research paper - po fit and km

7/31/2019 Research Paper - Po Fit and Km

1/18

Knowledge Management: Does the Person Organization Fit Matter?

By Ms. Prachi Agarwal, PhD Scholar, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi & Ms Priyanka Sagar, PhD Scholar,

Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi

Details of Authors:

1. Author: Ms Prachi Agarwal

Designation: PhD Scholar

Institute: Jamia Millia Islamia

Office Address: Department of Social Work, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi-110025

Permanent Address: C4/192, Sec 36, Noida- 201303

Telephone no: 9990643077

Email:[email protected]

2. Author: Ms Priyanka Sagar

Designation: PhD Scholar

Institute: Jamia Millia Islamia

Office Address: Department of Social Work, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi-110025

Permanent Address: BG- 7, 51, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi.

Telephone no: 9990511440

Email:[email protected]

ABSTRACT
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/18

Over the past two decades, organizations are facing complex challenges. The rapid pace of

technological changes, deepened globalization, internationalization of business, and drive for

competitive advantage has challenged organizations. Under such conditions of modern times,

capital is not the only source of creating wealth for the organizations. In fact, the reliance of

organizations to knowledge workers has gradually exceeded capital. Individuals and

organizations have begun to appreciate the increasingly important role of knowledge in the

present competitive environment. Many researchers have argued that a source of sustainable

competitive advantage lies in the hand of talented and knowledge workers. For these reasons it

is critical for managers to understand how tacit knowledge of the workers can be transferred

so that they can sustain their organizations competitive advantage. In this paper it is argued

that the success of knowledge management, in particular the creation, sharing and facilitation

of tacit knowledge is influenced by person organization fit. Consequently, this paper aims at

discussing the role of person-organization fit in the process of knowledge sharing and creation

by proposing a model on person-organization fit and knowledge management. This model

could be utilized by the practitioners and managers for making knowledge management

practices more effective so as to contribute to the overall organizational performance.

Key Words Person-Organization Fit; Knowledge management; Tacit Knowledge.

1. INTRODUCTION

Todays dynamic and competitive business environment has posed constant and complex

challenges in firms. The success and effectiveness of an organization depends upon various

factors. Under such conditions of modern times, capital is not the only source of creating

wealth for the organizations. In fact, the reliance of organizations to knowledge workers has

gradually exceeded capital. Individuals and organizations have begun to appreciate the

increasingly important role of knowledge in the present competitive environment because it is

difficult for outsiders to copy and transfer knowledge. Competitive advantage is increasingly

found in knowing how to do things, rather than in having special access to resources and

markets. Thus, knowledge and intellectual capital have become both the primary bases of core

competencies and the key to superior performance in todays organizations.

Many researchers have viewed knowledge as the strategic asset for the success of the

organization. To become the basis for a sustainable competitive advantage, knowledge must be


3/18

readily spread within the firm that has it, but not readily spread to other firms. Thus, for

effective management of individual knowledge, organizations should recognise the need to

institute a proper knowledge management system. The concept of knowledge management is

not new and has received a good deal of attention in the academic and business literature.

(Newell, Scarborough and Swan, 2002; Petersen and Poufelt, 2002). According to the World

Bank (1998), knowledge management (KM) acts as a facilitator in the process of knowledge

creation, acquisition and dissemination. The current advancement of information technology

has made the task of capturing, storing, and sharing the organizational knowledge much easier

to accomplish. However, the utilization of information technology alone does not guarantee the

success of knowledge management in an organization. The management and understanding of

how knowledge and tacit knowledge in particular can be transferred and leveraged throughout

organisations are quite challenging issues for managers.

It is known that tacit knowledge is difficult to express, communicate and transfer throughout

the firm but it can be acquired through personal relationships and over time (Badaracco, 1991).

