Many researchers have asserted that knowledge is one of the crucial resources for gaining a competitive advantage within an organization, enhancing organizational performance (Lee, 2016; Cui, 2017; Esmaeelinezhad and Afrazeh, 2018; Iqbal, et al., 2020; Fauzi, 2023). Consequently, many organizations have placed emphasis on Knowledge Management (KM) activities, specifically highlighting individual knowledge management, given the behavioral differences among individuals (Esmaeelinezhad and Afrazeh, 2018). Individual knowledge management plays a significant role within an organization, yet there is still limited research examining the relationship between individual personality traits and knowledge management behavior within organizations (Wang, et al., 2014; Esmaeelinezhad and Afrazeh, 2018). In the realm of knowledge management activities, the majority of studies focus on knowledge-sharing behavior, with very few investigations paying attention to knowledge-hiding behavior (Fauzi, 2023).
Organizations have endeavored to promote knowledge-sharing behaviors, yet employees continue to resist sharing knowledge within the organization, opting to conceal knowledge instead (Connelly, et al., 2012; Černe, et al., 2014; Iqbal, et al., 2020). Many researchers also posit that knowledge hiding is a counterproductive behavior, hindering development, reducing competitiveness, and diminishing overall performance (Iqbal, et al., 2020; Arain, et al., 2020; Banagou, et al., 2021). Singh (2019) contends that knowledge hiding is a distinct concept, not in direct opposition to knowledge sharing, but this distinction remains inadequately explored. Similarly, Banagou, et al. (2021) report that the relationship between personality traits and knowledge-hiding behavior has yet to be fully examined in previous studies.
The Five-Factor Model (BFP), commonly known as the Big-Five (Goldberg, 1990), is a model extensively used by many researchers to comprehend the mechanisms underlying personality structure. In theory, the BFP model is widely employed to explore its relationship with work outcomes, but there is limited evidence regarding the association between BFP and knowledge-hiding behavior (Iqbal, et al., 2020). Xiao and Cooke’s (2019) synthesis also indicates that only a few studies have examined individual personality traits, such as Anaza and Nowlin (2017) and Demirkasimoglu (2015). Some investigations explore the relationship between BFP and knowledge-hiding behavior but yield inconsistent results. Additionally, Singh (2019) suggests that many previous studies have focused on examining antecedents of knowledge hiding, as seen in studies by Babic, et al. (2017), Abubakar, et al. (2019), Kumar, et al. (2020), Inegbedion, et al. (2023), and the consequences of knowledge hiding, as in Škerlavaj, et al. (2023) with few studies investigating knowledge hiding as an intermediate variable. This study draws on social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) and norms of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960) to explain the relationship between BFP and knowledgehiding behavior and job performance.
The banking industry in Vietnam is a knowledge-intensive sector, and therefore, knowledge management activities play a crucial role in fostering organizational development. However, to our understanding, there are few studies that address the relationship between personality traits and knowledge-hiding behavior, as well as job performance outcomes of employees in the banking sector in Vietnam. To address the aforementioned research gap, the primary objective of this study is to examine the relationship between the Big Five personality traits, knowledge-hiding behaviors, and employee job performance in the Vietnamese banking sector. Specifically, the study investigates the direct effects of the Big Five personality traits on knowledgehiding behaviors and their indirect effects on employee job performance through the mediating role of knowledge-hiding behaviors. A structural equation modeling approach is employed to test hypotheses and the research model using survey data collected from employees working in the banking industry. The results of this study are expected to make significant contributions to the field of knowledge-intensive sectors, specifically in the context of the banking industry, by shedding light on the following:
First, the research contributes to knowledge management theory by providing evidence for the relationship between the Big Five personality traits and knowledgehiding behavior. Second, the study reveals knowledgehiding behavior as a counterproductive action significantly diminishing individual performance (Nguyen, et al., 2022) in the knowledge-intensive domain. Third, knowledge-hiding behavior acts as an intermediary in the relationship between personality traits such as extraversion, agreeableness, openness to experience, conscientiousness, and job performance. Lastly, the research aids knowledge management practitioners in gaining a deeper understanding of the interplay between personality traits, knowledge-hiding behavior, and job performance within the knowledge-intensive sector, specifically in fields like banking, enabling practical applications in specific situations.
