School of Political Science and Public Administration, Soochow University

Suzhou, 215123, Jiangsu, China

²Suzhou University of Science and Technology, Suzhou, 215009, Jiangsu, China

³ School of Business, Suzhou University of Science and Technology

Suzhou, 215009, Jiangsu, China

^#Ningxin Jin and Yumei Wang contributed equally to this work and they are both first authors.

^*Yixin He and Xutong Jiang contribute the same to the article and are the corresponding authors.

Corresponding Authors’ Email:18915377682@163.com(Yixin He); jxt030603@163.com(Xutong Jiang)

Abstract

In the context of the knowledge-based economy, employees’ knowledge capital is increasingly recognized as a critical determinant of organizational competitiveness. This study aims to investigate how employees’ self-promotion influences knowledge sharing behavior through knowledge hoarding, and examines the moderating effect of task interdependence. Data was collected from 239 full-time Chinese employees. Results shows that self-promotion has significantly negative effect on knowledge sharing through knowledge hoarding, and we apply Conservation of Resources (COR) theory to illustrate the paradoxical mechanisms of the impact of self-promotion on knowledge sharing behavior through knowledge hoarding. Moreover, the results also show that task interdependence serves as a critical boundary condition: high interdependence weakens the positive effect of self-promotion on knowledge hoarding and knowledge sharing behavior (via knowledge hoarding), whereas low interdependence exacerbates this effect. Finally, we also discuss the theoretical and practical implications for managers. Specifically, we recommend organizations and managers could implement task redesign strategies to enhance the interdependence of work task to fostering sustainable development of knowledge capital.

Keywords: self-promotion tendency; desire for knowledge monopoly; knowledge sharing behavior; task interdependence; resource conservation theory

Chapter 1   Introduction

1.1 Research Background

In the knowledge economy era, knowledge has become a strategic resource for organizations, serving as the core element driving innovation and enhancing organizational competitiveness. The ancient Greek philosopher Socrates once said, “I know that I know nothing.” This statement underscores the importance of knowledge to humanity. With the deepening of reform and opening-up, the influence of knowledge in modern society is now ubiquitous.

In workplace settings, the flow of knowledge within organizations primarily stems from employees’ knowledge-sharing behaviors, which are beneficial role-extending behaviors for the organization. Research also indicates that employees’ knowledge-sharing behaviors can assist enterprises in applying and innovating knowledge, and provide sustainable competitive advantages in the ever-changing market. Especially in dynamic and complex business environments, the effective integration and sharing of individual employees’ knowledge can significantly enhance organizational adaptability and performance.

However, despite the widespread emphasis on the importance of knowledge sharing in society, knowledge flow within organizations still faces numerous obstacles. For example, employees’ self-promotion tendencies are one of the factors affecting knowledge sharing within organizations. Self-promotion tendencies are a strategy within individual impression management behavior, aimed at highlighting one’s status and persona through self-aggrandizement or self-promotion. Individuals with a high tendency toward self-promotion often, out of concern for losing their competitive advantage, prefer to exploit others’ knowledge without effort and monopolize their own knowledge, i.e., knowledge monopolization, thereby unwilling to share knowledge.

Based on the above phenomena, this study aims to explore the relationship between employees’ self-promotion tendencies, knowledge monopolization desires, and knowledge-sharing behaviors using resource conservation theory. Resource conservation theory posits that when individuals face their own resources,

they have both a need to acquire and a tendency to protect. Individuals with strong self-presentation desires often tend to satisfy their needs by exploiting others’ resources, while in terms of resource protection, they are more inclined to hide their own resources to prevent others from encroaching upon them. This dual approach leads to a desire to monopolize knowledge, thereby reducing knowledge-sharing behavior and forming a “acquisition-protection” closed-loop logic, ultimately exacerbating the phenomenon of knowledge silos within organizations. Therefore, this study aims to deconstruct the potential mechanisms through which self-promotion tendencies influence the desire to monopolize knowledge and employee knowledge-sharing behavior based on resource conservation theory.

Additionally, this study posits that task interdependence is an important boundary condition that moderates the relationship between self-promotion tendencies, knowledge monopolization desires, and knowledge-sharing behavior. Specifically, in high-task-interdependence environments, the achievement of individual goals highly depends on collective contributions. In such contexts, if individuals monopolize knowledge, it directly threatens task completion, thereby forcing highly self-promoting individuals to share their knowledge with other team members. The moderating effect of task interdependence provides insights for organizations to address the negative effects caused by self-promotion tendencies.

In summary, this study aims to reveal the underlying mechanisms and boundary conditions through which self-promotion tendencies influence knowledge-sharing behavior, providing a theoretical foundation for organizations to develop adaptive knowledge management strategies.

1.2 Research Objectives and Significance

1.2.1 Research Objectives

This study aims to explore how self-promotion tendencies influence knowledge sharing behavior through the desire for knowledge monopolization, and to analyze the moderating role of task interdependence in this process. Specific objectives include: first, revealing the negative relationship between self-promotion tendencies and knowledge sharing behavior, and clarifying the mediating role of the desire for knowledge monopolization; second, testing the moderating effect of task interdependence on the relationship between self-promotion tendencies and the desire for knowledge monopolization; Finally, based on the research findings, management strategies are proposed to optimize the knowledge-sharing environment and reduce the risk of knowledge monopolization.

1.2.2 Theoretical Significance

From a theoretical perspective, current research has primarily focused on the factors that promote knowledge sharing behavior, while insufficient attention has been given to the factors that inhibit it. This paper not only deepens the theoretical research on knowledge sharing behavior but also expands the theoretical development of self-promotion tendencies, filling the research gap in the influence relationship between self-promotion tendencies and knowledge sharing behavior. By introducing the resource conservation theory, this paper will also delve into the underlying mechanisms through which self-promotion tendencies influence knowledge hoarding and knowledge sharing, offering a new theoretical perspective on understanding the motivational factors driving individual behavior in knowledge sharing. Additionally, this paper clarifies the moderating role of task interdependence, further refining the theoretical foundation of task interdependence in organizational management contexts and providing important theoretical foundations for future research.

1.2.3 Practical Significance

This paper reveals the underlying mechanisms and boundary conditions through which self-promotion tendencies influence knowledge sharing behavior, thereby providing specific strategies for organizational knowledge management. First, the research findings help enterprises better understand the impact of knowledge monopolization

self-interest on knowledge sharing behavior, reminding organizations to pay attention to the negative effects of self-promotion tendencies on knowledge monopolization self-interest. Second, by revealing the influence of self-promotion tendencies on knowledge sharing behavior, organizations can better understand employees’ motivations for knowledge sharing and design incentive mechanisms to encourage active participation in knowledge sharing. Finally, this paper clarifies the moderating role of task interdependence, offering specific management approaches and strategies for employees with self-promotion tendencies and knowledge monopolization motives within organizations.

1.3 Research content

1.3.1 Research Questions

Based on the aforementioned research background and significance, this study aims to address the following research questions:

First, to clarify the relationship between employees with self-promotion tendencies in the workplace and their desire to monopolize knowledge and their knowledge-sharing behavior, thereby revealing the importance of managing individuals with self-promotion tendencies in the workplace.

Second, based on resource conservation theory, to uncover the underlying mechanisms through which self-promotion tendencies influence employees’ knowledge-sharing behaviors via knowledge hoarding desires, thereby providing organizations or managers with theoretical management strategies grounded in these mechanisms.

Third, based on the characteristics of task interdependence, this study explores the moderating effect of task interdependence on the influence of self-promotion tendencies through knowledge monopolization desires on knowledge-sharing behaviors, thereby revealing that emphasizing task interdependence in task design is an effective and concrete measure for managing employees with self-promotion tendencies.

1.3.2 Research Approach

This study is based on resource conservation theory and explores how an individual’s self-promotion tendency influences knowledge sharing behavior through the desire to monopolize knowledge, and analyzes the moderating role of task interdependence. By constructing a moderated mediation model, quantitative analysis methods (such as descriptive statistics, correlation analysis, regression analysis, and structural equation modeling) are employed to test the hypotheses. The aim is to provide organizational managers with recommendations for optimizing work environments and task designs to mitigate the negative impact of self-promotion tendencies on knowledge sharing, thereby enhancing organizational knowledge-sharing culture and utilization efficiency.

Chapter 1 Introduction: Introduces the research background, problem, objectives, and significance, clarifying the relationship between knowledge sharing and self-promotion tendencies and their importance in organizations.

Chapter 2 Literature Review: Reviews theoretical research and empirical findings related to self-promotion tendencies, knowledge hoarding, knowledge sharing behavior, and task interdependence.

Chapter 3 Research Hypotheses and Model: Proposes research hypotheses and constructs a moderated mediation model with knowledge hoarding as the mediator and task interdependence as the moderator.

Chapter 4: Research Design and Methods: Describes the selection of research samples, data collection methods, measurement tools for variables, and data analysis plans.

Chapter 5: Statistical Analysis: Tests hypotheses and analyzes relationships among variables using descriptive statistics, correlation analysis, regression analysis, and structural equation modeling.

Chapter 6: Research Conclusions and Outlook: Summarizes research findings, discusses theoretical and practical implications, and proposes future research directions and recommendations for organizational management.