It can also be shared through an apprentice-like relationship, or through socialisation (Nonaka

and Takeuchi, 1995). People acquire tacit knowledge when they observe or participate in a

situation and see how their actions, and the actions of others, affect the outcome. Working in

groups and teams also presents a platform for sharing tacit knowledge. When people work hand

in hand in teams, they get an opportunity to observe how others conceptualize situations,

visualise problems, and generate solutions. The more people work together, and the more time

they spend socializing and casually talking about their experiences, sharing anecdotes, and

sharing impressions of each others experiences, the more tacit knowledge they share (Roy

Lubit, 2001). Based on this notion, in this paper we argue that person-organisation fit, the

compatibility between people and organizations (Chatman, 1988; Kristof, 1996) is important to

organization. The authors like to argue that the success of knowledge management, in

particular the creation and sharing of tacit knowledge is influenced by person organization fit

as research has demonstrated positive relationships between P-O fit and key employee attitudes

and behaviours, including increased job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover

intentions (Bretz and Judge, 1994; Chatman, 1991; Hoffman and Woehr, 2005), and

organizational citizenship behaviour OCB (OReilly and Chatman, 1986), elements which are

all key to the transfer of tacit knowledge. We believe that the success of knowledge

management is affected by the willingness among individuals to share knowledge, and person

organization fit encourages the willingness among individuals to share tacit knowledge.


4/18

This article attempts to discuss the influence of person organization fit on knowledge

management in particular on tacit knowledge creation and sharing. Nonakas (1994) knowledge

creation model is being applied in order to understand the relationship between P-O fit and

knowledge management. A conceptual framework is proposed to examine the relationships

between knowledge sharing and P-O fit. We hope that this paper can deepen our understanding

on how to leverage the organizational performance through integrating the role of person

organization fit in the process of knowledge acquisition, sharing and application.

2. KNOWLEDGE

Knowledge is human creation that is embodied in mind (Lang, 2001). It can be thought of as

information in action. Knowledge is the combination of data and information, which can result

in a valuable asset by addition of expert opinion, skills and experience which can be used to aid

decision-making. Knowledge can take several forms. Drawing on the work of Polanyi (1966),

Nonaka (1994) individual knowledge can be classified into two forms: explicit knowledge and

tacit knowledge.

A. EXPLICIT KNOWLEDGE

Explicit knowledge refers to codified knowledge that can be transmitted and communicated in

formal, systematic language. Explicit knowledge can be recorded in documentation (Choi and

Lee, 2003), is readable and transferable through technologies or formal communication among

the organizational units (Keskin, 2005; Choi and Lee, 2003). This means that it can be written

down, encoded, explained, or understood (Sobol and Lei, 1994) and such knowledge is not

specific or idiosyncratic to the firm or person possessing it (Sobol and Lei, 1994). It can be

thought of as book knowledge that is available in a spoken or written form. An example of

explicit knowledge is a work manual, which contains knowledge on the appropriate procedures

to perform a task.

B. TACIT KNOWLEDGE

Tacit knowledge is concerned with knowledge in organisations that is known to exist, butwhich is difficult to codify, i.e. write down and explain. It is rooted in individuals mindset and


5/18

its articulation is applicable and transferable in the form of doing and watching through

learning process (Choi and Lee, 2003). Tacit knowledge is unconsciously acquired from the

experiences one has in his life time. It develops when unconscious, inductive mental processes

create a representation of the structure of the environment showing the relationship between

important variables. In other words, tacit knowledge is hard to formalize and communicate and

it resides within the people of the organization and is not formalized into written or

documented forms. An individual experiences tacit knowledge as intuition, rather than as a

body of facts or instruction sets. An example of tacit knowledge is the ability to ride a bicycle.

We know how to do it, but trying to explain to someone is practically impossible.

Tacit knowledge entails information that is difficult to express, formalize, and share. It stands

in contrast to explicit knowledge, which is conscious and can be put into words. Tacit

knowledge is knowing how while explicit knowledge is knowing that .It is best transferred

through rich communication media such as observation rather than through more explicit media

(Nadler et al. 2003). Thus, most of the organizations consider the tacit knowledge to be the

primary source of sustainable competitive edge over their competitors (Chen and Edgington,

2005; Jashapara, 2003; Lopez, 2005). In totality, organizations knowledge refers to a

collection of individual knowledge that is generated and stored (Brown and Duguid, 1998).

3. KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

Knowledge management is like an umbrella term that encompasses many unique but related

facets of knowledge exchange, transfer and uptake among them. It is based on the idea that an

organizations most valuable resource is the knowledge of its people. Knowledge management

is the systematic process by which knowledge needed for an organization to succeed is created,

captured, shared and leveraged. Knowledge management generally refers to the efficient

management of using knowledge and knowledge worker with the ability to establish strong

collaborations among workers in the process of knowledge creation, knowledge integration,

knowledge sharing and knowledge application (Rowley, 1999; Shanks and Tay, 2001).

Knowledge management can also be defined as an effort to capture explicit information and the

tacit knowledge that exist in an organization in order to advance the organizations objective

(Davenport and Prusak, 1998). Most organizations have a large pool of explicit and tacit

knowledge. Capturing explicit knowledge is easier as it is factual in nature. However, since


6/18

tacit knowledge resides in the minds of employees, it is more difficult to capture. Thus an

organization needs to institute a more effective knowledge management system.

A successful knowledge management system is deemed as the primary foundation for

organizations to attain competitive advantage. Knowledge management refers to knowledge

development, application and sharing within the organization to gain sustainable competitive

advantage (Cepeda-Carrion, 2006; Petersen and Poulfelt, 2002; and Grant, 1996). The

application of KM within the organizations provides better decision making, increased

productivity and profitability (Edvardsson, 2006). Chong, Holden, Wilhelmij, and Schmidt

(2000) stated that knowledge management is the ability to recognize and manage the system

of core competencies required for knowledge-intensive businesses. Since all companies use

and sell knowledge in some form or other, knowledge management is a crucial component of

corporate strategies (Wikstrom and Normann, 1994), therefore organizations should be

determined to acquire, create, develop and share new knowledge among its employees so as to

improve the already available knowledge in the organization (Labich and Graves, 1993;

Maccoby, 1996; Stewart and Curry, 1997).

4. KNOWLEDGE CREATION AND SHARING: SECI MODEL

One of the most common model often cited and credited as a foundational model for

knowledge management was developed by Nonaka & Takeuchi in 1995. This model describes

the interaction between tacit and explicit knowledge and is termed as SECI model as depicted

in figure 1. It focuses on four different areas of knowledge conversion: socialization,

externalization, combination and internalization (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995).

Socialization

(Tacit Knowledge to Tacit

Knowledge)

Externalization

(Tacit Knowledge to Explicit

Knowledge)


7/18

Internalization

(Explicit Knowledge to Tacit

Knowledge)

Combination

(Explicit Knowledge to Explicit

Knowledge)

Figure 1: Modes of the knowledge creation (Nonaka, 1994)

Socialization refers to a process of sharing experiences where tacit knowledge is transferred

from one person to another (Nonaka, 1994). During the process of socialization, one acquires

the tacit knowledge from another through observation, imitation and practice. This knowledge

transfer relies on direct interaction between two or more people. For example, a new servicecentre employee might pick up how to relate to customers by sitting next to and listening to an

experienced person do the job. This sharing is mostly happens between people who have shared

understanding and similar culture. The process is very useful in an organization as it allows

individuals to share the tacit knowledge among them. In addition, the socialization process

might help in generating new ideas and creating new tacit knowledge. In order for the

organizational knowledge creation to take place, the tacit knowledge accumulated at the

individual level needs to be socialized with other organization members (Nonaka and Takeuchi,

1995).

Externalization is the conversion of tacit into explicit knowledge through articulation (Nonaka,

1994). An individual might take several approaches in understanding the tacit knowledge and

converting them to the explicit concepts. The concepts can be created and elaborated through

deduction, induction, analogy, and metaphor. It is just like turning the tacit knowledge (e.g.,

experience from workshops) into explicit form (e.g., written report). Process of externalization,

similes and analogy between experts in a dialogue are useful for creating a network of new

explicit concepts from tacit knowledge (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995).

Combination is a process of systemizing concepts into a knowledge system (Nonaka, 1994).

