The impact of job crafting on knowledge hiding behavior in organizations: A moderated mediation model

The impact of job crafting on knowledge hiding behavior in organizations: A moderated mediation model | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article The impact of job crafting on knowledge hiding behavior in organizations: A moderated mediation model Sulin Ding, Yining Cheng, Xin Shen, Yishuai Yin, Zhouzhou Lin This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6075642/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Purpose –The purpose of this research is to investigate the dark side of job crafting by examining its impact on knowledge hiding behavior in organizations while incorporating the mediating role of job-based psychological ownership and the moderating role of ethical leadership. Design/methodology/approach – Data from a sample of 320 respondents in China was collected over three waves spanning three months. Five hypotheses were tested using hierarchal regression analysis and bootstrapping method. Findings –The findings show that job crafting is positively related to knowledge hiding behavior; job-based PO positively mediates job crafting-knowledge hiding relationship; ethical leadership negatively moderates the relationship between job-based PO and knowledge hiding behavior; ethical leadership weakens the mediating effect of job-based PO on the relationship between job crafting and knowledge hiding behavior. Originality/value –This study provides a new perspective for organizations to recognize the dark side of job crafting by applying the extended self theory, thereby enriching the scope of research on job crafting’s negative side. By introducing ethical leadership as a moderating variable, this study also provides answers to when negative consequences of job-based PO will be mitigated. Business and commerce/Business and management Social science/Psychology Social science/Science technology and society Job Crafting Knowledge Hiding Psychological Ownership Ethical Leadership Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Introduction The increasing competition and the transition to knowledge-based economy have created voluminous uncertainties for organizations (Yang et al ., 2023). These uncertainties render traditional top-down approach to job design ineffective as the ever-changing environment requires employees to take adaptive efforts to address the new problems and demands (Axtell & Parker, 2001,2003; Johns, 2010). A bottom-up approach to job design, i.e., job crafting, has gained significant research interest in recent years as organizations recognize the value of empowering employees to modify their tasks and relationships to better align with their preferences and motives as well as organizational requirements (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001; Bakker & Demerouti, 2014). Job crafting is defined as “the physical and cognitive changes individuals make in the task or relational boundaries of their work” (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001, p.179). These changes allow employees to shape their roles actively, anticipating and engaging in proactive behaviors that benefit both the employee and the organization (Tims et al. , 2013; Nielsen & Abildgaard, 2013). Existing research on job crafting has shown its positive effects on employee well-being and performance, such as increased work engagement, job satisfaction, in-role performance, and contextual performance (Bakker et al. , 2012; Rudolph et al. , 2017; Tims et al. , 2013). While previous research predominantly highlights the positive aspects of job crafting, recent studies have begun to uncover its darker implications. For instance, Harju et al. (2021) demonstrated that an approach-oriented form of job crafting can lead to burnout due to increased workload. Similarly, Dierdorff and Jensen (2018) found that a low to moderate level of approach-type job crafting negatively impacts job performance. This emerging body of literature provides valuable insights into the potential downsides of job crafting. However, prior research has largely concentrated on its detrimental effects on employee well-being or assumed that only a relatively low degree of job crafting is harmful to job performance (Zhang et al., 2023). In this study, we extend the existing literature by examining a previously overlooked negative consequence of job crafting—knowledge hiding, defined as the intentional withholding of information that could be valuable to others in the organization (Connelly et al. , 2012). We argue that beyond the well-documented negative effects on employee well-being, high levels of job crafting can also impose unintended costs on organizations by fostering behaviors that undermine open exchange of information. By shifting the focus beyond well-being and performance, our research provides a more comprehensive understanding of the unintended organizational risks associated with job crafting. Drawing on extended self theory and psychological ownership literature, which suggests that individuals seek to extend their self-concept by incorporating aspects of their environment into their identity (Aron & Aron, 1986), this study posits that job crafting can increase employees’ psychological ownership over their crafted jobs, i.e., job-based psychological ownership (job-based PO). When employees view their crafted tasks and knowledge as part of their self-concept, they may be more inclined to safeguard it by withholding information from others, i.e. hiding knowledge. To mitigate this negative impact of job crafting, we further propose ethical leadership as a contextual factor that countervails the urge to hide knowledge to protect one’s job deriving from job-based psychological ownership. Ethical leadership, characterized by integrity, fairness, and a commitment to ethical standards, has been shown to influence employees' ethical behavior and interpersonal interactions positively (Brown et al. , 2005). Ethical leadership is chosen because it fosters an environment where employees are encouraged to act with integrity, fairness, and a sense of responsibility toward collective goals (Trevino & Brown, 2004; Walumbwa et al ., 2008). By setting clear ethical expectations and promoting prosocial behaviors, ethical leaders counteract the negative effects of job-based psychological ownership. This study makes three contributions to job crafting literature. First, it expands the literature on job crafting by uncovering its dark side, highlighting how high levels of job crafting can lead to knowledge hiding, thus challenging the predominantly positive narrative surrounding job crafting. Second, it introduces job-based psychological ownership (job-based PO) as a novel explanatory mechanism, demonstrating how employees' strong attachment to their crafted jobs fosters defensive behaviors that hinder knowledge sharing. Third, it identifies ethical leadership as a crucial contextual factor that mitigates the negative effects of job crafting. Ethical leaders promote a collective mindset, transparency, and trust, reducing employees’ tendency to protect their crafted work by withholding information. By incorporating leadership as a boundary condition, this study offers both theoretical advancements and practical insights for organizations seeking to balance the benefits and risks of job crafting. The conceptual model of this paper is depicted in Figure 1. Theoretical background and hypotheses development Extended self and psychological ownership theory The concept of psychological ownership (PO) has been a key focus in understanding how employees connect emotionally and cognitively with their roles, and is closely tied to the extended self theory . The extended self theory initially introduced by Belk (1988) and later expanded by Dittmar (1992), emphasizes how individuals extend their self-concept to encompass certain objects, possessions, and experiences that hold personal significance. These possessions, whether material or intangible, come to represent an essential part of the self. This extension prompts individuals to invest emotional and cognitive resources into these objects, protecting and nurturing their relationship with them (Belk, 1988; Brown, Lawrence, & Robinson, 2005; Dittmar, 1992). The extended self theory identifies three key mechanisms by which people internalize possessions into their self-concept: (1) investment—putting personal time and resources into the possession, (2) control—exercising autonomy over it, and (3) intimate knowledge—developing a deep understanding and connection with it (Belk, 1988; Pierce et al ., 2003). This idea can be mapped onto the workplace through the concept of job-based psychological ownership (job-based PO), which refers to the sense of ownership employees feel towards their job roles and tasks, seeing them as part of their self-concept (Pierce et al ., 2001, 2003). Similar to how personal possessions become an extension of one's identity, employees begin to perceive their work as a critical component of their self-definition (Hirst et al ., 2009). In this sense, job-based PO is rooted in the idea that individuals will identify with their jobs when they invest personal energy, control their work environment, and develop a deep understanding of their tasks. Job crafting and job-based PO Job crafting, defined as the process by which employees actively modify their tasks and roles to better align with personal strengths, motivations, and preferences, has been increasingly recognized as a way to enhance job satisfaction and engagement (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001; Tims & Bakker, 2010). Job crafting involves three di-mensions: tasks (reshaping scope or methods), relationships (adjusting workplace in-teractions), and cognition (reframing job perception). These enable employees to align work with personal needs and enhance its meaning (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001; Ghitulescu & Brenda Elena, 2007). Building on the extended self theory (Belk, 1988; Dittmar, 1992) and psychological ownership (PO) literature (e.g. Pierce et al ., 2001, 2003), we argue that job crafting positively influences job-based psychological ownership (PO) through mechanisms of control, intimate knowledge, and self-investment. According to the extended self theory, individuals incorporate possessions—both tangible and intangible—into their self-concept when they develop a strong connection to these objects. In the work context, employees who engage in job crafting actively reshape their roles, relationships, and tasks to better align with their personal values and preferences (Grant & Parker,2009). This process leads to a stronger sense of ownership over their jobs, as employees perceive their work as an extension of themselves. First, job crafting allows employees to exert greater control over their roles, whether by altering their tasks, responsibilities, or work relationships (Berg et al ., 2013). This increased control fosters a sense of autonomy, which is central to the development of psychological ownership (Slemp & Vella-Brodrick, 2014). According to Pierce et al. (2001), the more control individuals have over an object or role, the more likely they are to perceive it as part of their self-concept. In the case of job crafting, employees gain a sense of mastery and ownership over their work, which enhances their emotional and cognitive attachment to their jobs (Zhang & Parker , 2019). In addition to control, job crafting facilitates a deeper connection with the job through increased intimate knowledge. As employees adjust their tasks and responsibilities to better match their strengths and values, they develop a more profound understanding and familiarity with their work (Berg et al ., 2010). This deeper engagement with their roles leads to stronger attachment and psychological ownership, as employees feel more intimately connected to their jobs (Oldham & Hackman, 2010; Tims & Bakker, 2010). The more an employee knows about their job and actively engages with it, the more they perceive it as an extension of themselves. Finally, job crafting encourages employees to invest personal resources—such as time, energy, and emotional effort—into their roles. When employees tailor their work to align with their personal interests and motivations, they invest themselves more deeply into their jobs. According to the extended self theory (Aron & Aron, 1986), the act of investing personal resources into a role leads individuals to perceive that role as part of their identity. This self-investment further solidifies their sense of ownership over their work, as they begin to view their jobs as integral to their self-concept (Rousseau, 2004). Given the processes through which job crafting enhances control, intimate knowledge, and self-investment, we hypothesize that job crafting is positively related to job-based psychological ownership. Therefore, we propose: H1: Job crafting is positively related to job-based PO. Job-based PO and Knowledge Hiding Behavior While psychological ownership has well-documented benefits such as increased job satisfaction, engagement, and proactive behaviors, it can also encourage defensive behaviors in response to perceived threats, such as knowledge hiding (Pierce et al. , 2003; Avey et al. , 2009,2012). Knowledge hiding is defined as “an intentional attempt by an individual to withhold or conceal knowledge that has been requested by another person” (Connelly et al ., 2002). Psychological ownership is rooted in three fundamental needs—efficacy, self-identity, and territoriality—which drive individuals to feel protective over "owned" aspects of their work (Pierce et al. , 2003; Brown et al , 2005). When others request access to an employee's specialized knowledge, it may activate a protective response as the individual perceives this as a potential infringement on their sense of ownership, leading them to hide knowledge to maintain control and autonomy (Brown et al. , 2005; Peng, 2013). According to extended self theory, the link between self and “owned” objects (such as job-related knowledge) is extended through interactions with others, meaning that the presence of others can threaten the self-object relationship (Aron & Aron, 1986). In the case of job-based PO, employees often view their accumulated job knowledge as a reflection of their extended self, derived from personal experience and effort (Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004). When knowledge sharing is expected, the extended self model suggests that employees may feel their ownership of this knowledge is threatened, as sharing with others can disrupt their sense of exclusive control over it (Pierce et al. , 2003; Aron et al. , 2001). Employees with high psychological ownership over the job may thus see knowledge hiding as a way to protect their extended self and avoid the discomfort associated with “giving away” a piece of themselves (Karakas et al ., 2017; Černe et al .,2014). The protective response associated with job-based PO can also stem from a need to preserve self-identity (Avey et al. , 2009,2012). Employees may see their unique knowledge and skills as central to their identity within the organization and may avoid sharing it to maintain a distinct professional “territory” (Pierce et al. , 2009; Furby,1991). Sharing knowledge, in this context, might dilute the sense of control they have over their work domain, leading to feelings of vulnerability and even loss of identity (Peng, 2013; Serenko & Bontis, 2016). Research supports this, showing that high psychological ownership can induce defensive responses when employees feel others are encroaching on their knowledge, resulting in knowledge hiding behaviors aimed at maintaining their perceived control and status within the organization (Peng, 2013; Lee & Suh, 2022). Thus, based on extended self theory and the core mechanisms of psychological ownership, we hypothesize that employees with a higher sense of job-based PO are more likely to engage in knowledge hiding behaviors as a means of protecting their sense of ownership, control, and identity. H2: Job-based PO is positively related to knowledge hiding behavior. The Mediating Role of job-based PO Job crafting grants employees increased autonomy and control over their tasks, promoting a sense of psychological ownership over their work (Wrzesniewski & Dut-ton, 2001; Pierce et al. , 2001). Psychological ownership fulfills core needs of self-identity, efficacy, and territoriality, leading individuals to perceive their crafted roles as extensions of themselves (Avey et al. , 2009,2012; Dirks et al. , 1996; O'Driscoll et al. , 2006). Job-based PO can activate defensive behaviors, such as knowledge hiding, when employees feel that their "ownership" of