The study raises several research questions to be addressed as follows:
- RQ1:
What is the relationship between the five personality traits and knowledge-hiding behavior in knowledge-intensive sectors in a developing country like Vietnam?
- RQ2:
How does knowledge-hiding behavior mediate the relationship between personality traits and job performance?
To achieve these objectives, the study is structured into five sections, including Introduction, Literature Review, Research Methods, Findings and Discussion, and Conclusion.
The concept of hiding knowledge involves the intentional act of hiding or withholding knowledge (Connelly, et al., 2012; Connelly and Zweig, 2015) pertinent to tasks, ideas, or requested information from others, with the aim of preserving that knowledge. This conduct has the potential to detrimentally impact work relationships and diminish individual performance (Sulistiawan, et al., 2022).
Blau (1964)’s social exchange theory posits that the development of relationships among coworkers in the workplace is based on transactions between individuals. When an individual shares their knowledge with a colleague, they may receive knowledge in return when needed (Singh, 2019). Knowledge-sharing behavior is rooted in social exchange relationships, and this exchange promotes the sharing of knowledge, thereby enhancing job performance in the workplace (Wang and Noe, 2010; Černe, et al., 2014; Singh, 2019). Singh (2019) also argues that if an individual hide knowledge, it may impact the exchange of knowledge with other colleagues, leading to a potential lack of reciprocation and affecting their job performance. The principle of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960) is bidirectional, encompassing both positive and negative aspects. Positive reciprocity standards enhance job performance and reduce counterproductive behavior (Zhang, et al., 2014; Singh, 2019).
In social exchange relationships within the workplace, if an individual experiences negative behavior (such as knowledge hiding) from others, they are likely to reciprocate with negative behavior by hiding knowledge in return (Černe, et al., 2014; Singh, 2019). Overall, previous studies such as Esmaeelinezhad and Afrazeh (2018) and Singh (2019) have employed social exchange theory to explain the relationship between the Big Five Personality traits (BFP) and knowledge-hiding behavior. The BFP model is characterized by five traits: extraversion (ext), agreeableness (agr), conscientiousness (con), openness to experience (ope), and neuroticism (neu). This model is utilized to examine the relationship between personality traits and knowledge-hiding behavior (Iqbal, et al., 2020). These relationships are presented in Figure 1.
Proposed Research Model
(Source: Authors’ own research)
Note: Ext= “Extraversion,” Agr= “Agreeableness,” Con= “Conscientiousness,” Ope= “Openness to experience,” Neu= “Neuroticism,” KH= “Knowledge hiding,” JP= “Job performance.”
Iqbal, et al. (2020) assert that extraversion refers to the degree to which an individual tends to be warm, outgoing, energetic, and ambitious, influencing interpersonal relationships. Extraverted individuals tend to engage in positive thinking, thus having the potential to lead to positive emotional states. Extraverts enjoy socializing with others, desire to work with others, possess good social skills, speak frequently, and regularly interact with colleagues and superiors (Esmaeelinezhad and Afrazeh (2018). Extraverted individuals are often willing to share knowledge (Iqbal, et al., 2020). In contrast, those with low extraversion are typically reserved, speak less, and therefore hinder the sharing of knowledge (Agyemang, et al., 2016). The research findings of Iqbal, et al. (2020) demonstrate that extraversion has a negative impact on knowledge-hiding behavior. Therefore, this study proposes the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis H1: There is a negative relationship between extraversion and knowledge-hiding behavior.
