Impact of Abusive Supervision on Psychological Engagement and Absorptive Capacity Among Students: Mediating Role of Knowledge Hiding.

The research aims to estimate the impact of abusive supervision on psychological engagement and absorptive capacity under the mediating role of knowledge hiding. This study was cross-sectional and data were collected from employees of four different sectors through a questionnaire. The convenient sampling technique was used to collect data from 450 employees. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used as a data analysis technique because the two-stage SEM technique produces precise and accurate estimates while modeling the path analysis. The output of the measurement model assessment confirmed that all measurement scales were reliable. In addition to this, structural model assessment confirmed that abusive supervision did not significantly predict the absorptive capacity and psychological engagement, although knowledge hiding negatively predicted psychological engagement.

Introduction

Although the world has made tremendous developments in the past century on the basis of advanced knowledge, the phenomena of knowledge hiding is quite common in modern day organizations. This is evident from survey statistics carried out in the United States which showed that the majority of workers (76%) confessed that they had been involved in knowledge hiding from their fellow employees (Connelly et al., 2012). This knowledge hiding phenomenon poses a burden in the shape of economic costs, and firms have to face huge financial losses. For instance, a research study reported a financial loss of almost $31.5 billion/year for the Fortune 500 firms due to their inability to overcome knowledge hiding in their firms (Babcock, 2004). The extensive and rambling nature of knowledge hiding can be traced in other parts of the world, such as in China, where 46% of the participants in a survey admitted that they have been involved in hiding knowledge from their coworkers within organizational settings (Peng, 2012). This state of affairs indicates that the knowledge hiding phenomenon is universal, can hamper the success of organizations, and results in sluggish development.

In order to curtail knowledge hiding practices in workplaces, organizations invest in the development of a sharing culture and tend to promote knowledge management systems (Wang and Noe, 2010). This is because knowledge is a very crucial resource for firms to achieve organizational goals. Moreover, knowledge can ensure a sustainable competitive advantage for firms in today’s dynamic and highly uncertain environment. Past studies indicated that firm performance and its ability to innovate entirely depended upon the knowledge sharing behaviors of the individuals at workplace (Arthur and Huntley, 2005). Organizations tend to be interested in devising mechanisms which promote the knowledge sharing habits of its employees either tacitly or explicitly (Gagné, 2009). For the sake of this, firms tend to invest in the shape of development (Wang and Noe, 2010). Past studies indicate that knowledge hiding depends upon various factors, including a firm’s policies related to its reward system, prevalent leadership styles, and the nature of organizational culture (Connelly et al., 2012). The most significant and prevalent reason linked with the knowledge related behaviors of the individuals at a workplace is the nature of interpersonal relationships and the way an individual is treated at the workplace. Although literature indicates a variety of studies that have documented the knowledge hiding behaviors of individuals being influenced by leadership styles, there is still a limited amount of knowledge pertaining to knowledge hiding behaviors of employees at work (Srivastava et al., 2006) and contextual factors need to be investigated at large (Avotra et al., 2021). Consistent with this view, this study anticipates that abusive supervision can be a predictor of knowledge hiding (Khalid et al., 2018; Pradhan et al., 2020).

Abusive supervision was defined by Tepper (2000) as “Subordinates’ perceptions of the extent to which supervisors engage in the sustained display of hostile verbal and non-verbal behaviors, excluding physical contact.” Moreover, abusive supervision can be defined as “a dysfunctional type of leadership that indicates a system display[ing] hostile verbal and non-verbal behavior towards subordinates, public criticism, and silent treatment.” Past studies indicate that about 4–16% of employees are abused at their workplace, some of whom are used to it and do not recognize it. Annually, organizations bear costs due to workplace incivility; moreover, abusive supervision at the workplace makes employees hostile and aggressive, and the victim of abusive supervision starts acting hostile with his or her subordinates to balance the supervisory effect (Peng, 2013). Abusive supervision leads to increased conflict turnover and psychological distress and decreases in organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and justice. The victims of abusive supervision may experience depression, anxiety, emotional exhaustion, psychological effect, high blood pressure, and immune system disturbance. All these situations are barriers for an employee’s growth and their performance. Abusive supervision is negatively linked to positive behaviors at the workplace and it embeds negative behaviors among individuals. Abusive supervision is also known as an antecedent for poor negative employee’s outcomes at the workplace.