certain tasks or expertise might be infringed upon (Pierce et al. , 2003). When employees shape their roles, they become more invested in and protective of their work domain, which may lead to knowledge hiding as a way of safeguarding these self-aspects from perceived encroachment by others (Ford & Staples, 2010). As a result, we posit that job-based PO is a key mechanism through which job crafting indirectly contributes to knowledge hiding behaviors. H3: Job-based PO mediates the relationship between job crafting and knowledge hiding behavior. The Moderating Role of ethical leadership The relationship between job-based psychological ownership (PO) and knowledge hiding is influenced not only by individual psychological needs but also by the broader organizational environment, particularly the leadership style (Mayhew et al. , 2007). Ethical leadership has been shown to significantly impact knowledge-sharing behaviors in organizations by fostering a culture of openness, fairness, and collaboration (Brown et al ., 2005; Bavik et al. ,2018). Ethical leaders model behaviors that prioritize the collective good, discourage self-serving actions, and emphasize the importance of organizational goals over individual self-interest (Connelly et al ., 2012). Given that knowledge hiding is often perceived as self-serving and detrimental to organizational collaboration, ethical leadership plays a crucial role in mitigating defensive behaviors like knowledge hiding. As previously discussed, job-based PO fosters a strong sense of ownership over one's work, including knowledge, and can lead to defensive behaviors, such as knowledge hiding, when employees feel that their "self-objects" are threatened (Pierce et al ., 2003). However, the presence of ethical leadership can moderate this relationship by influencing employees' perceptions of knowledge sharing. Ethical leaders emphasize the collective interests of the organization and model behaviors that encourage collaboration and transparency (Connelly et al ., 2012). By setting clear expectations around ethical behaviors and knowledge sharing, they create an environment where knowledge hiding is discouraged, and employees are more likely to share knowledge openly. Ethical leaders also serve as role models who demonstrate how to balance personal ownership with organizational goals. This modeling reduces employees' defensive motivations to withhold knowledge, as they see knowledge sharing as aligned with the organization's values and success. Furthermore, ethical leaders promote awareness of the negative consequences of knowledge hiding for both individual and organizational growth (Abdullah et al ., 2019). In doing so, they guide employees to recognize the value of knowledge sharing and its contribution to collective success. This reduces the likelihood of knowledge hiding as employees internalize these ethical values and align their behaviors with the norms set by their leaders (Koay & Lim, 2022). In the presence of strong ethical leadership, employees are less likely to perceive knowledge sharing as a threat to their autonomy or control over their knowledge. Instead, they view it as a positive, ethical action that contributes to the success of the team and the organization as a whole. Thus, ethical leadership weakens the relationship between job-based PO and knowledge hiding by fostering an environment of trust, fairness, and shared responsibility. Therefore, we hypothesize: H4: Ethical leadership negatively moderates the relationship between job-based PO and knowledge hiding behavior. The Moderated Mediation Effect of Ethical Leadership As employees engage in job crafting, the freedom and autonomy they experience can heighten job-based PO, which in turn may encourage knowledge hiding (Kim M et al. ,2017). However, the presence of ethical leadership can temper this effect by emphasizing the importance of collective benefit and ethical conduct, reducing the self-protective impulses that often accompany strong feelings of ownership (Zhu W et al. ,2016). In environments where ethical leadership is low, employees may feel less socially or ethically bound to share knowledge, increasing their tendency to protect their perceived "ownership" by hiding knowledge (Su X et al. ,2022; Men et al ., 2020). Thus, the indirect effect of job crafting on knowledge hiding, via job-based PO, may be weakened under conditions of high ethical leadership. H5: Ethical leadership weakens the mediating effect of job-based PO on the relationship between job crafting and knowledge hiding behavior. Method Participants and procedures Earlier studies indicate that job crafting becomes a norm rather than an exception in knowledge-intensive organizations (Panteli & Urquhart, 2022), we approached and obtained access to three companies in information technology industry in China through our MBA alumni association. Before administering the surveys, we contacted the HR directors to ensure the voluntary participation and confidentiality. To address potential concerns about common method bias, data were collected over three waves spanning three months, involving both employees and their super-visors. During the first wave (Time 1), online questionnaires were distributed to 500 employees, who were asked to provide information on job crafting and demographic details. One month later (Time 2), 420 of these participants completed a second survey, reporting their perceptions of job-based person-organization fit (PO) and ethical leadership. Another month later (Time 3), the same 420 participants who responded in the earlier phases were invited to assess their knowledge-hiding behavior. Ultimately, 320 valid responses were collected, yielding a response rate of 64%. The final valid sample consisted of 320 respondents. Male participants represented 71.6% of the sample. The average age was 27.75 years, and 59.7% held a bachelor’s degree or higher. Respondents included 139 frontline employees (43.4%), 117 frontline managers (36.6%), and 64 mid-to-senior managers (20.0%). Measures The measurement tools used in this study were adapted from established scales developed in international research and validated by previous studies in the Chinese management context. All scales demonstrated strong reliability and validity. Unless otherwise specified, responses were scored on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Job Crafting: The study utilized the job crafting scale developed by Vogt et al. (2016) to measure employees' job autonomy. Participants rated the frequency of behaviors such as "introducing new methods to improve work" across four items. In this study, the scale demonstrated high reliability with a Cronbach’s α of 0.830. Job-based PO: Psychological ownership was measured using Brown et al.'s (2014) scale, which includes items such as "I feel that this job is mine." This six-item scale showed strong reliability with a Cronbach’s α of 0.851. Knowledge Hiding Behavior: Knowledge hiding was assessed with a multidimensional scale developed by Connelly et al. (2012), covering evasive hiding, playing dumb, and rationalized hiding. Sample items include statements like "Agreed to help him/her but never intended to." This 12-item scale demonstrated excellent internal consistency, with a Cronbach’s α of 0.960. Ethical Leadership: Ethical leadership was measured using Brown et al.'s (2005) scale, which includes items such as "He/she follows ethical standards in his/her personal life." This 10-item scale displayed strong reliability, with a Cronbach’s α of 0.930. Control Variables: To account for potential confounding factors, the study included gender, age, education level, and job position as control variables. Data Analysis Confirmatory factor analysis To verify the discriminant validity of the variables, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted using Mplus 8.3 on the four latent variables. The results, presented in TableⅠ, indicated that the four-factor model provided the best fit compared to three alternative models. Specifically, the four-factor model had the following fit indices: χ²/df = 2.341, CFI = 0.920, TLI = 0.914, RMSEA = 0.065, and SRMR = 0.051. These results suggest that the four-factor model, which includes job crafting, job-based PO, knowledge hiding behavior, and ethical leadership, demonstrated the best model fit. Table Ⅰ . Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results Model χ²/df CFI TLI RMSEA SRMR Four-factor model 2.341 0.920 0.914 0.065 0.051 Three-factor model a 2.475 0.912 0.905 0.068 0.052 Three-factor model b 4.939 0.765 0.747 0.111 0.184 Two-factor model 4.451 0.793 0.778 0.104 0.154 One-factor model 9.344 0.498 0.464 0.162 0.188 Note: The four-factor model: JC, JBP, EL, KH; the three-factor model a : JC + JBP, EL, KH; the three-factor model b : JC, JBP + KH, EL; the two-factor model: JC + KH, JBP + EL; the one-factor model: JC + JBP +EL + KH. JC refers to job crafting. JBP refers to job-based psychological ownership. EL refers to ethical leadership. KH refers to knowledge hiding. Common method bias To examine the potential presence of common method bias, Harman's single-factor test was performed using SPSS 27.0. The results indicated that the extracted factors accounted for 64.240% of the total variance. However, the first factor explained only 39.444% of the variance, which is below the 50% threshold. Therefore, common method bias is not a significant concern in this study. Correlation analysis To explore the preliminary relationships between the variables, a correlation analysis was conducted. The results, shown in Table Ⅱ, revealed significant positive correlations between job crafting and job-based PO ( r = 0.752, p < 0.001), knowledge hiding behavior (r = 0.268, p < 0.001), and ethical leadership ( r = 0.667, p < 0.001). Job-based PO was significantly positively correlated with knowledge hiding behavior ( r = 0.298, p < 0.001). These correlations provide a foundation for testing the proposed hypotheses in the subsequent analyses. Table Ⅱ . Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Analysis (N = 320) Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Gender 0.28 0.45 1 Age 27.75 6.61 .111* 1 Education 2.57 0.80 .022 -.105 1 Job Level 1.81 0.85 .013 .163** .121* 1 Job Crafting 3.76 0.79 -0.025 .093 .131* .038 1 Job-based PO 3.77 0.80 .039 .100 .074 .021 .752** 1 Knowledge Hiding 3.20 1.07 -.098 -.073 -.070 .106 .268** .298** 1 Ethical Leadership 3.81 0.77 .003 .052 .137* .006 .667** .780** .270** 1 Note: SD = standard deviation; Gender: 0 = male, 1 = female; Education: 1 = senior high school and below, 2 = associate degree, 3 = bachelor degree, 4 = graduate degree and above; Job level: 1 = frontline employees, 2 = low-level supervisors, 3 = middle-level managers, 4 = high-level managers; *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001. Test of hypotheses Hypothesis 1 predicts that job crafting has a positive effect on job-based PO. To test Hypothesis 1, we conducted a regression analysis, and the results are presented in Model M2 (Table Ⅲ ). After controlling for demographic variables, we found that job crafting had a significant positive effect on job-based PO ( β = 0.765, p < 0.001). This strong relationship supports the notion that job crafting, which grants employees increased autonomy and control over their work, leads to a stronger sense of ownership over their tasks. By actively shaping their work environment and responsibilities, employees may come to view their roles as more personally meaningful and integral to their identity. Therefore, Hypothesis 1 is fully supported. Hypothesis 2 predicts that job-based PO has a positive effect on knowledge hiding behavior. As indicated in Model M4 (Table Ⅲ), job-based PO significantly and positively influenced knowledge hiding behavior ( β = 0.318, p < 0.01). This suggests that when employees feel a strong job-based PO of their work, they may be more inclined to protect their perceived territory by withholding valuable knowledge, particularly if they believe that sharing knowledge could diminish their control or power within the organization. Thus, Hypothesis 2 is confirmed, demonstrating the connection between job-based PO and the self-protective behaviors of knowledge hiding. Hypothesis 3 predicts job-based PO mediates the positive effect of job crafting on knowledge hiding behavior. To test the mediating effect of job-based PO, we employed the Bootstrap method with 5000 resamples, which is a robust statistical technique for assessing indirect effects. The analysis revealed that job-based PO significantly mediated the relationship between job crafting and knowledge hiding behavior, with an indirect effect of 0.243 and a 95% confidence interval of [0.066, 0.432], which does not contain zero. This finding demonstrates that job crafting increases job-based PO, which in turn enhances knowledge hiding behaviors. This significant mediation supports Hypothesis 3, highlighting the role of job-based PO as a key mechanism linking job crafting to knowledge hiding behavior. Table Ⅲ: Regression Analysis for the Moderating Role of Ethical Leadership（N=320） Model Job-Based PO Knowledge Hiding Behavior M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 Control Variables Gender .044 .099 -.207 -.178 -.210 -.206 -.179 Age -.013 .003 -.015 -.021 * -.022 * -.021 * -.024 ** Education Level .086 -.023 -.127 -.183 * -.175 * -.185 * -.191 ** Job Level -.007 -.009 .169 * .168 .170 * .174 ** .204 ** Independent Variables Job Crafting .765 *** 0.395 *** .151 .129 .146 Mediator Variables Job-Based PO .318 ** .234 .191 Moderating Variables Ethical Leadership .136 .083 Interaction Terms Job-Based PO × Ethical Leadership -.232 *** R² .018 .570 .036 .118 .143 .146 .179 F 1.434 83.385 *** 2.962 * 8.426 *** 8.673 *** 7.624 *** 8.491 *** Note: SD = standard deviation; Gender: 0 = male, 1 = female; Education: 1 = senior high school and below, 2 = associate degree, 3 = bachelor degree, 4 = graduate degree and above; Job level: 1 = frontline employees, 2 = low-level supervisors, 3 = middle-level managers, 4 = high-level managers; *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001. Hypothesis 4 predicts that ethical leadership negatively moderates the positive effect of job-based PO on knowledge hiding behavior. In Model M7 (Table Ⅲ), after controlling for the main effects of job-based PO and ethical leadership, the interaction term between job-based PO and ethical leadership had a significant negative effect on knowledge hiding behavior ( β = -0.232, p < 0.001). This result shows that ethical leadership plays a critical role in mitigating the negative consequences of job-based PO, particularly in reducing knowledge hiding behaviors. Ethical leaders promote a culture of openness and collaboration, making employees more likely to share knowledge rather than hoard it to protect their domain. This finding supports Hypothesis 4, suggesting that ethical leadership can buffer the negative impact of job-based PO on knowledge hiding by reinforcing ethical norms and fostering a collaborative work environment. Hypothesis 5 predicts that ethical leadership weakens the mediating effect of job-based PO on the relationship between job crafting and knowledge hiding behavior. To test the moderated mediation model, we utilized the Process macro in SPSS with 5000 Bootstrap resamples, exploring how ethical leadership influences the mediating effect of job-based PO on the relationship between job crafting and knowledge hiding behavior. Under high ethical leadership, the indirect effect of job crafting on knowledge hiding behavior through job-based PO was 0.012, with a 95% confidence interval of [-0.268, 0.293], which includes zero, suggesting that ethical leadership weakens the mediating role of job-based PO in this context. However, under low ethical leadership, the indirect effect was 0.367 with a 95% confidence interval of [0.105, 0.630], which does not contain zero. This indicates that when ethical leadership is weak, job-based PO has a stronger mediating effect, making employees more likely to engage in knowledge hiding. The difference in indirect effects between low and high levels of ethical leadership is -0.355, with a 95% confidence interval of [-0.373, -0.337], which does not include 0, and the indirect effect difference is significant. These findings confirm Hypothesis 5, demonstrating that ethical leadership not only moderates the direct effects of job-based PO but also significantly weakens its indirect effects, further reinforcing the role of ethical leadership in promoting knowledge sharing and collaboration. Table Ⅳ: Mediating Effect Test (N=320) Mediating Path Mediating Effect Value Standard Error Bootstrapped LLCI Bootstrapped ULCI Job Crafting → Job-Based PO → Knowledge Hiding Behavior 0.243 0.092 0.066 0.432 Table Ⅴ: Moderated Mediation