toward developing human resource management …

TOWARD DEVELOPING HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS FOR KNOWLEDGE-INTENSIVE TEAMWORK

Susan E. Jackson, Chih-Hsun Chuang,

Erika E. Harden and Yuan Jiang

ABSTRACT

/cJrlirlll ark (KIT~i .ork) r , t r r r hr it so11 r.r,r oj'susinitir'd ro)ilperiiice adrur~ru!+' to1 JI~.ilrs ihui pra.sue a ~:ur . i r f~ . ~ ~ ~ . T I I . I I I P J ~ I ~ ~ S utld C ' ~ I J I J I P I ~ in a crnicr)~ o j

inriit.rrries. KIT11.ork is n t~l~rlii-rli~~~en.ri(~~~~~I, ~~r~llfi-ler!el so('io1 process lhui pronlores knoli./edig!lr ,flnrt.s n-irhin o~id heicr~en o,:qani:arions. Tlrrol/gh K1T11,or.k. rhih kno~l~fcciqe r.rso1rr-r.r.v i~diridi~crl nnplnl+rrs are t~.urrsforr~~erl rlllo o c .~~pahi l i r~ . #ha/ ror?iribtr~rs lo the qffecrii:r/less of li17011./e(ig~- Ar7srll or.grrni:nrions .4firr i)rirori~rc.irrg rmti r.vpi~ir~irrg the rn)lc.epr oj' K l T ~ i ~ o l - k , r1.e e . ~ p t o r ~ ilrtl rlrol1enge.r rl~ar or!junrzurions must i7ifdr~ss 117 d r i i ~ r !(I d~s ig)? H R k l S I . S I P ~ J T S i110f s i ~ p p o r ~ U I I ~ furili?~~ i~

K l T ~ ~ ~ o r ~ k

Research in Personnel and Human Resources Ylanagement, t'nlume 15,17-70 Cnp?ripht , ( - 2006 by Elsprier Ltd. 411 rights of reproduction in an? form rewrwd I S S V 0742-7301/doi:10.101 b/~741-7301(06)2fr02-3

SUSAN E. JACKSON ET AL.

INTRODUCTION

The competitive landscape of the twenty-first century features challenges firms to continually change and adapt to myriad external form, including global- ization, new technologies, new rivals, and unpredictable and ever-changmg political condit~ons. Firms can s u m d in this environment by pursuing a variety of competitive strategies. For example, they can seek to create unique new prducts, produce the highest quality products, offer services at very low cost, build unsurpassable brand loyalty, and so on (e.g., see Campbell-Hunt, 2000; Desarbo. Di Benedetto, Song, & Sinha, 2005; Dess, Lumpkin, Br Covin, 1997). To successfully implement these various strategies, firms must build strategic capabilities (systems and processes), which the firm uses lo transform its resourms and create value.

Of the many strategic capabilities that a firm might use to successfuily implement its competitive strategy, the development of systems and prwesses for managing knowledge-based resources has been recognized as among the most important for creating a sustainable competitive advantage. Indeed, sclrne scholars have argued that the need to effectively manage knowledge- based resources - e.p., skilIs, abilities, expertise, and learning, capacity - is a priority that transcends a firm's choicc of competitive strategy (e.g., see Grant, 1996; Nonaka, 1994; DeCarolis 8r Deeds. 1999). In this paper. we argue that systems of human resource management

(HRM) practices can be powerful tools for improving the effectiveness of organizations that compete on the basis of knowledge. Building on prior work, we integrate concepts from the resource-based view, the knowledge- based view. and complex system theory to argue that knowledge-intensive teamwork (KITwork) is a capability that organizations can use to leverage the knowledge of employees and gain competi~ive advantage. After in tro- ducing and defining the construct of KITwork, we briefly explain our ration- ale for asserting that a broad range of organizations can use a KITwork capability lo create value. Finally. we discuss several issues that organizations must address as they seek to develop HRM systems that facilitate KITwork. and through this suggest new directions for future research.

WHAT 1s KNOWLEDGE-INTENSIVE TEAMWORK?

Annwledg~-in~~nsivpve teumwork refers to the collaborative process through which people use their unique and their shared knowledge to achieve a

comrnon outcome. KITwork can descrihe the activities of traditional work teams as well as activities that occur wrth~n communities of practice. task forces. consortia. join1 vcniures. and so on. In fact. KITwork occurs in mdny forms throughout firms that deploy knowiedge tcr create market value (e.?.. see Swart & Kinnie. 1003). Here. we explain the consrruct of KITwork in some detail.

Dictionary definitions of knowledge include phrases such as hure direct royi?itio~r of: hurr r7 yr-or~ir,rr/ irrzclur-srm~rlirrg oj: and have r - ~ p ~ r i e n c e u.irh. Wbereas informalion is primarily descriptive and somewhat objective. knwledge is anchored in experience and more subjective. Individuals hold and create ktlowlrdgr ns [hey identify problems and work through solutions lo 11iose problems. Cons~steut with other scholars working 01-t issues of k n o ~ ledge management. wr use the term k~rni~~l t~dqe to refer to a person's subjjrcrively constructed view or information, which accrues as a result 01' 12t~rili~lg ~Iirou_ph action and reflec~s the justified beliefs and commitments at' its holder (see Nonaka. To!,ama. & Byosiere. 2003).

We constdcr knowledge to be. fundamentally. an ind~vidual-level construct. WIlen 11~17 o r Inore j~~dividuals interact to move and transform knowledze. they are engaging in the knowledge-centered activities that corn- prise KlTwork.

We assutnr that KITwork is one of the central processes through which orgnri izations transfclrm the knon:led?e held h! individuals into somethine of value to the organizations. Organizations create value from the knowledge of individuals w h e n the! develop or adopt or_eanizational processes and routines that reflect and incorporate individual knowledge. For example, quality circles are a lechnique for ensuring that the knowledge held hy individual production workers is [ransferred to the orpan~zation by using it to improve product~on processes. Quality circles a re one example of KITwork.

TP~III~~~'oJ%. refers 10 rhe activ~ties of a Sroup of people work~ng toward a shared objective that requires conimunication. collaboration, and coordination; i t is a process that involves internclipn between people who share some common in teres~s. Although teamnoi-k is closely related to the

30 SUSA' E. JACKSON ET AL.

concept of'a team, the two terms are not interchangeable. Teams are just one of several vehicles that organizations use to promote interdependence (Campion, Medsker, & Higgs, 1993). Shared tasks, shared goals, and shared outcomes can all foster repeated interactions among pople in an organization, even when they are not members of a designated team or other clearly defined stable work unit (cf., Gully, Incalcaterra, loshi, & Beaubien, 2002; Saavcdra. Earley, & Van Dyne, 1993; Shea & Gum. 1987). In many in- stances, interdependent employees are more accurately descriherl as participants in a network of collaboration. For some of the collaborators, a given project may be their only responsibility, requiring 100 percent of their time and effort. For others, that same project may be one of several responsi- bilities. Our use of the term "teamwork" is intended to acknnwledge and include the many forms of interdependence found in modern organizations.

Knowledge-Cenrered Activities

KlTwork does not denote a distinct category of teamwork. Some collaborators engage in relatively little KITwork. and others engage in a great deal of it. What differentiates KlTwark from other types of coIlaboration and teamwork is the extent to which knowledge-centered activities dominate the interactions. Knowledge-cenlered activities include the following: knowledge acquisition, knowIedge sharing, knowledge combination. knowledge crea~ion, knowledge application, and knowledge revision. Auto manufacturing teams, construction crews, sports teams, and musical orchestras all involve teamwork. but the importance of knowledge-centered activiries is fairly low for these tasks. By comparison, KITwork is central to sc~entists and engineers engaged in new product development, experts from various backgrounds who work together to service customer-focused accounts, multi-functional sales teams, managers charged with planning and imple- menting a merger, and so on.

As we describe knowledge-centered activities in more detail, below, not& thar these activities can characterize interactions among individuals as well as jnterac~ions at higher levels of analysis. We address the levels-of-analysis issue later in the paper

Knowledge Acquisition Knowledge acquisition includes locating knowledge and incorporating it into one's own repertore. It occurs when an individual, group, or organization gains explicit or tacit knowledge it did not previously have.

Sooal uoliectives such as teams. coinnlunities of practice. and organizations ~heleafter referred to sirliply as "cnlicct~tzs") acquire knowledge by reading. Ilstening. observing. ~m~tdt inp. trial-and-error learning, and so on. Collrctites acquire knowledge 10 the extent that their members engage in these behaviors.

Collectives can also acquire knowledge by acquiring new members. Groups can acquire knowledge by rnvolving new people in their collaboration. leverag~n_e their tles to other orgau~zationaI units (Hansen. 1999), and drawing 011 experts who reside beyond ~fi-e boundaries (Bouty. 2000). Communit~es of practice can acqulre knowled_ee by expanding their memberships. Firms can acquire knowledge h: buying other firms and fvrming 51 ra tegic alliances. as hell as by recrui ling new e~nployees (see Deeds. 2003. for an extended d~scuss~on)

Knoi I IocJ~re Sl;ar.it~r! Kt~o~vleilge sharing refers to acli\;ities aimed a1 t rans~n~t t ing knowledge to others. TransTerring knowledp from an illdividuzll to other parts of the organization can contribute to he orsanization's performance. However. trar~sicrfihil~ t y of knowled_ee also can threaten competitiveness. for the issue of knowledge inimitability lies nl the heart of the a ~ ~ a l y s i s of competitive advantage and i l s sustainab~i~ty (Spender & Grant, 1996). A challenge for orean~zat io~ls is der iv~~rg competitive advautage from ~ n ~ e r n a l knowledge transfers, while preventing knowledge from leaking oul to their competitors ( . 4 t p t e & Ingram. 2000).

.Al~hc~_eh knowledge acquisition and knowledge sharing are closely related. thcy are not merely opposite views of the same process. Indeed. one approach to gaining a co~npetitive advantage tnay l>e to maximize knowledge acquisition ivhile minirniz~ng knowledye shnt-ing. In international joint venturra, for exaniple. a firrn's ability to keep an appropriate balance between its own knowledge acqu~s~t ion (e.g.. a n improved understanding of the market) and knowled_ge sharins (e.g.. technological and management know-how) can be a major determinant of success (Tsilng. 2002).

The imporrance of knowledge shar~ng hns been stressed in many discus- 5ions of knowledge-based competit~on and innovation (e.g.. H a r p d o n & Sut~on . 2000). O n e benefit of effecli~e knowledge sharing is efficiency. N o individual knows everything. hnd 110 itld~vidual can keep up with all of the relevan1 new knowledge coi~tinually beins created. Knowledge sharing among eniployees conserves resources and frees up time for people to ac- tuaI11; use the k n o i r l z d ~ r they have. Moreover. knowled_ge sharing promotes knon ledpe appl~cat~on. . 4 5 e~nployees attemp1 to share knowledge. thev are

32 SUSAN E. JACKSON ET AL.

forced to articulate what they know; this makes it possible to evaluate the knowledge and apply it to solve problems or create new products w o n Krogh. Ichijo, & Nonaka, 2000).

Knowledge Combination Combination refers to the process of ta) bringng together elements that previously were unconnected, or (b) bringing together in new ways elements that previously were associated (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). That is, knowledge combination involves bringing together and perhaps merging bits of knowledge that previously were considered separate and perhaps were viewed as unrelated.

Reaping the anticipated benefits of knowledge combination is orten a major reason for using teamwork in organizations. For example, a consumer products company might charge a group of employees to combine the firm's knowledge about its consumer markets with knowledge about its work force and the labor market to develop a new marketing and sales strategy. Teamwork may also be motivated by the belief that knowledge combination is likely to result in knowledge creation. As individuals or work units with different knowledge stocks collaborate, the continual (rekombi- nation of their knowledge serves as the basis for incremental change woe. Colquitt, Simmering, & Alvarez, 2003), and occasionally it leads to significant new ideas, products, or procedures. For example, at Gillette, representatives with various areas of expertise formed a cross-functional team, where they combined their tacit knowledge to invent the first battery- operated razor.

Knowledge Creation Knowledge creation involves producing knowledge that is new, or that is considered new by those using it. Ideas are considered creative if they are novel and have potential usefulness to the organization's growth or effectiveness (Amabile, Conti, Coon. Lazenby, & Herron, 1996; Oldham, 2003). Likewise, knowledge creation occurs when something new is discovered or brought in to existence. Generally, knowledge creation requires the acquisition and combination of existing knowledge (Kogut & Zandcr, 1992).

The creation of new knowledge usually starts from an idea (or ideas) generated by one or more individuals. Most creative ideas do not contribute to an organization's success unless they are available to others in the organization (Oldham, 2003). Bringing together individuals facilitates the combining of ideas that leads lo the creation of new knowledge. Until it becomes widely available, new knowledge is rare and unique. By having

exclusive access t o such knou,led_ge (and being able to use it effectively), firms can gain a competit~ve ildvantage (Barney. 19Bh).

Kno li*I~dge Al~p/ii.irfinn Knowledge applizdtion refers to the use ofesisrins kllowledge for a specific. pracrical purpose. Applying existing k~~owledge to the production of goods and services is a primary responsibil~ty of firnis (Grant. 1996). Appropriate 3 nd profitable use of k nclwlrdse requires recognizing when the knowledge is relevant and then making decisions, s o l v i ~ ~ g problems. designing new products. ~nlprovin_g current procedures. and so on. ,4ppIying knowledge to new tasks and In new situations increases the return on investments that were made 10 sail1 that knowledge. Applying knowledge also accelerates the process of knowledge articulation. which m a y reveal more opportunilies foi- application of the knowled_ge (Chakravarthy. McEvily. Doz, & Rau, 20033.

Until i t is applied, knowledee 1s of little value to a firm. yet research shows that people often Tail to apply their knowledge to problems they Fdcc (Thompson. Levine. & Messick. 1999). H R practices such as one-on-one coach~ng. use of realistic trainins simulations, and r l e c t r o ~ ~ i c knowledge directr>ries may influence llle extent lo \~h lc l i employees are able to apply what they know to the work situations they experience (e.g.. see Noe et al., 2002).

