When Knowledge Sharing Backfires: How Change Resistance and Politics Spur Unethical Loyalty

What is it about?

This study examines how employee knowledge sharing—often praised for enhancing collaboration—can sometimes encourage unethical pro-organizational behavior (UPB), or actions that violate ethics to protect the organization. Based on knowledge-based theory, the authors argue that frequent information exchange strengthens collective confidence and unity, which can motivate employees to defend the organization, even through questionable or morally compromising behaviors. Using survey data from employees in a Mexican manufacturing firm, the study finds that greater knowledge sharing is linked to higher engagement in UPB. Employees who frequently exchange information feel more capable of concealing issues or manipulating data to protect their employer. This effect is stronger among those resistant to change, who seek stability, and those perceiving high organizational politics, where self-serving acts seem acceptable or rewarded. Together, these results reveal the dark side of knowledge sharing. What is often seen as a driver of innovation can, under certain conditions, encourage moral rationalizations and unethical group-based defenses of the organization. The study warns that in politically charged and change-resistant workplaces, knowledge sharing may become a double-edged sword that sustains unethical loyalty rather than constructive transparency.

Featured Image

Photo by Vitaly Gariev on Unsplash

Photo by Vitaly Gariev on Unsplash

Why is it important?

This study is unique in challenging the traditional view of knowledge sharing as purely positive by revealing its potential to enable unethical behavior. Integrating knowledge-based theory with UPB research, it shows that shared understanding can foster both collaboration and coordinated misconduct in defense of the organization. Two conditions—resistance to change and perceived politics—determine when knowledge exchange turns from cooperation to complicity, highlighting ability-based pathways to unethical action. The study is timely, addressing a key tension in today’s knowledge-driven, highly connected workplaces. As organizations promote transparency and collaboration, these same practices can unintentionally fuel unethical group behavior, especially in political or change-resistant cultures. Set in Mexico’s collectivist, high power-distance context, the study shows how cultural norms shape loyalty–ethics tradeoffs. It reminds leaders that without ethical safeguards, coordination efforts may erode integrity from within.