Effects at Different Levels of Ethical Leadership (N=320) Level of Ethical Leadership Indirect Effect BootLLCI BootULCI High Ethical Leadership 0.012 -0.268 0.293 Low Ethical Leadership 0.367 0.105 0.630 Difference -0.355 -0.373 -0.337 Discussion Theoretical implications This study makes several significant theoretical contributions to the literature on job crafting, job-based PO, knowledge hiding, and ethical leadership. First, this study extends the existing literature on job crafting and knowledge hiding by applying extended self theory. While previous research primarily focused on the positive effects of job crafting from the perspectives of resource conservation theory and self-determination theory, it often overlooked the potential negative impact of job crafting on knowledge hiding behavior (Wang et al. ,2024). By using extended self theory, this study empirically demonstrates that higher levels of job crafting, which provide more autonomy in work tasks, may actually lead to an increase in knowledge hiding behavior. This finding suggests that job crafting is not universally beneficial, and greater autonomy may inadvertently foster more self-protective behaviors, such as knowledge withholding (Yang et al. ,2021). Future research should pay closer attention to the potential negative effects of autonomy on organizational knowledge management, thus broadening the scope of research on job crafting’s negative side. Second, this study also enriches the understanding of the mechanisms through which job crafting influences knowledge hiding by introducing job-based PO as a mediator. The study clearly identifies the key role of job-based PO in this relationship, offering a deeper understanding of how job crafting can influence employees' attitudes toward knowledge sharing. By framing job-based PO as a mediating factor, this study adds nuance to the existing research on job crafting by emphasizing that a heightened sense of ownership may lead to self-protective behaviors, such as withholding knowledge. This finding encourages future research to explore the formation mechanisms and influencing factors of job-based PO and to investigate ways to reduce the exclusive mindset associated with ownership, thereby promoting more positive behaviors in the workplace, such as knowledge sharing (Qin et al., 2022 ). Finally, this study introduces ethical leadership as a moderating variable to further explore the impact of job crafting on knowledge hiding behavior. In today’s knowledge economy, knowledge hiding creates barriers to information flow, impedes organizational knowledge management, and negatively impacts employees' creativity and other critical factors (Offergelt et al. ,2019). The findings of this study suggest that ethical leadership can effectively reduce knowledge hiding behavior. By incorporating ethical leadership into the model, this research offers a more comprehensive under-standing of how job crafting, through job-based PO, affects knowledge hiding behavior. Ethical leaders can mitigate the negative consequences of job-based PO by fostering a culture of openness and trust, thereby enhancing the overall knowledge management practices within organizations. This contribution provides valuable insights into the role of leadership in moderating the impact of job crafting on knowledge behaviors, especially in a knowledge-driven economy. Practical implications This study has several important practical implications for organizations seeking to foster a culture of collaboration and knowledge sharing. First, organizations can encourage job crafting as a means of increasing employee engagement and job satisfaction. However, managers should be aware of the potential unintended consequences of increased job-based PO, such as knowledge hiding. It is important for organizations to provide training and resources that emphasize the benefits of knowledge sharing and collaboration (Van et al. , 2017), even as employees gain more autonomy and control over their work. By framing knowledge sharing as a form of personal development and organizational growth, organizations can mitigate the negative effects of job-based PO and encourage employees to share rather than hide knowledge. Second, the findings also suggest that ethical leadership is a key factor in reducing knowledge hiding behaviors. Organizations should prioritize the development of ethical leaders who model ethical behavior, promote openness, and foster a culture of trust (Brown et al., 2005 ). Ethical leadership programs should be designed to equip leaders with the tools to handle sensitive knowledge management issues, such as knowledge hiding(Bock et al., 2005 ; Ipe, 2003 ), by promoting transparency and providing the followers with a safety net to fall back on when threatened with the net loss of resources (Kalshoven & Boon, 2012 ). In particular, organizations should focus on creating a strong ethical framework that reinforces the collective benefits of knowledge sharing, thereby minimizing the self-protective behaviors that might arise from job-based PO (Kim & Yun, 2015 ). Third, as this study shows, leadership styles play a critical role in shaping employees' knowledge behaviors. Organizations may consider adapting leadership development programs to emphasize not only task-oriented and relationship-oriented leadership skills but also ethical decision-making and ethical leadership. By doing so, organizations can ensure that leaders at all levels are equipped to manage the complexities of job-based PO and knowledge hiding, while simultaneously fostering a collaborative culture where knowledge is shared freely for the benefit of the organization. Limitations and future research directions While this study provides valuable insights into the relationship between job crafting, job-based PO, and knowledge hiding, there are several limitations that future research could address. First, the cross-sectional nature of the data prevents causal inferences. Future studies could employ longitudinal designs to better capture the dynamic nature of job crafting, job-based PO, and knowledge hiding over time. Additionally, this study focuses on the direct effects of ethical leadership, but future research could explore other leadership styles, such as transformational or servant leadership, to further understand their impact on knowledge behaviors. Moreover, the sample is limited to employees from a specific region and industry, and future studies could explore the generalizability of these findings across different organizational contexts and cultures. Conclusion In conclusion, this study contributes to our understanding of the complex relationships between job crafting, job-based PO, and knowledge hiding. By introducing job-based PO as a mediator and ethical leadership as a moderator, the study offers a more nuanced view of the factors that influence knowledge hiding behaviors in organizations. The findings highlight the importance of both individual behaviors and leadership styles in shaping organizational knowledge management practices. Organizations seeking to foster a culture of knowledge sharing and collaboration should encourage job crafting while promoting ethical leadership to mitigate the negative effects of job-based PO on knowledge hiding. Future research should further explore these relationships and examine other contextual factors that may influence knowledge behaviors in organizations. Declarations Author Contribution S. D. : Writing—Conceptualization, Original Draft and Data Analysis; Y. C. and X.S. : Data Collection and Methodology; Y. Y. and Z. L. : Conceptualization, Writing—Review & Editing. All authors equally contributed to the article and have approved the submitted version. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Data Availability The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. References Abdullah MI, Dechun H, Ali M, Usman M (2019) Ethical leadership and knowledge hiding: a moderated mediation model of relational social capital, and instrumental thinking. Front Psychol 10:2403 Aron A, Aron EN (1986) Love and the expansion of self: Understanding attraction and satisfaction. Hemisphere Publishing Corp/Harper & Row Aron A, Aron EN, Norman C (2001) Self-expansion model of motivation and cognition in close relationships and beyond. In: Fletcher GJO, Clark MS (eds) Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Interpersonal processes. Blackwell, pp 478–501 Avey JB, Avolio BJ, Crossley CD, Luthans F (2009) Psychological ownership: Theoretical extensions, measurement and relation to work outcomes. J Organizational Behavior: Int J Industrial Occup Organizational Psychol Behav 30(2):173–191 Avey JB, Wernsing TS, Palanski ME (2012) Exploring the process of ethical leadership: The mediating role of employee voice and psychological ownership. J Bus Ethics 107:21–34 Bakker AB, Tims M, Derks D (2012) Proactive personality and job performance: The role of job crafting and work engagement. Hum Relat 65(10):1359–1378 Bakker AB, Demerouti E (2014) Job demands–resources theory. A complete reference guide, Wellbeing, pp 1–28 Bavik YL, Tang PM, Shao R, Lam LW (2018) Ethical leadership and employee knowledge sharing: Exploring dual-mediation paths. Leadersh Q 29(2):322–332 Belk RW (1988) Possessions and the extended self. J Consum Res 15(2):139–168 Berg JM, Wrzesniewski A, Dutton JE (2010) Perceiving and responding to challenges in job crafting at different ranks: When proactivity requires adaptivity. J organizational Behav 31(2–3):158–186 Berg JM, Dutton JE, Wrzesniewski A (2013) Job crafting and meaningful work. Bock GW, Zmud RW, Kim YG, Lee JN (2005) Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing: Examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces, and organizational climate. MIS Q, 87–111 Brown G, Lawrence TB, Robinson SL (2005) Territoriality in organizations. Acad Manage Rev 30(3):577–594 Brown G, Pierce JL, Crossley C (2014) Toward an understanding of the development of ownership feelings. J Organizational Behav 35(3):318–338 Brown ME, Treviño LK, Harrison DA (2005) Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 97(2):117–134 Černe M, Nerstad CG, Dysvik A, Škerlavaj M (2014) What goes around comes around: Knowledge hiding, perceived motivational climate, and creativity. Acad Manag J 57(1):172–192 Connelly CE, Zweig D, Webster J, Trougakos JP (2012) Knowledge hiding in organizations. J organizational Behav 33(1):64–88 Dirks KT, Cummings LL, Pierce JL (1996) Psychological ownership in organizations: Conditions under which individuals promote and resist change. Res Organizational Change Dev 9(1):1–23 Dittmar H (1992) The social psychology of material possessions: To have is to be. Harvester Wheatsheaf Ford DP, Staples S (2010) What is knowledge sharing from the informer's perspective? Int J Knowl Manage 6(4):1–20 Furby L (1991) Understanding the psychology of possession and ownership: A personal memoir and an appraisal of our progress. J social Behav personality 6(6):457 Ghitulescu BE (2007) Shaping tasks and relationships at work: Examining the antecedents and consequences of employee job crafting (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh) Grant AM, Parker SK (2009) Redesigning work design theories: The rise of relational and proactive perspectives. The Academy of Management Annals, 3 (1), 317–375 Hirst G, Van Dick R, Van Knippenberg D (2009) A social identity perspective on leadership and employee creativity. J Organizational Behavior: Int J Industrial Occup Organizational Psychol Behav 30(7):963–982 Ipe M (2003) Knowledge sharing in organizations: A conceptual framework. Hum Resour Dev Rev 2(4):337–359 Kalshoven K, Boon CT (2012) Ethical leadership, employee well-being, and helping. J Personnel Psychol Karakas F, Sarigollu E, Uygur S (2017) Exploring the diversity of virtues through the lens of moral imagination: A qualitative inquiry into organizational virtues in the Turkish context. J Bus Ethics 141:731–744 Kim M, Beehr TA (2017) Self-efficacy and psychological ownership mediate the effects of empowering leadership on both good and bad employee behaviors. J Leadersh Organizational Stud 24(4):466–478 Kim SL, Yun S (2015) The effect of coworker knowledge sharing on performance and its boundary conditions: An interactional perspective. J Appl Psychol 100(2):575 Koay KY, Lim PK (2022) Ethical leadership and knowledge hiding: testing the mediating and moderating mechanisms. J Knowl Manage 26(3):574–591 Lee MT, Suh I (2022) Understanding the effects of Environment, Social, and Governance conduct on financial performance: Arguments for a process and integrated modelling approach. Sustainable Technol Entrepreneurship 1(1):100004 Mayhew MG, Ashkanasy NM, Bramble T, Gardner J (2007) A study of the antecedents and consequences of psychological ownership in organizational settings. J Soc Psychol 147(5):477–500 Men C, Fong PS, Huo W, Zhong J, Jia R, Luo J (2020) Ethical leadership and knowledge hiding: a moderated mediation model of psychological safety and mastery climate. J Bus Ethics 166:461–472 Nielsen K, Abildgaard JS (2013) Organizational interventions: A research-based framework for the evaluation of both process and effects. Work Stress 27(3):278–297 O'Driscoll MP, Pierce JL, Coghlan AM (2006) The psychology of ownership: Work environment structure, organizational commitment, and citizenship behaviors. Group Organ Manage 31(3):388–416 Offergelt F, Spörrle M, Moser K, Shaw JD (2019) Leader-signaled knowledge hiding: Effects on employees' job attitudes and empowerment. J Organizational Behav 40(7):819–833 Oldham GR, Hackman JR (2010) Not what it was and not what it will be: The future of job design research. J organizational Behav 31(2–3):463–479 Panteli N, Urquhart C (2022) Job crafting for female contractors in a male-dominated profession. New Technol Work Employ 37(1):102–123 Parker SK, Axtell CM (2001) Seeing another viewpoint: Antecedents and outcomes of employee perspective taking. Acad Manag J 44(6):1085–1100 Peng H (2013) Why and when do people hide knowledge? J Knowl Manage 17(3):398–415 Pierce JL, Kostova T, Dirks KT (2003) The state of psychological ownership: Integrating and extending a century of research. Rev Gen Psychol 7(1):84–107 Pierce JL, Kostova T, Dirks KT (2001) Toward a theory of psychological ownership in organizations. Acad Manage Rev 26(2):298–310 Pierce JL, Jussila I, Cummings A (2009) Psychological ownership within the job design context: Revision of the job characteristics model. J Organizational Behavior: Int J Industrial Occup Organizational Psychol Behav 30(4):477–496 Qin X, Zhang Z, Yan S (2022) The effect of employee innovation behavior on counterproductive production behavior: the role of psychological ownership and moral identity. Sci Res Manage 43(5):86–93 Rousseau DM (2004) Psychological contracts in the workplace: Understanding the ties that motivate. Acad Manage Perspect 18(1):120–127 Rudolph CW, Katz IM, Lavigne KN, Zacher H (2017) Job crafting: A meta-analysis of relationships with individual differences, job characteristics, and work outcomes. J Vocat Behav 102:112–138 Serenko A, Bontis N (2016) Understanding counterproductive knowledge behavior: Antecedents and consequences of intra-organizational knowledge hiding. J Knowl Manage 20(6):1199–1224 Slemp GR, Vella-Brodrick DA (2014) Optimizing employee mental health: The relationship between intrinsic need satisfaction, job crafting, and employee well-being. J Happiness Stud 15:957–977 Su X, Jiang X, Xie G, Huang M, Xu A (2022) How does self-sacrificial leadership foster knowledge sharing behavior in employees? Moral ownership, felt obligation and supervisor-subordinate guanxi. Front Psychol 13:910707 Tims M, Bakker AB, Derks D (2013) The impact of job crafting on job demands, job resources, and well-being. J Occup Health Psychol 18(2):230 Tims M, Bakker AB (2010) Job crafting: Towards a new model of individual job redesign. SA J Industrial Psychol 36(2):1–9 Trevino LK, Brown ME (2004) Managing to be ethical: Debunking five business ethics myths. Acad Manage Perspect 18(2):69–81 Van Dyne L, Pierce JL (2004) Psychological ownership and feelings of possession: Three field studies predicting employee attitudes and organizational citizenship behavior. J Organizational Behavior: Int J Industrial Occup Organizational Psychol Behav 25(4):439–459 Walumbwa FO, Avolio BJ, Gardner WL, Wernsing TS, Peterson SJ (2008) Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure. J Manag 34(1):89–126 Wang Q, Li S, Luan Z (2024) The double-edged sword effect of job crafting from the approach-avoidance perspective. Curr Psychol, 1–13 Wrzesniewski A, Dutton JE (2001) Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Acad Manage Rev 26(2):179–201 Yang F, Zhang H, Liu X, Liu S (2023) How to make subordinates more active in seeking no fault leaders. Nankai