Knni rbledgr Rer.ision Knoxvledge revision occurs rr hen existing knowledge I S updated, rsvalidated, o r retired. In I-apidly changing environments. knowledge quickly becomes obsole~e so continuous updating i s essential. Failure to update and reval- id;rte knowledge may result in rel~ance on knowledge that has decayed and outlived its usefulness (Davis. 1998 j. Failnre to discard useless knowledge leads to knowledse overload nnd ohstructs an organization's ability to act 017 new informa tion (-4nand. Manz. & Glick. 1998). Failure to discard en- trenched dominant iogics i s one of the main reasons orgai~izations fail to respond to chan_ezs in their environment (Bettis. 1991: Miller, 1994). In efft .c~~\-e organizat ia~~s . forget tin? poes hand-in-hand with knowledge 3cq11isiiion and creation (Martin de Holau & Phillips. 2003- 2004).

Following from the above discussion. we use kt~o~~.led~l~-i~~!ensive temn~vnlk to describe people collaboratinp on tasks thal involve knowledge-centered

34 SUSAN E . JACKSON ET AL.

activities - that is, activities related to acquirjng, sharing, combining, creating. applying, and revising knowledge. Brainstorming processes illustrate the type of interactions comprising KITwork. In their study of a product development firm's brainstorming activities, Sucton and Hargadon (1 996) found that complex problems were addressed by engaging numerous people in the process. The solutions that were eventually developed were born of teamwork; they were not simply the ideas offered by a particular individual. Across a wide variety of E m s pursuing various strateges, examples of the importance of KlTwork abound. Here we offer just a few exampks to illustrate the role of KlTwork in a varicty of companies and industries.

Wal-Mar1 The importance of information management at Wal-Mart is well-known, but some people may be surprised that KITwork plays a role in Wal-Mart's bid lo be the lowest-cost provider of just about everything. Effectively im- plementing a cost leadership strategy typically requires unyielding pursuit of cost reductions and minimal investment in basic research or new product development (Miles & Snow, 1984; Miller, 1986; Porter, 1980). Wal-Mart and other firms pursuing cost leadership strategies knefit from knowledge that contributes to continual cost reductions. Wal-Mart's innovative and highly developed ~ a d i o frequency identification (RFID) system eliminates the need for line-of-sight a m s s to conventional bar codes. It speeds the movement of goods through the supply chain. improves inventory management. and ultimately reduces labor costs.

A knowledge-intensive development team directly contributed to I he creation of Wal-Mart's RFID system, and KITwork has been at the hear1 of the firm's efforts to leverage the system. As data from the RFID began to flow into the firm. Wal-Mart's IT directors donated staff members to a seven-month project to determine the best use of the information being captured. Wal-Mart also supports knowledge-intensive collaborations with suppliers and competitors in an effort to ensure ihat a single RFID technology emerges as the agreed-upon platform for the entire industry (eWeek, 2004; Manufacturing Business Technology, 2005).

Bang & Olufsen At Bang & Olufsen, providing high-quality products takes priority over reducing costs. KITwork plays a significant role in Bang & Olufsen's ability to develop high-end home electronics. Product development occurs in a team consisting of a team leader, a desjpnec, a psychologjst, a member from "Idealand," a software developer, a narrator, and an integrator. Each

meruber brirlgs un unique perspective and n disrinct functional expertise to the cndeavol-. The team lender's ~.olc is to be a product champion. The leader ensures that key c o ~ l s t i ~ uents in the organization (concept manager. tech- uical product man;tgel.. eto.) are in iigreement ;itlo~~t the worrh of the product being developed and that the product I S in Iine \vith the organization's slrateg): and object~ves. Ultimatcl>. the synthesis of team members' diverse perspectives and knowlrd_ee results in l t ~ c production of technical products that ddvance the field 11) design. sound, plcture. user inleraction. and sound inte~rat ion (Baerentsen 8: Slaveusky. 1999)

Gillerir A s i t pursues a strategy of dlfferentintion. Gillette relies heavily on inno- ~ a l i o n . The company's battery-aperated M3Power razor captured 35 per- CCII~ of the United Strltes razor market in seven months. despite costing 50 percent more than the company's previous high-end razor. The product was created by ;l cross-functional team that included representatives from three of Proctor & G;i~nblc's brands: Gillette (who understood razors). Duracel! Biittery (who uilderstood battery operated products). and Braun !it.hc~ ~uuderstood small iipl.7Iio 11ces). By 11-ansferring and combining tacit knowledge from each briii!d. the team created the first battery-operated razor (Byrnes. Berner. Ztllcr. & Symonds. 2005).

Ror.11~ Grorr;~ P11orin;:ceutical and healtllcare fil.111~ provide some of the 111ost familiar euarnples o f KITwoi-k. Roche's pha~maceutical division discovers and de- vtlops snedicii~es targrted to treat and monitor diseases in all major theiAiipeutic areas. Inno\ation i s essential to the firm's survival. As medi- cines come off paLents r i ~ ~ d reach maturity. new products must be 'intro- duced ro offset declining sit le~. As of 2005. a significant portion of Roche's produc~s had reached maturiry. To offset declining sales. Roche was expected to introduce seven new med~cines within rhrAee years (Datamonitor. 7005). To speed up its new product developlnenl professes, Roche dis- mantled its highly competitive departmental leilms and moved toward greater relia~ice on KlTu-ork. They started with "corridor meetinss" between tmployees t'rom genornics and oncolo_ey and then expanded to include collnhor;~lors from uumerous countries and various educational hnck- _r~,ounds. Althougl~ the diuersity added new challenges. team members found i V i t y s bridge the gapr ; ~ n d capitalize on each person's expertise (Anders. 2002\.


KITWORK AS A SOURCE OF COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE

The resource-based view of the firm asserts that resources and capabilities become sources of sustainable competitive advantage when they are rare, valuable, hard to imitate, and difficult to replace with substitutes (Barney, 1991). KITwclrk is a capability that enables firms to effectively use knowledge resources to design, produce. distribute, and sell goods and senices (cf.. Grant, 1996). Whereas some capabilities are particularly relevant to specific competitive strategies, knowledge-based capabilities like KlTwork have broader relevance to firms. Low-cost providers like Wal-Mart. hgh- quality providers like Bang & Olufsen. and innovators like Gillette and Rmhe all use KITwork to meet the challenges of competition in their markets.

Complex systems theory provides a perspective for understanding how particular resources and capabilities contribute to a sustainable cornpet itive advantage (Colbert, 2004); it views organizations as creative and adapt- able entities characterized by self-organization and partially random change (Colbert, 2004). Like other complex systems, organizations evolve as the result of repeated interactions among their elements. Over time, the consistent structures, patterns, and properties that emerge define the system. Because the emergent features of a system arise out of a partially random process, they tend to be both unique and difficult for others to imitate. KITwork i s an example of a process that brings elements of a system into repa ted con tact and creates partiany random change.

KITwork adds Value

For complex organizations, KITwork is the primary vehicle for knowledge creation and iearning, which are needed to solve problems and perfom effectively in rapidly changing competitive environments (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Takeuchi & Nonaka, 1986). As a collaborative process, KITwork is likely 10 add value by contributing ro faster product development (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1995; Hoepl, Weinkauf, & Gernuenden. 2004), more successful marketing (Milison & Wjlemon, 2002), better relationships with customers and suppliers, and the ability to reorganize as needed.

A recent study of top management teams and knowledge workers provides support for our argoment that knowledge-based activities are central to creating outcomes such as these. Data from a sample of top management teams and knowledge workers revealed that knowledge creation was a

function of the knowledge of employees. heir net works. and their organiza~~o l l ' s climate for teamwork and risk-iiiking (Smith. Collins. & Clark. 2005 I .

Employees engaged in KITwork proniote An c.rgan~zation's adaptive responses to the external environment and ooiitr~bule to its long-term survival. Throush KITwork activities. organizat~onal members cross internal and ex~ernal oreanization boundaries, making them more permeable and thereby reducing organizational rigidiiy. Thus. a study of 234 manufacturers round t h a ~ lnfvrrnation sharing between a firm a ~ l d its suppliers was an effective Incans for develop~ng the management capabil~ties needed to implement r-1 qualily-driven differentiation strategy (McEvily & Marcus. 2005). At the same timc. KITwork broadens the knowledge and ski11 sets of orpa- nizationill mem hers. which in~provzs individual versatility and prov~des a found:r~lon for ilidividual adaptive behavior.

E[/rr,rir*r KITivork is Rare

Besides adding value, we believe that KITwork capabilities are somewhat rare -- at least they are rare a? this point in time. Many firms, ma) rea!izc the potential value of effective KlTwork. and some are experimenting wich using it to i111prove their performance. Nevertheless, relatively few firnls have developed maua_gement practices hat fully support KITwork as a means to leverage knowledge resourcrs. so heterogeneity is present among firms. As K1Tl-r-ol-k become\ more prevalent and ou r understanding of it improves. new techniques for n~~~ni~_ein_g i t - including new H R practices or spleins - mav be developed < ~ n d widely ~n~plemenled. Currently. however, rhis is no1 the s~tuarion. Indeed. our revie~v of the academic literature suggests 111,lt HUM scho1al.s know relatively little about how H R practices ciln best be used to promote effective KITwork.

A t h i t - ~ l cotidition for IilTwork to be a source or sus~ained competitive advantage is inimitability. Complex behavioral sqstems wirhin organizations often Ineet this criterion because they are difficult for other firms to observe. and even ]nore difficult to replicate (Kozlo~vski & Bell. 2003). KITwork e~ tab l i s l~es a network of intra- and inter-orpanizat~on linkages and com- municarion paths (Hsnsen. 1999: Bou!?. 2000). It i s inherently complex and chnr;1cteri7.ed bc dise~luilihrrum. path dependency. and causal ambiguity.


As knowledge moves through a network of collaborators, the organizational system becomes more dynamic and moves further away from equilibrium. Strong norms and a culture that supports cooperation and trust help govern such dynamic systems and prevent them from tipping into chaos. The development of these norms and culrure takes time and depends on the unique history of the organization.

Whether employees are involved in the creative process of brainsromiing, acquiring knowledge. sharing knowledge, applying what they know to new problems, or debating what they know, KlTwork requires repeated trans- action-specific interactions. These repeated interactions strengthen the organization's connective social tissue. Over time. unique cultures and norms that are rooted in the organization's particular history develop; these are impossible for competitors to replicate.

Therc are no Suh~titurc~s for KITwork

Finally, to be a source of sustained competitive advantage KlTwork must no1 have substitutes. Competitors must not be able to implement their strategies and create the value added through KITwork using other means (Barney, 1991 ). Even if KITwork is valuable, rare, and inimitable, to the extenl that it can be substituted, it is not a source of sustained competitive advantage. Although it may be possible to conceive of substitutes for KITwork, we believe that the knowledge-centered activities that comprise KITwork are essential to effective knowledge-based competition.

To summarize. KITwork is a capability that serves as a source of sustained competitive advantage for firms pursuing a variety of different competitive strategies. It is a complex and somewhat unpredictable social process that enables firms lo achieve the specific imperatives of their competitive strategies and adapt to their ever-chanpng environments. Next we present a framework for understanding how the elements of human resource management systems can influence KITwork.

A MODEL OF HRM FOR KNOWLEDGE-BASED COMPETITlON

The resource-based view of competition among firms suggests that HR practices can contribute to achieving a sus~ained competitive advan t a p by attracting and retaining knowledge resources and ensuring that those

resources are bundled and managed in ways that create strategic capabilities. That is. rhe H R M system can be used to build resources and to It ins- form those rerources into capabilities that contrihule to firm perfomlance. Fiy. I illus~rnies ou r framework for understanding llow H R practices can be used to build krio\r:ledge resources and. by supportillg K ITwork, also ensure th3t the fil-sli's knowledge resources add value. Building on prior work (see Iackson. Hitt. & DeNisi. 7003: Jackson & Schuler, 1001. 2002; Schuler, Jackson. & Storey. 2001). the rl-iumework shown i n Fig. I includes three components: ( 1 ) the systems ( 2 ) I;no\!'led~e resources. and ( 3 ) KITwork capabilities.

TIzc H R M S ~ , s t ~ ~ r i

S11on)li near the top of Fie. I are co~nponents of an H R M system. We assume ~ h a r firms use a full a r ray of HR practices to create an H R M system that accampl~shes the four cei~tral H R M tasks. nanrely: identifying needed activ~ties. managing competencies. managing ~not~vat ion, and managing opportunities. As desori bed elsewhere. in a n effective HRM system. the full set of H R practices used in an or~anization ;Ire al~gned to support all Four of these major tasks (see Jackson r l a].. 1003: Jacks011 & Schuler, 2001, 2002; Schuler et al., 2001). For 01 gan~ra(ious that conipete 011 the basis of knowledge. elements of the H R M system should be a l iped to support the development of both knou ledge resources and KITworl; capability.

Followiug 1 ~ 0 1 - k by Amil and Schoemaker ( i993). resources are character- tzrd ,is s,or,lis of accessible o r ~ i ~ n i z n ~ i o n a l elements. which are at least partially contl-olled and sometimes owned by the organization. The stock of knowledge held by a finn's employees is a resource of potential value to most fir~ns.

K n o ~ ~ l e d g e st ricks include explrci t k r ~ o w l e d ~ e and tacit knowledge (Polanyi. 1967). Explicit knowledge is more easily codified and recorded. I t can be formulated into sentences and equations. which are easily and reliably shared rhl-ough \t!ritten documents and oral presentations. Due to these chariicte~.~stics. explicit knowledge can usually be obtained by co~npeting f i r ~ ~ ~ s . Thus. explicit knowledse is not likety to serve as the basis f u i a sustainable collipetitive advanta_ge (DeNisi. H I I ~ . & Jackson. 2003).


) Swid knowledge ( [ O Knowled~c application I

O Acllvities analys~s + Specify Needad

I

Ptiformance managemen1 + Comp-nsaooa and O M o r ~ u a ~ e for KITwark

+ Create Opportunities for

+ Who? Q Knowledge revision

Q Whm?

I

Q Learning and Renewal O Innovntioo

Fig. I . A Mudel of H R M for KnowIedp-'Bad Competition.

9 Why? 7 14 Knowledp cmrion -

Explicit and Tadt K n ~ w l d g e Resources (Knnwledge S e )

Taehrricnl knowledge Q Whar"

.$ How?