This process aims at creating new knowledge by grouping and exchanging explicit knowledge

gained through conversations, meetings, or documents. The process involves sorting, adding,

combining and categorizing the explicit knowledge. Formal education and training are two

important factors that enhance an individuals ability to combine the knowledge (Nonaka,


8/18

1994). Combination involves various knowledge management tools, information systems,

databases, emails, expert systems, meetings etc. Information system plays an important role in

this process.

Internalization is the process of converting explicit knowledge into tacit knowledge. It is

learning by doing. Individuals here internalize the knowledge gained through socialization,

externalization and combination. It is similar to the process of learning where conscious

competence becomes unconscious competence. A good example is learning how to drive. At

some point the learner begins to operate car and no longer thinks about pressing the clutch,

break, accelerator or looking in the mirrors, all happens automatically.

5. PERSON ORGANIZATION FIT

The concept of fit or congruence springs from psychology. It has recurred in many theories

in the social and organizational sciences (Burton et al. 2002), including theories of knowledge

management (Birkinshaw et al. 2002). P-O fit is the compatibility between the person and the

entire organisation, whereby one entity will provide what the other needs or at least share

similar fundamental characteristics (Kristof, 1996; Sekiguchi, 2007). P-O fit has been defined

in several ways, such as value congruence (OReilly et al., 1991), goal congruence (Vancouver

et al., 1994), and needs-supplies and demands-abilities (Edwards, 1991), as well as personality-

climate fit (Ryan and Schmit, 1996). Due to its multiple conceptualizations and

operationalizations, Rynes and Gerhart (1990) described the P-O fit concept as elusive. In this

paper, we refer to P-O fit as an elusive concept and a psychological construct simply because

tacit knowledge is also an elusive concept.

The concept of PO fit is crucial to organizations because it suggests that if people fit well with

an organization, they are likely to exhibit more positive attitudes and behaviours. P-O

congruence has been described as the degree to which persons and their work environments are

said to be congruent. People are likely to be satisfied and encouraged by the behaviours, values,

and attitudes that are similar to their work environments and become dissatisfied when

dissimilarities occur. This has lead to a shift in the way organisations choose their employees

from the traditional KSA (knowledge, skills and ability) to suit the job, towards organisations

selecting employees whose work values is compatible with organisations culture, norms and


9/18

values (Morley, 2007). These studies suggest that compatibility of the person to the job,

organisation or the environment is important in making the employee feel comfortable in the

workplace and at the same time encourages employee willingly contribute and be committed to

the organisation. Good P-O fit leads to increase in comfort and informality and makes

communication easier among employees.

6. PERSON ORGANIZATION FIT AND KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

Throughout the studies done on organizational knowledge management it is seen that a

common theme persists: interaction between people is vitally important to the transfer of tacit

knowledge. The three stages of the SECI model (i.e socialization, externalization, and

internalization) involve tacit knowledge as it is difficult to share, express, codify and transfer.

For these reasons, it can be suggested that the most effective way of learning tacit knowledge is

through personal contact and discussions (Pavitt, 1991). Sobol and Lei (1994) also suggested

that learning tacit knowledge and routines requires continuous day-to-day contact with the

person, team or organization possessing such knowledge through an apprentice-like

relationship where the routines are directly observed and practiced. For knowledge exchange

of this kind, therefore, there needs to be strong personal connections, a high degree of cognitive

interdependence among participants and shared sense of identity and belongingness with ones

colleagues and the existence of cooperative relationships (Bate & Robert, 2002).

P-O fit determines the relationship between people and organization and this relationship varies

across various dimensions, including intensity of connection, communication or contact

frequency, and social similarity. Each dimension of the relationship can impact the knowledge

management process. This has been studied by various researchers using the concept of dyadic

approach. Research characteristic of the dyadic approach has been primarily directed at

understanding how the closeness or strength of a relationship between two parties is related to

the effectiveness of knowledge transfer. These studies focused on the importance of direct

relationships for effective knowledge transfer. For example, Uzzi and Lancaster (2003) focused

on the strength of connection between a loan officer and an entrepreneur, while Song, Almeida,

and Wu (2003) focused on the similarity between scientists. Uzzis (1997) ethnographic study

revealed that strong ties develop relationship specific heuristics that ease the transfer of

knowledge. Similarly, Hansens (1999) study of product development teams indicated that


10/18

strong ties are conducive to the transfer of complex knowledge, while weak ties aid in the

search for new knowledge. The key outcome was that the knowledge transfer and the predictor

of successful transfer were dependent upon quality of the dyadic relationship. Based on this

notion, we argue that good person organization (P-O) fit can help in transfer of tacit

knowledge.