Manage Rev 26(03):189–196 Yang Z, Liu P, Cui Z (2021) Strengths-based job crafting and employee creativity: the role of job self-efficacy and workplace status. Front Psychol 12:748747 Zhang C, Wu X (2023) Review and integrated development of job remodeling theory [J]. J Manag 20(12):1878–1889 Zhang F, Parker SK (2019) Reorienting job crafting research: A hierarchical structure of job crafting concepts and integrative review. J organizational Behav 40(2):126–146 Zhu W, Treviño LK, Zheng X (2016) Ethical leaders and their followers: The transmission of moral identity and moral attentiveness. Bus Ethics Q 26(1):95–115 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files supportingdata.xlsx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-6075642","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":423862713,"identity":"ca885518-2378-4a65-98ce-a2a58f465b63","order_by":0,"name":"Sulin Ding","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Soochow University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Sulin","middleName":"","lastName":"Ding","suffix":""},{"id":423862714,"identity":"e5b56c59-ffba-4113-a44d-6c3d9a66fdb9","order_by":1,"name":"Yining Cheng","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Soochow University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Yining","middleName":"","lastName":"Cheng","suffix":""},{"id":423862715,"identity":"864443f5-5397-4e2a-bbce-9a3245ff0863","order_by":2,"name":"Xin Shen","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Soochow University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Xin","middleName":"","lastName":"Shen","suffix":""},{"id":423862717,"identity":"93af0ce7-e853-4d6f-b3ce-b153d6be2ad9","order_by":3,"name":"Yishuai Yin","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Soochow University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Yishuai","middleName":"","lastName":"Yin","suffix":""},{"id":423862718,"identity":"7370101a-69d6-4104-a3a4-960dd7235497","order_by":4,"name":"Zhouzhou Lin","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Soochow University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Zhouzhou","middleName":"","lastName":"Lin","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-02-21 03:08:19","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6075642/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6075642/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":77953430,"identity":"69d98b91-d924-4455-8ff5-af4e6ceb72ae","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-03-07 07:43:54","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":33236,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eThe conceptual model.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6075642/v1/93b67cc8be16663d8ad24bfa.png"},{"id":77953428,"identity":"f65ce87f-3585-4306-8e31-0b2883759998","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-03-07 07:43:54","extension":"jpg","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":117477,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eThe moderating effect of ethical leadership on knowledge hiding behavior.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Picture1.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6075642/v1/014166f30686f9b83d7e6467.jpg"},{"id":85956824,"identity":"a81b6236-8936-4817-99b0-fac707c59a97","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-03 15:02:02","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":981861,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6075642/v1/08501594-ad62-4cfb-9341-7a2f39fb2608.pdf"},{"id":77954759,"identity":"9956828d-4783-4b97-a804-7959fb7a43c9","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-03-07 07:59:54","extension":"xlsx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":209417,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"supportingdata.xlsx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6075642/v1/9eb046a67124aa838276dc83.xlsx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"The impact of job crafting on knowledge hiding behavior in organizations: A moderated mediation model","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe increasing competition and the transition to knowledge-based economy have created voluminous uncertainties for organizations (Yang \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2023). These uncertainties render traditional top-down approach to job design ineffective as the ever-changing environment requires employees to take adaptive efforts to address the new problems and demands (Axtell \u0026amp; Parker, 2001,2003; Johns, 2010). A bottom-up approach to job design, i.e., job crafting, has gained significant research interest in recent years as organizations recognize the value of empowering employees to modify their tasks and relationships to better align with their preferences and motives as well as organizational requirements (Wrzesniewski \u0026amp; Dutton, 2001; Bakker \u0026amp; Demerouti, 2014). Job crafting is defined as \u0026ldquo;the physical and cognitive changes individuals make in the task or relational boundaries of their work\u0026rdquo; (Wrzesniewski \u0026amp; Dutton, 2001, p.179). These changes allow employees to shape their roles actively, anticipating and engaging in proactive behaviors that benefit both the employee and the organization (Tims \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, 2013; Nielsen \u0026amp; Abildgaard, 2013). Existing research on job crafting has shown its positive effects on employee well-being and performance, such as increased work engagement, job satisfaction, in-role performance, and contextual performance (Bakker \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, 2012; Rudolph \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, 2017; Tims \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, 2013).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhile previous research predominantly highlights the positive aspects of job crafting, recent studies have begun to uncover its darker implications. For instance, Harju et al. (2021) demonstrated that an approach-oriented form of job crafting can lead to burnout due to increased workload. Similarly, Dierdorff and Jensen (2018) found that a low to moderate level of approach-type job crafting negatively impacts job performance. This emerging body of literature provides valuable insights into the potential downsides of job crafting. However, prior research has largely concentrated on its detrimental effects on employee well-being or assumed that only a relatively low degree of job crafting is harmful to job performance (Zhang et al., 2023). In this study, we extend the existing literature by examining a previously overlooked negative consequence of job crafting\u0026mdash;knowledge hiding, defined as the intentional withholding of information that could be valuable to others in the organization (Connelly \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, 2012). We argue that beyond the well-documented negative effects on employee well-being, high levels of job crafting can also impose unintended costs on organizations by fostering behaviors that undermine open exchange of information. By shifting the focus beyond well-being and performance, our research provides a more comprehensive understanding of the unintended organizational risks associated with job crafting.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDrawing on extended self theory and psychological ownership literature, which suggests that individuals seek to extend their self-concept by incorporating aspects of their environment into their identity (Aron \u0026amp; Aron, 1986), this study posits that job crafting can increase employees\u0026rsquo; psychological ownership over their crafted jobs, i.e., job-based psychological ownership (job-based PO). When employees view their crafted tasks and knowledge as part of their self-concept, they may be more inclined to safeguard it by withholding information from others, i.e. hiding knowledge. To mitigate this negative impact of job crafting, we further propose ethical leadership as a contextual factor that countervails the urge to hide knowledge to protect one\u0026rsquo;s job deriving from job-based psychological ownership. Ethical leadership, characterized by integrity, fairness, and a commitment to ethical standards, has been shown to influence employees\u0026apos; ethical behavior and interpersonal interactions positively (Brown \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, 2005). Ethical leadership is chosen because it fosters an environment where employees are encouraged to act with integrity, fairness, and a sense of responsibility toward collective goals (Trevino \u0026amp; Brown, 2004; Walumbwa \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2008). By setting clear ethical expectations and promoting prosocial behaviors, ethical leaders counteract the negative effects of job-based psychological ownership.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study makes three contributions to job crafting literature. First, it expands the literature on job crafting by uncovering its dark side, highlighting how high levels of job crafting can lead to knowledge hiding, thus challenging the predominantly positive narrative surrounding job crafting. Second, it introduces job-based psychological ownership (job-based PO) as a novel explanatory mechanism, demonstrating how employees\u0026apos; strong attachment to their crafted jobs fosters defensive behaviors that hinder knowledge sharing. Third, it identifies ethical leadership as a crucial contextual factor that mitigates the negative effects of job crafting. Ethical leaders promote a collective mindset, transparency, and trust, reducing employees\u0026rsquo; tendency to protect their crafted work by withholding information. By incorporating leadership as a boundary condition, this study offers both theoretical advancements and practical insights for organizations seeking to balance the benefits and risks of job crafting. The conceptual model of this paper is depicted in Figure 1.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTheoretical background and hypotheses development\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eExtended self and psychological ownership theory\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe concept of \u003cem\u003epsychological ownership\u003c/em\u003e (PO) has been a key focus in understanding how employees connect emotionally and cognitively with their roles, and is closely tied to \u003cem\u003ethe extended self theory\u003c/em\u003e. The extended self theory initially introduced by Belk (1988) and later expanded by Dittmar (1992), emphasizes how individuals extend their self-concept to encompass certain objects, possessions, and experiences that hold personal significance. These possessions, whether material or intangible, come to represent an essential part of the self. This extension prompts individuals to invest emotional and cognitive resources into these objects, protecting and nurturing their relationship with them (Belk, 1988; Brown, Lawrence, \u0026amp; Robinson, 2005; Dittmar, 1992). The extended self theory identifies three key mechanisms by which people internalize possessions into their self-concept: (1) investment\u0026mdash;putting personal time and resources into the possession, (2) control\u0026mdash;exercising autonomy over it, and (3) intimate knowledge\u0026mdash;developing a deep understanding and connection with it (Belk, 1988; Pierce \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2003).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis idea can be mapped onto the workplace through the concept of \u003cem\u003ejob-based psychological ownership\u003c/em\u003e (job-based PO), which refers to the sense of ownership employees feel towards their job roles and tasks, seeing them as part of their self-concept (Pierce \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2001, 2003). Similar to how personal possessions become an extension of one\u0026apos;s identity, employees begin to perceive their work as a critical component of their self-definition (Hirst \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2009). In this sense, job-based PO is rooted in the idea that individuals will identify with their jobs when they invest personal energy, control their work environment, and develop a deep understanding of their tasks.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJob crafting and job-based PO\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJob crafting, defined as the process by which employees actively modify their tasks and roles to better align with personal strengths, motivations, and preferences, has been increasingly recognized as a way to enhance job satisfaction and engagement (Wrzesniewski \u0026amp; Dutton, 2001; Tims \u0026amp; Bakker, 2010). Job crafting involves three di-mensions: tasks (reshaping scope or methods), relationships (adjusting workplace in-teractions), and cognition (reframing job perception). These enable employees to align work with personal needs and enhance its meaning (Wrzesniewski \u0026amp; Dutton, 2001; Ghitulescu \u0026amp; Brenda Elena, 2007).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBuilding on the extended self theory (Belk, 1988; Dittmar, 1992) and psychological ownership (PO) literature (e.g. Pierce \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2001, 2003), we argue that job crafting positively influences job-based psychological ownership (PO) through mechanisms of control, intimate knowledge, and self-investment. According to the extended self theory, individuals incorporate possessions\u0026mdash;both tangible and intangible\u0026mdash;into their self-concept when they develop a strong connection to these objects. In the work context, employees who engage in job crafting actively reshape their roles, relationships, and tasks to better align with their personal values and preferences (Grant \u0026amp; Parker,2009). This process leads to a stronger sense of ownership over their jobs, as employees perceive their work as an extension of themselves.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFirst, job crafting allows employees to exert greater control over their roles, whether by altering their tasks, responsibilities, or work relationships (Berg \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2013). This increased control fosters a sense of autonomy, which is central to the development of psychological ownership (Slemp \u0026amp; Vella-Brodrick, 2014). According to Pierce et al. (2001), the more control individuals have over an object or role, the more likely they are to perceive it as part of their self-concept. In the case of job crafting, employees gain a sense of mastery and ownership over their work, which enhances their emotional and cognitive attachment to their jobs (Zhang \u0026amp; Parker , 2019).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition to control, job crafting facilitates a deeper connection with the job through increased intimate knowledge. As employees adjust their tasks and responsibilities to better match their strengths and values, they develop a more profound understanding and familiarity with their work (Berg \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2010). This deeper engagement with their roles leads to stronger attachment and psychological ownership, as employees feel more intimately connected to their jobs (Oldham \u0026amp; Hackman, 2010; Tims \u0026amp; Bakker, 2010). The more an employee knows about their job and actively engages with it, the more they perceive it as an extension of themselves.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFinally, job crafting encourages employees to invest personal resources\u0026mdash;such as time, energy, and emotional effort\u0026mdash;into their roles. When employees tailor their work to align with their personal interests and motivations, they invest themselves more deeply into their jobs. According to the extended self theory (Aron \u0026amp; Aron, 1986), the act of investing personal resources into a role leads individuals to perceive that role as part of their identity. This self-investment further solidifies their sense of ownership over their work, as they begin to view their jobs as integral to their self-concept (Rousseau, 2004).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGiven the processes through which job crafting enhances control, intimate knowledge, and self-investment, we hypothesize that job crafting is positively related to job-based psychological ownership. Therefore, we propose:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eH1: Job crafting is positively related to job-based PO.