Knowledgr-Intensive Tfmnwork

(Activities to Support Knodedge Flows)

Q Knowledge acqu i s i t !~~ -3 Knowledge shanng O Knowledge combination

In contrast to explicit knowledge. tacit knowledge is coniplex and am- biguous. which 111akes it dlff~cult to codify and transmit. People accumulate tacit knowledge through observation. imitation. and repeated interactions. which produce actionable skills or "know liorb." Compared to explic~t knu~vled_gz. tacit knowledge is stick! - t hat is, it cannot be easily transferred rronl one person to another (see Von Hippel. 1994). In vrder for people to share tacit knowledge. they must be willing to participate in more extensive and perhaps more intimate relationships. When individuals share tacit knowledge. they often do so during casual interactions (Lubit. 2001) that unfold within a relationship characterized by high levels of trust. The stickiness of tacit knowledge makes it potentially more valuable than ex- plicil knowledge as a source of coinpetitive ~dvantage.

H R practices are widely recognized as the primary means through which o r g a ~ l ~ r a r i o n s develop the depth and content of their knowledge stocks. For example, job analysis and conlpeleilcy modeling identify the content and depth of knolvledpe needed bq the organization; selection identifies individuals who have the content and depth of knowledge needed: training seeks to further mhdnce the depth and uv~ltent of knowledge available, and compensation may be used to motivate einployees to develop new or deeper knowledge.

Fig. 1 recognizes that developing Lnowled_ge stocks is one means through which H R practices c;jn he used to promote or~anizational effectiveness. However. H R M systems that focus exclusive!y on managing the knowledge stocks of individual employees art: likely to be ineffective in organizations that compete on the basis of knowledge. Especially in knowledge-based firms. H R M systems must also effeclively manage the social system. for the social system is the conduit of kuowled_ee flows.

ln contrasl 10 the emphasis on knowled_pe stocks that is fbund in the HRM literalure. the s~ratesic management li~erature has emphasized the importance of managing knowledge Rows. Dierickx and Cool (1989) likened knowledge flows to the movement of water coming into and leaking out of a bathtub. In a bathtub. ihe aater level is a result of how much water has flowed in minus the amount that has flowed out. In a firm. the knowledge siock is the cumulrtrive result of inward and outward knowledge flows. The bathtub metaphor points out thal n:nnaging knowledge stocks


requires managing knowledge flows; stocks and flows are related but distinct canst ructs. Likening knowledge to water emphasizes the power of knowledge aggre-

gation and knowledge in motion. A single molecule of standing water has far less power to transform a landscape than d e s a river of moving water. Corn bining dispersed knowledge and facilitating the movement of knowledge through an organization makes it possible to exploit lessons that have already k e n learned, solve technical problems more effectively, and develop creative solutions (cf., Fiol, 2003; Hass & Hansen, 2005).

To date, most enarts to develop knowledge resources and KITwork processes have focused on electronic information technologies - not HRM technologies. The hope was that information technologies would enhance an organization's ability to store. sort, distribute, and (perhaps) analyze the vast array of knowledge hidden within the many nooks and crannies of organizational life. Experienced users of electronic knowledge management systems now realize that IT-based knowledge management systems are ineffective unless they are integrated into a total management approach for creating new knowledge and sustaining continuous learning (Thomas, Kellogg. & Erickson. 2001). By addressing the challenge of using H R practices that encourage and support KITwork, we seek t o expand the work of HR scholars to include research that analyzes how HRM systems influence social dynamics throughout an organization.

Consistent with the constructivist perspective (Blackler, 1995), we assume that knowing is grounded in action, and therefore, managing knowledge involves managing activity (cf., Cook & Brown, 1999: Vera & Crossan, 2003). While each of the knowledge-centered activities shown in Fig. I can contribute to successful knowledge-based competition, not all aspects of knowledge-centered activities are equally important in all situations.

Like other types of teamwork, KITwork can vary in both degree and kind (cf., Kozlowski & Bell, 2003). Effective1 y managing an organization requires the identification of the knowledge-centered activities that are most essential to its success. A fulIy articulated model might include descriptions of alternative HRM systems to support each of several KlTwork profiles. Our goal here is more modest. In the discussion that follows, we simply provide suggestions for how HR practices could be used lo promote each of the six knowledge-centered activities listed in Fig. 1. Given the considerable overlap and interdependencies that exist among the six knowledge-centered activities, substantial research is needed to determine whether small differ- ences in the preferred KITwork profiles requ~re distinctly different HRM systems.

Mallaging KITwork involves more than managing the behaviors of ~ndi- viili~;~Is: i t also involves efforls to nianase the emergent social systems that are created as individuals respond to partially random evenls and interact with each other across time itnd space (cf.. Kozlowski, Gully, Nason, & Smith. 2000). Our framework assumes that KlTwork is a construct that can be used to describe phenomena a t several levels of'itnalysis. Knowledge that flows on ly between individuals is n o t likely to create competitive advantage fclr 4 large firm with _global operations. Likewise. an HRM system designed to manage only the behavior of individuals will likely miss many opportunities to create value ~hrough effective KITwork. Sustained competitive advantage more likel!: nccl.ues to firms that understand how to manage knowledge flows belween teams, throughou~ and among business units. thro~igh ill-defined social networks. and beyond organizational boundaries. Thus. ,qn effective H R M system produces outcorrles for individuals, teams. depart men ts. business units. conimu~~i t ies of practice. and so on.

Flg. 2 illustrates our multi- le~el view of KITwork. Consistent with n m ultl-level perspective. we refer to k nowledge-centered crctiriti~s {not behaviors. which often are associared with individuals) as the components of KITwork. Although we do not address all of the possible levels-of-analysis issues susgesied b! Fig 2. we encourage readers to consider how focusing on units of analysis other than the individual raises new questions about the possible e f i c t s of H R practices on social dynamics within organizations at various levels of analysis ( e . g . . dyads. commun~t ies of practice, and inter- ream relations).

T o illustrate how KlT\~:ork can be concrptualited a t multiple levels or ;ln,~lysis. consider one elcmen~ of KITwork - knowledp-sharing ~c t rv i t ies. Individual-level knowledge shurin? occurs when a person shares what he or she knows with another person or group. Team-level knowledpe sharing IS

more than lhe aggregation of such individual behaviors. however. For social units ( e . ~ . . learns. networks), knowledge sharing ~nvolves managing social processes such as participation alld decision-making. To ensure that team- level knoivlrdge sharin? occurs. a learn may follow protocols regarding how ro srructure and r u n formal meellngs. use technology to permit open access to information. and maintain rtrong norms t o govern the behavior of individual members. Phenomena such as these are rnennin_efully treated as distinctly goup-level phenoniena. In order to understand and manage the Row of knowled_ee through a n organization. it i s necessary to understand and msnitge knowledge sharinc at all of these levels of analysis.

In this paper. we are not able to provide a detailed description of knowledsc- centered activities at each of several levels of analysis. Nevertheless. our discuqslon of HK practices for managing KlTwork presumes that H R pracl rsr's are relevant to the knou-ledpe-cen~ered actix ities across the full specl ru~n of levels nf analysis.

CHALLENGES IN DESIGNING HRM SYSTEMS FOR KNOWLEDGE-DRIVEN ORGA5'IZATIONS

Any H RM system includes a complex array of elements. Presumably. these elernen~s are most effective when they are aligned and integrated with other elertle~~ts 'ind also aligned and in te~ra ted ~v i th the organization's unique conditions ( e . ~ . . see Jackson & Schulrr. 1995; MacDuffie & Krafcik, 1992: Schuler & Jiickson, 1987).

During the past decade. scholars have tried lo identify bundles of H R pracrices that compl-ise ir~trgrated and cohermt H R M syste~ns (Becker & Husr l~d , 1998). linplicit in such effort< is the a s s u ~ ~ ~ p t i a n that he many varieties of H Rhl systems foui~d in organizations can be reduced to a s~nal l number of archetypes or confreu~.ations (Ostroff & Bowen. 7000; Lepak. Liao, Cllun_e. & Harden. 2006). A potential problem with the search for sk stem archetypes is u nderestin~ating the complex effects of an organiza- t ic\n's exte1.11a1 and internal ciivir-o~inien ts and the path-dependent nature of system e\ olu~lon. Any se:~~-ch for do~n inau t pl-:lc~~ue configuratiotls and archer)pal HRM systems focuses kittent ion 011 the commoualitier; across fil-ms. Yet . the resource-based view asserts that a sustainable con~petitive adva~lce i s gained through the develovmc~lr or unique bundles of resources and distinct]%-e capabilities that i l re difficult t o ii-nllatr and distributed keteru_peneouzly amongn comprr~tors.

A process-based approach to understandjng llow integrated H RM sys- [ems e~nerge represents a;] alternative pel-spective I'or understanding HRM syste~n design. .4 process-based appro:tch presumes thr~t s o ~ n e approaches to develo!>ing HRh4 syste~ns are more likely to resuir in the systein king in ternall! a!igned and npp~,upria~ely integraird with other elements ill the or._ean~zatio~~al syslen'r. I f a firm outsourc<s rile design and/or implrmenta- tion of i t s s~al'fing to one external vendor ruld outsources the design and in?plement;j:~on of its training proy.;trns to another vendor. there is likely lo

be Ii111r integration between these aspects of the FiRM system. Likevise. i f n 5r:n 'idopts practices simpl!. because the! have been identified as so-called *'bes: practices." r he degree of irltegra? ton .I nd coher?ncc :I I!IOII~ its practices


would be low iC it imitated the staffing practices in one organization, the training practices in another organization, and the pay practices in a third organization.

The development of an integrated and coherent HRM system is more likely to wcur when an organization sets t h ~ s as an objective and adopts a planning process to meet the objective (see Schuler et al., 2001; Jackson & Schuler, 7000). A planning process that addresses issues at multiple levels of analysis is more likely to result in the desired outcomes than is one that focuses on managing individuals. In addition, it seems likely that a coherent and integrated HRM system is more likely to evolve when the design and pIanning process eschews the traditional HR silos found in many large organizations (slafing, training, compensalions, etc.).

Consislent with these assumptions, we assume that effective HRM systems evolve through a wries of iterative decisions about how to use H R prac~ices to achieve four major tasks: specifying the desired activities, managing competencies, managng motivation, and managing opportunities. Mort specifically. firms competing on the bas~s of knowledge need to: specify the desired knowledge-centered activities. manage knowledge-centered competencies, manage motivation to engage in knowledge-centered activities, and create opportunities for knowledge-centered activities. Next, we suggest how multiple HR practices might be coordinated to achieve these four tasks, and also suggest some future research directions.

The behavioral approach to understanding management practices assumes that an effective HRM system includes practices for identifying the requited activities of individuals, teams, networks, and so on. An effective HRM system also must ensure that the desired activities are communicated to all members. Because the identification and communicatjon of knowledge- centered activities are intertwined, we include both as components of the first task in our model - specifying knuwIedgc-cen tered activities.

Acriuily Analysis Activiry analysis (aka, job analysis) is the primary HR practice for specifying the activities required in a particular firm. Task analysis approaches describe the work activities and outcomes expected from people performing a job or role, while competency modeling (person analysis) describes the skills, knowledge, personality characteristics. and other personal attributes

needed to perform a job or role effectively (see Ssckett & Laczo. 2003; Sarlchez & Levine. 2001). The potential value of task analysis and competency inodrll ng derives first and foremost from their potential usefulness as analqt~c procedures for build in^ the foundation of a coherent HRM sysrem.

Extensive research by IiO psychologists has yielded several useful tax- onolnies for describing ~ h r bas~c underly~ng dimensions of task performance (e.g. , see CampbelL 1999; Campbell, McCloy. Oppler. & Saser, 1993: Pula kos. Arad. Donovan. k Plarnoudon. 2000). Only recently have these taxonomies been evaluated for their npplicability in organizations engaged In knowledge-based cumpet i~~on . In one such analysis, Pulakos, Dorsey, and Bnrman (2003) set out to ident~fy key task performance dimensions to use as input into the design of staffin3 decisions. Their expert judgment led them to conclude that three aspects of task performance seem lo be central to the performance of knowled2e-based work:

B~rilrli*)q ntid rryplj-rny kno~rlerli/~' Includes gathering and sirting through information to gain :~n ilr~dcrstanding of [he situation: analy zmg and inlegrating data to develop so- l u ~ l o r ~ s or ci-raie new kno~vledge: developing I I ~ H approachts. rools. striitegies to increase campetilive ;tdr.a~ltspe: enploitinp le~hnolopy lo e n h a n ~ productivity.

Slrrr~rr~q Lt~ol~.li,(!yr, lncl udes sharing knnwled_ee n rid experrise freely in wrlrten and orill for~n. collaborating with others to arrlve a1 solutions: deveiop~np networks with other esperls lo f;rcilit;>~ knowledg elchange. p:~ckaginp ; ~ n d presentinr informstion that i s on-point :ind persuasive.

. i I t , ~ r r / o i r r i ~ t ~ l krio~rlrriyr l~~cludes d e m ~ n ~ t r a ~ i n g enthusiasn~ , ~ r ~ d curiosity for lea:nln_e = I I I ~ ad\ iil~ci~lg kfiowledpr. developinp dnd ~ni~in!;~ining spec~~~lizcd knowledge. skills. 2nd crperrisr. st;~yinp ilbreaci of neM methods and cunrent areus.

Cleariy. the Pulakos et al.'s list of lask dimensions overlaps with our list of six knowledge-centered activities. A major differei~ce is that their definitions of the three knowled2e-based task domains are defined by individual-level behniors only. The objective of Pulakos et al. was to use this list of {ask do~nains to develop a list of employee characrerisr~cs needed for such work. Again. lheir focus was at lhe individual-level or analysis.

In order to identify rhz cn~playee characteristics required to perform knu~viedge-based work effectively. Pulakos et i l l . asked 15 experienced selec(ion experts to judge the relevance o i several potentially important attribu~es. This small r;tuily yielded a list of 17 possible predictors (corn- petcns~es) of perforlnancc in knowledge-baqed jobs. Cognitive skills and a hilities ( e . ~ . . re,isoning. critical t h i n k i n g . information gatherins. problem- solving. domain-specific knowledge. contenl-relevant experiences, reading


comprehension) dominate the list Pulakos et al. develoT>Bd: social skills and abilities {e.g., active listening, interpersonal flexibility, cooperativeness) play a secondary role. While cognitive skills and technical knowledge are un- doubtedly important for performance of many knowledge-based tasks, KITwork is likely to require a variety of interpersonal skills that facilitate collaboration among diverse people who work together as members of teams and fuzzy. boundary-spanning networks {cf., Morgeson, Reider, & Campion, 2005).

