IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v104y2023i4p559-580.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

People are scarier than ghosts? Workplace haters and knowledge sharing

Author

Listed:
  • Mei‐Jun Huang

Abstract

Objective.In the workplace, colleague relationship deeply affects employees’ work attitude and behavior, but it is rarely taken seriously. Based on the cognitive‐affective personality system theory and social network theory, this study examined the influence of three common workplace haters (negative gossiper, two‐faced person, and loafer) on employee well‐being and knowledge sharing and explores the moderating effect of organizational social capital. Method.The study used longitudinal design, three‐wave, and 409 valid supervisor–employee pairs (233 direct supervisors and 409 employees) from 10 companies in Taiwan to test these hypothetical relationships. Results. The findings of this study showed that: (1) workplace haters negatively affects employee well‐being; (2) employee well‐being positively affects knowledge sharing; (3) employee well‐being mediates the relationship between workplace haters and knowledge sharing; and (4) organizational social capital moderates the relationship between workplace haters and employee well‐being. Conclusion. The study has important contributions to the literature on workplace haters, coworker interaction, and social capital. Implications for behavioral researchers and human resource managers are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Mei‐Jun Huang, 2023. "People are scarier than ghosts? Workplace haters and knowledge sharing," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 104(4), pages 559-580, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:104:y:2023:i:4:p:559-580
    DOI: 10.1111/ssqu.13278
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.13278
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ssqu.13278?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:104:y:2023:i:4:p:559-580. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0038-4941 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.