Abusive supervision is a combination of different behaviors such as abusive behavior of a supervisor with an employee and criticizing employees in front of other employees, blaming employees, and treating them rudely. Moreover, shouting at employees, not giving credit for their work, and attacks on privacy are other different tactics to abuse them (Tepper, 2000). Workplace bullying is directly linked to abusive supervision; about 75% of workplace bullying incidents are led by the supervisor toward their subordinates’, which leads to emotional or physical harm. It can be psychological, verbal, non-verbal, or physical abuse. It can be with the subordinate or peers and bullying by the supervisor can lead to changes in employee morale. Workplace deviant behavior is also directly linked to abusive supervision. Employees who are abused by their supervisors have their behaviors changed at the workplace even if they do not leave the job. Moreover, organizational commitment is reduced, and the employees do not care about the employer’s interest which is against the welfare of the employer.

The display of behaviors at the workplace lead employees to act according to their experiences. Satisfaction leads to the commitment of loyal employees, while dissatisfaction leads to workplace deviance and less satisfied employees are less productive at work. Injustice and frustration are the main reasons behind workplace deviance. Previous research suggests that the immediate supervisor occupies a tactical place in determining an individual’s opinion regarding their workplace environment. Studies in a similar field argued that the support provided by the supervisor varies pertaining to the employee’s requirement and reduction in workload (Baldwin and Magjuka, 1997), providing opportunities for necessary training and development (Cohen, 1990). It is assumed that supervisors play a pivotal role in shaping up an employee’s perception about timely assistance provided by the employer along with the assurance to address and balance work-life needs. Kossek et al. (2011) and various other researchers like Eisenberger et al. (2002) have endorsed the viewpoint stated by Kossek et al. (2011). Hence, supervisor’s supportive behaviors comprise an assortment of support methods stretching over a multitude of life management techniques (Hammer et al., 2009). As an explanation, it is supposed that a supervisor is considered to be emotionally attached if they pay attention and develop a habit of deep listening with their subordinates coupled with a gesture to be concerned about the hindrances and difficulties coming their way while managing their work (Yingfei et al., 2021). Abusive supervision has been the subject of a lot of research in the last ten years, and it appears to be a practical and academic issue. Despite the fact that abusive supervision studies have employed a variety of theoretical frameworks, there has been no clear theoretical guidance for this frequently disconnected and empirically driven stream of study.

This study discusses several influences on the literature on abusive supervision and knowledge hiding. Moreover, this study tends to explore the links between abusive supervision and psychological engagement and absorptive capacity of the employees under the mediating role of knowledge hiding in high power distance countries where the prevalence of abusive supervision can be more common due to a larger gap between the supervisor and subordinate (Hofstede, 2001).

Review of Literature

The theoretical underpinnings of this study fall under the premises of Social Exchange Theory (SET). On the basis of this theory, it can be safely assumed that abusive supervision can trigger employees to show negative behaviors in the shape of knowledge hiding and individuals can withdraw from participating in knowledge sharing related activities. Benefits, under this perspective, are favors that an individual may consider to be favorable. Construct social exchange theory may be a fantastic tool for comparing human conduct from a sociological approach. Moreover, SET explains that the actions of employees at their workplace are inspired by an exchange of benefits which employees seek as a return. In this regard, it can be said that employees evaluate organizational support based upon their overall opinion of their supervisors. It explains the level to which individuals believe that their supervisors give importance to their involvement, offer assistance, and are concerned about their wellbeing (Yingfei et al., 2021). Moreover, in the presence of abusive supervision, employees believe that the organization is implicit in this treatment. A positive evaluation of supervision involves positive and constructive interactions between a supervisor and employees which duly enhance satisfaction levels of employees; contrary to this, negative interactions cause a decrease in positive behaviors and can reduce the absorptive capacity of the individuals (Cole et al., 2006).

So, on the basis of SET, it can be concluded that employees tend to show negative behaviors in response to supervisor injustice and abusive behavior, and may withdraw from showing or sharing knowledge with others at workplace.