The work of Pulakos et al. was grounded in traditional approaches to conducting job analysis and competency modeling, whch were developed in the context of traditional, bureaucratic organizations. Reflecting their heritage, they presume individuals are the appropriate unit of analysis. emphasize commonalities among individuals, and rely heavily on self-reports from employees. These features of traditional lask analysis may lead organizations to underestimate the social nature of knowledge-based work, and overemphasize the cognitive elements. New approaches to conducting activity analysis are needed to overcome these weaknesses.

To ward Describing Social Syslems Task analysis methods that focus on individuals are problematic if they fail to capture the social systems through which work gets done. KITwork activities are embedded within social systems of myriad types. Consider, for example, the variety of forms that work teams can take: Some have stable membership, others rotate membership; some have relative autonomy, others are interdependent; some teams have members with rels t ively similar knowledge and expertise, while others have members who were chosen because they have quite diverse skills (e.g., see Mohrman, Cohen, & Mohrman, 1995). Similarly, the KITwork networks come in many forms: Some networks include primarily members of the same organization, but others include members who work in different organizations. The linkages among people in some networks are dense and reciprml, while other networks loosdy link together people who have little direct interaction with one another. Increasingly, KITwork ai.so varies along I he dimensions of virt ua- lity, geographic dispersion, and cultural diversity.

In addition to analyzing the tasks of individuaIs, it i s appropriate to analyze the activities of pro~ect teams, task forces, committees, wllaborative networks, and so forth. Accurate activity descriptions require methods that identify not only the individual behaviors requird to complete work, but also the social roles performed in doing the work (e.g.. see Ancona & Caldwell, 1992). Methods that engage KlTwork collaborators in describing

their work as a c.ol lccri t~ may yield more accurate descriptions of KITwork activiljes.

A shift from ind~vidual-focused task analysis to methods that focus on larger social units call have major implications when drawing conclusions about which tasks are most prevalent. To illustrit~e. suppose a work unit is comprised of 15 collectives ! teams~groups:netwurks) each having an average of 15 members. Every collzstive requires one and only one person to a n as a liaison to the unit's suppliers. An analysis conducted at the individual level of analysis uould indicate that the majority of employees in the unit do not act RS Iiuisons. It might further show that even those who do act as liaisons spend only ten percent of their time on that task. If the organization builds 11s H R practices around the individual-level results. the HRM system may not ensure that every teamigroup!network understands the importance of he lia~son role fol- their rt'rectiveness. Because the imporiance of liaison :~c~~vi t ies i s ~mderesriinated. some collectives (teams. networks) may have no one ivho can perfbrm the liaison role effectively andlor no one who is motivated to treat this activity as a key respons~bility. When coliectives are tre;ilrd as the unit of analysis. the results would show that every collective requires someone to perform the role of liaison. I f the organization builds its H R practices around the collective-level results. ;he HRM system is more likely to ensure that everv collective recognizes the importance of this role, includes the cornpe~encies needed for the role. and ensures that the role is performed effectively even as par~icular members of the collective change over time.

Towrrrd L?nclrr.sii/~rdit~!g Tiicrr fi~on.Ie~Iqu, Skills, und Ahiliries The bedrock of most task an:~lysis and competency mode l~ng techn~qires is self-descrip~rons. People are asked to describe hoiv they spend their ttme and the ccvnprtencies the1 use i n their ivork. Such methods assunie that .em- plo!ees are aware oiaud able to describe what they do. how they do i t . and the ptrsonal characteristics required to perform effectively. To the extent that tacit kr~auled_ee. skills. ;rnd abilities are needed to perforn~ effectively, self-drscl-iptions are clearly inadequate. By detinition. tacir knowledee is kno\+- led~e that employees cannot easily articulate.

Just as individui~ls have t;lutt knowledge. social groups or collectives develop tss~t skills I I I ~ I facilitate their cullec~ive efforts. Thus. in addition to iden~ifying the impor~arlt tacit knowledge of individuals. organizations face he chalienge of identit'bing the nlosr important tacit kr~owledge and skills Ih;~t a ~ a h l e coilccrives lo perf'urm efkctively. Again. simply asking people to probids descriptions (if the tizcit kno\i41edge t h a ~ is important to their

50 SUSAN E. JACKSON IT AL.

To ward Improved Methods for IdernrI;f~?ing Kno wledge-Cen rered Activities Understanding the knowledge-centered activities that contribute to gaining competitive advantage is the essential first step in developing an HRM system t h a t supports KITwork. Unfortunately, most task analysis and competency modeling techniques were not developed to comprehensively describe the knowledge-based activities of work teams, communities of practice, professional networks, and other collaborarive structures that support KIT- work. During the next decade. research i s needed to develop analytic

collective performance may not be effective. Observarional techniques, such as producing maps or electronic communications to identify the flow of information through networks, analyzing project management khaviors over time, and observing in situ group behavior may be more efl'ective me~hods for identifying the tacit knowledge embedded in the routines thal guide social interactions among people engaged in KITwork (e-g., see Edmondson, Bahmer, & Pisano, 2001).

Comtnunicating the Desir~d Knowledge- Cen tered Activities Assuming an organization can identify its most important knowledge- centered activities, it must communicate this information to employees. A strong HRM system can promote a climate that supports KITwork by communicating and signaling the knowledge-centered activities that contribute toward the achievement of the company goals (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004).

To illustrate how HR practices send messages about the importance of knowledge-centered activities, consider the signals sent by the process of activities analysis. If employees are asked to descrik critical incidents related to knowledge sharing, knowledge creation, and so on, i t signals he importance of these activities in the organization. Asking individuals to answer these questions with a focus on their own behavior sends a message that is different from the signal sent by conducting focus groups with members of teams, task forces, and communities of practice. Asking a team to describe only its internal functioning sends a different message than asking the team to describe how il learns from its clients and how it shares what it learns with others in the organization. In other words, the method that an organization uses to identify which knowledgecen~ered activities are most impor~ant has two major consequences. First. as described above, it influences the technical results. and second (perhaps unintentionally), it sends signals about the types of knowledge-centered activities that are most valued by an organization.

I

Tub1 ard D~~-elopi i lu f f t ~ ~ l a n Rr.~orrr.c u tVfurtu!/t,r~lt.~~t Sj,srrrns for K/T~or .k 51

ruols that are szllsitive to the un~que concerns of knowledge-intensive organiza~ions. Ideally, these new tools will expand beyond the traditional focus on individuals as the unit of analysis and in doing so pr0vide.a more colnplete picture of the frequent? and importance of the knowledge-center& activities required for a particular or_panizatiou's effectiveness.

For 01-pnizations lhat rely on KlTwork. mana_ping knowledge-centered competencies presents several special challenges. These include addressing the dynanric nature of KlTwork. managing competencies of collectives, miinaping tacit competencies. and balancing short-and long-term needs. Several elements of an organization's WRM system can be used to address these challcn_ees, includin9 practices related to training and developmenl, staffifins. and compenssrion.

Tlw Dj.r wtuii. iVutur4e of Elrlon.lrrigr- B ~ t d Cull tpeiirion Studies o f knowledge-based organirations highlight the fact that managing knowledge competencies is a dynam~r: process (e.g.. szc the Special Issue on the Knowledge-Based View o f the Finn published in Si~-ntugic A f a n a g r t ~ ~ ~ n t Joun~i~l , 1996). The value of extant knowled9e erodes quickly over time, and the search for new kuowledge is never-ellding. Rapid and often discontin- uous environnizntal changes may require chances in a firm's profile of knowledge-centered activities. The dynamic nature of knowledge-based con:petitlon mean5 [hat the value of compe~encies held by an organization will dimii~ish unless they ;Ire continually updated. putting pressure on the norkforcr to cont~nuuusly learn. adapt. and change. For knowledge- in ten .~ i~ t : organizations. a major challenge i s ensuring that the competencies present in the workforce evolve lo meet changing environmenlal conditions (Lepak & Snell, 2003).

C o ~ m t i v e skills, personality. and ask knowledge are among the competencies associated with creative and innovative behavior (e.g., see Mun~ford, 2000: Ree & Caretta. 1998: Taggar. 2002). and i t is likely that staffing a workrorce with people who have these competeilcies will facilitate h o w l - edge-based competition (see Pulakos et al., 2003). T o assist employees in buildins heir cognitive skills and abilities. knowledge-intensive organizations are likely to offer 1rad1 tional on-site or off-site t rainins as well as web- based learning opportuni~ies ( e . ~ . . see Noe et al.. 2003). Such programs are grounded in a t~udiiional. lop-down view o f lesrnln~: they s s s u ~ ~ l c that the


knowledge needed by employees can be identified in advance and then &- livered when and where it is needed. Responsibility for building the knowledge base of employees resides with outsiders (e.g., HRM professionals), not with the employees themselves.

While helpfuf, top-down approaches to training and development are likely to be inadequa~e, for they underestimate the dynamic, problem-driven nature of KITwork. KITwork consists of "real-time" knowledge-centered activities that unfold in a dynamic context. Employees cannor rely on others to determine in advance the knowledge they will need and then deliver it to them - they must be able to access knowledge when they need it, recognize potentially useful knowledge when they encounter i t . and understand that the knowledge they have may be outdated. "Spoon-feeding" knowledge content ("know what") to employees is likely to be inefficient and ineffective.

Employees engaged in KlTwork are likely to benefit more from HR practices that help them develop and continuously update the "know how" needed for KlTwork. Employees with KITwork "know how" are able 10

take responsibility for their own learning and development on an as-needed, just-in-time basis. Two types of know-how required for KITwork are technological know-how and interpersonal know-how.

During the past decade, changing information technologies have created new opportunities for employees to easily acquire information whenever and wherever they need it. EmpIoyees with ~echnologicul know-how - conducting effective internet searches, using electronic bulletin boards to communicate with experts, and participating in webcasts - can quickly acquire up-todate information on almost any topic. Similarly, if collaborators know how lo use intranets, groupware, and myriad other information technologies, it makes it easier to perform their work despite their being geographically distributed. Yet our research suggests that some employers fail to provide KITworkers with the technologies they need to communicate effectively; other employers provide their employees with access to the latest electronic equipment and software but fail to train them in how to use it tor knowledge-centered activities.

Inrerpersonal know-how refers to competencies that facilitate effective interactions among collaborators. Organizations are complex social systems, which can be difficult for KITworkers to navigate. H R practices that help KITworkers develop an understanding of the social context within which their activities are conducted could smooth interactions and reduce the process losses chat often plague group work. For effective teamwork, interpersonal skills that appear useful include conflict resolution, collaborative problem-solving, and communication (Stevens & Campion, 1999).

For example. in rhrir analysis of talent contracting situations. Davis-Blake and Hui (2003) reporled t h a ~ coiit~.acting relationslirps typically require a manager who i s bdept at niana_ein_e the interface betwee11 contract employees and regular employees. These Inatl;j_pers should build illutual trust and engender fee!ings of idciitifica~ion with the contracting firm in order lo rncouriige the flou of knowledse between contract and rr_eular employees.

Mn~~o<gir~ y rhr Co~~~prrrnr, it~s I! f' Caller, ri~:c.s I n our discussioil ahove. we focused primal-ily on the KlTwork conipeten- cies or individuals. Mana_gin_e the competencies required for ertective KIT- work also involves ei~suring that rhe collectives in which people work have the required competencies. For ind~~idunls . KITwork competencies consti- tute knowledge stocks. For proups and other collect~ves, KlTwork cornpe- tencies include rhe accun~ula~ed knowledge held by individuals in the group a s !\el1 R S group-level compctei~c~sj. Although individual- and group-level compelencies a r e closelq rclilrtd. the coillpete~lcies of a collective are no1 perfect I ? col-I-el:~red or isoi~~etric wit 11 the i~ldividual competencies of its members.

To ~llustrnte. considel- a group of individuals \vho come togetller and sl1:ll.e their knowledge with each other. 11 is likely that the personal knowledge stocks of several individuals will increase ds a ctlllseque~~ce of their intel-acrio~ij. Hoivever. unless I he ii~tel-action plwcess also produces solilr new knowledge. the group's stock of knowledge nil1 remain unchan_ged. If members of the group engage in j oilit problem -solving, however. new knowledge is likely to be created (Levlne & hlorelarid. 1999; Liebeskind. Oliver. Zucker. & Bre\~-el-. 1996). In that ouw. the group-level knowledge stock ~ncreases. Nole. hon,ever. hat a _pain in group-level knowledge does not fuarnntee t l i r ~ r every ~iidividual in the group gains knowledse: knowledge gains !nay be unequal across individuals. Conversely. individual knowledge s~ncks can increase li ithout any concurrent chanse in the knowledge srock of the collezr~ve. The task of managing compzlencies requires recognizing the distinctic~n bettvee~-t mana_ging individual comptencies and managing the competrr~cies of larger social units. such as teams and networks.

Using activities iinalysis to idallif? the competencirs needed by collectives i s an essential step toward de\elopin_e knowledge-bawd competencies. A considerable body o f research nn team prrt'orrnance provides insights illto the compere~~cies needed b> collecl~i:es e n ~ a s e d ill knowledge work. For example. research on conflict ~\~ithrri tcams suggests that ef'fective tzaius are <killed at consti-uctive conrrovtrsh: that is, they are able to air and discuss


opposing views while maintaining positive personal relationships (Jehn, 1995; Tjosvold & Tjosvold, 1995). When creative solutions are needed, team competencies such as non-evaluative brainstorming, goal setting, the appropriate use of breaks, and scheduling of iterative team and individual idea sessions may contribute to team performance (Paulus, Larey, & Dzindolet, 2001). In volatile environments such as those in which KITwork is found, the adaptation skills of a collective may also be central to their success {cf., LePine, Colquitt. & Erez, 2000). Adaptation occurs when members of the collective recognize changes in task demands and reevaluate and perhaps reformulate their approach in response to the changes.

Assuming that collective competencies such as constructive controversy, creative problem-solving, and adaptation contribute t o the success of KIT- work. HR practices should seek to build these competencies, and practices that treat collectives as the fundamental unit of analysis may be most appropriate. For example, rather than providing technological and interpersonal skills training t o individuals, training of intact coIlectives may prove more effective. In addition to providing incentives for individuals to develop their competencies, it may be useful to also provide incentives for collectives to develop their competencies. Finally. effectively managing the competencies of coIlectives involves recognizing that the competencies of a collective are not equivalent to a simple aggregation of individual compelencies.