1.4 Research Methods

(1) Literature review method: The literature review method involves systematically collecting, organizing, analyzing, and interpreting existing literature to explore research questions, test hypotheses, or summarize patterns. This paper will organize the four variables of self-promotion tendencies, knowledge monopolization desires, knowledge sharing behaviors, and task interdependence based on relevant research by domestic and international scholars, and combine this with resource conservation theory to provide a theoretical foundation for subsequent research hypotheses.

(2) Questionnaire Survey Method: The questionnaire survey method is a data collection method that uses questionnaires to collect data on the variables of this study. This study will collect gender, age, marital status, education level, position, and years of service as control variables, and self-promotion tendencies, knowledge monopolization desires, knowledge-sharing behaviors, and task interdependence as research variables.

(3) Statistical Analysis Method: The data analysis method refers to the use of appropriate statistical analysis methods to analyze the large amount of collected data. The statistical analysis software used in this study includes SPSS 25.0 and AMOS 21.0.

Chapter 2   Literature Review

2.1   Resource Preservation Theory

The Conservation of Resources Theory (COR) was proposed by psychologist Stevan Hobfoll in 1989 and is primarily used to explain the psychological mechanisms underlying individuals’ responses to stress, stress reactions, and adaptation processes ^[1]. The theory posits that individuals tend to actively acquire, protect, and accumulate resources they perceive as valuable. Specifically, the Conservation of Resources Theory has the following three core assumptions ^[2]: First, the loss of resources has a greater impact on individuals than the acquisition of resources, meaning that the pain caused by the loss of one’s own resources far exceeds the joy brought by acquiring new resources. Second, individuals with more abundant resources are more likely to acquire additional new resources, while those with scarce resources are more prone to losing resources, a phenomenon known as the resource gain spiral. In other words, individuals with abundant resources can more easily cope with the pressures they face and continue to obtain and accumulate resources from the outside world. Conversely, individuals with scarce resources are more likely to fall into a vicious cycle of stress and continuous resource loss. Finally, individuals will invest their existing resources (such as time and energy) to protect their existing resources (such as reputation and personal image) to prevent further loss of personal resources.

In the workplace, the three core assumptions of the resource conservation theory are also frequently used to explain employees’ behavioral responses to stressors. For example, when individuals face managers with a workaholic leadership style, they are more likely to adopt work avoidance behaviors rather than proactive work behaviors to cope with the pressure exerted by managers, thereby leading to a decline in work performance ^[3]. This phenomenon also indicates that the negative effects of resource loss (such as the pressure exerted by workaholic leaders) outweigh the positive effects of resource acquisition (the resources provided by workaholic leaders); Managers with a high benevolent leadership style provide employees with more work and life resources, thereby enhancing employees’ work-family enrichment and group affective tone, which in turn promotes their work engagement ^[4]. This research also indicates that employees utilize existing resources (such as family resources and emotional resources) to obtain more resources (such as work resources), forming a resource gain spiral ^[5]. Negative workplace gossip depletes employees’ psychological resources, triggering their self-resource protection mechanism and leading to silent behavior, consuming more energy and time to avoid conflict, thereby reducing their innovative performance^[6]. This phenomenon also reflects how individuals utilize existing resources (such as time and energy) to protect against resource loss (such as the loss of interpersonal relationship resources caused by conflict).

Previous studies have also pointed out that if organizations can provide adequate resource support (such as work resources, psychological resources, and life resources) to help employees accumulate and preserve resources, employees will exhibit higher levels of commitment, proactive innovation behavior, and willingness to collaborate in teams due to enhanced resource security, thereby obtaining more resource returns through active work ^[6-8]. In summary, resource conservation theory not only explains how workplace stress inhibits employee behavior but also provides intervention directions for management practices.

2.2   Self-promotional tendencies

2.2.1   Conceptual connotation of self-promotional tendency

Self-promotion intention refers to an individual’s strategy of showcasing their abilities, achievements, or value to obtain positive recognition and evaluation from others ^[9]. The concept of self-promotion intention originates from the five strategies of impression management, a concept proposed by Bolino and Turnley in 1999. This research defines impression management as the strategic and purposeful adjustment of behavior, language, and appearance in social interactions to shape others’ favorable perceptions of oneself. In addition to self-promotion intention, impression management encompasses four other behavioral dimensions: ingratiation, which involves individuals seeking to establish positive social relationships by pleasing others and gaining their favor (e.g., through praise and flattery); exemplification, which refers to individuals demonstrating their moral values, sense of responsibility, and self-discipline through superficial strategies to improve their public image; intimidation, which refers to individuals demonstrating authority to shape or maintain their influential and authoritative public image; and supplication, which refers to individuals feigning helplessness, vulnerability, or need for assistance to elicit sympathy and support from others.

In summary, this study focuses on self-promotion tendencies to explore their relationship with knowledge resource management in the workplace. The reasons are as follows: First, self-promotion tendencies are the primary means individuals use to shape their public image in the workplace. Compared to other strategies, self-promotion more directly involves individuals showcasing their abilities and strengths, making it highly recognizable. Second, previous studies have shown that employees with self-promotion tendencies are more likely to lean toward individualism rather than collectivism ^[10,11], which may have a significant impact on resource sharing within organizations. On the surface, although employees with self-promotion tendencies in the workplace appear willing to share their knowledge, skills, and abilities, they often retain core knowledge resources. Therefore, compared to overall impression management research, delving into self-promotion tendencies holds greater academic value.

2.2.2   Related Research on Self-promotion Tendency

Previous studies on the effects of self-promotion tendencies can be broadly categorized into positive and negative aspects. From the perspective of the positive effects of self-promotion tendencies, employees with such tendencies are more likely to enhance their career success and promotion opportunities. This is because self-promotion tendencies enable individuals to showcase their abilities, achievements, and value, thereby gaining greater social and professional recognition^[12]. Furthermore, employees with self-promotion tendencies enhance their supervisors’ and colleagues’ recognition of their work performance by showcasing their achievements ^[13].

From the perspective of the negative effects of self-promotion tendencies, individuals with such tendencies may provoke dissatisfaction and hostility among colleagues, especially in team environments, potentially intensifying competition among employees and thereby affecting the collaborative atmosphere^[14]. Additionally, highly self-promoting employees may be perceived as insincere or self-centered, exhibiting a tendency toward morally questionable behavior^[15], which may lead to reduced trust from colleagues and leaders.

2.3   Knowledge Exclusivity Selfishness

2.3.1   Conceptualization of Intellectual Exclusivity Selfishness

Knowledge hoarding (also known as knowledge hiding) refers to the tendency of knowledge holders to intentionally withhold or hide the knowledge sought by knowledge seekers when faced with their knowledge needs^[16,17], while hoping to obtain knowledge from other knowledge holders without effort. Previous studies have primarily examined knowledge hoarding as a behavioral trait. However, inspired by the work of Lu and Lin^[18], this study redefines it as a psychological behavioral motive for the following reasons: this study posits that the core of knowledge hoarding is not merely manifested in external behavioral expressions but is more deeply rooted in an individual’s psychological characteristics and intrinsic motives. In other words, the desire for knowledge monopolization reflects an individual’s psychological attitude and emotional drive when faced with knowledge needs, rather than simply external behavior. Therefore, viewing knowledge monopolization solely as behavior may overlook an individual’s psychological motivations and internal tendencies in different contexts. For example, an individual’s desire for knowledge monopolization is often related to their sense of ownership of knowledge, their need for rights, and their perception of dependence on others. These psychological factors profoundly influence whether an individual is willing to actively or passively monopolize information. Therefore, compared to knowledge monopolization behavior itself, the desire for knowledge monopolization better reflects an individual’s underlying psychological patterns in daily interactions.

2.3.2   Research on Knowledge Appropriation Privilege

Research on the desire for knowledge monopolization can be divided into studies on the factors influencing the formation of such desires and studies on the outcomes of such desires. From the perspective of formative factors, previous studies have indicated that leadership style has a direct impact on knowledge monopolization behavior. For example, transformational leadership is more effective in reducing the occurrence of knowledge monopolization behavior by building trust, encouraging open communication, and creating a supportive environment^[19]; trust and cooperative spirit among team members are also important factors influencing members’ knowledge monopolization behavior^[20]; Chen Yingcao’s 2024 study also noted that work pressure can have a significant positive impact on knowledge-based employees’ knowledge hoarding behavior^[21].

From the perspective of the impact of knowledge hoarding behavior, it directly and negatively affects team performance^[22]; knowledge hoarding behavior also has a negative impact on individual innovation performance, leading to trust crises and strained interpersonal relationships^[23]; additionally, individual knowledge hoarding behavior further impacts organizational creativity and performance^[24].

2.4   Knowledge Sharing Behavior

2.4.1   Conceptual Connotation of Knowledge Sharing Behavior

Knowledge-sharing behavior has traditionally been categorized into two distinct contexts in previous research. The first emphasizes the exchange of knowledge or skills between individuals or groups, where individuals engage in mutual knowledge exchange to facilitate the flow and sharing of knowledge among teams or groups^[25]. In this process, employees within an organization not only exchange existing knowledge and skills but may also create new knowledge and skills through interaction. The other context emphasizes employees’ willingness and proactivity in sharing their skills and knowledge with other members of the organization^[26].