According to Korsgaard et al. (2010), SET provides an explanation for an employee’s evaluation of support on the basis of an individual’s belief in their company’s assistance as reciprocal of their hard work and services. It is pertinent to bring into account that the perception of help in dealing with work-family conflicts influences an employee’s other various outcomes like organizational commitment, contentment with job, and extent of engagement in organization and citizenship behaviors. Conversely, all these consequences can positively affect the organization as a whole such as through producing an engaged workforce. Kossek et al. (2011) labeled the concept of perception of supervisor work-life support as a general belief concerned with care shown by a supervisor for an employee’s work-life wellbeing.

Relationship of Abusive Supervision, Knowledge Hiding, and Psychological Engagement

Many researchers have put forward their work in this field of organizational behavior related to abusive supervision. Tepper (2000) defines the conceptualization of this term as the subjective evaluation of the manager’s aggressive treatment. Since the supervisors symbolize their organization to a certain extent, this particular phenomenon will cause a reduced show of positive behaviors among employees, because employees believe that their managers do not value workers contributions and are not concerned with their wellbeing. In the case of abusive supervisors, their perception is shattered and they tend to show psychological disinterment (Eisenberger et al., 2002). Although, favorable treatment by organizational members is related to positive behaviors. However, a few close members such as supervisors act as agents on behalf of the organization. Supervisors and other leaders hence play a pivotal role in generating enhanced positive behavior by providing rewards and resources as compared to the support provided by coworkers (Wayne et al., 1997). Hence, it can be inferred that abusive supervision can induce negative outcomes among employees. Employee’s will assist in organizational accomplishment when they believe their supervisor or managers to be genuine and transformational. While, employees who perceive their instant establishment to be toxic and unhelpful are unwilling to share their knowledge and show knowledge hiding behaviors (Khalid et al., 2018).

Abusive supervision is a negative leadership construct which leads to damaging and deleterious work consequences at both an individual and organizational level (Martinko et al., 2013). Researchers Dabke and Patole (2014) have stated work engagement as the outcome of both organizational support and supervisor support. Saks (2006), proposed that a study conducted in different firms confirmed that people with high organizational support and supervisor support had a higher tendency to be engaged in their jobs. This globally researched phenomenon of work engagement is of primary interest for many organizations owing to its immense outcomes. Thus, work engagement entails a number of outcomes to be associated with, such as greater financial return on employees. Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, organizational success, customer satisfaction, and organizational success emerges when employees are engaged. Various authors have defined work engagement to a large number of approaches: Kahn (1990) presented the Needs-Satisfying Approach, Harter et al. (2002) proposed the Satisfaction-Engagement Approach, the multidimensional approach was proposed by Saks, and the Burnout-Antithesis Approach inclusive of two different views was raised by Shaufeli et al. (2002). According to Kahn (1990), in engagement, employees express themselves physically, cognitively, emotionally, and mentally during role performance. Kahn’s view explains the phenomenon of employee attachment to their role task. Moreover, it describes the level of involvement upon an individual’s engagement with his work. Other researchers have focused on job satisfaction as an elementary factor of engagement and proposed the definition as, “The term employee engagement refers to an individual’s involvement and satisfaction with, as well as enthusiasm for work”. This is a wide spread definition and used by numerous human resource firms for the successful evaluation of business trends pertaining to worker’s engagement (Harter et al., 2002). Other research propounds another definition of work engagement as “a distinct and unique construct consisting [of] cognitive, emotional, and behavioral components that are associated with individual role performance.” This definition helps to explain the mechanism of getting individuals absorbed.

Here, work engagement is defined as “a positive, fulfilling, work related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption.” The state of being energetic and staying persistent and resilient at the workplace is labeled as vigor. The second dimension concerns the extent to which a worker is deeply involved in their work and is found to be compassionate and diligent toward their job. Moreover, a sense of attachment and honor is described as dedication. Lastly, the level of concentration and worker’s strong engrossment with a sense that they forget about the time and find it difficult to disengage themselves from a task is referred to as absorption. Thus, on the basis of the above stated argument, it can be safely hypothesized that:

1 Psychological engagement is negatively influenced by abusive supervision

2 Knowledge hiding mediates the relationship between abusive supervision and psychological engagement

Relationship of Abusive Supervision, Knowledge Hiding, and Absorptive Capacity

Studies conducted by Locke and Latham (1990) describe absorption as another motivational construct since it involves the state of deep attention. They referred to it as the flow, wherein total involvement of mind with absolute attention is displayed whereby people are so involved in an activity that nothing else matters. It is denoted as a ubiquitous and relentless state of mind. Further, it reflects a state of intrinsic motivation as an absorbed employee intends to participate voluntarily. Researchers associate this kind of motivation with work content in a job characteristic model (JCM) (Tiegs et al., 1992; Harackiewicz et al., 1998) such as “job autonomy, skill variety, task significance, task identity, and job feedback” (Richard and Oldham, 1976). Moreover, it is proposed that the meaningfulness of a job is explicitly explained by three major contents of JCM: job’s skill variety, task identity, and task significance. Further, the notion of “Cognitive engagement” addressed in the form of rationalism in eliciting the ways that ascertain the positive achievement of a firm’s goal (Boswell, 2006), is arguably in line with the individual’s realization of the importance of their efforts and services or how it contributes to society or influences people around, i.e., task significance (Xiaolong et al., 2021).

Employee desire to be recognized for their services as an effective contributor to the firm’s strategic goals induce a feeling of relatedness or fit. Moreover, previous studies in a similar area proposed that individuals always desire to know the way they fit within the company or how well their work is consistent and contributes to the organization as mentioned by Hackman and Oldham (1975) in job design, role clarity (Jackson and Schuler, 1985), and perceived fit (Cable and Judge, 1996). This concludes that intellectual engagement may be involved in enhancing employee performance and in determining their retention.

Rothbard (2001) connotes that intrinsic motivation can be distinguished from absorption as it is specifically task oriented with a state of positive emotion while absorption is a neutral state. Self-regulation explains the mechanism of linking absorption and attention to engagement theoretically (Lee et al., 2003). Moreover, Kanfer (1990) further clarifies the concept of self-regulation as a process of converting an inner impelling cause into conduct stimulus and performance. Resultantly, this order of attention enables employees to allocate exclusive efforts for on-task and off-task performances. Kahn (1990) states engagement as the exhibition of attention and absorption in one’s work. Rothbard (2001) underpins the concept given by Kahn and extended his research in the same line and further characterized engagement as a state of devotion, attention, and absorption. Both attention and absorption are the components of cognitive engagement, a multidimensional construct. Thus, in the presence of abusive supervision the absorptive capacity is likely to be shattered. Hence, based on the above, we hypothesized the following:

3 Absorptive Capacity is negatively influenced by Abusive supervision

4 Knowledge hiding mediates the relationship between Abusive supervision and absorptive capacity

Based on the above literature, theories, and hypotheses, we developed the following study model as shown in Figure 1.

FIGURE 1

Conceptual model. ASB, abusive supervision behavior; AC, absorptive capacity; KH, knowledge hiding; PE, psychological engagement.

Methodology and Data Collection Process

This research was built on the positivism philosophy. The overall design of this survey-based research was quantitative and cross-sectional. Furthermore, to evaluate and support the hypothesis, this study used a deductive strategy, in which hypotheses are presented based on prior literature and then assessed using multiple analytical approaches to produce results. A total of 35 items or measurements were used. The data were acquired via primary data sources and a convenience sampling technique was employed. Researchers can use convenience sampling to collect data from people who are readily available and willing to participate. The unit of analysis was employees from different multi-national companies. Therefore, data for the survey were acquired from employees on their current work settings and supervisors’ behavior with them. A total number of 450 questionnaires were distributed and 415 responses were received in a readable form, hence 415 responses were used for structural equation modeling (SEM) in Smart-PLS software. Additionally, to develop a better understanding of responses, a few simple demographic questions were added, such as age, gender, and education.

Instrument Measure

The questionnaire was made up of 35 items and four constructs in the research model. These four constructs were measured in support for previous well-admired research in a related context.

Abusive Supervision

The independent variable abusive supervision behavior was measured with five items adapted from the study by Chen et al. (2021).

Knowledge Hidings

The mediating construct was knowledge hiding and it was measured through 12 items developed by Connelly et al. (2012). However, two items were deleted due to lower values.

Absorptive Capacity

The absorptive capacity was measured through 12 items developed by Goaill (2021). However, three items were deleted due to lower values.