Agreeableness is manifested through traits such as cooperation, trustworthiness, selflessness, helpfulness, generosity, kindness, flexibility, trust, politeness, and friendliness (Caspi, et al., 2005; Agyemang, et al., 2016; Iqbal, et al., 2020). Individuals with high agreeableness tend to be more supportive, cooperative with others, avoid conflicts, and are tolerant and courteous (Agyemang, et al., 2016; Iqbal, et al., 2020). Those with high agreeableness are also more inclined to share knowledge willingly (Iqbal, et al., 2020). Conversely, individuals with low agreeableness are often unfriendly, aggressive, selfish, and cunning (Iqbal, et al., 2020), making them unsuitable for knowledge sharing in a knowledge-intensive environment (Agyemang, et al., 2016). The research findings suggest that agreeableness negatively influences knowledge-hiding behavior. Based on this reasoning, the study proposes the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis H2: There is a negative relationship between agreeableness and knowledge-hiding behavior.
Conscientiousness is expressed through traits such as responsibility, reliability, task commitment (Iqbal, et al., 2020), organizational skills, good discipline, and achievement orientation (Agyemang, et al., 2016). Conversely, individuals with low conscientiousness are often unreliable, careless, and easily distracted (Iqbal, et al., 2020). Conscientious individuals typically strive for personal achievements (Gupta, 2008; Agyemang, et al., 2016); hence, they may be willing to hide knowledge to achieve their personal goals (Li, 2010; Iqbal, et al., 2020). Based on this rationale, the study proposes the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis H3: There is a positive relationship between conscientiousness and knowledge-hiding behavior.
Openness to experience reflects a personality characterized by creativity, imagination, and intelligence (Gupta, 2008). Researchers suggest that within the Big Five Personality traits, openness to experience is the least explored (Gupta, 2008; Iqbal, et al., 2020). Individuals with high openness to experience tend to have flexible thinking and a positive attitude toward novelty (Agyemang, et al., 2016). In the field of education, Wang, et al. (2014) found a negative relationship between openness to experience and knowledge hoarding behavior. Overall, the relationship between openness to experience and knowledge-hiding behavior is not yet fully clear (Banagou, et al., 2021). Recent studies such as Iqbal, et al. (2020) and Banagou, et al. (2021) have found a negative relationship between openness to experience and knowledge-hiding behavior. Therefore, the study proposes the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis H4: There is a negative relationship between openness to experience and knowledge-hiding behavior.
Individuals with neuroticism, as characterized by sadness, shame, anxiety, instability, and uneasiness (Gupta, 2008), are prone to developing negative attitudes and behaviors toward their work (Esmaeelinezhad and Afrazeh (2018). Emotional stability, in contrast to neuroticism, refers to individuals with high emotional stability who tend not to express many emotions (Gupta, 2008) and do not exhibit extreme emotional reactions. Therefore, individuals with high emotional stability often have a tendency not to hide knowledge (Iqbal, et al., 2020). Hence, the next hypothesis is as follows:
Hypothesis H5: There is a negative relationship between neuroticism and knowledge-hiding behavior.
Singh (2019) argues that many colleagues are unwilling to share all the knowledge they possess and instead engage in knowledge hiding when requested by their peers. Knowledge hiding is considered a counterproductive behavior that negatively impacts the job performance of those who engage in such behavior (Singh, 2019). In the literature on knowledge-hiding behavior, several studies have examined the antecedents of knowledge-hiding behavior, but there are few studies that have explored the consequences of knowledge-hiding behavior (Connelly and Zweig, 2015; Singh, 2019). Drawing on the reciprocity criterion, Singh (2019) suggests that employees exhibiting negative behaviors such as knowledge hiding are likely to be reciprocated by their peers through knowledge hiding in return, thereby potentially negatively affecting their task performance outcomes. Some prior studies investigate the relationship between Big Five Personality traits (BFP) and knowledge-hiding behavior (Iqbal, et al., 2020), while others examine the consequences of knowledge-hiding behavior, such as job performance (Singh, 2019). Therefore, in this study, we explore the mediating role of knowledge hiding in the relationship between BFP and job performance. Thus, the next hypothesis is proposed as follows:
Hypothesis H6: There is a negative relationship between knowledge-hiding behavior and job performance.