Since this study primarily focuses on individual psychological factors and behaviors, without considering the impact of interactions between or within teams, the latter definition is adopted as the definition of knowledge-sharing behavior in this study, focusing on employees’ spontaneous knowledge-sharing behavior rather than exchange-based knowledge-sharing behavior.

2.4.2   Related Research on Knowledge Sharing Behavior

Previous studies on knowledge sharing behavior can also be divided into studies on the factors influencing the formation of knowledge sharing behavior and studies on the outcomes of such behavior. From the perspective of factors influencing the formation of knowledge sharing behavior, team fairness and team trust are key positive factors influencing knowledge sharing^[27], meaning that individuals who perceive greater team fairness and trust among team members are more willing to engage in knowledge sharing behavior. Additionally, Yuan Shuyu et al. (2025) found that servant leadership styles also positively influence employees’ knowledge sharing behavior ^[28].

On the other hand, regarding the outcomes of knowledge sharing behavior, previous studies have indicated that individuals with high levels of knowledge sharing behavior exhibit higher levels of innovation and performance ^[29]. Other studies have pointed out that organizations with more knowledge sharing behavior tend to have higher organizational performance ^[30]. Furthermore, some studies have noted that employees with higher levels of knowledge sharing behavior demonstrate more organizational citizenship behavior ^[31].

2.5   Task Dependency

2.5.1   Conceptualization of Task Dependency

Task interdependence refers to the extent to which an employee’s obligations, responsibilities, work tasks, and performance depend on the contributions of other team members ^[32]. Previous research has indicated that the level of task interdependence determines how individuals perceive the tasks and goals assigned to them. Specifically, individuals exposed to high task interdependence are more likely to view work task goals as shared team objectives, leading them to place greater emphasis on team collaboration and rely more heavily on the support and cooperation of team members when completing tasks. This is because their performance evaluations are directly linked to team performance. Therefore, in high task interdependence contexts, employees place greater emphasis on collectivism and the sharing of information and resources within the team. Conversely, individuals exposed to low task interdependence are more likely to view work task goals as personal goals, leading them to prioritize achieving personal performance while reducing team collaboration and resource sharing. Thus, in low task interdependence contexts, employees place greater emphasis on individualism and consciously protect their own information and resources from being exploited by others.

2.5.2   Related Research on Task Dependence

Previous studies have also pointed out that task interdependence tends to focus more on its positive effects. For example, research has shown that appropriate task interdependence can enable employees to exhibit more role-extraneous behaviors^[33], such as helping behaviors within an organization^[34]. Other studies have also pointed out that work tasks that set task interdependence are more likely to stimulate individuals’ knowledge sharing behaviors^[35]. Conversely, some studies have also highlighted the negative effects of task interdependence. For example, Somech et al. (2009) found that in teams with low team identity, task interdependence was positively correlated with competitive conflict management styles, while in teams with high team identity, task interdependence was positively correlated with cooperative conflict management styles^[36]. These studies also demonstrate that task interdependence has a dual nature in specific contexts.

2.6   Literature Review

Based on the current state of research on the various research variables discussed above, first, all the research variables selected in this study are well-established and mature research variables, so the research variables in this study have high reliability and validity. Second, when considering each research variable, foreign scholars tend to conduct more in-depth and extensive research. Therefore, this study primarily adopts the definitions of research variables proposed by foreign scholars as its research foundation, and then develops its hypothetical model based on the current state of research by both domestic and foreign scholars. Furthermore, in terms of research content, there are currently few studies, both domestically and internationally, that deeply explore the relationship between self-promotion tendencies, knowledge hoarding motives, and knowledge-sharing behavior. Therefore, this study aims to fill the theoretical and empirical gaps in this area by examining the influence mechanism of self-promotion tendencies on knowledge hoarding motives and knowledge-sharing behavior, and utilizing resource conservation theory to explain the underlying mechanisms through which self-promotion tendencies affect knowledge hoarding behavior and knowledge-sharing behavior. Finally, domestic and international studies on task interdependence have also pointed out that it serves as a moderator for some negative effects within organizations, holding important implications for management practice. Therefore, this study will further explore the boundary effects of task interdependence on self-promotion tendencies, knowledge hoarding desires, and knowledge-sharing behavior, thereby expanding the theoretical framework of task interdependence.

Chapter 3:  Research Hypotheses and Models

3.1   Self-promotion and Knowledge Exclusivity

Previous studies have also pointed out that impression management has a direct correlation with knowledge management. For example, research has shown that certain political skills in the workplace can positively influence employees’ knowledge hoarding behavior^[37]. Additionally, employees may also employ impression management strategies to curry favor with leaders in order to obtain more work resources^[38]. Other studies have also pointed out that the influence of leader-member exchange on knowledge hoarding is significantly moderated by impression management behavior^[39]. As such, studying the impact of impression management on knowledge resources within organizations holds significant theoretical and practical implications.

Therefore, this study, based on resource conservation theory, posits that employees with a tendency toward self-promotion will showcase their abilities and achievements to secure their status and recognition, which can be viewed as an individual’s proactive means of acquiring social resources. On the other hand, after employees with self-promotion tendencies showcase their advantages and competitiveness in public, such individuals may develop a sense of resource protection, worrying that excessive sharing or showcasing of their knowledge or skills may reduce their uniqueness and competitive advantage, thereby generating a desire to hide their knowledge. Therefore, this study proposes the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: Self-promotion tendencies are positively related to the desire to monopolize knowledge.

3.2   Knowledge Exclusivity and Knowledge Sharing Behavior

Based on resource conservation theory, this study posits that employees with a strong desire to monopolize knowledge will choose a resource protection path when faced with the decision of whether to engage in knowledge sharing, meaning that such employees tend to be cautious about knowledge sharing. Specifically, employees with a strong desire to monopolize knowledge are more inclined to protect and retain core knowledge resources because they fear that the loss of knowledge may weaken their uniqueness and competitive advantage^[40]. In some situations, they may even intentionally reduce knowledge flow to ensure that their existing status and influence remain unthreatened^[41].

Furthermore, based on the core assumption of the resource conservation theory, individuals perceive resource loss as having a greater impact on them than resource acquisition. In other words, individuals view knowledge sharing as a loss of resources, even though they may gain new knowledge resources from others. However, for individuals with a strong desire for knowledge exclusivity, this may be seen as a situation where the costs outweigh the benefits^[42]. Therefore, employees with a desire for knowledge exclusivity are more inclined to obtain knowledge resources from others without effort rather than exchange their own knowledge resources with others, unless they can gain more resources through knowledge sharing. For this reason, employees with a desire to monopolize knowledge are more likely to choose to share some knowledge in specific situations, especially when it enhances their personal image, social recognition, or allows them to obtain more resources. Otherwise, they are more likely to choose to reduce knowledge sharing behavior. In summary, the hypotheses of this study are as follows:

Hypothesis 2: There is a negative relationship between the desire to monopolize knowledge and knowledge sharing behavior.

3.3   The Mediating Role of Knowledge Exclusivity and Selfishness

Based on the two hypotheses outlined above, this study further infers that the desire for knowledge exclusivity mediates the relationship between self-promotion tendencies and knowledge sharing. Based on resource conservation theory, this study posits that employees with self-promotion tendencies, while externally demonstrating their knowledge and abilities to obtain social resources and recognition, trigger the resource acquisition psychological mechanism of resource conservation theory. However, they also develop concerns about the loss of knowledge resources, which triggers their resource protection psychological mechanism. This concern leads them to develop a desire to protect core knowledge, thereby forming a desire for knowledge monopolization. Subsequently, when individuals develop a desire for knowledge monopolization, their perceptions of their unique knowledge become more conservative and cautious, thereby reducing their knowledge sharing behavior and ultimately leading to a decrease in the flow of knowledge resources within the organization. Therefore, this study further proposes the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3: The desire for knowledge monopolization mediates the relationship between self-promotion tendencies and knowledge sharing behavior.

3.4   The Moderating Role of Task Dependence

Based on previous research on task interdependence, this study suggests that in high task interdependence situations, the influence of self-promotion tendencies on the desire to monopolize knowledge can be effectively suppressed. Conversely, in low task interdependence situations, the influence of self-promotion tendencies on the desire to monopolize knowledge becomes more pronounced. Specifically, in high task interdependence work environments, employees are more likely to view themselves and their team members as a unified whole^[32]. In such contexts, employees are more inclined to collaborate as a team toward collective goals rather than pursue individualistic goals for personal gain^[43]. Furthermore, the achievement of team goals depends on the sharing of information, knowledge, and resources among team members^[44]. In other words, if team members hoard resources for themselves, it will lead to information and resource asymmetry within the team, thereby hindering the achievement of team performance^[45].