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJob-based PO and Knowledge Hiding Behavior\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhile psychological ownership has well-documented benefits such as increased job satisfaction, engagement, and proactive behaviors, it can also encourage defensive behaviors in response to perceived threats, such as knowledge hiding (Pierce \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, 2003; Avey \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, 2009,2012). Knowledge hiding is defined as \u0026ldquo;an intentional attempt by an individual to withhold or conceal knowledge that has been requested by\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eanother person\u0026rdquo; (Connelly \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2002). Psychological ownership is rooted in three fundamental needs\u0026mdash;efficacy, self-identity, and territoriality\u0026mdash;which drive individuals to feel protective over \u0026quot;owned\u0026quot; aspects of their work (Pierce \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, 2003; Brown \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e, 2005). When others request access to an employee\u0026apos;s specialized knowledge, it may activate a protective response as the individual perceives this as a potential infringement on their sense of ownership, leading them to hide knowledge to maintain control and autonomy (Brown \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, 2005; Peng, 2013).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAccording to extended self theory, the link between self and \u0026ldquo;owned\u0026rdquo; objects (such as job-related knowledge) is extended through interactions with others, meaning that the presence of others can threaten the self-object relationship (Aron \u0026amp; Aron, 1986). In the case of job-based PO, employees often view their accumulated job knowledge as a reflection of their extended self, derived from personal experience and effort (Van Dyne \u0026amp; Pierce, 2004). When knowledge sharing is expected, the extended self model suggests that employees may feel their ownership of this knowledge is threatened, as sharing with others can disrupt their sense of exclusive control over it (Pierce \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, 2003; Aron \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, 2001). Employees with high psychological ownership over the job may thus see knowledge hiding as a way to protect their extended self and avoid the discomfort associated with \u0026ldquo;giving away\u0026rdquo; a piece of themselves (Karakas \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2017; Černe \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e.,2014).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe protective response associated with job-based PO can also stem from a need to preserve self-identity (Avey \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, 2009,2012). Employees may see their unique knowledge and skills as central to their identity within the organization and may avoid sharing it to maintain a distinct professional \u0026ldquo;territory\u0026rdquo; (Pierce \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, 2009; Furby,1991). Sharing knowledge, in this context, might dilute the sense of control they have over their work domain, leading to feelings of vulnerability and even loss of identity (Peng, 2013; Serenko \u0026amp; Bontis, 2016). Research supports this, showing that high psychological ownership can induce defensive responses when employees feel others are encroaching on their knowledge, resulting in knowledge hiding behaviors aimed at maintaining their perceived control and status within the organization (Peng, 2013; Lee \u0026amp; Suh, 2022).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThus, based on extended self theory and the core mechanisms of psychological ownership, we hypothesize that employees with a higher sense of job-based PO are more likely to engage in knowledge hiding behaviors as a means of protecting their sense of ownership, control, and identity.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eH2: Job-based PO is positively related to knowledge hiding behavior.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe Mediating Role of job-based PO\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJob crafting grants employees increased autonomy and control over their tasks, promoting a sense of psychological ownership over their work (Wrzesniewski \u0026amp; Dut-ton, 2001; Pierce \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, 2001). Psychological ownership fulfills core needs of self-identity, efficacy, and territoriality, leading individuals to perceive their crafted roles as extensions of themselves (Avey \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, 2009,2012; Dirks \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, 1996; O\u0026apos;Driscoll \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, 2006). Job-based PO can activate defensive behaviors, such as knowledge hiding, when employees feel that their \u0026quot;ownership\u0026quot; of certain tasks or expertise might be infringed upon (Pierce \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, 2003). When employees shape their roles, they become more invested in and protective of their work domain, which may lead to knowledge hiding as a way of safeguarding these self-aspects from perceived encroachment by others (Ford \u0026amp; Staples, 2010).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs a result, we posit that job-based PO is a key mechanism through which job crafting indirectly contributes to knowledge hiding behaviors.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eH3: Job-based PO mediates the relationship between job crafting and knowledge hiding behavior.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe Moderating Role of ethical leadership\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe relationship between job-based psychological ownership (PO) and knowledge hiding is influenced not only by individual psychological needs but also by the broader organizational environment, particularly the leadership style (Mayhew \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, 2007). Ethical leadership has been shown to significantly impact knowledge-sharing behaviors in organizations by fostering a culture of openness, fairness, and collaboration (Brown \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2005; Bavik \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e,2018). Ethical leaders model behaviors that prioritize the collective good, discourage self-serving actions, and emphasize the importance of organizational goals over individual self-interest (Connelly \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2012). Given that knowledge hiding is often perceived as self-serving and detrimental to organizational collaboration, ethical leadership plays a crucial role in mitigating defensive behaviors like knowledge hiding.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs previously discussed, job-based PO fosters a strong sense of ownership over one\u0026apos;s work, including knowledge, and can lead to defensive behaviors, such as knowledge hiding, when employees feel that their \u0026quot;self-objects\u0026quot; are threatened (Pierce \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2003). However, the presence of ethical leadership can moderate this relationship by influencing employees\u0026apos; perceptions of knowledge sharing. Ethical leaders emphasize the collective interests of the organization and model behaviors that encourage collaboration and transparency (Connelly \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2012). By setting clear expectations around ethical behaviors and knowledge sharing, they create an environment where knowledge hiding is discouraged, and employees are more likely to share knowledge openly.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEthical leaders also serve as role models who demonstrate how to balance personal ownership with organizational goals. This modeling reduces employees\u0026apos; defensive motivations to withhold knowledge, as they see knowledge sharing as aligned with the organization\u0026apos;s values and success. Furthermore, ethical leaders promote awareness of the negative consequences of knowledge hiding for both individual and organizational growth (Abdullah \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2019). In doing so, they guide employees to recognize the value of knowledge sharing and its contribution to collective success. This reduces the likelihood of knowledge hiding as employees internalize these ethical values and align their behaviors with the norms set by their leaders (Koay \u0026amp; Lim, 2022).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the presence of strong ethical leadership, employees are less likely to perceive knowledge sharing as a threat to their autonomy or control over their knowledge. Instead, they view it as a positive, ethical action that contributes to the success of the team and the organization as a whole. Thus, ethical leadership weakens the relationship between job-based PO and knowledge hiding by fostering an environment of trust, fairness, and shared responsibility. Therefore, we hypothesize:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eH4: Ethical leadership negatively moderates the relationship between job-based \u0026nbsp;PO and knowledge hiding behavior.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe Moderated Mediation Effect of Ethical Leadership\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs employees engage in job crafting, the freedom and autonomy they experience can heighten job-based PO, which in turn may encourage knowledge hiding (Kim M \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e,2017). However, the presence of ethical leadership can temper this effect by emphasizing the importance of collective benefit and ethical conduct, reducing the self-protective impulses that often accompany strong feelings of ownership (Zhu W \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e,2016). In environments where ethical leadership is low, employees may feel less socially or ethically bound to share knowledge, increasing their tendency to protect their perceived \u0026quot;ownership\u0026quot; by hiding knowledge (Su X \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e,2022; Men \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2020). Thus, the indirect effect of job crafting on knowledge hiding, via job-based PO, may be weakened under conditions of high ethical leadership.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eH5: Ethical leadership weakens the mediating effect of job-based PO on the relationship between job crafting and knowledge hiding behavior.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Method","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eParticipants and procedures\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEarlier studies indicate that job crafting becomes a norm rather than an exception in knowledge-intensive organizations (Panteli \u0026amp; Urquhart, 2022), we approached and obtained access to three companies in information technology industry in China through our MBA alumni association. Before administering the surveys, we contacted the HR directors to ensure\u0026nbsp;the voluntary participation and confidentiality.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo address potential concerns about common method bias, data were collected over three waves spanning three months, involving both employees and their super-visors. During the first wave (Time 1), online questionnaires were distributed to 500 employees, who were asked to provide information on job crafting and demographic details. One month later (Time 2), 420 of these participants completed a second survey, reporting their perceptions of job-based person-organization fit (PO) and ethical leadership. Another month later (Time 3), the same 420 participants who responded in the earlier phases were invited to assess their knowledge-hiding behavior. Ultimately, 320 valid responses were collected, yielding a response rate of 64%.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe final valid sample consisted of 320 respondents. Male participants represented 71.6% of the sample. The average age was 27.75 years, and 59.7% held a bachelor\u0026rsquo;s degree or higher. Respondents included 139 frontline employees (43.4%), 117 frontline managers (36.6%), and 64 mid-to-senior managers (20.0%).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMeasures\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe measurement tools used in this study were adapted from established scales developed in international research and validated by previous studies in the Chinese management context. All scales demonstrated strong reliability and validity. Unless otherwise specified, responses were scored on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJob Crafting: The study utilized the job crafting scale developed by Vogt \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e (2016) to measure employees\u0026apos; job autonomy. Participants rated the frequency of behaviors such as \u0026quot;introducing new methods to improve work\u0026quot; across four items. In this study, the scale demonstrated high reliability with a Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s \u0026alpha; of 0.830.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJob-based PO: Psychological ownership was measured using Brown et al.\u0026apos;s\u0026nbsp;(2014)\u0026nbsp;scale, which includes items such as \u0026quot;I feel that this job is mine.\u0026quot; This six-item scale showed strong reliability with a Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s \u0026alpha; of 0.851.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKnowledge Hiding Behavior: Knowledge hiding was assessed with a multidimensional scale developed by Connelly et al.\u0026nbsp;(2012), covering evasive hiding, playing dumb, and rationalized hiding. Sample items include statements like \u0026quot;Agreed to help him/her but never intended to.\u0026quot; This 12-item scale demonstrated excellent internal consistency, with a Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s \u0026alpha; of 0.960.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEthical Leadership: Ethical leadership was measured using Brown et al.\u0026apos;s (2005) scale, which includes items such as \u0026quot;He/she follows ethical standards in his/her personal life.\u0026quot; This 10-item scale displayed strong reliability, with a Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s \u0026alpha; of 0.930.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eControl Variables: To account for potential confounding factors, the study included gender, age, education level, and job position as control variables.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData Analysis\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eConfirmatory factor analysis\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo verify the discriminant validity of the variables, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted using Mplus 8.3 on the four latent variables. The results, presented in TableⅠ, indicated that the four-factor model provided the best fit compared to three alternative models. Specifically, the four-factor model had the following fit indices: \u0026chi;\u0026sup2;/df = 2.341, CFI = 0.920, TLI = 0.914, RMSEA = 0.065, and SRMR = 0.051. These results suggest that the four-factor model, which includes job crafting, job-based PO, knowledge hiding behavior, and ethical leadership, demonstrated the best model fit.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable Ⅰ\u003c/strong\u003e. Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"584\"\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eModel\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026chi;\u0026sup2;/df\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCFI\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTLI\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRMSEA\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSRMR\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFour-factor model\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.341\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.920\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.914\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.065\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.051\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThree-factor model \u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.475\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.912\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.905\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.068\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.052\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThree-factor model \u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.939\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.765\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.747\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.111\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.184\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTwo-factor model\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.451\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.793\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.778\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.104\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.154\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOne-factor model\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.344\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.498\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.464\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.162\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.188\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote: The four-factor model: JC, JBP, EL, KH; the three-factor model \u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e: JC + JBP, EL, KH; the three-factor model \u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e: JC, JBP + KH, EL; the two-factor model: JC + KH, JBP + EL; the one-factor model: JC + JBP +EL + KH. JC refers to job crafting. JBP refers to job-based psychological ownership. EL refers to ethical leadership. KH refers to knowledge hiding.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCommon method bias\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo examine the potential presence of common method bias, Harman\u0026apos;s single-factor test was performed using SPSS 27.0. The results indicated that the extracted factors accounted for 64.240% of the total variance. However, the first factor explained only 39.444% of the variance, which is below the 50% threshold. Therefore, common method bias is not a significant concern in this study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCorrelation analysis\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo explore the preliminary relationships between the variables, a correlation analysis was conducted. The results, shown in Table\u0026nbsp;Ⅱ, revealed significant positive correlations between job crafting and job-based PO (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = 0.752, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.001), knowledge hiding behavior (r = 0.268, p \u0026lt; 0.001), and ethical leadership (\u003cem\u003er\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e= 0.667, \u003cem\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt; 0.001). Job-based PO was significantly positively correlated with knowledge hiding behavior (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = 0.298, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.001). These correlations provide a foundation for testing the proposed hypotheses in the subsequent analyses.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eⅡ\u003c/strong\u003e. Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Analysis (N = 320)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"642\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 92px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eVariable\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMean\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSD\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"3\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e5\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 77px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e6\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 61px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e7\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e8\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 86px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGender\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.28\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.45\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"3\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 77px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 61px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 55px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 1px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 86px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAge\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e27.75\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.61\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.111*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"3\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 77px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 61px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 55px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 1px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 86px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEducation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.57\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.80\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.022\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"3\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.105\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 77px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 61px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 55px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 1px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 86px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eJob Level\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.81\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.85\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.013\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"3\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.163**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.121*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 77px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 61px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 55px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 1px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 86px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eJob Crafting\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.76\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.79\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.025\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"3\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.093\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.131*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.038\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 77px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 61px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 55px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 1px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 86px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eJob-based PO\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.77\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.80\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.039\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"3\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.100\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.074\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.021\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.752**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 77px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 61px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 55px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 1px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 86px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eKnowledge Hiding\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.07\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.098\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"3\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.073\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.070\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.106\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.268**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 77px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.298**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 61px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 55px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 1px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 86px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEthical Leadership\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.81\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.77\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.003\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"3\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.052\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.137*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.006\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.667**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 77px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.780**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 61px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.270**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 55px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 1px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote:\u003c/em\u003e SD = standard deviation; Gender:\u0026nbsp;0\u0026nbsp;= male,\u0026nbsp;1\u0026nbsp;= female; Education: 1 = senior high school and below, 2 = associate degree, 3 = bachelor degree, 4 = graduate degree and above;\u0026nbsp;Job level: 1 = frontline employees, 2 = low-level supervisors, 3 = middle-level managers, 4 = high-level managers;\u0026nbsp;*p\u0026lt;0.05, **p\u0026lt;0.01, ***p\u0026lt;0.001.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTest of hypotheses\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHypothesis 1 predicts that job crafting has a positive effect on job-based PO. To test Hypothesis 1, we conducted a regression analysis, and the results are presented in Model M2 (Table Ⅲ ). After controlling for demographic variables, we found that job crafting had a significant positive effect on job-based PO (\u003cem\u003e\u0026beta;\u003c/em\u003e = 0.765,\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;p\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.001). This strong relationship supports the notion that job crafting, which grants employees increased autonomy and control over their work, leads to a stronger sense of ownership over their tasks. By actively shaping their work environment and responsibilities, employees may come to view their roles as more personally meaningful and integral to their identity. Therefore, Hypothesis 1 is fully supported.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHypothesis 2 predicts that job-based PO has a positive effect on knowledge hiding behavior. As indicated in Model M4 (Table\u0026nbsp;Ⅲ), job-based PO significantly and positively influenced knowledge hiding behavior (\u003cem\u003e\u0026beta;\u003c/em\u003e = 0.318, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.01). This suggests that when employees feel a strong job-based PO of their work, they may be more inclined to protect their perceived territory by withholding valuable knowledge, particularly if they believe that sharing knowledge could diminish their control or power within the organization. Thus, Hypothesis 2 is confirmed, demonstrating the connection between job-based PO and the self-protective behaviors of knowledge hiding.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHypothesis 3 predicts job-based PO mediates the positive effect of job crafting on knowledge hiding behavior. To test the mediating effect of job-based PO, we employed the Bootstrap method with 5000 resamples, which is a robust statistical technique for assessing indirect effects. The analysis revealed that job-based PO significantly mediated the relationship between job crafting and knowledge hiding behavior, with an indirect effect of 0.243 and a 95% confidence interval of [0.066, 0.432], which does not contain zero. This finding demonstrates that job crafting increases job-based PO, which in turn enhances knowledge hiding behaviors. This significant mediation supports Hypothesis 3, highlighting the role of job-based PO as a key mechanism linking job crafting to knowledge hiding behavior.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable Ⅲ:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eRegression Analysis for the Moderating Role of Ethical Leadership（N=320）\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"120%\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 23px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eModel\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 22px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eJob-Based PO\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"6\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eKnowledge Hiding Behavior\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eM1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eM2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eM3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eM4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eM5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eM6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eM7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 23px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eControl Variables\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 23px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGender\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.044\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.099\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.207\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.178\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.210\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.206\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.179\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 23px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAge\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.013\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.003\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.015\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.021\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.022\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.021\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.024\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 23px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEducation Level\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.086\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.023\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.127\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.183\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.175\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.185\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.191\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 23px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eJob Level\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.007\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.009\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.169\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.168\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.170\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.174\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.204\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 23px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIndependent Variables\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 23px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eJob Crafting\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.765\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.395\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.151\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.129\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.146\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 