The research hypotheses are tested using structural equation modeling. The model includes five scales to measure the Big Five personality traits, one scale for knowledge-hiding behavior, and one scale for individual job performance. Since the scales were adopted from previous studies and originally written in English, they were translated into Vietnamese by language experts and subsequently refined by specialists in the field. Additionally, to ensure the clarity and coherence of the items in the scales, the survey was reviewed and adjusted by banking employees before the official data collection.
This study chose the banking sector to collect data as it is a knowledge-intensive field that aligns well with the research focus. The study employed a convenient sampling method to collect data, resulting in the distribution of 350 survey forms, with 283 forms returned, achieving a response rate of 80.85%. After screening and excluding surveys that did not meet the requirements, the final number of surveys used for the formal study was 226. With a sample size of 226, it meets the criteria for analysis in the formal study. Among the participants, 42.9% were male, and 57.1% were female. The majority of participants were between the ages of 20 and 30 (55.8%), 31 and 40 (28.3%), above 40 (15.9%). The predominant educational background was a bachelor’s degree (university: 67.3%). Table 1 presents the characteristics of the survey sample. SPSS and AMOS 20 software were utilized for data analysis. The analysis techniques included assessing the reliability of the measurement scales through Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, and hypothesis testing through structural equation modeling (SEM).
Demographic characteristics of respondents
(Source: Authors’ own research)
| Variables | Category | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 97 | 42.9 |
| Female | 129 | 57.1 | |
| Age | 20–30 | 126 | 55.8 |
| 31–40 | 64 | 28.3 | |
| Above 40 | 36 | 15.9 | |
| Education | University | 152 | 67.3 |
| Master | 74 | 32.7 |
The measures in this study are inherited from previous research. Specifically, the Big-Five scale comprises five personality traits: Openness to Experience (Ope), Conscientiousness (Con), Extraversion (Ext), Agreeableness (Age), and Neuroticism (Neu), consisting of 22 observed variables inherited from Goldberg (1992) and Sung and Choi (2009).
The knowledge-hiding scale is adapted from Peng (2012) and Nguyen, et al. (2022), encompassing four observed variables. The job performance scale includes five observed variables inherited from Chiang and Hsieh (2012), Nguyen, et al. (2022) and Nguyn and Nguy
n (2024). The survey items utilized a 5-point Likert scale ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree. The reliability of the knowledge hiding, job performance, and Big-Five scales met the requirements, with Cronbach’s alpha ranging from 0.837 to 0.930. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) yielded seven factors with an extracted variance of 72.7% and a Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) coefficient of 0.843. These results are depicted in Table 2.
Reliabilities and validities of the study variables
(Source: Authors’ own research)
| Variables | Source | - | Items | Factor loadings | α | CR | AVE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Extraversion | Goldberg (1992); Sung and Choi (2009) | Ext1 | Talkative | 0.655 | 0.837 | 0.836 | 0.562 |
| Agreeableness | Agr1 | Agreeable | 0.777 | 0.892 | 0.893 | 0.626 | |
| Conscientiousness | Con1 | Organized | 0.791 | 0.838 | 0.837 | 0.564 | |
| Openness to experience | Open1 | Intellectual | 0.679 | 0.930 | 0.930 | 0.728 | |
| Neuroticism | Neu1b | Anxious | 0.794 | 0.890 | 0.894 | 0.681 | |
| Knowledge hiding | Peng (2012); Nguyen, et al. (2022) | KH1 | I don’t want to transfer personal knowledge and experience to others | 0.803 | 0.883 | 0.883 | 0.654 |
| Job performance | Chiang and Hsieh (2012); Nguyen, et al. (2022); Nguy | JP1 | I fulfilled my job responsibilities I met performance standards and expectations of the job | 0.640 | 0.877 | 0.881 | 0.599 |
Note: α = Cronbach’s alpha, CR = composite reliability, AVE = average variance extracted.