Managing Tacit Competencies While a great deal is known about how to manage competencies (at least at the individual level), most principles of effective HRM address the management of explicit competencies - that is, competencies that can be articulated and codified. Explicit competencies are amenable to formal and sys~ernatic management; they can be measured and transferred with relative ease. Technical knowledge and interpersonal skills are examples of explicit competencies. In comparison, tacit competencies are difficult to articulate and measure and thus are more difficult to manage. At the individual level, creative thinking and political savvy are examples of tacit competencies. At the level of collectives, building consensus, managing changes in membership, and maintaining network ties may be examples of tacit competencies. Typically, HR practices ignore the tacit competencies of collectives. and they often undermanage the tacit competencies of individuals.

Knowledge management scholars have argued that extensive interpersonal contact between teachers and learners provides the best means for transferring tacit knowledge (e-g.. see Fiol, 2003). H R practices that support the development of extended networks of people from diverse backgrounds

may facilirare the flow of lihcit competencies. I f racit conlpetencies are transferred and lea riled ;uio~-n~all\i. tlien the drvtlopment of these competencies should occur Inore cl~~ickl!. when employees are ei i~bedded in strcln_p sociitl uetu.oi.k!: that place them i i i cunlnct ~v i th people \vho have the desired lac1 t comperrl~sies. Further. te~lrn-bdsed ~ ra in inz and devetoprnent of a shared mental model facilitate prnhlem-solving by improved communica- lioti A I I ~ group decision-m:ikinp ublliry (Hollenbeck. DrRue. & Guzzo. 2004). Research that illustrates effective approiiches to measuring and mau- aging tacit competencies clearly i s needed

Bcrkrnrirlij .%hr.;- utld LOPI(]- T ~ I . I I I Nwds The dynamic nilture of knoivledge-based competition means that organi- z ~ t l r o n s must be adept :it quick]! changing the con~ptencjes of their work- f o i ~ e . Short-term employment c'ijn!racts and increased use of outsourcing d1.e one approach 117 addressing the ]teed Tor rapid and frequent changes in required conlpete!lces. But the fo rep ing discussion suygests that this ap- proncl~ may have hidden drnwhncks. Clearly. contract labor can help m e t

short-lcnn needs and allows e~iiploger.~ to quickly shed c o m ~ ! e n c i e s that are no longer needed. Hon r\ei-. I his staffin2 model irnplicirly assumes that cornpetzncies are attribute5 of individur3ls and igi~ores the emer9ent competencies of' collectives.

In the long el-m, policies ~ h a r increase *OI-kfnrce turilover and volatility may restrict the developmellt of valuable s~wlal and intellectuul capital. Employees \ tho do not intend ro remain with the organization nIi1)' Ix less likely to shere their ideas and insights with collaborators (Oldham. 1003). FUI-thcrmoi-e. because contri~cr norkers usunlly are present in the orgaui- zalicms for relatively short periods of time. there is less time for core employees lo leu 1-11 f r on~ them. I ncrcased turno\-er ;rmon? regul;~r workers is another possible uni~itzuded consequence o f using conti+act labor. Regulsr n,ol-kc~-c in;)! reel that h ighly poid coli~r-act workers are viewed : ts more valiiahle 10 the firin. For this 01- olher reasons they inay be attracted to the ;-litelnative form of emplovmen! and decide to seek emplovment elsewhere. Thus. firms t h s t acquire the competencies the! need by contractin_e for talent may find that t h e y need a va~iet?; of H R pl.ac!~ccs designed specifically to manage the unique issues that arise in contl-fitting situations (for a mcre colliplete discuss~on. see Da1,is-Blake 6: Hui. 2003).

I4'111lr short-term ernploy~~~r.nt cont~.acts may he effective for an organ- i~~riri! '> ~rnrnediate compelenc? neecis. tlie long-tern1 return lo the organ- I Z ~ I I ! ~ I : n7:1y be less thnn a~:ticipated. Whea ~~~~~~~~k is involved. the efftc!i\:e L I w of cc~ntl-ucl et~?pic~verr- 1-e~;uirrs H R pr.actices tho t maximize thz


flow knowledge into the firm and minimize the leakage of knowledge out of the firm.

The same issues that bedevil employers who rely on contract workers may also pIay oul among KITworkers, even if they all are "permanent" employees of the same organizations. The project-based work assignments of some KITworkers share some similarities with the short-term contract work of temporary employees. Like contract employees, members of a project team may have been enlisted because they have unique knowledge or skills. Often, project participants do not know each other when a project begins, so they must work through issues of trust. Like contract employees, project members may have split or dual loyalties - e.g., to other projects or to a 'Lhome" department.

Managing Motivation for KITwork

Motivational forces influence which behaviors employees choose to engage in as well as the effort invested in those behaviors. Most psychological theories of motivation recognize that decisions about how to behave and how much effort to exert are influenced by both employee characteristics (including their competencies) and the work environment. In the preceding section, we noted that many elements of an HRM system can be used to ensure that an organization's workforce has competencies needed for knowledge-centered activities. In this section, we consider how HR practices can influence the likelihood that employees will engage in knowledge-centered activities. Our discussion is organized around three key themes: the decision to par- ticipa te in the organization and in knowledge-centered activities, rewards and recognition practices, and motivating learning processes.

The Decision to Parricipate The decision to work for an organization is essentially voluntary for all employees. but descriptions of knowledge-based competition often highlight the ability of knowledge workers to exercise their free will when deciding which organizations to join, which projects to work on, whether to participate in various informal communities of practice. and whether to share their ideas. Tight labor market conditions for knowledge workers reinfore the belief that knowledge workers have considerable freedom to choose where, when, and how they work (see Maurer, Lee, & Mitchell, 2003).

When KITwork is central ro an organization's effectiveness. employers need to understand how employees decide which project teams to join.

whether lo accept infornlal leadership and advocate roles. whether to par- ticipi~ts- ns .In instructor or n-lenroi.. and so on. I ]? makin_g decisions such as whether lo parlicipnte in training programs and how much of their knowledge to s l ~ , i ~ e , employees shiipe the de\,elopment of their oivn portfolio of knowledge co~npetencies as well ss those of others in the organization.

Research that enhances our. undentandiug of partic~parion decisions in KITwork se t t ins I S nerdrd in order to design H R M systems that encourage it. As Arthur and Kim (1005) poii~ted out. research on H R practices to support knowledge-centered activities should take into account the political nature OF orgunizdtions and the perspeclives of ~nultiple constituents. For example. organizations that use financial ~ncentives to reward employees for contributing ideas should not expect the i~lcentives to be effective unless employees trust managers 11) protect en~ployees from poteiltial harmful side el'l'ects of implemen~ ing the ideas ( e . ~ . . job loss).

Rrl~.o~,rJ.r rtnd Rcc agt~itinrr Rewards a i d recognition often are a s s u m d ro be the most powerful H R t t ~ 1 . s tb r luallngrng motivr~tiot~. vel scholars hold differing vietvs about the effects of rewards. For exainple. Lawlel- (2003) argued that contingent rewards should be used to supporr k uo~viedge-centered activities because they are erltctive in direcling employees' fittention to the most iniportant aspects of their work and rnotivaiing them to exert maximal effort. His arguments are consistent it.i[li restilrch sl~o\l:inp that 01.~~1iizations are more likely to achlevr heir stated got~ls \vhen employees Are rewarded for results that arc consistent with those goals (e.9.. Mon:enii~yor. 1996: Shaw. Gupta. & Drlrr!. 7002). Others have argued [hat tyins rewards to the achievement of crea tivr outcomes inaq reduce crea~ive output (e._r.. Amabile. 1979: Shnlley. 1995: Oldhnm. 2003). To i ~ d d r ~ s ~ the organization's desire for accou~~t:ibility u hile pl-ovid~ng room for indix ~ciuuls to take the risks nssociaied with creating new kno~vledge. Oldham (2003) i.ecommendcd offering only small reiiards and 91ving thein iifter consid<r;ible time h:id elapsed.

117 addition. rewards that focus a11en11on OII quality over quantity ma! bt more consistent with kno\i;led_ge-centered octitities (e.g.. see Zenger & Ma1 shall. 2000). Alt bough some fcld studies have reported t h a ~ rnone- tsr! renilrcis are 1101 he nlalii nlotivators of collabo~.alive k h a v i o r (e.g.. J:i~j,i\\-;tllil k Sashit ~;i l . ! N O : S\i-;ll-t & Ki~inie. 2003). research also sho\vs lhat people tend to t~nd~resi imste the importi~ncr. of pay due to social de- s i r~~hi l~ t ! ionsir?ernt~ons aud Iitck of self-insight ( R ~ n e s . B r o ~ ) u . & Colkrt. 1002 I Rrsrul-ch that yields PI-nctici~l su~pestinns I'or !lo\+. to develop effec~jve


reward syslelns for employees engaged in knowledge-centered activities i s needed to resolve this ongoing debate.

Morivaring Lrarning Individuals. teams, and organizations learn through the KITwork processes of knowledge acquisition, sharing, application, and so on. Thus. when employees engage in knowledge-centered activities, learning is one outcome. Such learning requires more than mere access to information, however; employees also must be motivated to learn.

Motivation to learn is likely to be greats t when the value of learning is apparent and the c o s ~ of learning is small. Too often, the cost of learning is more apparent than the value of learning. Costs are perceived to be relatively great when people view learning as a remedy for knowledge defi- ciencies and see it as a remedial process for correcting inaccurate or obsolete knowledge. Admitting that one's knowledge i s inadequate may threaten one's self-esteem and create resistance. This problem seemed to hobble the "lessons learned" review sessions that one drug company established to improve their clinical testing of new products. The scientists were reluctant to participate in discussions about past drug development failures. Man- agers concluded that the scientists felt threatened by such discussions because they cast doubt on the scient isls' competencies (Jackson & Erhardt, 2004). Performance postmordems such as that company's "lessons learned" reviews (sometimes called After Action Reviews). which focus on diagnosing the reasons for past failures, invite finger pointing and defensive self- proteclion.

To motivate employees to critically evaluate and perhaps revise existing knowledge. organizations may need to reframe learning activities. Rather than disseciing the past, employees may be more motivated by practices thal emphasize irrlproving the future. Action learning techniques embody this approach. For example, Siemens University offers in-house corporate training that requires participants to engage in knowledge-centered activities such as knowledge acquisition, sharing, combinarion. and appl~cation to solve real business problems. Analysts and engineers from around the world work together in "student" teams. Instead of teaching students about what others already know, action learning at Siemens encourages teams to develop new knowledge that can be applied immediately.

The emotions experienced during action learning are likely to be quite different from the emotions associated with performance postmortems. Action learnin? projects may be (and perhaps should be) stressful, but par- ticipan ts finish the projects feeling a sense of accomplishmen t and pride.

The) t e 1 good about their learning and the coliaborator-s who facilitated i t . and t l l i ~ helps build stloiril capital. In contrast. postmortems may elicit tnore negative en~otions, including feelings of failure and embarrassment.

Clri~rlq. resea~.cli i s rieeded to improve our understanding of how to use H R 1~1-ac.rizzs to motivate employees to engage in specific KITwork activities - 1.c.. Luou ledgc ilcy~~isi tion. s h a r i n ~ . combination. creation, application. and revision. Nziv rese;lrch on the use of _goals ]nay prove particularly use- fu l . The motivalionul effectiveness of specific and difficult goals is well established for tasks that are siinple and routine (Locke & Latham. 1990). Similarly. studies of innovation processes indicate that specific and difficult project goals ell hance the performance of R&D teams, and regular feedback from custoiliers is associated with efl'eoi ive product developme~tl (Zirger & Madique. 1990). F i t i d in~s such as these suggest t h a ~ tying incentives and rewards to the achievement of specific knowledge-centered goals may be a n titectivc H R practice. But other evidence indicales thnt individual crea~ivily is impeded by productivity goals and excessive workloads (Amahile el al.. 1996). For complex tasks th~lt involve k~lowled$e work. specific p r fvnn- ance goals may interfere with experimcntat~un and lcnrning (see Dweck & Legsett. 1988). When innovatioo is he objective. motivation seems 10 he enhanced by chnllen_gin_g work and freedoni in how locarry out the work, so perhaps "do your best gori!s" are more effective for the co~nplex tasks found in knowledge-based organizations. \vhich require people to learn - and perhaps invent - effective performance strategies (Earley. Connolly. & Lee. 1989: Kanfer & Ackerman. 1989: Winlers & Latham. 19961.

Apply ins accepted pal-setting principles 10 collectives rather than individu:lls may also prove to be an effeci~ve solution for motivating employees enzaeed in KlTwork. The size and compleai~y of many knowledge-intensive projects can be so i~nmense thnt einplclyees find i t difficult ro ~ d e n t ~ f y with the pro.iect as a whole. Like asseinbly line rrorkers. k~louledge workers may find i~ difficult to see ho\v their cfiorrs co~ltl.rbutr to the orsanization's success. Team goals may prove nsef~il to establ~sh a "line of site" hetween work activities and the success ot' thc argi~nizat~an. while at the same time permitting considerable freedom and autonomy for individuals.

Research is needed to improve our understandin_g of how to motivate individu,il einployees to learn from their engagemenr in knowledge-centered nu~i\ilies - which involve high deyrees of interdependence. uncertainty. nmbiguil!. lerlrnriig. and creativity. Also needed is research that improves our undrrs~undiug of the motivntional forces that prompt l e a r n i ~ ~ g in teams rind other social units. I t is not clear. for example. that ~i~ot ivat ine indi- \~du;~ ls 10 el1p;lSe i n i ~~d iv idua l learnin_g results in team-level leal-niiig.


Managing Opporirrnirtes fir KITwark

If a workforce understands rhat KlTwork activities are essential and has both the motivation and the competencies needed for KlTwork, is it possible that KlTwork will fail to flourish? Yes, because they also n e d the right opportunities. Considerable research on creativiry and innovation documents the importance of having contact with people who have information, perspectives, and experiences that are dissimilar to one's own. The HRM system can help create opportunities for such interactions in a variety of ways. Here we comment on culture management and staffing practices that can be used to create opportunities for KITwork.

Managing the Culture During the past decade, electronic knowledge management systems have become a popular way to provide opportunities for employees to engage in KITwork. The systems are intended to make it easier for employees dispersed throughout an organization to recognize that they face similar challenges, discover each other, discuss common problems, and collaborate in finding solutions. I n practice, however. electronic systems appear to be more useful for knowledge storage and passive knowledge distribution. Providing electronic opportunities to conimunicate does not necessarily stimulate employees lo search for new knowledge. Nor does it encourage serendipitous knowledge exchange and learning.