23px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMediator Variables\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 23px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eJob-Based PO\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.318\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.234\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.191\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 23px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eModerating Variables\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 23px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEthical Leadership\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.136\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.083\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 23px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInteraction Terms\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 23px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eJob-Based PO \u0026times; Ethical Leadership\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.232\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 23px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eR\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.018\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.570\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.036\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.118\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.143\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.146\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.179\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 23px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.434\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e83.385\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.962\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.426\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.673\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.624\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.491\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 195px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 87px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 32px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 3px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote:\u003c/em\u003e SD = standard deviation; Gender:\u0026nbsp;0\u0026nbsp;= male,\u0026nbsp;1\u0026nbsp;= female; Education: 1 = senior high school and below, 2 = associate degree, 3 = bachelor degree, 4 = graduate degree and above;\u0026nbsp;Job level: 1 = frontline employees, 2 = low-level supervisors, 3 = middle-level managers, 4 = high-level managers;\u0026nbsp;*p\u0026lt;0.05, **p\u0026lt;0.01, ***p\u0026lt;0.001.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHypothesis 4 predicts that ethical leadership negatively moderates the positive effect of job-based PO on knowledge hiding behavior. In Model M7 (Table\u0026nbsp;Ⅲ), after controlling for the main effects of job-based PO and ethical leadership, the interaction term between job-based PO and ethical leadership had a significant negative effect on knowledge hiding behavior (\u003cem\u003e\u0026beta;\u003c/em\u003e = -0.232, \u003cem\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt; 0.001). This result shows that ethical leadership plays a critical role in mitigating the negative consequences of job-based PO, particularly in reducing knowledge hiding behaviors. Ethical leaders promote a culture of openness and collaboration, making employees more likely to share knowledge rather than hoard it to protect their domain. This finding supports \u0026nbsp; Hypothesis 4, suggesting that ethical leadership can buffer the negative impact of job-based PO on knowledge hiding by reinforcing ethical norms and fostering a collaborative work environment.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHypothesis 5 predicts that ethical leadership weakens the mediating effect of job-based PO on the relationship between job crafting and knowledge hiding behavior. To test the moderated mediation model, we utilized the Process macro in SPSS with 5000 Bootstrap resamples, exploring how ethical leadership influences the mediating effect of job-based PO on the relationship between job crafting and knowledge hiding behavior. Under high ethical leadership, the indirect effect of job crafting on knowledge hiding behavior through job-based PO was 0.012, with a 95% confidence interval of [-0.268, 0.293], which includes zero, suggesting that ethical leadership weakens the mediating role of job-based PO in this context. However, under low ethical leadership, the indirect effect was 0.367 with a 95% confidence interval of [0.105, 0.630], which does not contain zero. This indicates that when ethical leadership is weak, job-based PO has a stronger mediating effect, making employees more likely to engage in knowledge hiding. The difference in indirect effects between low and high levels of ethical leadership is -0.355, with a 95% confidence interval of [-0.373, -0.337], which does not include 0, and the indirect effect difference is significant. These findings confirm Hypothesis 5, demonstrating that ethical leadership not only moderates the direct effects of job-based PO but also significantly weakens its indirect effects, further reinforcing the role of ethical leadership in promoting knowledge sharing and collaboration.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable Ⅳ:\u003c/strong\u003e Mediating Effect Test (N=320)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"693\"\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 213px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMediating Path\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 143px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMediating Effect Value\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 82px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStandard Error\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 127px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBootstrapped LLCI\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 118px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBootstrapped ULCI\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 213px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eJob Crafting\u0026nbsp;\u0026rarr;\u0026nbsp;Job-Based PO\u0026nbsp;\u0026rarr;\u0026nbsp;Knowledge Hiding Behavior\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 143px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.243\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 82px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.092\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 127px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.066\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 118px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.432\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable Ⅴ:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eModerated Mediation Effects at Different Levels of Ethical Leadership (N=320)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"547\"\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 204px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLevel of Ethical Leadership\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIndirect Effect\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBootLLCI\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 104px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBootULCI\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 204px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHigh Ethical Leadership\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.012\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.268\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 104px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.293\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 204px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLow Ethical Leadership\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.367\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.105\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 104px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.630\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 204px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDifference\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.355\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.373\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 104px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.337\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eTheoretical implications\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study makes several significant theoretical contributions to the literature on job crafting, job-based PO, knowledge hiding, and ethical leadership.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFirst, this study extends the existing literature on job crafting and knowledge hiding by applying extended self theory. While previous research primarily focused on the positive effects of job crafting from the perspectives of resource conservation theory and self-determination theory, it often overlooked the potential negative impact of job crafting on knowledge hiding behavior (Wang \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e,2024). By using extended self theory, this study empirically demonstrates that higher levels of job crafting, which provide more autonomy in work tasks, may actually lead to an increase in knowledge hiding behavior. This finding suggests that job crafting is not universally beneficial, and greater autonomy may inadvertently foster more self-protective behaviors, such as knowledge withholding (Yang \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e,2021). Future research should pay closer attention to the potential negative effects of autonomy on organizational knowledge management, thus broadening the scope of research on job crafting\u0026rsquo;s negative side.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecond, this study also enriches the understanding of the mechanisms through which job crafting influences knowledge hiding by introducing job-based PO as a mediator. The study clearly identifies the key role of job-based PO in this relationship, offering a deeper understanding of how job crafting can influence employees' attitudes toward knowledge sharing. By framing job-based PO as a mediating factor, this study adds nuance to the existing research on job crafting by emphasizing that a heightened sense of ownership may lead to self-protective behaviors, such as withholding knowledge. This finding encourages future research to explore the formation mechanisms and influencing factors of job-based PO and to investigate ways to reduce the exclusive mindset associated with ownership, thereby promoting more positive behaviors in the workplace, such as knowledge sharing (Qin et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinally, this study introduces ethical leadership as a moderating variable to further explore the impact of job crafting on knowledge hiding behavior. In today\u0026rsquo;s knowledge economy, knowledge hiding creates barriers to information flow, impedes organizational knowledge management, and negatively impacts employees' creativity and other critical factors (Offergelt \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e,2019). The findings of this study suggest that ethical leadership can effectively reduce knowledge hiding behavior. By incorporating ethical leadership into the model, this research offers a more comprehensive under-standing of how job crafting, through job-based PO, affects knowledge hiding behavior. Ethical leaders can mitigate the negative consequences of job-based PO by fostering a culture of openness and trust, thereby enhancing the overall knowledge management practices within organizations. This contribution provides valuable insights into the role of leadership in moderating the impact of job crafting on knowledge behaviors, especially in a knowledge-driven economy.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003ePractical implications\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study has several important practical implications for organizations seeking to foster a culture of collaboration and knowledge sharing.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFirst, organizations can encourage job crafting as a means of increasing employee engagement and job satisfaction. However, managers should be aware of the potential unintended consequences of increased job-based PO, such as knowledge hiding. It is important for organizations to provide training and resources that emphasize the benefits of knowledge sharing and collaboration (Van \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, 2017), even as employees gain more autonomy and control over their work. By framing knowledge sharing as a form of personal development and organizational growth, organizations can mitigate the negative effects of job-based PO and encourage employees to share rather than hide knowledge.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecond, the findings also suggest that ethical leadership is a key factor in reducing knowledge hiding behaviors. Organizations should prioritize the development of ethical leaders who model ethical behavior, promote openness, and foster a culture of trust (Brown et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). Ethical leadership programs should be designed to equip leaders with the tools to handle sensitive knowledge management issues, such as knowledge hiding(Bock et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e; Ipe, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e), by promoting transparency and providing the followers with a safety net to fall back on when threatened with the net loss of resources (Kalshoven \u0026amp; Boon, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). In particular, organizations should focus on creating a strong ethical framework that reinforces the collective benefits of knowledge sharing, thereby minimizing the self-protective behaviors that might arise from job-based PO (Kim \u0026amp; Yun, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThird, as this study shows, leadership styles play a critical role in shaping employees' knowledge behaviors. Organizations may consider adapting leadership development programs to emphasize not only task-oriented and relationship-oriented leadership skills but also ethical decision-making and ethical leadership. By doing so, organizations can ensure that leaders at all levels are equipped to manage the complexities of job-based PO and knowledge hiding, while simultaneously fostering a collaborative culture where knowledge is shared freely for the benefit of the organization.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eLimitations and future research directions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile this study provides valuable insights into the relationship between job crafting, job-based PO, and knowledge hiding, there are several limitations that future research could address.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFirst, the cross-sectional nature of the data prevents causal inferences. Future studies could employ longitudinal designs to better capture the dynamic nature of job crafting, job-based PO, and knowledge hiding over time. Additionally, this study focuses on the direct effects of ethical leadership, but future research could explore other leadership styles, such as transformational or servant leadership, to further understand their impact on knowledge behaviors. Moreover, the sample is limited to employees from a specific region and industry, and future studies could explore the generalizability of these findings across different organizational contexts and cultures.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn conclusion, this study contributes to our understanding of the complex relationships between job crafting, job-based PO, and knowledge hiding. By introducing job-based PO as a mediator and ethical leadership as a moderator, the study offers a more nuanced view of the factors that influence knowledge hiding behaviors in organizations. The findings highlight the importance of both individual behaviors and leadership styles in shaping organizational knowledge management practices. Organizations seeking to foster a culture of knowledge sharing and collaboration should encourage job crafting while promoting ethical leadership to mitigate the negative effects of job-based PO on knowledge hiding. Future research should further explore these relationships and examine other contextual factors that may influence knowledge behaviors in organizations.