To assess the measurement model, the study employed reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted. The results indicated that the measurement model demonstrated a high level of fit with indices meeting the recommended standards by Hair et al. (2014).
Specifically, the values were RMSEA = 0.046; CMIN/df = 1.478; P-value = 0.000; TLI = 0.949; CFI = 0.955. Composite reliability (CR) exceeding 0.7 and average variance extracted (AVE) exceeding 0.5 were both met as per Hair, et al. (2014).
To evaluate discriminant validity, Fornell and Larcker (1981) proposed that the square root of AVE for each construct, represented along the diagonal, should be greater than the correlations between that construct and other constructs (Hair, et al., 2014) (Table 3). Additionally, the study examined the presence of Common Method Bias using Harman’s single-factor test. Exploratory Factor Analysis results showed that a single factor accounted for 25.19% of the variance, which is below the 50% threshold suggested by Harman (1976). Therefore, the analysis indicates that the common method bias is not a significant issue in this study.
Correlation matrix
(Source: Authors’ own research)
| - | Con | Ope | Agr | JP | Neu | KH | Ext |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Con | 0.751 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Ope | -0.367 | 0.853 | - | - | - | - | - |
| Agr | -0.037 | 0.283 | 0.791 | - | - | - | - |
| JP | -0.136 | 0.291 | 0.159 | 0.774 | - | - | - |
| Neu | -0.161 | 0.346 | 0.283 | 0.233 | 0.826 | - | - |
| KH | 0.333 | -0.464 | -0.510 | -0.266 | -0.280 | 0.809 | - |
| Ext | 0.320 | 0.078 | 0.232 | 0.166 | 0.272 | -0.240 | 0.749 |
Note: The bold numbers in the diagonal row are the square roots of AVE.
The hypothesis testing results indicate that Ext has a negative relationship with KH (β= -0.223, p < 0.001), and thus, H1 is accepted. Agr has a negative relationship with KH (β= -0.429, p < 0.001), supporting H2. Con has a positive relationship with KH (β= 0.370, p < 0.001), and thus H3 is accepted. Ope has a negative relationship with KH (β= -0.213, p<0.001), and therefore, H4 is accepted. However, Neu has a negative relationship with KH (β= -0.004, p > 0.05), so H5 is not accepted. Finally, KH has a negative effect on TP (β= -0.365, p < 0.001), supporting H6 (see Figure 2).
The results of measurement and structural model
(Source: Authors’ own research)
Note: Ext= “Extraversion,” Con= “Conscientiousness,” Ope= “Openness to experience,” Agr= “Agreeableness,” Neu= “Neuroticism,” KH= “Knowledge hiding,” JP= “Job performance.”
Notes: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
To examine the mediating influence, the study utilized bootstrapping with 5000 resamples (Preacher et al., 2007). The results show that knowledge-hiding behavior plays a mediating role in the relationship between Ope (β= 0.078, p = 0.001), Ext (β= 0.081, p = 0.005), Agr (β= 0.157, p = 0.001), Con (β= -0.135, p = 0.001), and JP (Table 4).
Structural equation model
(Source: Authors’ own research)
| Direct effect | B | βStandardized | p-value | Hypothesis testing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ext -> KH | -0.223 | -0.267 | 0.000 | Supported |
| Agr -> KH | -0.429 | -0.407 | 0.000 | Supported |
| Con -> KH | 0.370 | 0.313 | 0.000 | Supported |
| Ope -> KH | -0.213 | -0.274 | 0.000 | Supported |
| Neu -> KH | -0.004 | -0.005 | 0.932 | Not supported |
| KH -> JP | -0.365 | -0.267 | 0.000 | Supported |
| Indirect effect | - | - | - | - |
| Ext -> KH-> JP | 0.081 | 0.064 | 0.005 | Supported |
| Agr -> KH-> JP | 0.157 | 0.109 | 0.001 | Supported |
| Con-> KH-> JP | -0.135 | -0.084 | 0.001 | Supported |
| Ope -> KH-> JP | 0.078 | 0.073 | 0.001 | Supported |
| Neu-> KH-> JP | 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.893 | Not supported |
Note: Ext= “Extraversion,” Agr= “Agreeableness,” Con= “Conscientiousness,” Ope= “Openness to experience,” Neu= “Neuroticism,” KH= “Knowledge hiding,” JP= “Job performance.”
