["Business Ethics, the Environment &Responsibility, EarlyView. ", "\nABSTRACT\nWhen employees engage in counterproductive work behaviours, such as knowledge withholding and quiet quitting, questions arise regarding the ethical implications of these actions. While these behaviours are often seen as intentional, the role of organisational factors remains underexplored. This study investigates two counterproductive behaviours—knowledge withholding, typically directed at colleagues and quiet quitting, which involves disengagement from job tasks and organisational commitment. We propose that these behaviours are not solely driven by individual intent but by organisational factors such as job demands and perceived effort‐reward unfairness. Specifically, the purpose of this study is to examine how high job demands lead to both knowledge withholding and quiet quitting, both directly and indirectly through work alienation. Additionally, the study anticipates that the relationship between job demands, and these behaviours is moderated by employees' perception of effort‐reward unfairness, meaning that the relationship is expected to be stronger when such perceptions are present. A time‐lagged survey of 340 healthcare professionals in the UAE, including nurses, physicians and administrative staff, was conducted. Structural equation modelling (SEM) was used to test the hypothesised models. The results show that job demands are positively associated with both quiet quitting and knowledge withholding. Employees engage in these behaviours not out of unwillingness, but because they are overwhelmed with tasks, leaving them with little time for extra effort or sharing knowledge. Alienation was found to mediate these relationships, with employees feeling disconnected being more likely to engage in these behaviours. Perceived unfairness further amplifies these effects. This study offers a new perspective by demonstrating that organisational factors, such as excessive job demands and unfair reward systems, contribute to knowledge withholding and quiet quitting. Implications for management and future research are discussed.\n"]