Therefore, in high task interdependence contexts, employees with self-promotion tendencies may be more inclined to monopolize knowledge resources. However, under the pressure of team performance, they are compelled to reduce their desire for knowledge monopolization and share their resources to achieve information and resource symmetry among team members. Conversely, in low task interdependence contexts, the emphasis is more on individual performance rather than team performance. In other words, employees with a tendency toward self-promotion are more likely to develop a desire to monopolize knowledge. Such individuals believe that their unique knowledge is a prerequisite for achieving personal performance and even surpassing others’ performance. Therefore, in such contexts, employees with a tendency toward self-promotion are more likely to prevent the loss of their knowledge resources, thereby developing a stronger desire to monopolize knowledge and reducing their knowledge-sharing behavior.

In summary, the hypotheses of this study are as follows:

Hypothesis 4: Task interdependence moderates the relationship between self-promotion tendencies and knowledge hoarding. That is, the lower the task interdependence, the stronger the positive relationship between self-promotion tendencies and knowledge hoarding. Conversely, when task interdependence is high, the positive relationship between self-promotion tendencies and knowledge hoarding does not strengthen.

Hypothesis 5: Task dependency moderates the mediating effect of knowledge hoarding on the relationship between self-promotion tendencies and knowledge-sharing behavior. That is, the lower the task dependency, the stronger the indirect relationship between self-promotion tendencies and knowledge-sharing behavior through knowledge hoarding, and vice versa.

Based on Hypotheses 1 to 5, the theoretical model of this paper is as follows(see Figure 1):

Figure 1 Research Model Diagram

Chapter 4  Research Design and Methodology

4.1   Questionnaire Design

This study employs a three-stage time-lagged design to collect and analyze survey questionnaires from employed corporate staff across all industries nationwide, thereby minimizing common method bias. Specifically, the first step in designing the survey questionnaire is to rigorously screen the scales of the variables under study to ensure the relevance of the scale items to this research. Second, the researchers communicated and collaborated with the human resources departments of each company, informing the survey participants that the questionnaire would be completed anonymously, and that the data collected would be strictly confidential and used solely for academic research purposes. This was done to alleviate any concerns among the respondents and ensure that they would complete the questionnaire truthfully and accurately, thereby obtaining valid data. Finally, the collected data was subjected to rigorous processing and analysis.

The questionnaire design for this study was divided into three phases, with a one-month interval between each phase: The first phase questionnaire was used to collect participants’ basic information (demographic variables), sample identification codes for each phase (the last six digits of their mobile phone numbers), and employees’ self-promotion tendencies (independent variable) and task interdependence (moderating variable); The second phase primarily used the sample identification codes to collect employees’ knowledge hoarding tendencies (mediating variable); The third stage also used the identification codes of each sample to collect data on employees’ knowledge-sharing behavior (dependent variable).

4.2 Measurement Tools

4.2.1   Self-promotional tendencies

The self-promotion tendency measurement scale uses a 4-item scale developed by Bolino and Turnley^[9] and employs a 6-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree) for data collection in the first stage. The specific items are as follows(see Table 1):

Table 1   Measurement scale of self-promotion tendency and its items

4.2.2   Knowledge Exclusivity Privilege

The measurement scale for knowledge hoarding primarily adopts the scale proposed by Lu, Leung, and Turnley (2006) to measure the degree of individual knowledge hoarding in an organizational context^[18]. This scale consists of five items, which use a 6-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree) for data collection in the second stage. The specific items are as follows(see Table 2):

Table 2  Measurement Scale of Intellectual Privilege and Its Items

4.2.3   Knowledge Sharing Behavior

The measurement of knowledge sharing behavior mainly uses the measurement scale developed by Bock and Kim (2002) in their research^[46], which includes a total of five items and uses a 6-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree) for data collection in the third stage. The specific items are as follows(see Table 3):

Table 3  Measurement Scale of Knowledge Sharing Behavior and Its Question Items

4.2.4   Task Dependency

Task interdependence was measured using a three-item scale developed by Liden, Wayne, and Bradway (1997) to assess task interdependence among team members^[32]. Data were collected in the first phase using a six-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree). The specific items are as follows(see Table 4):

Table 4  Measurement Scale of Task Dependence and Its Items

4.2.5   Control Variables

In order to better control for the bias in statistical analysis methods caused by individual differences, this study selected gender, age, marital status, education level, job title, and years of service as demographic control variables.

4.3 Distribution and Collection of Questionnaires

The data collection for this study was divided into three phases and conducted via an online questionnaire. The survey targeted full-time employees across various industries nationwide. In the first phase, based on statistics from the human resources departments of each company, a total of 467 questionnaires were distributed, with 384 valid responses received. Therefore, the response rate for the first phase was 82.2%. One month later, the second-phase questionnaires were distributed through the human resources departments of each company to employees who had successfully completed the first-phase questionnaires. A total of 297 valid questionnaires were returned, resulting in a second-phase questionnaire response rate of 77.3%. Another month later, the third-phase questionnaire was distributed through the human resources departments of each company to employees who had effectively completed the first and second-phase questionnaires. A total of 239 valid questionnaires were returned, resulting in a response rate of 80.5% for the third phase. Ultimately, this study obtained a valid sample of 239 employed company employees from various industries nationwide.

4.4   Data Processing

During the data analysis and processing phase, this study primarily utilized analytical software such as IBM SPSS Statistics 25.0, AMOS 21.0, and ProcessMacro 2.16 to organize and analyze the collected valid samples. The specific organization and analysis content are as follows:

(1) Descriptive statistical analysis: This study used IBM SPSS Statistics 25.0 to preprocess the valid samples, primarily employing descriptive statistical methods to organize data such as frequency, mean, and standard deviation for each variable in this study.

(2) Correlation analysis: Correlation analysis primarily explores the relationship between variables. This study employed Pearson’s correlation analysis in IBM SPSS Statistics 25.0 and used a two-tailed test to calculate the correlation coefficients between variables.

(3) Reliability and Validity Analysis: To ensure the validity of the questionnaire and sample, this study utilized Cronbach’s Alpha (α) test, KMO test, and Bartlett’s test in IBM SPSS Statistics 25.0 to calculate the reliability and validity of each variable.

(4) Model Analysis: To ensure the highest model fit for this study, the hypothesized model (four-factor model) was tested using AMOS 21.0, along with three-factor, two-factor, and single-factor models. The highest model fit was demonstrated using the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Incremental Fit Index (IFI), and Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) to demonstrate that the proposed model exhibits the highest model fit.

(5) Hypothesis testing: This study used IBM SPSS Statistics 25.0 and Processmacro 2.16 analysis software to validate the five hypotheses proposed in this study, including direct effect hypothesis testing, mediating effect hypothesis testing, moderating effect hypothesis testing, and moderated mediating effect hypothesis testing.

Chapter 5  Statistical Analysis

5.1   Descriptive Statistics

This study collected a total of 239 valid samples, and the results of the descriptive statistical analysis of the valid samples are shown in Table 5. Among them, the sample distribution of the gender demographic variable was 86 males (36%) and 153 females (64%); 61 were married (25.5%) and 178 were unmarried (74.5%); In terms of age distribution, the majority of the samples were between 31 and 40 years old (163 people, 68.2%). Additionally, there were 6 people (2.5%) between 18 and 25 years old, 47 people (19.7%) between 26 and 30 years old, 19 people (7.9%) between 41 and 50 years old, 3 people aged 51-60 (1.3%), and 1 person aged 60 or older (0.4%); In terms of educational attainment, the majority of the study sample held a bachelor’s degree (134 people, 56.1%), followed by a master’s degree or higher (77 people, 32.2%), and an associate’s degree (21 people, 8.8%); Additionally, 6 individuals (2.5%) had a high school or vocational high school education, and 1 individual (0.4%) had an elementary school education or below. In terms of job title distribution, 105 individuals (43.9%) were entry-level employees, 57 individuals (23.8%) were entry-level supervisors, 52 individuals (21.8%) were mid-level supervisors, and 25 individuals (10.5%) were senior-level supervisors. In terms of years of service, the majority of the study sample had 11–20 years of service (121 people, 50.6%), followed by 6–10 years (68 people, 28.5%); Additionally, 29 people (12.1%) had 1-5 years of service, 18 people (7.5%) had over 20 years of service, and 3 people (1.3%) had 0-1 years of service. In summary, based on the descriptive statistical analysis of the overall sample, the distribution of each demographic variable is relatively random and conforms to a Gaussian distribution. Therefore, the randomly sampled sample has a certain degree of validity.

Table 5 Basic information about the study sample (N = 239)

5.2   Reliability Analysis

Cronbach’s Alpha (α) is a measure used to assess the internal consistency of research variables, also known as reliability testing. Table 6 presents the academic community’s definitions of Cronbach’s Alpha (α) for reliability analysis of scales. If Cronbach’s Alpha is less than 0.60, it indicates that the internal consistency of the variable is unacceptable, and the variable should be discarded or another scale should be selected for data collection; A Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient greater than or equal to 0.60 but less than 0.70 indicates that the internal consistency of the variable is within an acceptable range; however, due to its relatively low internal consistency, the context of its use should be carefully considered, and any potential biases resulting from its lower internal consistency should be taken into account; A Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient greater than or equal to 0.70 but less than 0.80 indicates that the variable has good internal consistency and can be used normally in hypothesis testing and other applications; When the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient is greater than or equal to 0.80, it indicates that the internal consistency is very good, and also indicates that the measurement scale of the variable has become mature and well-developed.