This study examines the relationship between personality traits using the BFP model, knowledge-hiding behavior, and job performance in the knowledgeintensive field of banking in Vietnam, with a sample size of 226 employees. The results reveal that among the five personality traits in the Big Five model, extraversion has a negative relationship with knowledgehiding behavior. Individuals with extraverted personalities tend to have positive attitudes and emotions, and they are more inclined to share knowledge (Pei-Lee, et al., 2011; Esmaeelinezhad and Afrazeh, 2018; Iqbal, et al., 2020). Therefore, individuals with extraverted personalities are less likely to engage in knowledge hiding, aligning with previous studies (Pei-Lee, et al., 2011; Jain, 2014).
The study found a negative relationship between agreeableness personality trait and knowledge-hiding behavior. This result aligns with findings from prior research such as Matzler, et al. (2008), Gupta (2008), and Agyemang, et al. (2016). Individuals with an agreeable personality trait are often tolerant, cooperative, and collaborative in the workplace, emphasizing the need for harmony with colleagues (Matzler, et al., 2008). Therefore, they are less likely to engage in knowledge hiding and are more inclined to share knowledge with their colleagues
The relationship between conscientiousness and knowledge-hiding behavior is positive, indicating that employees with a conscientious personality trait tend to be achievement-oriented and, therefore, are inclined to hide knowledge to achieve personal goals (Iqbal, et al., 2020). Some previous studies have also shown a positive relationship between conscientiousness and knowledge sharing, such as Matzler, et al. (2008), Matzler, et al. (2011), and Pei-Lee, et al. (2011). Iqbal, et al. (2020) offer an explanation for this, suggesting that there is a difference between working in a group and individually. In other words, individuals with a conscientious personality trait may be more concerned and responsible when working in a group. However, when working individually with an achievement-oriented focus, they may be more likely to engage in knowledge hiding (Iqbal, et al., 2020). Additionally, the results regarding the relationship between conscientiousness and knowledge-hiding behaviors remain inconsistent across studies, one possible reason being the measurement of knowledgehiding behaviors. Knowledge-hiding behavior can be approached as a multidimensional construct, such as implicit knowledge hiding and explicit knowledgehiding behaviors. In knowledge-intensive organizations such as banks, tacit knowledge is crucial. Therefore, the ability to hide tacit knowledge is likely to occur in order to maintain a competitive advantage within the organization.
The personality trait of openness to experience is found to have a negative relationship with knowledgehiding behavior. Individuals with high openness to experience tend to have positive attitudes, actively contribute, and seek new knowledge, making them more likely to share knowledge with their colleagues (Matzler, et al., 2008). This suggests that employees with high openness to experience are less likely to engage in knowledge hiding. This result is consistent with previous studies such as Matzler, et al. (2008), Agyemang, et al. (2016), and Esmaeelinezhad and Afrazeh (2018).
The study did not find a negative relationship between neuroticism and knowledge-hiding behavior. Individuals with high scores in this personality trait tend to express positive attitudes toward their colleagues and are inclined to share knowledge more (Iqbal et al., 2020), suggesting that they are less likely to engage in knowledge hiding. However, the research results did not support this relationship. Similarly, Esmaeelinezhad and Afrazeh (2018) found that the neuroticism personality trait does not influence knowledge-sharing behavior or knowledge hoarding behavior. Consistent with these findings, Wang and Yang (2007) also did not find a relationship between neuroticism and knowledge-sharing behavior.