P-O fit emphasises the importance of compatibility between the employee and work as well as

creating an organisational identity (Werbel and DeMarie, 2005). Furthermore, the type of

people that are attracted to the organisation, selected and hired, will affect the psychological

contract between the employees and the organisation (Sekiguchi, 2007). This psychological

contract is the tacit exchange between the employee and the organisation in terms of the nature

of work that is being done by the employee. This contract can affect the knowledge sharing

capabilities within the organisation as it can either encourage or discourage the employee to

share information with their peers (Finnegan and Willcocks, 2006). A high level of PO fit is

supposed to contribute to a good long-term relationship between employees and the

organisations because the congruence and similarity of goals and values increase the mutual

understanding and trust between the two parties (Sekiguchi, 2007). This mutual understanding

and trust in return helps in transfer and sharing of knowledge.

Anand et al (2007) cited in Han et al (2010) argues that for the success of the organization, it

must be ensured that persons share tacit knowledge with each other. On the basis of previous

research studies, Han et al (2010) argued that employees with sense of psychological

ownership usually have altruistic spirit which is an important antecedent of knowledge sharing

attitude and psychological ownership is a result of P-O fit. As sharing of knowledge is a

prerequisite for organizational effectiveness (Anand et al, 2007) organizations should facilitate

knowledge sharing through provision of appropriate communication channels and motivation

of employees and above all if there is person organization fit, sharing of knowledge would be

maximum. Muthusamy (2009) proved that P-O fit correlate positively with knowledge sharing

factors. Data analysis reveals that employees with high level of Person Organization Fit are

more likely to share knowledge with their colleagues.

Bringing these characteristics of tacit knowledge together with the concept of person-

organization fit it is suggested that where there are high levels of PO fit, tacit knowledge is


11/18

more likely to be transferred more easily. Thus this analysis of relationship between P-O fit and

knowledge management leads to following propositions:

P1: Higher level of person organization fit leads to higher level of knowledge management.

P2: Lower level of person organization fit leads to lower level of knowledge management.

The two propositions can be depicted in a model as shown in Figure 2. The model suggests that

greater emphasis on the levels of person - organization fit lead to higher levels of knowledge

management.

Figure 2: Proposed model on P-O fit and Knowledge Management

7. IMPLICATIONS

This study establishes a strong link between person-organization fit and knowledge

management. As knowledge transfer, capture and dissemination and organisational knowledge

are considered as key elements of knowledge and knowledge management (McAdam and Reid,2000), therefore, the organizations would have to be determined to acquire, create, develop and

Organizational

Characteristics:

Values

Norms

(concreteness,

strength, content)

Knowledge

Acquisition

Knowledge

Managemen

t

Person

Organization

Fit

Knowledge

Sharing

Personal

Characteristics:

Values

(Emphasized

content)

Knowledge

Application


12/18

share new knowledge among their own employees in order to improve the knowledge already

available in the organisation (Labich and Graves, 1993; Maccoby, 1996; Stewart and Curry,

1997). Employees whose values goals and norms match with that of their respective

organizations feel more comfortable in the workplace and have the tendency of being more

committed to their job. Thus these employees are willing to learn more, do more and share

more information with their colleagues. This result in increase of knowledge base, as well as it

improves the service quality of the organisation. Therefore we believe that if there is good P-O

fit within the organisation, managing the knowledge of these employees would be easier as

they would be more willing to participate in the KM processes within the organisation. The

proposed model serves as an important framework for researchers and practitioners to

understand the impact of person-organization fit on the firms level of knowledge management.