Table 6 Cronbach’s coefficient (α) and its application range

Table 7 presents the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients (α) for each variable in this study. As can be seen from the table, the Cronbach’s alpha (α) values for all research variables in this study are greater than or equal to 0.80 (self-promotion tendency: 0.80; knowledge hoarding: 0.80; knowledge sharing behavior: 0.94; task interdependence: 0.87). Therefore, it can be confirmed that the measurement scales used for each variable in this study exhibit high reliability.

5.3   Validity Analysis

The KMO test and Bartlett’s sphericity test are used to assess the validity of each variable. Specifically, a KMO value greater than 0.70 and a p-value from Bartlett’s sphericity test less than 0.01 indicate strong correlations among variables, making them suitable for factor analysis. As shown in Table 7, all research variables in this study have KMO values greater than 0.70 and Bartlett’s sphericity test p-values less than 0.01 (self-promotion tendency: KMO value of 0.75, Bartlett’s sphericity test p-value of 0.000; knowledge monopolization tendency: KMO value of 0.83, Bartlett’s sphericity test p-value of 0.000; knowledge-sharing behavior: KMO value of 0.88, Bartlett’s sphericity test p-value of 0.000; Task Dependency: KMO value of 0.75, Bartlett’s sphericity test p-value of 0.000). Since each scale is a well-established univariate scale, this study confirmed through factor analysis that all variables are univariate. Therefore, all variables in this study exhibit good validity.

Table 7 KMO test and Bartlett’s sphericity test results for each scale (N=239)

5.4   Model Analysis

This study conducted confirmatory factor analysis of the model using Amos 21.0 and evaluated the model fit using values such as χ²/df, RMSEA, CFI, IFI, and TLI. The results of the model comparison analysis in this study are shown in Table 8. The results indicate that the four-factor model (hypothesis model) in this study has the best fit, with χ²/df = 1.721 < 3, RMSEA = 0.055 < 0.08, and CFI = 0.967, IFI = 0.967, and TLI = 0.960, all exceeding 0.90. Therefore, based on the results of the model analysis, it can be concluded that the research variables in this study are relatively independent of each other and exhibit good discriminant validity. Table 7 KMO test and Bartlett’s sphericity test results for each scale (N=239)

Table 8 Validated Factor Analysis (N = 239)

Note: The goodness-of-fit criteria are χ²/df < 3, CFI > 0.90, IFI > 0.90, TLI > 0.90, and RMSEA < 0.08. SP represents self-promotion tendency, KH represents knowledge exclusivity, KSB represents knowledge sharing behavior, and TI represents task interdependence.

5.5   correlation analysis

The correlation analysis between the control variables (demographic variables) and the study variables is shown in Table 9. Based on the results of the correlation analysis between the control variables and the study variables, the following conclusions can be drawn from Table 9:

Gender is negatively correlated with employees’ self-promotion tendencies (r = -.17**), meaning that men are more likely than women to exhibit self-promotion tendencies; gender is negatively correlated with knowledge hoarding tendencies (r = -.21***), meaning that men are more likely than women to exhibit knowledge hoarding tendencies; age is positively correlated with self-promotion tendencies (r = .14*), meaning that older employees are more likely to exhibit self-promotion tendencies; Age is positively correlated with knowledge-sharing behavior (r = .14*), meaning that older employees are more likely to engage in knowledge-sharing behavior; years of service is positively correlated with self-promotion tendencies (r = .13*), meaning that employees with more years of service are more likely to exhibit self-promotion tendencies; years of service is positively correlated with task interdependence (r = .17**), meaning that employees with more years of service perceive higher levels of task interdependence.

From the analysis of the correlations among the study variables, the following conclusions can be drawn from Table 9: Self-promotion tendencies are positively correlated with knowledge hoarding tendencies (r=.29***), meaning that employees with higher self-promotion tendencies exhibit higher knowledge hoarding tendencies, which preliminarily supports Hypothesis 1; Self-promotion tendency is positively correlated with knowledge exclusivity (r = .14*), meaning that employees with higher self-promotion tendencies exhibit higher levels of knowledge sharing behavior, which also preliminarily indicates the potential mediating effect of the selected mediating variable (knowledge exclusivity) in this study’s model; Self-promotion tendencies are positively correlated with task interdependence (r = .19**), meaning that employees with higher self-promotion tendencies perceive higher task interdependence; Knowledge hoarding desire is negatively correlated with knowledge sharing behavior (r = -.36***), meaning that employees with higher levels of knowledge hoarding desire are less willing to engage in knowledge sharing behavior, preliminarily supporting Hypothesis 2; Knowledge hoarding desire is negatively correlated with task interdependence (r = -.28***), meaning that employees with higher levels of knowledge hoarding desire perceive lower levels of task interdependence; Knowledge-sharing behavior is positively correlated with task interdependence (r = .35***), meaning that employees with higher levels of knowledge-sharing behavior perceive higher levels of task interdependence.

In summary, this study yields the following preliminary conclusions: First, employees with self-promotion tendencies are more likely to exhibit knowledge hoarding tendencies (Hypothesis 1). Second, employees with higher levels of knowledge hoarding tendencies are less willing to engage in knowledge-sharing behavior (Hypothesis 2). Third, the mediating effect of knowledge hoarding desire between self-promotion tendencies and knowledge-sharing behavior may involve a masking effect (Hypothesis 3). Finally, since the correlation coefficients between task interdependence and other research variables are less than .40, task interdependence exhibits characteristics of a potential moderator variable.

Table 9  Correlation Analysis Between Variables (N = 239)

Note: M and SD represent the mean and standard deviation of each variable. ***p<0.001, **p<0.01, *p<0.05; in each variable, gender: 1=male, 2=female; Age: 1 = 18–25, 2 = 26–30, 3 = 31–40, 4 = 41–50, 5 = 51–60, 6 = 61 or older; Marital status: 1 = unmarried, 2 = married; Education level: 1 = elementary school or below, 2 = junior high school, 3 = high school or vocational high school, 4 = associate degree, 5 = bachelor’s degree, 6 = master’s degree or higher; Position: 1=entry-level employee, 2=junior manager, 3=mid-level manager, 4=senior manager; Years of service: 1=0-1 years, 2=1-5 years, 3=6-10 years, 4=11-20 years, 5=over 20 years.

5.6   Hypothesis Testing

(1) Test of main effect

Hypothesis 1 posits that self-promotion tendencies are positively correlated with the desire to monopolize knowledge. This study utilized general linear regression in IBM SPSS Statistics 25.0 to test Hypothesis 1, with the results shown in Model 1 (M1) of Table 10. The results indicate that, after controlling for demographic variables, the regression analysis of self-promotion tendencies on the desire for exclusive control over knowledge shows a strong positive relationship between the two (β = .30, p < .001), confirming that self-promotion tendencies are positively correlated with the desire for exclusive control over knowledge. Therefore, Hypothesis 1 is supported.

Table 10 Test results for main effects

Note：***p<0.001，**p<0.01，*p<0.05。

Similarly, Hypothesis 2 posits that knowledge hoarding and knowledge sharing behavior have a negative relationship. This study also used general linear regression to test this hypothesis. As shown in Model 3 (M3) in Table 10, knowledge hoarding negatively affects knowledge sharing behavior (β = -.30, p < .001), proving that there is a strong negative relationship between knowledge hoarding and knowledge sharing behavior. Therefore, the research results support Hypothesis 2.

(2) Testing the mediating effect

Hypothesis 3 posits that the desire for knowledge monopolization mediates the relationship between self-promotion tendencies and knowledge-sharing behavior. This study utilized the ProcessMacro statistical analysis software to identify the mediating role of knowledge monopolization behavior. Specifically, this study employed two methods—bootstrap self-sampling and Sobel tests—to test the mediating effect, with the results shown in Table 11. The results show that the mediation effect value of knowledge monopolization behavior is β = -0.11, and its marginal test significance value is p = 0.0003 < 0.001. The 95% confidence interval from 50,000 bootstrap samples is (-0.17, -0.06), which does not include 0. Therefore, it can be concluded that knowledge monopolization mediates the relationship between self-promotion tendencies and knowledge monopolization. Thus, Hypothesis 3 is statistically supported.

Table 11 Test of mediating effect

Note: X represents self-promotion tendencies, M represents the desire to monopolize knowledge, and Y represents knowledge sharing behavior. Bootstrap sample size = 50,000.

Additionally, this study unexpectedly discovered a suppressor mediation effect (SuppressorMediationEffect) when examining the mediating effect of knowledge monopolization behavior. Specifically, as shown in Model 2 (M2) of Table 10, the main effect of self-promotion tendency on knowledge sharing behavior is positively correlated (β = .13, p < .05), indicating that self-promotion tendency not only does not inhibit employees’ knowledge sharing behavior but also promotes their willingness to share knowledge. However, when the mediating variable of knowledge monopolization desire is introduced (treated as a control variable), it indicates that employees’ knowledge monopolization desire is controlled. At this point, as shown in Model 4 (M4) of Table 10, the regression coefficient and significance of self-promotion tendency on knowledge sharing behavior significantly increase (β = .24, p<.001), indicating that the desire for knowledge exclusivity produces a masking (inhibitory) mediating effect. That is, self-promotion tendencies originally have a strong positive influence on knowledge sharing behavior, but due to the emergence of the desire for knowledge exclusivity, part of this positive influence is offset by the desire for knowledge exclusivity. This also indirectly reflects that employees with self-promotion tendencies have dual motivations for knowledge acquisition and protection (resource conservation theory). The specific theoretical explanations and management implications will be detailed in the next chapter.