Psychological Engagement

Psychological engagement was adapted from Ma et al. (2021), having six items.

All these items were designed on 5-point Likert scale. The scale ranges from 1 to 5 where 1 means strongly disagree and 5 indicates strongly agree. In addition, these statements of all measurements were modified marginally for use in the current study. However, the procedure did not change the sense of the measurements.

Data Analysis Techniques

The proposed conceptual model was investigated using the Smart-PLS version 3.3.3 application in this work. The method is divided into two parts: (i) measurement model evaluation and (ii) structural model evaluation. The structural model evaluation highlights the relationship between variables in the model, whereas the measurement model assessment shows how all variables in the model are measured regarding reliability and validity.

The estimation of the measuring model comprises the consistency of indicators and constructs in the research model. Furthermore, it includes both types of validities, discriminant validity and convergent validity. Certain estimates are used to assess the constructs and indicators’ reliability and validity. Factor loadings assess indicator reliability (FD), construct reliability (CR), and Cronbach alpha (α) estimate. Furthermore, for convergent validity, average variance extracted (AVE) and Fornell and Larcker criterion for discriminant validity has been used. The FD and CRvalues all need to be greater or equal to 0.70 (Nawaz et al., 2020), but the AVE value should be equal to or greater than 0.50 (An et al., 2021). The square root of all diagonal values should be higher than off-diagonal values, according to the Fornell and Larcker criterion. In contrast, HTMT values should be near to zero but not greater than 0.85 (Ab Hamid et al., 2017).

Data Analysis and Findings

Demographics

The paper considers multiple demographic factors related to respondents. Data were collected from 415 individuals and among them 48.43% were males and 51.57% females. The respondents have been given equal importance to both genders to minimize gender bias in the outcomes of the analysis and research. The age of respondents was classified into six classes of 20 and fewer years, 21–25, 26–30, 31–35, 36–40, and 41–45. Respondents were from four different educational backgrounds: Bachelor and lower (23.61%), Master (40.72%), Doctorate (17.83%), and Diploma and higher (17.83%). Finally, the data were collected from employees or personnel who were working in different industrial backgrounds such as Hotels (28.92%), Fast food (27.23%), Manufacturing (23.61%), and Tourism (20.24%), as depicted in Table 1.

TABLE 1

Demographics of the respondents.

Demographics		Frequency	%
Gender
Male		201	48.43
Female		214	51.57
Age
20 and fewer years		82	19.76
21–25		103	24.82
26–30		98	23.61
31–35		64	15.42
36–40		46	11.08
41–45		22	5.30
Education
Bachelor and lower		98	23.61
Master		169	40.72
Doctorate		74	17.83
Diploma and others		74	17.83
Industry
Hotel		120	28.92
Fast foods		113	27.23
Manufacturing		98	23.61
Tourism		84	20.24
Total	n	415

Model Measurement

The measurement model assessment was measured through the PLS-algorithm function. The indicator and construct reliability analysis comprises the three estimates: factor loadings, construct reliability (CR), and Cronbach alpha. The factor loadings for each indicator were above the predetermined threshold of 0.70 and 0.50 except for ASB2, ASB3, ASB4, AC11, and AC12. These items have lower factor loadings value and hence were removed. The outcomes for factor loadings are depicted in Table 2 and Figure 2.

TABLE 2

Model measurement.

Constructs	Items	FD	α	CR	AVE
Absorptive capacity	AC1	0.827	0.753	0.757	0.534
	AC2	0.888
	AC3	0.831
	AC4	0.815
	AC5	0.667
	AC6	0.832
	AC7	0.867
	AC8	0.763
	AC9	0.811
Abusive supervision behavior	ASB1	0.829	0.912	0.930	0.556
	ASB2	0.704
	ASB3	0.743
	ASB4	0.692
	ASB5	0.858
Knowledge hiding	KH1	0.787	0.748	0.808	0.585
	KH2	0.737
	KH3	0.815
	KH4	0.837
	KH5	0.825
	KH6	0.777
	KH7	0.834
	KH8	0.747
	KH9	0.755
	KH10	0.782
Psychological engagement	PE1	0.878	0.911	0.931	0.693
	PE2	0.818
	PE3	0.834
	PE4	0.775
	PE5	0.843
	PE6	0.812

FD, factor loadings; CR, construct reliability; α, Cronbach alpha; AVE, average variance extracted.