8. CONCLUSION

Managing the creation and sharing tacit knowledge has been a challenge to organizations. This

article attempts to highlight the importance of P-O fit in knowledge management. Our research

model demonstrates the association between the P-O fit and an effective knowledge

management. The proposed framework is valuable to practitioners and managers so that they

can be well-prepared in the efforts of improving the firms knowledge management processes.

It is also suggested that this framework to be examined through empirical data so that its

findings can provide more insights and deeper understanding in examining the relationship

between P-O fit and knowledge management.

REFERENCES

Anand, N., Gardner, H. K, & Morris, T. (2007). Knowledge-based Innovation:

Emergence and embedding of new practice areas in management consulting firms.

Academy of Management Journal, 50, 406428.

Badaracco, J.L. (1991). The knowledge link. Harvard Business School Press: Boston.


13/18

Birkinshaw, J., Nobel, R. & Ridderstrale, J. (2002). Knowledge as a contingent

variable: Do the characteristics of knowledge predict the organizational structure?

Organization Science, 13, 274289.

Bretz, R.D., & Judge, T.A. (1994). Person-organization fit and the theory of work

adjustment: Implications for satisfaction, tenure and career success. Journal of

Vocational Behavior, 44, 32-54.

Brown, J.S., & Duguid, P. (1998). Organizing Knowledge. California Management

Review, 40(3), 90-111.

Burton, R. M., Lauridsen, J., & Obel, B. (2002). Return on assets loss from situational

and contingency misfits.Management Science, 48, 14611485.

Cepeda-Carrion, G. (2006). Competitive advantage of knowledge management. In

Encyclopedia of Knowledge Management: Idea Group Inc.

Chatman, J. (1988). Matching people and organizations: Selection and socialization in

public accounting firms. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California,

Berkeley.

Chatman, J.A. (1991). Matching people and organizations: selection and socialization

in public accounting firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 14, 459-84.

Chen, A.N.K., & Edgington, T. M. (2005). Assessing value in organisational

knowledge creation: Considerations for knowledge workers.MIS Quarterly, 29(2), 279-

299.

Choi, B. & Lee, H. (2003). An empirical investigation of KM styles and their effect on

corporate performance.Information & Management, 40(5), 403-417.

Chong, C.W., Holden, T, Wilhelmij, P., & Schmidt, R.A. (2000). Where does

knowledge management add value?Journal of Intellectual Capital, 1(4), 366-380.


14/18

Davenport, T.H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge. Harvard Business School

Press: Boston.

Edvardsson, I.R. (2006). Knowledge management and SMEs: The case of Icelandic

firms.Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 4(4), 275-282.

Edwards, J.R. (1991). Person-job fit: A conceptual integration, literature review and

methodological critique.International Review of Industrial Organizational Psychology,

6, 283-357.

Finnegan, D., & Willcocks, L. (2006). Knowledge sharing issues in the introduction of

a new technology. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 19(6), 568-590.

Grant, R.M. (1996). Towards a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic

Management Journal, 17(10), 109-122.

Han, T. Chiang, H. & Chang, A. (2010). Employee participation in decision-making,

psychological ownership and knowledge sharing; mediating role of organizational

commitment in Taiwanses high tech organizations: The International journal of Human

Resource Management, 21(12), 22182233.

Hansen, M. T. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing

knowledge across organization subunits.Administrative Science Quarterly, 44 (1), 82-

112.

Hoffman, J.B. & Woehr, J.D. (2005). A quantitative review of the relationship between

person-organization fit and behavioral outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68,

389-99.

Jashapara, A. (2003). Cognition, culture and competition: An empirical test of the

learning organization. The Learning Organization, 10(1), 31-50.

Keskin, H. (2005). The Relationships between explicit and tacit oriented KM strategy

and firm performance.Journal of American Academy of Business, 7(1), 169-176.

Kristof, A.L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of itsconceptualization, measurement and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49, 1-49.


15/18

Labich, K., & Graves, J.M. (1993). The best cities for knowledge workers. Fortune,

128(12), 50.

Lang, J.C. (2001). Managerial concerns in knowledge management. Journal of

Knowledge Mangement, 5(1), 43-59.