(3) Examining the Moderating Effect

Hypothesis 4 posits that task interdependence moderates the relationship between self-promotion tendencies and the desire for knowledge exclusivity. Specifically, the lower the task interdependence, the stronger the positive relationship between self-promotion tendencies and the desire for knowledge exclusivity. Conversely, when task interdependence is high, the positive relationship between self-promotion tendencies and the desire for knowledge exclusivity does not strengthen. To test this hypothesis, this study employed ProcessMarco to conduct a simple moderation effect analysis, with the results presented in Table 12. As shown in Table 12, the overall moderating effect of task dependency is significant (β = -.36, p < .001). Based on this, Hypothesis 4 is supported. Additionally, this study tested the moderating effect of task dependency across different value levels, and the results indicate that task dependency has a significant moderating effect at the mean (Mean) and one standard deviation below the mean (-1SD). Specifically, the moderating effect of task interdependence at the mean level is β = -.40, p < .001, with a 95% confidence interval of (.52, .87) that does not include 0. At one standard deviation below the mean, the moderating effect is β = -.69, p < .001, with a 95% confidence interval of (.27, .52) that does not include 0. However, at one standard deviation above the mean (+1SD), the effect is not significant (β = .10, p > .05), and its 95% confidence interval is (-.06, .26), which includes 0. This also indicates that when task interdependence is low or at the mean, employees with a tendency toward self-promotion are more likely to develop a desire for knowledge monopolization. Conversely, when task interdependence is high within an organization, employees who suppress self-promotion tendencies are more likely to develop knowledge hoarding tendencies.

Table 12 Results of Moderating Effects

Note：***p<0.001，**p<0.01，*p<0.05。

To better illustrate the moderating effect of knowledge hoarding behavior, this study presents the moderating effect results from Table 12 in the form of a moderation effect diagram (as shown in Figure 2). From this moderation effect diagram, we can also observe that when task interdependence within an organization is low, the effect of self-promotion tendencies on knowledge hoarding motives is more pronounced (with a steeper slope). Conversely, when task interdependence within the organization is high, the moderating effect of self-promotion tendencies on knowledge hoarding desires is significantly attenuated (the slope becomes flatter). This further indicates that task interdependence plays a significant moderating role in the relationship between self-promotion tendencies and knowledge hoarding desires.

Figure 2 Schematic representation of the moderation of task dependence on the relationship between propensity to self-promote and privation of knowledge exclusivity

Hypothesis 5 further posits that task interdependence moderates the mediating effect of knowledge hoarding on the relationship between self-promotion tendencies and knowledge-sharing behavior. Specifically, the lower the task interdependence, the stronger the indirect relationship between self-promotion tendencies and knowledge-sharing behavior mediated by knowledge hoarding, and vice versa. Based on this, this study used the moderated mediation model in ProcessMarco statistical analysis software to test this hypothesis, with the statistical results shown in Table 13. The results indicate that the total moderated mediation effect value of task interdependence is β = .11, with a 95% confidence interval of (.07, .18), which does not include 0, thus proving that the moderated mediation effect of task interdependence holds, and therefore Hypothesis 5 is supported. Additionally, this study divided task dependency into three levels: the mean value and one standard deviation above and below the mean, and conducted statistical analysis. The results were similar to Hypothesis 4, showing that task dependency has a significant moderating effect at the mean value (Mean) and one standard deviation below the mean (-1SD). Specifically, the moderating effect of task dependency at the mean is β = -0.13, with a 95% confidence interval of (-0.18, -0.08) that does not include 0. At one standard deviation below the mean, the moderating effect is β = -0.22, with a 95% confidence interval of (-0.32, 0.13) that does not include 0. However, at one standard deviation above the mean (+1SD), the effect is not significant (β = -0.03), and its 95% confidence interval is (-0.07, 0.01), which includes 0.

Table 13  Test results for mediated effects with moderation

Note：***p<0.001，**p<0.01，*p<0.05。

Chapter 6  Research Conclusion and Prospect

6.1   Research Conclusion

6.1.1   The relationship between self-promotion tendency and knowledge exclusivity selfishness

The empirical results of this study indicate that self-promotion tendencies have a significant positive impact on the desire for knowledge monopolization. Based on the core assumptions of resource conservation theory, employees with high self-promotion tendencies seek to obtain positive self-perception and evaluation resources from others by demonstrating their abilities, achievements, and value in public settings. They then utilize these cognitive resources from others to acquire additional personal resources. However, when individuals possess high levels of others’ perceptions and evaluations, this triggers their resource protection mechanisms. To prevent the loss of personal resources (reputation and status), they are prompted to hide critical knowledge, thereby fostering a desire for knowledge monopolization. In other words, employees with strong self-promotion motives are more likely to view knowledge as a competitive resource. To maintain their competitive edge, they are more prone to develop a desire for knowledge monopolization to prevent the loss of their own resources.

6.1.2 Relationship between knowledge exclusivity selfishness and knowledge sharing behavior

The findings of this study also confirm that the desire to monopolize knowledge significantly inhibits knowledge sharing behavior, i.e., the stronger an individual’s desire to monopolize knowledge, the weaker their knowledge sharing behavior. Based on resource conservation theory, knowledge is regarded as a key competitive resource for individuals, and an individual’s desire to monopolize knowledge reflects a defensive awareness of resource loss. Therefore, individuals will choose not to share knowledge resources in order to maintain their competitive advantage and avoid diluting their competitiveness through resource sharing.

6.1.3   The Mediating Role of Knowledge Exclusivity Selfishness

This study confirms the mediating role of knowledge hoarding in the relationship between self-promotion tendencies and knowledge sharing behavior. The results indicate that employees with self-promotion tendencies reduce their knowledge sharing behavior by developing knowledge hoarding tendencies. Additionally, this study found that the desire for knowledge exclusivity plays a masking mediating role. Specifically, employees with self-promotion tendencies directly influence the occurrence of knowledge-sharing behavior through a direct path, while also indirectly inhibiting the occurrence of knowledge-sharing behavior by enhancing their own desire for knowledge exclusivity, thereby producing a dual effect. In other words, employees with a tendency toward self-promotion exhibit a behavioral characteristic of “wanting to showcase themselves while also being reluctant to fully open up.” On one hand, such employees seek to showcase themselves through knowledge sharing, while on the other hand, they tend to retain knowledge to maintain their competitive advantage. Therefore, under this complex psychological mechanism, employees with self-promotion tendencies are more likely to control the content and depth of their knowledge sharing, and may even choose to engage in limited knowledge sharing only in situations that are advantageous for managing their own image.

The masking mediating effect identified in this study can also be well explained by the resource acquisition and protection mechanisms of resource conservation theory. Under the motivation of resource acquisition, self-promotion tendencies are viewed as an active strategy for obtaining external resources. To achieve this goal, individuals may tend to use knowledge-sharing behavior to demonstrate their professional capabilities, thereby gaining recognition from others and organizational support. This explains why self-promotion tendencies have a direct and positive influence on knowledge-sharing behavior. However, knowledge-sharing behavior also triggers the psychological mechanism of resource protection in individuals with self-promotion tendencies, reflecting their potential concerns about the loss of personal resources in knowledge-sharing behavior. Specifically, in a competitive workplace environment, knowledge is often viewed as a critical personal resource. Individuals with self-promotion tendencies, while eager to showcase their advantages through knowledge-sharing behavior, may also worry that once their knowledge is acquired by others, it will weaken their uniqueness and competitive advantage, thereby triggering a desire to monopolize knowledge to protect existing resources.

Therefore, under the dual motives of acquisition and protection in resource conservation theory, while self-promotion tendencies may encourage individuals to engage in knowledge-sharing behavior, they also induce anxiety about potential resource losses from knowledge sharing, thereby triggering the desire to monopolize knowledge and inhibiting the emergence of knowledge-sharing behavior, ultimately leading to the retention of shared knowledge. Thus, this psychological dilemma regarding knowledge resources results in self-promotion both promoting and inhibiting knowledge-sharing behavior, causing the desire for knowledge monopolization to manifest through a concealed intermediary pathway.

6.1.4   Moderating role of task interdependence

The analytical results of this study also confirm that the tendency toward self-promotion, through its influence on the desire for knowledge exclusivity and knowledge-sharing behavior, is to some extent dependent on the degree of interdependence during task completion, i.e., task interdependence. Specifically, when task interdependence is high, it indicates that the task is oriented toward team goals rather than individual goals, placing greater emphasis on collectivism, which can effectively reduce the individualism of self-promoting employees ^[47]. In other words, the achievement of team goals compels employees with self-promotion tendencies to rely on others’ cooperation or resources, forcing them to share their own resources, thereby reducing their desire for knowledge monopolization. Therefore, in high task interdependence contexts, the positive effect of self-promotion tendencies on the desire for knowledge monopolization is significantly weakened. Conversely, in low task interdependence contexts, where task goals are more oriented toward individual achievement, employees with self-promotion tendencies have no willingness to share resources, leading to knowledge hoarding to maximize their own achievements. Thus, in low task interdependence contexts, task interdependence does not moderate the positive effect of self-promotion tendencies on knowledge hoarding.

