Do overqualified employees hide knowledge? The mediating role of psychological contract breach.

Huiqin Zhang, Linzhen Li, Xuanming Shan, Anhang Chen
Author Information
  1. Huiqin Zhang: College of Management Science, Chengdu University of Technology, Chengdu, China.
  2. Linzhen Li: College of Management Science, Chengdu University of Technology, Chengdu, China.
  3. Xuanming Shan: College of Management Science, Chengdu University of Technology, Chengdu, China.
  4. Anhang Chen: College of Management Science, Chengdu University of Technology, Chengdu, China.

Abstract

Although the negative effects of a sense of overqualification on organizations and individuals have been examined, it is debatable whether overqualified employees hide knowledge. Relying on the social comparison theory and psychological contract theory, this paper tried to investigate the non-linear relationship between perceived overqualification and knowledge hiding psychological contract breach by surveying employees with bachelor's degrees or above and eventually recruited 475 participants. The results indicated that psychological contract breach acts a partial mediating role in the inverted U-shaped relationship between perceived overqualification and knowledge hiding, while leader-member exchange acts as a moderator. The finding manifests that overqualification encourages employees to hide knowledge, but their possibly vigorous aspects will be displayed when a certain limit is exceeded. This study benefits organizations by advising them to dialectically treat and properly place overqualified employees and contributes to the research on overqualified employees' knowledge management by offering a new explanation and complete understanding of perceived overqualification and knowledge hiding, with specific focus given to the psychological states of employees.

Keywords

References

  1. J Appl Psychol. 2006 Jul;91(4):884-99 [PMID: 16834512]
  2. Front Psychol. 2019 Oct 25;10:2403 [PMID: 31708841]
  3. Front Psychol. 2021 Oct 08;12:740880 [PMID: 34690895]
  4. J Occup Health Psychol. 2011 Jan;16(1):126-38 [PMID: 21280949]
  5. J Occup Health Psychol. 2011 Jul;16(3):279-96 [PMID: 21728436]
  6. Front Psychol. 2019 Feb 01;10:67 [PMID: 30778308]
  7. Front Psychol. 2021 Oct 29;12:748237 [PMID: 34777143]
  8. Psychol Bull. 2018 Feb;144(2):177-197 [PMID: 29144145]
  9. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Feb 14;17(4): [PMID: 32075163]
  10. PLoS One. 2016 May 12;11(5):e0154696 [PMID: 27171275]
  11. Front Psychol. 2018 Jul 27;9:1273 [PMID: 30100888]
  12. Front Psychol. 2021 May 13;12:582367 [PMID: 34054629]
  13. J Adv Nurs. 2016 Nov;72(11):2806-2817 [PMID: 27293180]
  14. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1986 Dec;51(6):1173-82 [PMID: 3806354]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0knowledgeoverqualificationemployeespsychologicalcontractoverqualifiedperceivedhidingbreachhiderelationshiporganizationstheorynon-linearactsmediatingroleleader-memberexchangeAlthoughnegativeeffectssenseindividualsexamineddebatablewhetherRelyingsocialcomparisonpapertriedinvestigatesurveyingbachelor'sdegreeseventuallyrecruited475participantsresultsindicatedpartialinvertedU-shapedmoderatorfindingmanifestsencouragespossiblyvigorousaspectswilldisplayedcertainlimitexceededstudybenefitsadvisingdialecticallytreatproperlyplacecontributesresearchemployees'managementofferingnewexplanationcompleteunderstandingspecificfocusgivenstatesknowledge?

Similar Articles

Cited By