Lopez, S.V. (2005). Competitive advantage and strategy formation: The key role of

dynamic capabilities.Management Decision, 43(5), 661-669.

Lubit, R. (2001). Tacit knowledge and knowledge management: The keys to sustainable

competitive advantage. Organizational Dynamics, 29 (4), 164178.

Maccoby, M. (1996). Knowledge workers need new structures, Research Technology

Management, 39(1), 56.

McAdam, R. & Reid, R. (2000). A comparison of public and private sector perceptions

and use knowledge management.Journal of European Industrial Training, 24(6), 317-

329.

Morley, M. (2007). Person-organization fit. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(2),

109-117.

Muthusamy, V. (2009). Affective commitment, personorganization fit and turnover

intention: Examining the effect of knowledge sharing. California Management Review,

76, 2230-2247.

Nadler, J., Thompson, L., & Van Boven, L. (2003). Learning negotiation skills: Four

models of knowledge creation and transfer.ManagementScience, 49(4), 529540.

Newell, S., Robertson, M., Scarborough, H. & Swan, J. (2002).Managing knowledge

work. Palgrave.

Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation.

Organizational Science, 5 (1), 14-37.


16/18

Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese

companies create the dynamics of innovation. London: Oxford University Press.

OReilly, C.A., & Chatman, J. (1986). Organization commitment and psychological

attachment: The effects of compliance, identification and internalization on prosocial

behaviour.Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 492-9.

OReilly, C.A., Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D.F. (1991). People and organizational

culture: A profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. Academy

of Management Journal, 34, 487-516.

Pavitt, K. (1991). Key characteristics of the large innovating firm. British Journal of

Management, (2), 41-50.

Petersen, N.J., & Poulfelt, F. (2002). Knowledge management in action: A study of

knowledge management in management consultancies. Working Paper 1-2002,

Copenhagen Business School, Copenhagen.

Pfeffer, J. (1994). Competitive advantage through people. Boston: Harvard Business

School Press.

Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. Doubleday & co.: New York.

Rowley, J. (1999). What is knowledge management?Library Management, 20(8), 416-

419.

Ryan, A.M., & Schmit, M.J. (1996). An assessment of organizational climate and P-E

fit: A tool for organizational change. The International Journal of Organizational

Analysis, 4(1), 75-95.

Rynes, S.L. & Gerhart, B. (1990). Interviewer assessment of applicant fit: An

exploratory investigation.Personnel Psychology, 43, 13-35.


17/18

Sekiguchi, T. (2007). A contingency perspective of the importance of PJ fit and PO fit

in employee selection.Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(2), 118-131.

Sobol, M.G. & Lei, D. (1994). Environment, manufacturing technology and embedded

knowledge.International Journal of Human Factors in Manufacturing, 4 (2), 167-189.

Song, J., P. & Almeida, G. (2003). Learning by hiring: When is mobility more likely to

facilitate interfirm knowledge transfer?Management Science, 49(4), 351365.

Shanks, G. & Tay, E. (2001). The Role of Knowledge Management in Moving to a

Customer Focused Organization. Moderna organisacija (Kranj): Slovenia.

Stewart, T.A., & Curry, S.R. (1997). Yikes! Deadwood is creeping back, Fortune,

136(4), 221.

Uzzi, B. (1997). Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of

embeddedness.Administration Science Quarterly, 42, 3567.

Uzzi, B., & Lancaster, R. (2003). The role of relationships in interfirm knowledge

transfer and learning: The case of corporate debt markets.Management Science, 49(4),

383399.

Vancouver, J.B., Millsap, R., & Peters, P.A. (1994). Multilevel analysis of

organizational goal congruence.Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 666-79.

Werbel, J. D. & DeMarie, S. M. (2005). Aligning strategic human resourcemanagement and person-environment fit.Human Resource Management Review, 15(2),

247-262.

Wikstrm, S., & Normann, R. (1994). Knowledge and value: A new perspective on

corporate transformation. Routledge: London.

World Bank. (1998). What is knowledge management? A background to the WorldDevelopment Report. Washington, DC: World Bank.


18/18

research paper - po fit and km

Documents