Opportuniries for knowledgeantered activitia often arise beyond the boundaries of work teams, and even beyond the boundaries of the orraniza- tion. Often, employees in different parts of an organization are working on the same challenge. bul are completely unaware of each other. They do not discuss common problems as they try to solve them, and they do nor share solutions once they have h n discovered because they have no opportunities to do so. Yet, when knowledge flow and innovation are the objectives, meaningfil w n - versations appear to be invaluable (Hansen, Nohna, & Tierney, 1999).

An organization's culture - i.e., its norms and rituals - can create opportunities for people to cross or span boundaries that might otherwise be barriers to information flow (Bouty, 2000). Such opportunities should per- vade organizational life. In addition to the structure of work itself, events such as meetings, celebrations, training programs, conferences, and myriad other occasions for social contact can all be designed with the goal of en- couraglng contact and learning among employees with different perspectives.

Recognizing the need for more serendipitous conversations, a consulting firm adopted the practice of setting aside the third Friday of each month as

Tori,ard Drcrloping H~t~liulr Rrsolrrr.r. 44~1cr,luqr11zr1ii S~.srerrrs for. KITwork 61

.I day when everyone would get tosether. Tvpically. the consultants worked at heir cl~ents' offices. People who worked for different clients seldom saw one another. To increase social contact and make it easier for knowledge lo flow amon9 consultants. the firm instituted the practice of hosting mclnthly gather~ngs. Consultants were expected to free their calendars from travel and client visits for the third Friday of each month. That day was to be spent at the home office. These monthly gatherings provided the con- suitanrs with more opportunities to build personal relationships. establish geater Irust. and share theil- knowledse (Jackson & Erhardt, 7004). This is j u s ~ one rxample of how thoughtful culture management can increax the opport unl t ies for know ledge-centered activities. The principle of designing events that bring together people for conversations and dialogue is one rhat can easily be adapted h y any organization.

Likewise. an organization's culture can create opportunities for employees to engage in knowled2e-centered activities with people outside the organization. and thereby speed the flow of new knowledge into the ar- ganization. Examples of HK practices that create such opportunities include short-term leaves for employees who wish 10 provide community service or explore other non-employment activities. paying the costs associated with professional memberships and cvnference travel. sraffing practices that draw i n a broad pool of e~ternal applicants. maintaining positive relationships with "alumni" 2nd supportin_e alumni-centered events that encourage current employees to mingle and learn from former employees, and supporting menloring relationships that cross organizational boundaries (e.g., seasorled employees servrng as mentors for colle9e students).

SlufJl'ng Parties. social outings. and other informal events can encourage knowledge flow. but more formal solutions ma!! also be needed in large organiza- llons. One company appro:tched lhe chc~llenge of creating linkages among employees by creating a nerwork of "knouledge integralors:" their role was b~-lngln_g together peoplr from different areas of [he company to share knowledge. If a projecl mnna_ger needed a subject matter expert for assist- once a ~ t h an ncutr problem. the knowledpe inte_ernior located t he r igh~ person. I n selectins people f'oi- the role of knowledge inie~rator. the company looked for employees w ~ l h deep knowledge of the business and the oryniza~ion 's social fabric

Placensent and prolnotlon decisions also can create opporiunities for knowkdge-centered activities. At Colga te-Palmolive. best practices are shared and applied to Hen. situations by managers who routinely accept


transfers to unfamiliar functions, divisions, and countries en route 10 higher- level positions.

Slaffing practices that attend to team and network coinposition also can create opportunities for knowledge acquisition, sharing, and creation. Despite their increasing popularity. cross-functional teams do not always achieve their objeclives. Staffing practices that ignore the composition of teams and other collaborating groups are a possible explanation for this problem. For example, a study of R&D teams found that high amounts of functional diversity interfered with the teams' technical innovativeness as well as their performance against schedules and budgets (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992). Olher studies have found that diversity increase conflict and turnover rates (see Jackson et al., 2003). When collaborators share too little common ground, the effective communication required for knowledge- centered activities is difficult. Conversely, familiarity and friendship among team members may promote group learning (see Argote, Gruenfeld, & Naquin. 2001). Organizations that allow employees to participate in decisions about how to staff project teams and w h o to indude as collaborators may benefit from improved knowledge flows and the learning that such knowledge flows promote.

Finally, staffing decisions should attend to the issue of social capital. Effective knowledge exchange is more likely when a social network exists to facilitate the exchange (Nahapiet Br Ghoshal, 1998). Connections between team members and others inside and outside the organization (i.e.. external social capilal) create opportunities for knowledge-centered activities (Joshi & Jackson, 2003: Tsai. 2002). Diverse teams appear to be most effective when team members have connections to external collaborators (Keller, 2001 ; Ancona & Caldwell, 1992; Reagans, Zuckerman, & McEvily, 3004). Thus, when staffing teams, the question of who is nor in a learn may be as important as the question of who is. Because a team's social capital may be relaled to the demographic characteristics of team members (e.g., their a g . tenure. gender. and erhnicity), attending to the team's social capital is fraught with difficulties. Nevertheless. H R practices lhal ignore the enabling role of social capital may inadvertently diminish opportunities for knowledge sharing.

CONCLUSION

We have argued that knowledge-centered acljvities are more likely to occur when they have been identified as valuable and the required competencies

are present ntzd the workforce is motivated und opportunities for knowledse- centered activities are plentiful. i n order to leverase the knowledze of its workforce. all organizaticrn must make it easy for kt~clwledp to flow into and [hrough the ol.ganlz:irlon. KITivork processes are the primary vehicle drivine kno\vled_ee Rows. and H R practices are ,3monS the tools orzaniza- tions can use to pro~note and support K ITwork.

For org~nizations thal conipete on the basis of knowledge. an effective H R M syste~n serves to specify the k nowledge-centered activities most cn t i - cal to success, ensure that the competencies needed for these activities are present in [he organizalio~,, motivate the workforce to engage in knowledge- centered activities, and create opportunities for knowledge-centered activi- 11es to occur. We hdve argued that all available H R practices can and should be used in unison to achieve these four inajor H R rasks.

Our dzscription of K l Twork highlighted three key issues that have major impircations Tor managing it effectively: First. our description recognized that knowledge can be explicit or tacit. Second. we argued that the HRM system shuuld be used to inallage both knowledge stocks and knowledge flows. And third. we argued that HR practices can be used to shape the knowledec-centered activities of individuals as well as the activities of reams. networks. task forces. and olher collaborative groups found throughout organizat~ons. Our discussion of H R practices to support KlTwork eni- phasires managins social systems and is presented as orle of two pronp that should comprise a knowled_ee-driven HRM system. A comprehensive HRM s!.slrrn would also include H R practices that build knowled_ge stocks. i.e.. the explicit and tacit knowledge held by individual employees. The knowledse-centered activities that comprise K IT\vork are the means through which explicit and tacit knowledge Row through an organrzation. These ;~ctit.lti<s allow kno~vledge to move among and between individuals. teams. networks. departinents. divisions. a ~ ~ d even 01-ganizatiuns and industries. Manapins these activities should be a pi-imary objective (bu? nor the sole objective) of H R M systems in finms rhat compete on the basis of knowlecler.

To dale, H RM research and t h e o ~ y have emphasized explicit knowledge over tlicit knun-[edge. managing knowledge stocks over managing kilow- ledge flows. dnd developi~~g the knowledge resources of individuals over 11la11ilgln_g 111ore co~nplel; social and organ~zstional kiiowled~e-centered ac- :ivities. A broader view of the challenges and oppoi-tuni ties that knowledge management poses for the field of H R M recopizes rhe need 10 naila age both explicit n11d tacit knowledge. I t also d~senlanglrs the twin objectives of hu~ldrnp knou.iedge stocks and supporting kn@~. lcdse flows. Finally. i l


views the HRM system as contributing to a key objective of knowledge- intenswe firms, namely, ensuring that valuable individual knowledge k- comes embedded in organizational processes and routines. In adopting. this broader perspective, we hope to stimulate new thinking about how H R M systems can be used by organizations to achieve sustained competitive advantage.

REFERENCES

.4mabilr. T M. (1979). Effects of external evaluations o n artistic creativity. Journal of Pcrw)*ality und Social Psychologq., 37. 221-233.

.Amabile. T kt.. Conti. R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J.. & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work cnvironrilent for creativity. Acudemy of Managerneni Journal, 39, 1 154-1 184.

Arn11. R.. & Schilemaker, P. J. H. (1993). Strategic assets and organizational rent. Srrareqic M~lnflym~enr Journal. 14, 33-46.

Anand. V.. Manz. C.. & Glick. W. (1998). An organizational memory approach to information management. .drademy o/ Mnnagemnl Revielt.. 23, 796809.

Ancona. D G.. & Csldwell. D. F. (1992). Bridging the boundary: External act~viry and performance Cor orgsnizational teams. Adrnin~srraliw Science Quar~rr l~ , . 37. 6 3 4 4 6 5 -

Anders. G. (2002). Rmhe's new scientific method Fusr Cornpan!. 54. 6 M 8 . Argote, L., Gruenfeld, D.. & Naqu~n. C. (7001 J . Group leam~ng In organizations In:

M. E. Turner (Ed.), Groups a; work Theorj unll re.rrurch (pp 36941 11. Mahw-dh, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Publishers.

Argote, L.. & Ingram, P. (2000). Knowledge transfer A basis for compeuuve sdvanrage In f i rms Organcat~onal Behawor and Hunrun Derlslon Processes. 82. 150- 169

Arthur. J . B.. & Kim, D. 0. (2005). Gainsharing and Lncrwledge sharing. The e f f t i ~ s of I;ihour- management co-operation. Iniurnu!i~jtrul Jocdrrrul n f Hurnun Re~uurre JUdna~r.~~~mr. 16. 1564-1582.

Baerentsen. K. B., & Slavensky. H. (1999). A contribullon 10 the design p r e s s , rort~r)rlinr- rations oJ- the ACM, 42, 72-77.

Barney. J. (1986). Stralegic Factor markels: E~peclal~ons. luck. and business strategy dlun- agenwnl Science. 32, 1 23 1 - 1 242.

Barney. J. ( 1991 ). Firm resources and sustarned cvmpiltlve advanlage. Jolnur~lojMonag~ttlmr. 17. 99-1 20.

Backer. B. E.. & Huselid. M. A. (1998). High prfornmanrr work sysicms and firm prtormanw: A synthesis of research and managerial implicalion. I n G. R Fcms (Ed ). Regarch m per- sonnpl and human resources n ~ a a n a y e ~ n ~ . IVo1. 16. pp. 53-101). Greenwich. m JAl P m

Bettis. R . A. ( 1991). Strategic management and the ~lrd!ghljacket: An edi~orial esuy . Orgont- :ation Science, 2 . 3 15-3 19.

Blockler. F. (1995). Knowledge, knowledge work. and organizations. An ovrrvlew and Inter- pre~arion. Organtorion Studies. 16, 1021- 1046

Bouty. I . (2000). Interpersonal and interaction influences on informal rcsource exchanges k t - ween R&D researchers across organiw~ional boundnrips. Acadentj, of Mo~myement Journal. 43. 5 M 5 .

Bouen. D E . B Ostrofl. C . (10114). Understalldlug H RM-firm p r lb r rna~~ce Imbqes: The role nl' I he "s~rel~gth" of r he 1-1 RM sxsrcln. Ar~rttit.rrl~. n / :lltrnrriqc*~uelir RPI ~rii.. 29. 203-21.

Brnn 11. S. L.. & Else~th:lrdt. K . M . I 1995). Produc~ dr\elopluetlt: Pas1 rese;trch. prerent fwd- Inps. and future directions rlc,rrdrrli!. trt , I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ I I I P I I I Rrric'w. 20. 343-378

Ryrnes. N.. Bcrnsr. R.. Zelier. W.. d Syrnal~ils. W. C [!(Klj). Brandinp Flve new lessons. B~i.rrrrrss M ' P P ~ . pp. 1b-28.

C ~ m p b r l l . J P. (1999). The defir:i~ion and tnen\llrelneilt 01- perforniance in Ihe new dge. In: D. R Ileen & E. I). Pul.~Las (Eds]. Tiw c~ltlt~~~gitiq ~rlr/rtrr 0{ per./i71-r~mt?i~e: I I I I~~~CUIIOIIU lor ,~u{Jinil. r~iollrrnt~A~r und drl +/ryvrt<r~r I pp. 39947r)). Sail Francisco. CA: Joswy-Bass

Czilipbll. J . P.. McCloy. R. A.. Oppler. S. H.. & Ssger,. C. E. I 1993). A theoq of performance In. N . Schmitt & W. C Borm~n (Edsj. Posorut~I ~r l r r . rh~r~ 111 o r ~ u r ~ i : u ~ r r ~ ~ s Ipp. 35-70). Sit11 Francisco. C.4: Jdssey-Bass.

Canrphell-H lint. C I2UO0). Whu~ 11:1ts *c learned Irom generic comper~tive strategy? A meta- analys~s S~rareqrr Manrtqrrrrrir~ Jour nnl. _'1. 1 27-1 45.

Campl~cn. M . .4.. Medsker. G. J.. & Higps. A. C. (1993i. Relations between work group ch;1raclrrir1ic5 dnd effecli\el>ess: implications i o r des~gning errcrive work groups. Pervon~~el PU I clrolrr~ji'. 56. 822-850.

ChaLr~\;trlhy. B.. McEvilr. 5 . Doz. 1. . & Rau. D. 12UO?). Knoamledgc tndnnpernent and ct>lnpctiIiue udvalllage. In: M. E.~jterby-Smith & M . A. Lyler (Eds). Hcrr~dhook oi or- ~~crr~i;~lr~n~r~~!I'tu~~trn~j rrrlrl L-mm ledge ~ttoriuqo~rc~t~/ (pp. 305-323). Malden. MA: Blackuell

Colber~ B. A. (2004). The c~mplex resnrlrcr- b:tsed view, lrnplici~~ions Tor theory ond practice In < I raregic human resoulre Inaiuger:ielit. Arrrr/c,t~i\ d Murtuyr~#~rt~r Rtt.ielr,. 2Y. 34 1-358.

CelG. S.. & Brown. J. 5. ( 1 9QW. B r ~ d ~ i n g epislcinclog~zj. The gel)er;llive dence be~ween or- nizuiianal knowledge and orgsn1ziitiorx11 k~~owing 01-r/cltii:trrtor1 S~,ietrrr. 10 . 381-400.