FIGURE 2

Post analysis model.

Similarly, all the coefficients of construct reliability and Cronbach alpha were above the threshold point of 0.70, where abusive supervision behavior has 0.753 Cronbach alpha, absorptive capacity 0.912, knowledge hiding 0.748, and psychological engagement 0.911. On the other hand, the CR value for abusive supervision behavior was 0.757, absorptive capacity 0.930, knowledge hiding 0.808, and psychological engagement 0.931. Hence, the construct’s reliability is maintained, and indicator reliability is satisfactory. The output is presented in Table 2.

The AVE values for each construct were above the threshold point of 0.50, where abusive supervision behavior has 0.534, absorptive capacity 0.556, knowledge hiding 0.585, and psychological engagement 0.693. The output confirmed that the convergent validity is satisfactory and maintained.

The discriminant validity was estimated using Fornell and Larcker criterion and HTMT ratio. The output for Fornell and Larcker criterion is presented in Table 3 where the square root of all the diagonal values were above the off-diagonal values. Hence, the results are appropriate, and the discriminant validity is maintained. HTMT ratio is the second measure used to estimate the discriminant validity where all values are below 0.85 and near to zero. Therefore, the second measure of discriminant validity confirmed that the discriminant validity is established for all constructs in the research model. Results are presented in Table 4.

TABLE 3

Fornell and Larcker criterion.

	ABS	AC	KH	PE
ABS	0.578
AC	0.008	0.946
KH	0.456	–0.093	0.765
PE	0.002	0.822	–0.113	0.832

ASB, abusive supervision behavior; AC, absorptive capacity; KH, knowledge hiding; PE, psychological engagement.

TABLE 4

HTMT ratio.

	ABS	AC	KH	PE
ABS	–
AC	0.105	–
KH	0.592	0.123	–
PE	0.110	0.817	0.144	–

ASB, abusive supervision behavior; AC, absorptive capacity; KH, knowledge hiding; PE, psychological engagement.

Structural Model Estimation

The structural model assessment is the second phase of the analysis. This phase is based on testing the proposed hypothesis. The SEM estimate is calculated through the Smart-PLS Bootstrapping function under sampling 5,000 with a 0.05 (5%) significance level. Current research proposed a total of seven hypotheses, five of which are direct effects and two of which are indirect effects. The hypothesis is rejected and accepted based on p-values.

In direct hypothesis, the output of first hypothesis p value = 0.182,t-statistics = 0.909 confirmed that abusive supervision does not have any impact on the psychological engagement of the employees. Hence hypothesis-1 (H1) is rejected. Likewise, abusive supervision also does not meaningfully predict the absorptive capacity of employees as p value = 0.236,t-statistics = 0.718. Thus, hypothesis (H3) is rejected, as shown in Table 5.

TABLE 5

Direct effects analysis.

H	Paths	O	M	SD	T Statistics	P Values	Result	R2	f2
H1	ABS → PE	0.064	0.065	0.070	0.909	0.182	Rejected	0.016	0.004
H3	ABS → AC	0.056	0.054	0.078	0.718	0.236	Rejected	0.012	0.003

H, hypothesis; O, original sample; M, sample mean; SD, standard deviation; ASB, abusive supervision behavior; AC, absorptive capacity, KH, knowledge hiding, PE, psychological engagement.

Table 6 depicts indirect or mediation analysis. In indirect effects, hypothesis (H4) was accepted as knowledge hiding proved a full mediation between abusive supervision and absorptive capacity. The output p value = 0.048,t-statistics = 1.669. Likewise, the second indirect effect was also accepted where knowledge hiding proved a full mediation between abusive supervision and psychological engagement as p value = 0.048,t-statistics = 1.669 confirmed and accepted hypothesis (H2). Knowledge hiding proved to be a mediator.

TABLE 6

Indirect effects and mediation analysis.

H	Paths	O	M	SD	T Statistics	P Values	Result
H4	ABS → KH → AC	–0.052	–0.058	0.031	1.969	0.044	Accepted
H2	ABS → KH → PE	–0.063	–0.067	0.030	2.098	0.018	Accepted

H, hypothesis; O, original sample; M, sample mean; SD, standard deviation; ASB, abusive supervision behavior; AC, absorptive capacity, KH, knowledge hiding, PE, psychological engagement.

