This study explored whether the relationship between perceived training intensity and knowledge sharing is prone to combined moderating influences. We operationalized perceived training intensity as a challenge stressor, in accordance with the challenge‐hindrance framework of work stressors. The results of a study of 129 employees from three Norwegian service industries revealed a positive relationship between perceived training intensity and supervisor‐rated knowledge sharing for employees reporting high levels of perceived job autonomy and high levels of perceived supervisor support. In contrast, we found a negative relationship between perceived training intensity and supervisor‐rated knowledge sharing for employees reporting high levels of perceived job autonomy and low levels of perceived supervisor support. These findings suggest that supervisors are of vital importance in facilitating knowledge sharing among employees in settings where developmental challenges are prevalent and perceptions of job autonomy are high. Implications for future research and practice are also discussed. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

While previous studies have increased our knowledge of how employees’ perceptions of development practices influence employee outcomes, the role of potential contingencies in this relationship remains relatively unexplored. In the present study, we set out to contribute to this research by exploring whether congruence or lack of congruence between perceived employee development practices and the perceived motivational climate at work influence employee performance and turnover intention. A field study among 169 employees from a Norwegian financial organization revealed that lack of congruence may be detrimental in terms of work performance and turnover intention. Implications for practice and future research are discussed.

This study investigates the effects of two internal factors, performance‐based rewards and employee perceptions of human resource (HR) strength, and one external factor, country‐level uncertainty avoidance, on employee innovative behaviors. Drawing on situational strength theory, we first hypothesize performance‐based rewards will positively relate to innovative behaviors, and second, this relationship is stronger when employees understand the wider Human Resource Management (HRM) system as intended by management, referred to as HR strength. Finally, we assess the effect of uncertainty avoidance on the relationship between performance‐based rewards and innovative behaviors. Three‐level data from 1,598 employees and 186 managers in 29 organizations across 10 countries showed both employee perceptions of HR strength and uncertainty avoidance of a country that differentially influence the relationship between performance‐based rewards and innovative behaviors. However, a significant relationship between performance‐based rewards and innovative behaviors was not found. This study offers novel insights into how organizations can use internal factors in a systematic manner to promote innovative behaviors in their workplace, and highlights the limitations of sustaining innovative behaviors in countries characterized by high levels of uncertainty avoidance.

Knowledge hiding prevents colleagues from generating creative ideas, but it may also have negative consequences for the creativity of a knowledge hider. Drawing on social exchange theory, we propose that when employees hide knowledge, they trigger a reciprocal distrust loop in which coworkers are unwilling to share knowledge with them. We further suggest that these effects are contingent on motivational climate, in such a way that the negative effects of an individual's hiding knowledge on his/her own creativity are enhanced in a performance climate and attenuated in a mastery climate. A field study of 240 employees nested in 34 groups revealed a negative relationship between knowledge hiding and knowledge hiders' creativity as well as a moderating role of a mastery climate. Study 2 replicated these findings in an experimental study of 132 undergraduate students, testing a reciprocal distrust loop and comparing it with an alternative intrapsychic explanatory process based on situational regulatory focus. Implications for practice and future research are discussed.