Additionally, this study confirmed the mediating effect of task interdependence. Specifically, in high task interdependence situations, to achieve collective goals, employees with self-promotion tendencies not only reduce their desire to monopolize knowledge but also engage in knowledge-sharing behaviors. Conversely, in low task interdependence situations, employees with self-promotion tendencies neither reduce their desire to monopolize knowledge nor increase their knowledge-sharing behaviors.

6.2   Research Discussion

6.2.1   Theoretical Implications

This study has the following three theoretical implications: First, this study deepens the theoretical development of self-promotion tendencies. Self-promotion tendencies were originally one of the five strategies of impression management behavior^[9], and previous studies have generally examined these five strategies as a whole^[15,48,49], with few studies focusing on self-promotion tendencies alone. This study argues that the five strategies of impression management each represent distinct and independent workplace attitudes and behavioral patterns, and should be subject to detailed and in-depth theoretical analysis and empirical testing. Therefore, this study focuses on self-promotion tendencies to explore their specific impacts in the workplace. The research findings indicate that self-promotion tendency, as a specific impression management strategy, is significantly associated with knowledge resource management behaviors in the workplace, particularly knowledge hoarding and sharing behaviors. This not only expands the theoretical boundaries of self-promotion tendency but also provides a new theoretical perspective for understanding how individuals strategically manage information resources in the workplace.

Second, this study also deepens the theoretical understanding of knowledge resource management in the workplace. The study’s findings confirm the psychological mechanism underlying employees’ self-promotion tendencies and knowledge-sharing behavior, namely, the desire to monopolize knowledge. Specifically, the study identifies the mediating effect of the desire to monopolize knowledge between self-promotion tendencies and knowledge-sharing behavior. The study finds that employees with self-promotion tendencies not only influence knowledge-sharing behavior through a direct path but also indirectly inhibit knowledge-sharing by enhancing the desire to monopolize knowledge, demonstrating a dual effect. Therefore, this study introduces the resource conservation theory to further explain the psychological motivations of employees under self-promotion tendencies. Specifically, while seeking to enhance external evaluations and organizational support through knowledge sharing during resource acquisition, employees also maintain high vigilance against knowledge leakage under the motivation of resource protection, thereby generating knowledge hoarding desires that inhibit knowledge sharing behavior. Thus, this study not only expands the theoretical connection between self-promotion tendencies and knowledge-sharing behavior but also first validates the path of knowledge monopolization as a masking mediating effect, providing a new perspective for understanding individual resource management behavior in the context of impression management.

Third, this study also expands on research related to task interdependence. The empirical results of this study confirm the moderating role of task interdependence in the relationship between employees’ self-promotion tendencies, knowledge hoarding desires, and knowledge sharing behavior. This conclusion further demonstrates that task interdependence can effectively transform individual work goals into collective goals^[50,51], thereby effectively transforming certain workplace attitudes and behaviors, i.e., inhibiting or transforming the negative impacts of these attitudes and behaviors. Specifically, the findings of this study indicate that high task interdependence can effectively mitigate employees’ desire to monopolize knowledge arising from self-promotion tendencies, thereby enhancing their knowledge-sharing behavior. Therefore, this study also establishes a theoretical bridge between task interdependence and research on workplace knowledge resource management.

6.2.2   Practical Implications

This study has the following three implications for management and practice: First, organizations or managers should pay attention to managing employees with a tendency toward self-promotion. Self-promotion is a strategy of impression management. Previous studies have also pointed out that although impression management behaviors can enhance an individual’s image or the resources they obtain, they can also have many negative effects on the individual, such as work exhaustion^[52] and emotional exhaustion^[53], ultimately leading to a decline in work performance. In other words, while impression management behaviors (such as self-promotion tendencies) may provide short-term benefits for employees, they ultimately result in negative work-related consequences in the long term, such as an excessive emphasis on individualism and reluctance to share resources. Therefore, organizations or managers must prioritize and effectively identify employees with self-promotion tendencies, promptly address or emphasize the harm such tendencies pose to organizational performance.

Second, the desire for knowledge monopolization among employees with self-promotion tendencies is one of the key factors hindering resource sharing within organizations. Organizations and managers should emphasize the importance of resource sharing to such employees. This study indicates that one of the key factors hindering knowledge sharing among employees with self-promotion tendencies is their desire for knowledge monopolization. Therefore, reducing the desire for knowledge monopolization among employees with self-promotion tendencies to enhance resource sharing among employees is an urgent priority for organizations and managers. Specifically, organizations and managers can emphasize the necessity of resource sharing and reward or publicly commend employees who demonstrate resource-sharing behavior. This approach not only allows employees with a tendency toward self-promotion to receive the rewards and external recognition they desire but also effectively promotes resource sharing within the organization.

Third, setting reasonable team goals can also effectively reduce the desire for knowledge monopolization among employees with a tendency toward self-promotion, thereby increasing their knowledge-sharing behavior. The findings of this study also indicate that the design of task interdependence can effectively transform tasks into group goals, causing employees with self-promotion tendencies to no longer pursue personal achievements solely when completing work but instead place greater emphasis on achieving overall team performance. When employees with self-promotion tendencies recognize that their own performance is closely linked to team success, they are more likely to reduce their desire to hoard knowledge for the sake of protecting personal resources and instead proactively share knowledge to drive overall team progress. Therefore, managers should, in practice, establish a work structure with appropriately set task interdependence to strengthen team orientation and reduce individual isolated competition, thereby guiding employees with self-promotion tendencies to transform their impression management motives into positive knowledge-sharing behaviors, thereby enhancing team collaboration efficiency and organizational overall performance.

6.3   Shortcomings and Prospects

This study also has the following limitations. First, although the questionnaire collection in this study adopted a three-stage time lag design, all questionnaires were self-reported surveys, which still cannot completely avoid common method bias^[54]. Therefore, future studies can adopt multiple sources of participants to further avoid this issue, such as collecting scores from colleagues or direct supervisors on participants’ knowledge hoarding tendencies and knowledge sharing behaviors, thereby obtaining more objective and accurate results.

Second, although this study proposed a dual-path perspective of resource acquisition and protection based on resource conservation theory, it only examined the mechanism through which knowledge hoarding (resource protection) influences self-promotion tendencies and knowledge-sharing behavior, without thoroughly validating the resource acquisition path between self-promotion tendencies and knowledge-sharing behavior. Therefore, future research could further explore this causal pathway.

Finally, this study only examined one moderating effect of task interdependence, i.e., task interdependence is merely one of the boundary conditions that suppress employees’ knowledge monopolization motives and promote their knowledge-sharing behavior. Future research could build on the resource conservation theory perspective used in this study to further explore other boundary moderating factors, such as organizational support and leader-member exchange (LMX), which could potentially serve as moderating variables.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, author-ship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Sharing Agreement

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by Social Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province,

No. 23GLB005

References

[1] Hobbs, S. E. Resource conservation: A new approach to conceptualizing stress [J]. American Psychologist, 1989, 44(3): 513.

[2] Hobbs, S. E., Halberstein, J., Nevieu, J.-P., et al. Resource conservation in organizational contexts: The reality of resources and their consequences [J]. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2018, 5(1): 103-28.

[3] Dong Yuan, Jiao Yanfang. The Double-Edged Sword Effect of Workaholic Leadership on Subordinates’ Work Performance: A Perspective from Resource Conservation Theory [J]. Journal of Inner Mongolia University of Finance and Economics, 2023, 21(02): 109-15.

[4] Wu Zhiyong, Guo Zhicheng, Lin Zhiwei, et al. How Does Benevolent Leadership Promote the Mutual Enrichment of Work and Family? The Mediating Role of Positive Group Emotional Tone [J]. Stress and Health, 2020, 36(4): 496-506.

[5] Hakanen JJ, Perhonen R, Topinen-Tannar S. The positive gain spiral at work: From work resources to work engagement, personal initiative, and work unit innovation [J]. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 2008, 73(1): 78-91.

[6] Li Xiaoqing, Jing Yu. The impact of negative workplace gossip on employee innovation performance: A resource conservation theory perspective [J]. Advances in Psychology, 2022, 12(2): 13.

[7] Xiang Shuting, Zhao Kai, Ning Nan. “Empowerment” or “Burden”? Exploring the Double-Edged Sword Effect of Leaders’ Delegation Behavior on Employee Work Behavior[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2020, 28(11): 1814-35.

[8] Wei Wei, Peng Jisheng, Hua Bin. The Double-Edged Sword Effect of High-Performance Human Resource Systems on Employees’ Breakthrough Creativity from a Resource Conservation Perspective[J]. Management Review, 2020, 32(08): 215-227.

[9] Bolino M C, Turnley W H. Measuring Impression Management in Organizations: Scale Development Based on Jones and Pittman’s Classification [J]. Organizational Research Methods, 1999, 2(2): 187-206.

