If you’ve ever put forward a thoughtful idea in a meeting, only to hear it echoed by someone else moments later—with them receiving all the praise—you’re not alone. This frustrating experience isn’t simply bad manners; it’s a widespread organisational problem with significant consequences. According to Professor David Zweig of the University of Toronto, knowledge theft is more common than expected. It seriously threatens the culture of collaboration that underpins innovative and high-performing workplaces.

Professor Zweig, who teaches organisational behaviour and human resources at the University of Toronto Scarborough and the Rotman School of Management, began paying close attention to this phenomenon after witnessing it. During a routine meeting, he noticed one colleague offer an idea that was ignored—only for that idea to be repeated later by someone else, who received a positive response. Crucially, the original contributor went unacknowledged. It happened more than once, and that pattern sparked Zweig’s interest. “I noticed that this happened repeatedly,” he says. “So I started paying attention to how people did or did not credit the work of others.”

An extensive research program followed involving more than 1,500 workers across various industries in Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom. The goal was to investigate knowledge theft as a distinct form of workplace deviance, examine how often it occurs, how it might be reliably measured, and what broader effects it has on organisational functioning. Zweig and his colleagues found that knowledge theft—deliberately claiming unjustified ownership over another person’s ideas, contributions, or solutions—was far more prevalent than anticipated.

In fact, in one of their studies, 91 per cent of participants reported having experienced knowledge theft in some capacity: as a victim, a witness, or a perpetrator. This suggests the problem is systemic rather than isolated. Unlike accidental oversight, knowledge theft involves an intentional act—rephrasing a colleague’s suggestion in a meeting, omitting contributors from presentations, or taking sole credit for collaborative work. And the damage caused by such behaviour extends well beyond individual feelings of resentment or betrayal.

For those who find themselves victims of this misconduct, the fallout can be profoundly demoralising. Zweig’s research indicates that affected individuals often become guarded and reluctant to share their knowledge in the future. Some reported actively concealing information or withholding support from co-workers, particularly those they no longer trusted. Others described an urge to retaliate through subtle interpersonal sabotage, such as making critical comments or avoiding cooperation. Most concerningly, these responses were not confined to the original workplace—victims carried them into new environments, suggesting a lasting emotional and behavioural impact.

This creates what Zweig calls “a toxic environment,” where openness and collaboration are replaced by distrust and self-protection. When ideas are consistently stolen or unrecognised, employees perceive knowledge-sharing as risky rather than rewarding. As a result, the free flow of information slows, innovation is stifled, and the organisation’s overall productivity suffers. Knowledge—the lifeblood of competitive advantage in most modern firms—becomes siloed, hoarded, and underutilised.

The role of leadership is pivotal in either fuelling or curbing this behaviour. When managers ignore incidents of knowledge theft or reward those who engage in it, they legitimise and encourage such conduct. Over time, this erodes psychological safety in teams and undermines the credibility of performance evaluation systems. Zweig urges leaders to “call it out” whenever they see knowledge theft occur. “They need to be very cognisant that this happens. It can’t be normalised,” he insists.

To mitigate the problem, Zweig and his colleagues recommend a shift towards team-based recognition and rewards. By acknowledging collective achievements rather than spotlighting individual contributions, organisations can reduce the incentive to claim sole credit and foster a stronger culture of mutual respect. This approach not only encourages collaboration but also better aligns with the realities of how most work gets done—through shared effort, brainstorming, and support.

The implications of this research extend far beyond the academic realm. Zweig is writing a book on the subject, to be published by Rotman-UTP Publishing, which will explore the nuances of knowledge theft and its organisational consequences in greater detail. As the modern workplace continues to evolve, his work offers a timely reminder that while knowledge may be intangible, its value is immense—and that protecting the channels through which it flows is crucial to the success of any enterprise.

More information: David Zweig et al, It’s mine but you took it: knowledge theft as a barrier to organizational knowledge management efforts, Journal of Knowledge Management. DOI: 10.1108/jkm-07-2023-0653

Journal information: Journal of Knowledge Management Provided by University of Toronto, Rotman School of Management