Finally, knowledge-hiding behavior has a negative impact on employee job performance. Chen, et al. (2006) argue that knowledge-hiding behavior hinders the transfer of knowledge among individuals. The process of transmitting, distributing, and disseminating knowledge is often aimed at optimizing or exploiting the existing knowledge of employees to improve job performance through learning and combining different types of knowledge (Wuryanti and Setiawan, 2017; Nguyen, et al., 2022). Therefore, knowledge-hiding behavior leads to a reduction in employee job performance (Nguyen, et al., 2022). This result is consistent with previous studies such as Singh (2019) and Nguyen, et al. (2022). In a recent meta-analysis by Škerlavaj, et al. (2023), the majority of knowledge-hiding behavior was found to decrease individual job performance.
Examining the indirect relationships reveals that personality traits such as extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness have indirect relationships with individual job performance through the mediation of knowledge-hiding behavior. The results of these indirect relationships are presented in Table 4.
Based on social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) and reciprocity norms (Gouldner, 1960), this study examines the relationship between Big Five Personality (BFP) traits and knowledge-hiding behavior in knowledgeintensive organizations. Additionally, the study investigates the consequences of knowledge-hiding behavior on employee job performance. The study sample comprises 226 employees working in the banking sector in Vietnam. A structural equation model was employed to test research hypotheses using SPSS and Amos 20 software. The research results indicate that out of the five personality traits, four traits show statistically significant relationships with knowledge-hiding behavior. Specifically, extraversion, agreeableness, and openness to experience have negative relationships with knowledge-hiding behavior, while conscientiousness has a positive relationship with knowledge-hiding behavior. The study did not find a relationship between the neuroticism and knowledgehiding behavior. Finally, the study provides additional evidence for the positive impact of knowledge-hiding behavior on individual job performance.
This study makes significant additional contributions to the existing literature on knowledge management in organizations. First, within the current literature, the majority focuses on understanding knowledge-sharing behavior within organizations. This research contributes to a deeper understanding by investigating the relationship between Big Five Personality (BFP) traits and knowledge-hiding behavior, an aspect that has not been extensively explored in previous studies (Iqbal, et al., 2020). In Vietnam, the banking industry is a knowledge-intensive sector, making knowledge management activities crucial in this field. By examining the relationship between BFP and knowledge hiding, this study further contributes to understanding personality psychology to explain knowledge-hiding behavior in knowledge-intensive organizations. Furthermore, the study extends findings from previous research on the inconsistent understanding of the relationship between BFP and knowledge hiding, providing more comprehensive insights into this aspect across previous studies.
This study also offers practical contributions by implying that managers in knowledge-intensive fields such as banking should focus on the personality traits of employees to promote knowledge-sharing behavior and minimize knowledge-hiding behavior. Managers need to pay attention to the extraversion, agreeableness, openness to experience, and conscientiousness of employees to effectively limit knowledge-hiding behavior. Within the organization, restricting knowledgehiding behavior contributes to enhancing individual job performance, thereby improving the overall organizational performance. Furthermore, managers in the banking sector should focus on effectively measuring and assessing personality traits, especially in recruitment and training processes, in order to minimize knowledge-hiding behaviors and, consequently, enhance employee performance.
This study has certain limitations. First, it relies on a convenience sampling method. Research on personality traits is highly complex, and therefore, additional studies conducted in different contexts are needed to generalize the findings. The design of a cross-sectional survey may have certain limitations; therefore, a longitudinal approach would provide deeper insights into the causal relationships of the variables. The relationship between Big Five Personality (BFP) and knowledge hiding (KH) may be more intricate due to the interaction between personality traits. Hence, examining the interaction between personality traits to supplement this relationship is essential for future research. Additionally, knowledge hiding may be influenced by various factors such as conflict (Qiao, et al., 2023), including both mediators and moderators, such as leadership styles. Therefore, further investigation into the moderating role of leadership styles, such as knowledge-oriented leadership, in the relationship between personality traits and knowledge-hiding behaviors is a research direction that should be explored. Finally, the consequences of knowledge-hiding behavior should be further investigated. Future studies could explore outcome variables such as creativity and job innovation behavior to gain a deeper understanding.