Dat:~mon!ior (2005). Cvn~panv rpotliph~ - Roclie Group. Da!,!s. M . C. ( 1998). Knowledge In;ln.lgeiutti~. ir~for.~~~c,rtr)t~ .S~~-trre~qy T/te E.1-el*urir~.v' J o ~ m ~ ~ r l .

IF( 1 ). 1 1-21. Datis-Blake. A.. & Hui. P P. 12003). Cnl~iritcl~ng lalent I'vr knowledge-based cornpetilion. In ,

S . E. Jackson. M. A . Hilt &r A S. Denisi (Ed> I. .Iltrnuiqi~rg k~ioit-letfye ,101. JII%-:(IIIIC~

c~nrirp~firrrc~ I I ~ / I ' U I ~ J ~ # ~ . (pp 175-2063. 5211 FIJIIC~SCO. CA: Jossq-Bass. DeC;lrolis. D. M . . & Deeds. D L. (1999) The mipact nf s ~ n c n s and Rows of organizatiunal

hrlnwledpr on hrln prior~ii .~nce- A n cmplric;~l ~srcs t ig.1 ti011 or I he hiotechno1o:y In- d ustry. Slr.irrt;gic Mrrr~uger~w~tr J(JzII?~~//. 3. 95j-968,

Dveds. ll L. 1?0!1; ) . Altrrni~l~vr s~ r ; l i~g i t s !or ncqu~riiip kr~or l ledge. 11): S. E. Jacksoil M ,A H it1 k A S D~!II$I (Edsj. .if~t~~o<qitug kt~o~~,/ei/qi- l(ir . Y I < J ; ~ I I J I ~ ~ rw~tpet i~i i*~ ( I ( ~ c I I ~ { ~ / ! ~ P

i pp. 3 7 4 3 ) . Sit11 Franciscm. CA: .Im<ey-Ba%s Dth151. A. S. HI[(. M. A,. 6: Idckson. S. E, (200.;) The knr~nkdge-based approach to sus-

r:ii~~.:blr cniupe~itire adb~nt:~ge. lu S. E. J;~cksnn. k4. .4 Hilt & A S . Dcnisi (Eds) . .tIrr~tr~yi~~</ h n r ~ ~ ~ ~ / ~ & c i n , srrsrrrr,rcif r trr~rpr.~irir.i~ crtlt rrrttitqe (pp 3-33 I. S i n Flamxisco. CA . Jnssey- 8:lss.

D c ~ r h o . W . 5. . Di Ber~eder~o. C. ,4.. Song. M.. 6; Sinha. 1 . r2UOj). Revisiting the Mllcq ;~nd S I I O N s~r;ilepic Ir:~niei$-orh: Uncot erit~g i~>~er l ,eL~lo~~ships berueen srrategic types. c;~pabili~ 1c5. r l~v~ l . i~n~nr l~ l ;~ l I I ~ I F S ~ I ; ~ ~ I I I ~ . illid I I I I I I PC~IOI-IIIIII~CT. Strltic-~~il. I l i l ~ i l t r ~ r ~ r ~ t - ~ l t

. t ~ ~ l l ~ - t ~ ~ l ~ . 26. 47-74, Desj. G G . Lun~pkin. G. 1- . Br Co\rn. G. 1[967). EntreFrc.nrur~;rl su.ulepy making ;and tirrn


Dierickx, I . , & Cool. K. ( 1989). Asset accumulnrlon and sus~a~nabil i ty of compeiltive adwan- tage. Munagrtr,lrtnt Science. 35. 554-57 1.

Dweck. C. S., & Leggeit, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive appraach to motiv;ition and personality. Ps!,chological Rer.icw. 95, 2 5 6 2 7 3 .

Earley. C. P.. Connolly, T., & Lee, C. (1989). Task strategy interventions in goal setting: The imponanrr of search in straiegy development. Journal of Managcnwnt, I S , 589442 .

Edrnonds~n. A . Bohmer, R.. & Pisano, G. (2001 ). Specding up team learn~ng. Harvard Business Rev~uw. 79(9), 125132 .

eWeek. (2004). RFID needs reality che~k. Novernkr 29. Acctsxd at www.eweek.com. Fiol, C hl. (2003). Organi7jng for knowledge-based competitiveness: About pipelines and

rivers. In: S. E. Jackson, M. A. Hitt & A. S. Denisi (Eds). Mumging knowledge for rirs~ained compelitiw advantage (pp. 6G93). San Francisco. CA. Jossey-Bass

Grant, R . M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based view of the firm. Sfralegir Munugement Journal, 17. IOP-122.

Gully. S. M.. Incalcalerra. K. A,, Joshi, A., 6t Beaubien. J . M. (1002). A meta-analysls of team- eficacy, poiency. and performan-: Interdependence and level of analysis as moderators of observed relationships. Joutncl/ of Applied Psj~i*lroiogy. 87, 8 19-83 2

Hansen. M. T. ( 1 999). The search-rransfer problem: The role of weak tits in sharing knowledge ?.cross orpnization science. Admrnrsrrariw Science Quurteriy, 44. 82- 1 I I:

Hansen. M. T., Nohria. N., & Tierney, T. (1999) What's your strategy Ibr managing knowledge. Horuord Business Review, 77(2). 106 1 16.

Hargadon, A,. & Suttoo. R . IIO(H1). Building an innoval~on factory. Harvard Business R Y V I ~ H . 76(3), 157-166.

Hass. M R., & Hnnsen. M. T 12005). When using knowledge can hun performance: The value of organizational capabilities In a management consul~ing company S~rurtgic- Manage- nlettt Journal. 26. 1-24.

Hoegl, M.. Weinkad. K.. & Gemuenden. H G. (1004). Interteam coordination. project com- mitmenr. and [camwork in multitcarn R&D prqects. A longitudinal study. 0ryani:ution Science. 15. 38-55.

Hollenixck. J. R., DeRue, D.. & G w o , R. (2004). Br~dging 1 he gap between I/O research and H R practices: Improving learn composition, team training. and team task design. Hur~lnn Resource Munugemenr, 43. 353-366.

Jackson. S. E . . & Erhardt. N (2004). Building social connections lo Earn the knowledge adunlape. In: M. Goldsmith, H. Morean & A. J. Oge (Eds), Leading orgunrru-

z~nnul Ieurn~ngc Harnerxing the power of knowledge (pp. 255165). San Francisco, CA- Jossey-Bass.

Jackson, S. E.. Hirt. M. A . & DeNisi, A. S. (2003). Menaginp human resourns for knowledge- based competition: New research directtons. In: S. E. Jackson. M A. Hitt & A S. Denisi cEds), Managing knowledge l o r rusroined corlrpeririut- adcun~age Ipp. 399-428). San Francisco. CA: Jossey-Bass.

Jackson. S. E.. & Schuler, R. S. (1995). Understanding human resource managemen1 in the conlext oi c~rganizations and their environments. A n n u d Reuita. of Psvcholog~. 46. 237-264

Jackson, S. E.. Bt Schuler. R. 5. (2000). Managing human resources for innovation and learning In: R k r n d t (Ed.), Inrroruriw~ munayetnml (pp. 327-356). Berlio Springer.

Jackson. S. E . & Schuler. R. 5. 12W1). Turning knowledge inlo buslness advantage. Financiul Tirne~. January 1 5 (Ma~rer ing Managerr~enr Supp/emenf. pp. 8- 1 0).

J.lckson. S E. . & Schule:. R. 5. (1002). hlanagrng iltdii,iduaf perrormence: A strategic prr- SpXtl~e . In: S Snnl~eil ta~ t Ed. I . P~~.r-/to/r)qid~r/ r~ruirrry~~rric~~rl of' lndt tr/ucrl P P T { O ~ ~ J I M ~ I P

(pp- -;?I-390). Nc\r I'ork. W~lc!. .Inssau.nlla. A . R.. & Snsh~i~a l . H. C. I 1999) Buildmp coll;~borairrl: cross-fu~rciional ncw prod-

ucl learns .J l ,crrktr~~ o i :Ilirricr!/i,rar,*~r L.rt~r~rril.i-. 13. 5063. Jehn. K. A. (19551 A ~nr~l t i~nt thod t\.~mini~tion or the &netits and de:riments of introproup

conRic(. ArItrlt~~r.rlru/irr' Si t ~ r i c t Q ~ ~ c I I - I P F ~ ~ . 40. 256-2Y1 Joshi. .4.. Sc Jackson. S. E. (?MI;). Man;lc:[~_n workfnrce dir~~.s i ly 10 enhance raflperztion In

or;;~ni~,ltions. In: M. A. Wc.51. D. Tjosvald & K . Sntith (Eds). I~~!r~rm/cn~rrtl hnndhook of ori~rtr~i:rt~rt~~~rrl lr~u>r~l,orA- u ~ t i (ranpc,rrrrir*~, 11.0rA.ttrq (pp 277-296). New York: Wiley

K a ~ ~ f e r . R . & Ackerman. P. L. (IYX9). Ivlolrial~on and cognitive abilities: An irl~egrative, ,iyliltude-lrei~tment ~nlrraction ~~pproach to skill ilcqu~sition. Jr~irr.~rcrl 111 Ayl~lied Psi*- rlrolnrr~,. 74. 657-690.

Leller. R. T r100 1 ). Cross-Cu~\rr~onal projrct learn.: i n research ~ n d new product delelopment: D~vrrsl~y. conl~nunications. job strers. and oulcnmes. A C ~ ~ P I I V of Munoqttt>t?trt Jo~!!.nul. 44. 547-555

Kogut. B.. & Zdrlder. U . t 1991). Knowledge nt h e firm. cornb~nat[ve capabilities. and the I eplccation of ~echnology. Or!grr~~i:t/riim Si lc*rldr. 3. 38.;-397.

K~.zlou*sk~. S. J . . & Beli. 0. S, (ZOUj) . Work Srouptr and teams in organiz;ttiiln.s. In: W . C. B o r r n , ~ ~ ~ . D. R. Ilgen & R J . Kl~n~oski (Eds). tfr~rtdl?mok o j ys~~rlroloigy (pp 333-3751. Net% York: Wile!.

Koj.lt~rvsk~. S. J.. Gully. S M.. Nilson. E R.. & Smilh. E. N. ( 2 0 ) . Dtvelupir~g adaptive ie;lnls: A 1 hear! ol' ~.o~npilatinrr ;rnd perl'orn~aiice :across levels and rtme. In: K. J . Klein 6r W. J Kozlotvski r Eds). dlrrlrilcr.eI thrtrr.~ , rrst.rrt-rlt. ulul ~trcrhods 111 oryurttrutrurls (pp 240-192) S;ln Fr;lnclsco. CA- Iossey-B;tss.

Lar~lrr. E. E.. 111. (?D07). Rewitrd sysle~nl: in knowledge-based organizations. In: S. E. Jackson. M . A. Hi1 t & A. S. Denisi I Ed$). .%ft~rt~~gir~q k~~r,br/ccklr,fut' s t r s ~ r r i ~ ~ r r l n ) ~ r ~ p e i i ~ i ~ e url~.ur~titqr. (pp. 174-302). San Francisco. C4: Jossey-Bass.

Lcpak. D P.. L I ~ o . H .. Chung. Y .. 6: Harden. E (2006). A c o ~ s p i u a l review of HR systems i11

siralrgic H R M rfir.lrch. 111: J Mi i r l~ch io {Ed 1. Krsrrrrcir it? p~r~tr~rr~r l rutd I I I N I I U I I

Lepali. D P.. & Snell. S . A. (2(W!). M;lni~arng !hc h u m a n resotlrce architecture for koowledp- hnsed colnpetil~on. In: S. E. Jilckrol~. M. A Hitt & A. S. Denisi (Eds). Mumgirtg k~1011.1i,~ for .+tt.~ t~rittr>ii I t 111~l1cri1irt~ ~ ~ ( ~ I Y I J I ~ ~ I ~ J P (pp. I 27- I 54). S,I n Fr~nciwo. CA: Jossey- B;iss.

LePinr. ! A,. Colqilitt. J . A . 8; Erez. A. (?IKWII ?daptahih~? IC changing task concerns: EfTezts of generill snputive ;I hilit?. conr~entiousness and openness 10 experlsnce. Persorrrrt4 P. I 1 / 1 . 3 . 563-594

Lei inc. J M . & Uo~-~l;lnd. K L. ( 1999). knowledge lransnursron in work youps Helping Ilencomrrs to succeed. In: 1 Tho~npran. J. Ley inr & D. Messick (Eds). Slri~r-ad roqrri- liol~ irl f l ~ ~ l l ; l l ~ ~ ~ l ! / ~ ~ l ~ Tlrr I ~ ~ I / I ~ / ~ / ~ ~ I I I A ~ / I ! / X . I > ( I ~ I k , i f ~ ~ c p p 267-2963. MB~w:III. NJ: Erlba unl

L~ebrclu:J. J . 5.. Oliver. 4 L . Zuuker. L k Brewer. M I IOYb). St.ci;~l ~~etu~orks . Irarnjng. a n d flexi hilily: Sor~rci~le scien~lfic I; nowledge in new hiotechnology firms Or~lrr~~fiot~on Sr t L J / l i t,. -. 43-14?.

LncLt.. E , A, , & Lilt I1;iln. Ci F. I I kj9tl] A 11ti~t)ri- : I ] i j t r l ~ / >t,1111rt~ L I I I I / ;tt~h- I I ~ T ~ O ~ I I ~ ~ I I I ~ , ~ > Eiiglewood Cliflk. NJ. Prentrct-Hall


Lubit, R . t 2001). Tacit knowledge and knowledge management: The keys ra sustainable competitive advantage. Drganizn~wnol Dynamics. 29, 1 6 1 78.

MacDufie, J. P.. & Krafcik, J. (1992). Integrating technology and human resources Tor high-performance mdnufacturing: Evidence from the lnterna~ianal auto industry In: T. Kmhan & M. Useem (Eds), Transforming otgonizarions Cpp. 209-226). New York: Oxford Univemty Press.

Manufacturing Busims Technology. (20051. Wal-Marl CIO says suppliers arc reaping benetits from tagging program London: Manuiactuting Business Technology.