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eS. D. : Writing\u0026mdash;Conceptualization, Original Draft and Data Analysis; Y. C. and X.S. : Data Collection and Methodology; Y. Y. and Z. L. : Conceptualization, Writing\u0026mdash;Review \u0026amp; Editing. All authors equally contributed to the article and have approved the submitted version. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Availability\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAbdullah MI, Dechun H, Ali M, Usman M (2019) Ethical leadership and knowledge hiding: a moderated mediation model of relational social capital, and instrumental thinking. Front Psychol 10:2403\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAron A, Aron EN (1986) Love and the expansion of self: Understanding attraction and satisfaction. Hemisphere Publishing Corp/Harper \u0026amp; Row\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAron A, Aron EN, Norman C (2001) Self-expansion model of motivation and cognition in close relationships and beyond. In: Fletcher GJO, Clark MS (eds) Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Interpersonal processes. Blackwell, pp 478\u0026ndash;501\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAvey JB, Avolio BJ, Crossley CD, Luthans F (2009) Psychological ownership: Theoretical extensions, measurement and relation to work outcomes. J Organizational Behavior: Int J Industrial Occup Organizational Psychol Behav 30(2):173\u0026ndash;191\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAvey JB, Wernsing TS, Palanski ME (2012) Exploring the process of ethical leadership: The mediating role of employee voice and psychological ownership. J Bus Ethics 107:21\u0026ndash;34\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBakker AB, Tims M, Derks D (2012) Proactive personality and job performance: The role of job crafting and work engagement. Hum Relat 65(10):1359\u0026ndash;1378\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBakker AB, Demerouti E (2014) Job demands\u0026ndash;resources theory. A complete reference guide, Wellbeing, pp 1\u0026ndash;28\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBavik YL, Tang PM, Shao R, Lam LW (2018) Ethical leadership and employee knowledge sharing: Exploring dual-mediation paths. Leadersh Q 29(2):322\u0026ndash;332\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBelk RW (1988) Possessions and the extended self. J Consum Res 15(2):139\u0026ndash;168\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBerg JM, Wrzesniewski A, Dutton JE (2010) Perceiving and responding to challenges in job crafting at different ranks: When proactivity requires adaptivity. J organizational Behav 31(2\u0026ndash;3):158\u0026ndash;186\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBerg JM, Dutton JE, Wrzesniewski A (2013) Job crafting and meaningful work.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBock GW, Zmud RW, Kim YG, Lee JN (2005) Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing: Examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces, and organizational climate. MIS Q, 87\u0026ndash;111\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBrown G, Lawrence TB, Robinson SL (2005) Territoriality in organizations. Acad Manage Rev 30(3):577\u0026ndash;594\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBrown G, Pierce JL, Crossley C (2014) Toward an understanding of the development of ownership feelings. J Organizational Behav 35(3):318\u0026ndash;338\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBrown ME, Trevi\u0026ntilde;o LK, Harrison DA (2005) Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 97(2):117\u0026ndash;134\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eČerne M, Nerstad CG, Dysvik A, Škerlavaj M (2014) What goes around comes around: Knowledge hiding, perceived motivational climate, and creativity. Acad Manag J 57(1):172\u0026ndash;192\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eConnelly CE, Zweig D, Webster J, Trougakos JP (2012) Knowledge hiding in organizations. J organizational Behav 33(1):64\u0026ndash;88\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDirks KT, Cummings LL, Pierce JL (1996) Psychological ownership in organizations: Conditions under which individuals promote and resist change. Res Organizational Change Dev 9(1):1\u0026ndash;23\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDittmar H (1992) The social psychology of material possessions: To have is to be. Harvester Wheatsheaf\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFord DP, Staples S (2010) What is knowledge sharing from the informer's perspective? Int J Knowl Manage 6(4):1\u0026ndash;20\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFurby L (1991) Understanding the psychology of possession and ownership: A personal memoir and an appraisal of our progress. J social Behav personality 6(6):457\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGhitulescu BE (2007) \u003cem\u003eShaping tasks and relationships at work: Examining the antecedents and consequences of employee job crafting\u003c/em\u003e (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGrant AM, Parker SK (2009) \u003cem\u003eRedesigning work design theories: The rise of relational and proactive perspectives. The Academy of Management Annals, 3 (1), 317\u0026ndash;375\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHirst G, Van Dick R, Van Knippenberg D (2009) A social identity perspective on leadership and employee creativity. J Organizational Behavior: Int J Industrial Occup Organizational Psychol Behav 30(7):963\u0026ndash;982\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIpe M (2003) Knowledge sharing in organizations: A conceptual framework. Hum Resour Dev Rev 2(4):337\u0026ndash;359\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKalshoven K, Boon CT (2012) Ethical leadership, employee well-being, and helping. J Personnel Psychol\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKarakas F, Sarigollu E, Uygur S (2017) Exploring the diversity of virtues through the lens of moral imagination: A qualitative inquiry into organizational virtues in the Turkish context. J Bus Ethics 141:731\u0026ndash;744\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKim M, Beehr TA (2017) Self-efficacy and psychological ownership mediate the effects of empowering leadership on both good and bad employee behaviors. J Leadersh Organizational Stud 24(4):466\u0026ndash;478\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKim SL, Yun S (2015) The effect of coworker knowledge sharing on performance and its boundary conditions: An interactional perspective. J Appl Psychol 100(2):575\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKoay KY, Lim PK (2022) Ethical leadership and knowledge hiding: testing the mediating and moderating mechanisms. J Knowl Manage 26(3):574\u0026ndash;591\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLee MT, Suh I (2022) Understanding the effects of Environment, Social, and Governance conduct on financial performance: Arguments for a process and integrated modelling approach. Sustainable Technol Entrepreneurship 1(1):100004\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMayhew MG, Ashkanasy NM, Bramble T, Gardner J (2007) A study of the antecedents and consequences of psychological ownership in organizational settings. J Soc Psychol 147(5):477\u0026ndash;500\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMen C, Fong PS, Huo W, Zhong J, Jia R, Luo J (2020) Ethical leadership and knowledge hiding: a moderated mediation model of psychological safety and mastery climate. J Bus Ethics 166:461\u0026ndash;472\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNielsen K, Abildgaard JS (2013) Organizational interventions: A research-based framework for the evaluation of both process and effects. Work Stress 27(3):278\u0026ndash;297\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eO'Driscoll MP, Pierce JL, Coghlan AM (2006) The psychology of ownership: Work environment structure, organizational commitment, and citizenship behaviors. Group Organ Manage 31(3):388\u0026ndash;416\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOffergelt F, Sp\u0026ouml;rrle M, Moser K, Shaw JD (2019) Leader-signaled knowledge hiding: Effects on employees' job attitudes and empowerment. J Organizational Behav 40(7):819\u0026ndash;833\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOldham GR, Hackman JR (2010) Not what it was and not what it will be: The future of job design research. J organizational Behav 31(2\u0026ndash;3):463\u0026ndash;479\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePanteli N, Urquhart C (2022) Job crafting for female contractors in a male-dominated profession. New Technol Work Employ 37(1):102\u0026ndash;123\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eParker SK, Axtell CM (2001) Seeing another viewpoint: Antecedents and outcomes of employee perspective taking. Acad Manag J 44(6):1085\u0026ndash;1100\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePeng H (2013) Why and when do people hide knowledge? J Knowl Manage 17(3):398\u0026ndash;415\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePierce JL, Kostova T, Dirks KT (2003) The state of psychological ownership: Integrating and extending a century of research. Rev Gen Psychol 7(1):84\u0026ndash;107\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePierce JL, Kostova T, Dirks KT (2001) Toward a theory of psychological ownership in organizations. Acad Manage Rev 26(2):298\u0026ndash;310\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePierce JL, Jussila I, Cummings A (2009) Psychological ownership within the job design context: Revision of the job characteristics model. J Organizational Behavior: Int J Industrial Occup Organizational Psychol Behav 30(4):477\u0026ndash;496\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eQin X, Zhang Z, Yan S (2022) The effect of employee innovation behavior on counterproductive production behavior: the role of psychological ownership and moral identity. Sci Res Manage 43(5):86\u0026ndash;93\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRousseau DM (2004) Psychological contracts in the workplace: Understanding the ties that motivate. Acad Manage Perspect 18(1):120\u0026ndash;127\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRudolph CW, Katz IM, Lavigne KN, Zacher H (2017) Job crafting: A meta-analysis of relationships with individual differences, job characteristics, and work outcomes. J Vocat Behav 102:112\u0026ndash;138\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSerenko A, Bontis N (2016) Understanding counterproductive knowledge behavior: Antecedents and consequences of intra-organizational knowledge hiding. J Knowl Manage 20(6):1199\u0026ndash;1224\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSlemp GR, Vella-Brodrick DA (2014) Optimizing employee mental health: The relationship between intrinsic need satisfaction, job crafting, and employee well-being. J Happiness Stud 15:957\u0026ndash;977\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSu X, Jiang X, Xie G, Huang M, Xu A (2022) How does self-sacrificial leadership foster knowledge sharing behavior in employees? Moral ownership, felt obligation and supervisor-subordinate guanxi. Front Psychol 13:910707\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTims M, Bakker AB, Derks D (2013) The impact of job crafting on job demands, job resources, and well-being. J Occup Health Psychol 18(2):230\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTims M, Bakker AB (2010) Job crafting: Towards a new model of individual job redesign. SA J Industrial Psychol 36(2):1\u0026ndash;9\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTrevino LK, Brown ME (2004) Managing to be ethical: Debunking five business ethics myths. Acad Manage Perspect 18(2):69\u0026ndash;81\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVan Dyne L, Pierce JL (2004) Psychological ownership and feelings of possession: Three field studies predicting employee attitudes and organizational citizenship behavior. J Organizational Behavior: Int J Industrial Occup Organizational Psychol Behav 25(4):439\u0026ndash;459\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWalumbwa FO, Avolio BJ, Gardner WL, Wernsing TS, Peterson SJ (2008) Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure. J Manag 34(1):89\u0026ndash;126\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWang Q, Li S, Luan Z (2024) The double-edged sword effect of job crafting from the approach-avoidance perspective. Curr Psychol, 1\u0026ndash;13\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWrzesniewski A, Dutton JE (2001) Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Acad Manage Rev 26(2):179\u0026ndash;201\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYang F, Zhang H, Liu X, Liu S (2023) How to make subordinates more active in seeking no fault leaders. Nankai Manage Rev 26(03):189\u0026ndash;196\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYang Z, Liu P, Cui Z (2021) Strengths-based job crafting and employee creativity: the role of job self-efficacy and workplace status. Front Psychol 12:748747\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhang C, Wu X (2023) Review and integrated development of job remodeling theory [J]. J Manag 20(12):1878\u0026ndash;1889\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhang F, Parker SK (2019) Reorienting job crafting research: A hierarchical structure of job crafting concepts and integrative review. J organizational Behav 40(2):126\u0026ndash;146\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhu W, Trevi\u0026ntilde;o LK, Zheng X (2016) Ethical leaders and their followers: The transmission of moral identity and moral attentiveness. Bus Ethics Q 26(1):95\u0026ndash;115\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Job Crafting, Knowledge Hiding, Psychological Ownership, Ethical Leadership","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6075642/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6075642/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePurpose\u003c/strong\u003e–The purpose of this research is to investigate the dark side of job crafting by examining its impact on knowledge hiding behavior in organizations while incorporating the mediating role of job-based psychological ownership and the moderating role of ethical leadership.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDesign/methodology/approach\u003c/strong\u003e– Data from a sample of 320 respondents in China was collected over three waves spanning three months. Five hypotheses were tested using hierarchal regression analysis and bootstrapping method.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFindings\u003c/strong\u003e–The findings show that job crafting is positively related to knowledge hiding behavior; job-based PO positively mediates job crafting-knowledge hiding relationship; ethical leadership negatively moderates the relationship between job-based PO and knowledge hiding behavior; ethical leadership weakens the mediating effect of job-based PO on the \u0026nbsp;relationship between job crafting and knowledge hiding behavior.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOriginality/value\u003c/strong\u003e–This study provides a new perspective for organizations to recognize the dark side of job crafting by applying the extended self theory, thereby enriching the scope of research on job crafting’s negative side. By introducing ethical leadership as a moderating variable, this study also provides answers to when negative consequences of job-based PO will be mitigated.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"The impact of job crafting on knowledge hiding behavior in organizations: A moderated mediation model","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-03-07 07:43:49","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6075642/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"442252cc-2d50-43ff-a9a4-ff2594fd2e35","owner":[],"postedDate":"March 7th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":45166834,"name":"Business and commerce/Business and management"},{"id":45166835,"name":"Social science/Psychology"},{"id":45166836,"name":"Social science/Science technology and society"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-07-03T14:53:45+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-03-07 07:43:49","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6075642","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6075642","identity":"rs-6075642","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}