[10] Du Ningqiao. A Study on the Relationship Between Employee Status and Suggestion Behavior from the Perspective of Expectancy Theory [D], 2025.

[11] Duan Xiuchun. A Study on the Influence of Individualism/Collectivism on Impression Management Behavior [D], 2020.

[12] Rudman L A. Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of anti-stereotype management behavior [J]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1998, 74(3): 629.

[13] Chen Yi, Zhang Xinyi, Li Yajie. Why Can Entrepreneurial Failure Experience Become a “Stepping Stone” for Job Hunting? Theoretical Construction from the Perspective of Impression Management [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2024, 32(02): 191-205.

[14] Gross C, Debus M E, Ingold P V, et al. Too Much Self-Promotion! How Self-Promotion Atmosphere Influences Employees’ Supervisor-Oriented Self-Promotion Effectiveness and Their Work Team Performance [J]. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2021, 42(8): 1042-59.

[15] Yang Yang. The influence of impression management and moral elevation on moral hypocrisy [D], 2023.

[16] Connelly C E, Zweig D, Webster J, et al. Knowledge hiding in organizations [J]. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2012, 33(1): 64-88.

[17] Qiu Ting, Luo Jie. Validity and Reliability Testing of the Chinese Version of the Knowledge Concealment Scale Among Adolescents [J]. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 2025, (01): 151-5+65.

[18] Lu L, Leung K, Koch P T. Managerial Knowledge Sharing: The Role of Individual, Interpersonal, and Organizational Factors [J]. Management and Organization Review, 2006, 2(1): 15-41.

[19] Scuotto V, Nespoli C, Tran P T, et al. Alternative methods for predicting knowledge hiding: A transformational leadership perspective [J]. Journal of Business Research, 2022, 140: 76-84.

[20] Guo Yuanyuan, Wu Liang, Chen Yilin, et al. Differentiated Authoritative Leadership and Knowledge Hiding Among Knowledge Workers: A Cross-Level Analysis[J]. Science and Technology Progress and Policies, 2024, 41(05): 109-18.

[21] Chen Yingcao. The Impact of Work Pressure on Knowledge Hiding Among Knowledge Workers [D], 2024.

[22] Zhang Jianyu, Qi Shuo, Yang Xu, et al. The Impact of Heterogeneous Knowledge Hiding on Individual and Team Performance [J]. Science and Technology Progress and Policies, 2025, 1(1): 1-11.

[23] Burmester A, Fasbender U, Gupta F H. The Consequences of Knowledge Concealment: The Differential Compensatory Effects of Guilt and Shame [J]. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 2019, 92(2): 281-304.

[24] Xiong C, Zhang V, Skuto V, et al. Understanding the Social Psychological Approaches to Knowledge Concealment in International R&D Teams: An Inductive Analysis [J]. Journal of Business Research, 2021, 128: 799-811.

[25] Casimir G, Lee K, Luo M. Knowledge Sharing: The Influence of Trust, Commitment, and Costs [J]. Journal of Knowledge Management, 2012, 16(5): 740-53.

[26] Bartol K.M., Srivastava A. Encouraging Knowledge Sharing: The Role of Organizational Reward Systems [J]. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Research, 2002, 9(1): 64-76.

[27] Dong Fangchao, Gao Hong, Ding Ting. A Study on the Relationship Between Fairness Perception and Knowledge Sharing Behavior in Innovative Teams: Member Trust as a Mediating Variable[J]. Hebei Industrial Science and Technology, 2016, 33(03): 194-201.

[28] Yuan Shuyu, Gou Le, Liu Yuanhao. A Study on the Effect of Servant Leadership on Employees’ Knowledge Sharing Behavior: Based on a Moderated Mediating Model[J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Reclamation Economy, 2025, (02): 84-92.

[29] Zhou Ruolan. A Study on the Impact of Human Resource Management Intensity on Employee Innovation Behavior [D], 2023.

[30] Bu Weiwei, Yang Youting, Zou Jingmou, et al. A Study on the Impact of Project Relationship Norms on Project Management Performance: The Mediating Role of Knowledge Sharing Behavior [J].Project Management Technology, 2024, 22(05): 80-6. Project Management Technology, 2024, 22(05): 80-6.

[31] Lin Ruisheng, Xiao Jianguo. The Relationship Between Transformational Leadership, Knowledge Sharing, Trust, and Organizational Citizenship Behavior [J]. International Journal of Innovation, Management, and Technology, 2014, 5(3): 171.

[32] Liden R C, Wayne S J, Bradway L K. The influence of task interdependence as a moderating variable on the relationship between group control and performance [J]. Interpersonal Relations, 1997, 50(2): 169-81.

[33] Bahrachi D G, Powell B C, Collins B J, et al. The influence of task interdependence on the relationship between helping behavior and group performance [J]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2006, 91(6): 1396.

[34] Pierce J L, Gregson H B. Task interdependence and super-role behavior: Testing the mediating role of perceived responsibility [J]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1991, 76(6): 838.

[35] Staples D S, Webster J. Exploring the effects of trust, task interdependence, and virtuality on team knowledge sharing [J]. Journal of Information Systems, 2008, 18(6): 617-40.

[36] Somech A, Desivilya H S, Lidogoster H. Team conflict management and team effectiveness:The influence of task interdependence and team identity [J]. Journal of Organizational Behavior: An International Journal of Industrial, Occupational, and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 2009, 30(3): 359-78.

[37] Chen L, Zhang S, Hu X, et al. Does Political Skill Promote Knowledge Hiding? An Impression Management Perspective [J]. Journal of Knowledge Management, 2024, 28(6): 1632-47.

[38] Wang Z, Luan Y, Zhang L. How Proactive Subordinates Cope with Superior Knowledge Hiding: An Upward Flattery Impression Management Strategy [J]. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Development, 2024, (advance publication).

[39] Manadin A, Komaria A, Nurdin D, et al. The role of leader-member exchange, knowledge concealment, altruistic motivation, and impression management motivation in employee creative potential [J]. Journal of Cross-Cultural Communication, 2023, 23(3): 68-81.

[40] Webster J, Brown G, Zweig D, et al. Beyond Knowledge Sharing: Knowledge Hiding and Hoarding in the Workplace [J]. Journal of Human Resource Management Research, 2008.

[41] Wen Peng, Liao Jianqiao, Zhang Pengcheng.Employee Knowledge Sharing Maturity: Concept, Model, and Management Implications [J]. Luojia Management Review, Employee Knowledge Sharing Maturity: Concept, Model, and Management Implications [J]. Luojia Management Review, 2007, (1): 8.

[42] Zheng Linlin, He Peixu, Zhao Hongdan. A Review and Outlook on Employee Knowledge Retention Behavior [J]. East China Journal of Economics and Management, 2019, 33(12): 154-62.

[43] Du Jing, Xiang Yuan. Task Interdependence, Work Boredom, and “Playing with Mobile Phones” in the Workplace: A Study Based on Self-Depletion Theory [J]. Human Resource Management Review, 2022, (01): 132-46.

[44] Liu Meilin, Yu Xuan, Wu Shaobo. The Impact of High-Quality Interpersonal Connection Ability on Virtual Collaboration: The Role of Team Information Exchange and Task Interdependence [J]. Soft Science, 2023, 37(04): 121-8.

[45] Lü Yuke, Wang Yi. The Relationship Between Psychological Empowerment, Member Exchange, and Innovation Performance in Entrepreneurial Teams: The Moderating Role of Task Interdependence[J]. Business and Management, 2023, (11): 73-80.

[46] Bock G W, Kim Y-G. Debunking the Reward Myth: An Exploratory Study on Attitudes Toward Knowledge Sharing [J]. Journal of Information Resources Management (IRMJ), 2002, 15(2): 14-21.

[47] Gao Yuan. A Study on Task Interdependence, Knowledge Sharing, and Perceived Virtuality of Teams [D], 2024.

[48] Gao Zhonghua, Zhang Heng. The Interpersonal Influence Mechanism of Overqualification: The Role of Political Skills and Impression Management Motivation [J]. Journal of Tianjin University (Social Sciences Edition), 2025, 27(01): 67-77.

[49] Jian Haihua. From “Expectation” to “Impression Management” [J]. Popular Psychology, 2024, (06): 28-9+18.

[50] Qiu Guotao. The Relationship Between Workplace Loneliness and Employee Helping Behavior [D], 2024.

[51] Shi Shiying, Zhang Han, Zhao Fangfang, et al. The Impact of Task Interdependence in PPP Projects on Team Performance in a Hierarchical Atmosphere: A Moderated Mediation Model [J]. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 2023, 40(06): 54-9.

[52] Fitriastuti T. Work Burnout as a Consequence of Impression Management and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Moderating Role of Leader-Member Exchange [J]. Proceedings of the Global Conference on Management, 2019, (2019): 424.

[53] Peng Ancheng, Gao Rui, Wang Bo. Linking Servant Leadership and Follower Emotional Exhaustion Through Impression Management [J]. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2023.

[54] Podsakoff P M, Mackenzie S B, Lee J-Y, et al. Common Method Bias in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Suggested Remedies [J]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2003, 88(5): 879-903.