Mart~n de Holan. P., & Phillips, N. (2W3). Orpaniza~ional forgetting. In: M. Easterby-Smith & M. A. Lyles (Eds), Han&ok of orgnnizul~ona! learning and knowledge managemnr @p. 393409). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Mart~n d e Holan, P., & Phillips, N. (2004). Remembrance of things past? T h e dynamics of organizational forgetting. bfamgement Science, 50. 160S1613.

hlauter, S. D.. Lee. T. W., & Mltchell,T. R. (2003). Rcta~nlng knowiedge by retaming technical professionals: lmplicatians for the unfolding turnover model and the job emkldtdness construct In: S. E. Jackson, M. A. Hitt & A. S. &nisi (Eds), Managing k v ~ r l e d y e for susrn~ned ~~nmpeririw advanrage Ipp. 303-330). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

McEvily. B., a Marcus. A. (2005). Embeddd ties and the acquisition of competitive cape- bilitia. Stratepic M w g e m e n f Journal. 16, 1033-1055.

Miles. R. H.. & Snow, C. C. (1984). Designing strategic human resoilm systems. Organi:u/ional Dtnomks, 13, 3 6 5 2 .

Miller. D. (1986). Cilnfigurat~ons of mmtegy and strucinrt Towards a syn~hesis. Siraregir Il fanayemen 1 Journal. 7, 233-249.

Millcr. D. ( 1994). What happens after success: The perils of excellence. Jourmi ofIllunagemenr S ~ u d i r ~ , 31, 327-358.

M~llson, M. R., & Wilcmon, D. (2002). The impact of organizational integration and product development proficiency on market success. Industrid Morkelimg M a n a ~ m r e n ~ , J I , 1-23.

Mohrman, S. A,. Cohen, S. G.. & Mohrman. A. M . Ir. (1995). Designing warn-bused orqdnt ruttons: Ne-n formsfor knowledge work. San Francisco, CA: Josscy-Bass.

Montemayor, E. F. (1996). Congruence ktween pay policy and competltlve slratecy in h ~ g h - performance firms. Jdutnai of Mumgcmerrr. 22. I S S P O B .

Morgeson. F. P., Reider, M. H.. % Campion, M. A. (2005). Selwing individuals in learn sethnps. The importance of w i a l skills, personality characteristics, and teamwork knowledge. Pcrsonnd Psycholoyj. 58. 583-6 1 1 .

M u m ford. M. D. [ZW). Managing creative people. Strategies and tactics For innovation. Hun~an Resource Mmoetnen! Review, 10, 3 1 1 - 35 I .

Nahapiet. J.. & Ghoshal. S. (1998) Sxial capital. intrllectual capitat. and the organization advantage. Acn&rnj. of Monayement R e ~ i t w . 23. 232-266.

Noe. R. A,. Colquitt, 1. A,, Sirnmenng, M. I.. & Alvarez. S. A. 11003). Knowledge manage- menl: Developing intell~ctuai and swial capital. In: S. E. Jackson, M. A. Hit1 8: A. S. Denisi ( Eds), Mmagtng knonriedgr for m r u tried co~npeliiiw aduanlqr (pp. 209-2423. San Francisco. CA: Jossey-Bass.

Nonake. I . (1994). A dynamic theory of knowkdge creation. Oryoniza~ion Science, 5. 14-37. Nonaka. 1.. & Takeuchi. H . (1995). The kno~-ledg~-creuiinp cornpuny New York. Oxford

Universjty Press. Nooaka. I.. Toyama. R.. & Byosiere. P. (2003). A theory of organizational knowledge creation:

Understanding ihe dynamics of creallng knowledge. In: IM. Dierkes. A. B. 4ntal.

J. Child & I . Nonakil (Eds). Hrrr~rlhvod or!,rrr)i:,rl~~i)rrrI Ifirrnmi) ulrd knoirledggr (pp. 491-517). Oxford. U K : Oxinrd IJ~riverrrly Press.

Oldham. G. R. (7003). Stimulating and sitpporllng rreall\liy 111 nrp.-inIz;lllons In S. E Jackson. M. A. Hitt & A. S. Denisi (Eds 1. htulruqlng I;~ro\tIedyr lor .rrr.c~u~~icrl co~~lpe!rticr udcuntugr (pp. 3 - 2 7 ? ) . S ~ I I Fri~ncisco. CA. JDSSCY-BRSS

Oslroff. C.. &. Borsm. D. E. (2000) M o \ , ~ n p H R l o a h~phcr be\-el HR pracriws and organ- izar~onal ei'fectiveness. In: K J . K l e ~ n & S. W . J. L o ~ l u w s k ~ t Ed?) Mitlrtl~rel rl~enr!,. rc,.starrr.rlr. rrrirl r)rrrlrt~rl.r. irl olycrrli:rrrrr,~~r t pp 2 1 1-2661. San Francisco. CA. Jossey-Bass.

Paulus. P. N.. Larey. T. S.. & D z ~ l ~ d o l e i . M. T (2iKII). C r e ~ r ~ k ~ t y In group5 and teams. In: M. E Turner ( E d . ) . Grotrlls ~ I I I I orl. T I I ~ I I I 1 trrr~l rtb.wu1 c l ~ (pp. 3 19-3381. Hillsdale. NJ: Erlbdum.

Polan! i. IU I I Yh?) T/te lurir ili~tlr~tsiu~;. London: Routledge. Porlrr. hd. E { 1980). Cor~ip~liti~w . S ~ I T I ~ C < J ? . . T ~ ~ ~ I I ; ~ ~ U P S ~ ( J I r~~~r~/ l . l i l lq i n ih~~rr i e~ und corllpetiiors.

New York: Free Press. Puiakos. E. D.. Arad. S.. Donovan. M . A,. & Plamondon. K. E. (2000) . Adaptability in the

U O I Lplace: Developmenl of tl laxonom! or adaptwe perrorrnance. Jourrsui u j ' Applied P.5 '.r I( l~ologl!~. 85. 61 2-624.

Puldhw. E D.. Dorsey. W. D.. 8; B o n r i a ~ ~ . W C (2003). Hiring for knowledge-based com- pel11 1011. In: S. E. J n c k s u ~ ~ . M. .4. Hitt & A. S . DeNisi (Eds). Mu~ra~irlg kr~n~rlrd~r lor ~lrrrrrinrrl tvr)lprzi!irr ~rdrrrr~rtrge. Dr,~i<ji~in!l ~~~.ult'g]Il,.~ jur cfjPr!lre h ~ t ~ l u n resolrrcf t111111- crcjimrrl~~t.,t~ (pp, 155- 177). S;ui F~lncisco. CA: Jossey-Btss.

Re;l~;llls. R.. Zuukerman. E.. & McEvily. B. (1001). How to make [he team: Social n t l w ~ r k s vs.

deniugraph!: ;is criteria for designing dTt .c i i~e teams. 4rh1lini.srrrrrir.e Sr i~nt , e Qrru~.!vr.h. 49. 101-133.

Rrt. M I.. & Cijnltu. T. R. (1998). Grrirral cogni~ive nhility and occupnlionr~l perfor~nilnce. / I I I ~ I - I ~ ~ I / ~ ( I I I ~ I / R P L ~ ~ ~ I , 01' I~li/r~.\?i-iir/ trtli! O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I I I : ~ I I ~ ~ I ~ I ~ ~ / P . v ~ ~ I i o 1 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ . 13. I 59- 1 84

Rk~ies . S. L.. Brown. K . G.. & Colberr. A. E. (2OU2). Seven comnion misconcep~~ons abo111 hillnan resource pructicex Research findings versus practitioner bellers. Arlrdrrrrr (rl Iltrn~ugrr~inir E,l-~c,urit-t~. 16. 91- 103.

S:~:lved~.:~. R.. Ei~rley. C. P.. & Vrin Dyic. L. (1993). Complex inlerdependence In task- perl'orni:u~ce gro t~ps . Jorrrr~rrl n/ .4pplic~d Ps~~r l io ln t~~ . 78. 6 1-71.

S;~:lie~l. P. R.. & Laczo. R. hl. (200.11. Joh ; i~ l J work snalysis. In: D. R. Ilgelr & R. J . K l ~ ~ n o s l ~ { E d 0. H(r~it/book of ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ r i i o l o ~ ~ ~ - : I I :~ I I .T I~ I ( I / t~i;d ortgt~~ri:ct iiolr~tl 1) r ~~cl~olo i j i~ ( pp, 1 1 -37 \ hrrl 'I'o1.L. W~le!

Si1nchc2 I . I . B Lcv~lic. E. L 1 2 0 1 ) . The :111ilIvsis of work in the I l r i h and 2lsr crnrurlrs In. b! A ~ ~ t l e h a n . 5. 5. One>. H. h Sin,myil 6( C. Vis~tesvaran { E d f ~ . Hul~tlbor~k 01 rr~drrs~rrdl I) {,I-k rrrrrl i~rrr~~sur~r~r:lrr p: 1 - 1 hrtlrrcri- (pp. 7990). London: Sage.

Sc'htllr~. R. S.. k Jid,wn. S E (1067) Linhlng r.ornpelill\t: s t ln~egies wilh human resource n~ill);lgcliwnl prxclwrs .41 I I , / ~ - / I I ~ ~ ~ J I I I I : ~ ~ C I I I L * I I ~ L -YP~>LI /~ I I , . I . 207-2 i 9.

Sch~rl~i R S J,\clmn 5. E.. 6 S~me!. J 12Wll ) . HRM .tnd Itslink uitl~ stri~tegicrna~~i~pe~nenl. I!)- J S ~ ~ w e h I Ed, 1. / ~ I , I I ! I I ; ; I i,.~ort~ t i, I I I ~ I I ~ ~ I ~ / < , I I I < I ~ ~ : ,4 rri111,<11 /<)-I. (211d ed. j (pp. I 14- 130).

Sh.~llr!. C'. E , 1395). Ell?c13 oL cn , l c ( tu~~ . ehpcded r \ . ;~lu:~t iot~. ; ~ ~ t d poi11 set~irlg. Ji.i~rh~r~l~- I > /

4li/l1ll,/i~ll~t~~:/ . t ,~ l l l ll~lt . lY 3 8 ; 50: Sh:~r\ ! D guy^.! ti S; Urlev . J . E. 120(12). Pi!! d~spers ion ; ~ n d aorklolrr perfor~n:tncr:

A l < > ~ i ~ : -11 111: L ~ I ~ L I G < \ I ' t l ~ ~ ~ l \ i c :! .:nd I I I I C ~ L I ~ ~ I I L ~ ~ ~ C C , .Yr1,'11t*~/i< : \ I ~ I I ~ ~ I ~ / ~ ~ I ~ I ~ ~ I ? / Jo11rm11. .'< $ ; I 51:.

70 SUSAN E. JACKSON ET A t .

Shea, G P., & G u m . R. A. (1487) Groups a5 human resources. In: K. M. Rowland & G . R. Ferris (Eds), Rerearch in personnel und human resoarc-ur Inanayemen;. (Yo1 . 5. pp. 323-3561. Greenwich, ff. JAl Prtss.

Smi~h. K. G., Collins, C. I., & Clark, K. D. (2005). Existing knowledge. knowledge creation capaklity. and the rate of new product introducrion in high-lczhnology firms Academy o/ Manngewwnt Journal. 68, 346357.

Spender. 1. C., & Grent. R. M. (1996). Knowkdge and the firm: Overview. Sltuieyir Mnrwgernenr Journal. I?, 5 9

Slwens. M. J., & Campion, M. A. (1999). Stafine work teams: Development and vatidatroo of a selection test for teamwork serling. Journul o.f Manag~ment. 25, 207-228

Sutton, R. I.. & Hargadon, A. (1996). Brainstorming groups in context: Effectivems in a product des~gn 6rm. Adminlsrratiw SciPnce Quarierb. 41, 685-71 8.

Swart. J., & Kinnie, N, (2003). Sharing knowledge in knowledge-intensive hrms H w n Re~ource hfarragemenr Journal, 13. a 7 5 .

Taggar, S. (2002). individual crearimiy and group ability to utilize ~ndividual creatlve resources: A mull)\cvel model. Academy of Manogem~n; Inurnal, 45, 3 1.5-330.

Takeuchi, H.. & Nonaka, 1. (1986). The new product deveiapment game. Hurmrd Business Rerifr. 64( 1 ), 137- 146.

Thomas. J . C.. Kellogg, W . A,, & Erickson. T. (2001) The knowleap management puzzle: Human and social factors in knowledpr management. JBM Swremr Jourwl. 40. 863485 .

Thompson, L L., Levine, J. M ., & Messick. D. M. (199). Shared 1,ognilion in orgunrrarinns. Hilldale. NJ; Erlbaurn,

Tjosvold. P., & Tjo~vold, M. M. (1995). Cross-functtonal learnwork: The chalkenp of involving professionals. In: M. M. Beyerlein. D. A. Johnson & S T. Beyerltin (Eds). Advanlhes in mrc.rdisripiimr? smdies in work learns. (Vol. 2. pp. 1-34). Greenwich. CT: JAI Press.

Tsai. W. (2002). Social structure of "cmpetit~on" with~n a multiun~l organization: Coordina- tion. cornpelition. and in~raorganizational knowledge sharing. Organizpiional Sr~rnce. 13. 17S190. ' A

Tsang. E. W. K. (2002). Acquiring knowledp by foreign partners for internationill joint ventures In a transition ewnomy: Learninpbydoing and learning myopia. Strarpgir

Manayemenl Journal. 23, 8 3 5 854. Vera, D.. & Crossan. M. (2[)03). Organiza~ional learning and knowledge manapment: Toward

an inlegralive framework. In: M. Easterby-Smith & M. A . Lyles (Eds). Handbonk of organ~:ational ieorning nnd knowledge managtmeni (pp. 122-141). Malden. MA, Blackwcll.

Von Hippel. E. (1994). "Sticky information" and the locus of problem solving: Implication for innovation. Organsurron Sc~ence. 40 .429439 .

Von Kragh. G.. Ick,ijo. K., & Nonaka. 1 . (2m) Enabltng knon.ledgc cr2urion. New York: Oxford University Press.

Winters. D., & Latham. G. P. ( 1 996). The effect of Iearn~np versus oulcome goals on a simple versus a complex task. Grarrp & Orgran~:alion Manuuemmr, 71. 23&250.

Zenpr. T R.. & Marshall. C. R. (2000). Determinan!~ of inrrpnl~ve intensity in group-based rewards. Ai>udem! of Mandgewenr Journal. 43. 149-163

Zirger. 0. J.. & Madique. M. (1990). A model or new produc~ development: An empirical test. Martayerrrenr Screnre. 36, 867-883.

toward developing human resource management …

Documents