Discussion

The research on abusive supervision has been increasing over the last few decades (Aryee et al., 2008; Fisher-Blando, 2008; Feng and Wang, 2019; Agarwal et al., 2021; Chen et al., 2021). The study was planned based on two areas. The first was to estimate the direct effect of abusive supervision on absorptive capacity and psychological engagement. The second goal was to inspect the mediating role of knowledge hiding between abusive supervision and absorptive capacity. Results indicate that there exists a positive relationship between abusive supervision and knowledge hiding, indicating that abusive supervision behavior at the workplace increases the knowledge hiding among workers or employees. These findings are well documented and homogenous with earlier research (Agarwal et al., 2021). Likewise, other studies have documented that abusive supervision and knowledge hiding had a positive association (Khalid et al., 2018; Feng and Wang, 2019; Pradhan et al., 2020; Agarwal et al., 2021). Current research also showed that abusive supervision does not have a relationship and impact on absorptive capacity and psychological engagement. But interestingly, knowledge hiding prompted a stronger negative force that decreased the absorptive capacity as well as psychological engagement among workers. These findings revealed that increasing knowledge hiding behavior is critical and has an adverse impact on cognitive engagement and absorptive capacity. These outcomes are also well aligned with previous research where researchers have found that knowledge hiding has a negative impact on absorptive capacity, psychological engagement, and team creativity (Fong et al., 2018; Bari et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2019; Labafi et al., 2021).

It is interesting that knowledge hiding can have a severe consequence on psychological engagement and absorptive capacity. These findings are also aligned with previous research in a related strand (Fong et al., 2018; Bari et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2019; Labafi et al., 2021), where authors have documented that knowledge hiding may have a negative impact directly and indirectly on the capacity, engagement, innovation, and creativity of the employees working in different sectors around the globe.

Conclusion

As a corollary, in today’s workplace, abusive supervision has become a severe problem. The findings of the current research revealed that abusive supervisory behavior does not have any significant impact on psychological engagement and absorptive capacity, however, knowledge hiding has a negative impact on both constructs. Finally, knowledge hiding fully mediated the linkage between abusive supervision with psychological engagement and absorptive capacity. Thus, it can be concluded that Abusive Supervision as a single factor does not predict psychological engagement and absorptive capacity. However, knowledge hiding might have the ability to shatter absorptive capacity and psychological engagement under abusive supervision.

Implications and Limitations

There are several managerial implications. Abusive supervision has become a serious issue in the workplace these days. It can have severe consequences, such as increasing turnover intentions among employees and decreasing psychological engagement with the organization. Likewise, knowledge hiding is a supportive hand for abusive supervisory behavior because it fosters the negative consequences of abusive supervision on absorptive capacity and psychological engagement. As a result, researchers investigating justice philosophy in abusive supervision studies should highlight the critical role that beliefs of injustice play in shaping perceptions of abusive supervision in the future. Much research has been done on abusive supervision. As a result, academics may want to reconsider how the link between impressions of abusive supervision and views of justice is experimentally assessed. The list of studies used to draw correlations can aid abusive supervision researchers in examining how previous research has conceptualized and operationalized variables in abusive supervision research in order to constructively duplicate and extend previous work.

Therefore, upper management and policymakers should work more on the policymaking of organizations to mitigate the effect of knowledge hiding and abusive supervision at the workplace to create a healthy and positive work environment. Just like other research, this study has some limitations. Firstly, this is cross-sectional research, and the findings of this study can be generalized but with care. Secondly, we conceptualized all dimensions of the knowledge hiding construct, while in future studies other dimensions of knowledge hiding can also be used separately. The sampling technique used for data collection was convenience sampling because it was not pragmatic to collect data through other means. Further studies should utilize most rigorous sampling techniques to get better upshot. Moreover, this study used only one mediating variable, while in future adding more mediating variables could provide further important insights. Similarly, adding moderating variables could also be considered a potential avenue for future researches to mitigate the impact of abusive supervision.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Ethics Statement

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by Shandong University, China. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Author Contributions

XZ conceived and designed the concept and wrote the manuscript. JY collected the data. Both authors read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.