Linking human resource management and knowledge management via commitment. A review and research agenda
| Date | 01 April 2003 |
| Published date | 01 April 2003 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/01425450310456479 |
| Pages | 182-202 |
| Author | Donald Hislop |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour |
Employee
Relations
25,2
182
Employee Relations
Vol. 25 No. 2, 2003
pp. 182-202
#MCB UP Limited
0142-5455
DOI 10.1108/01425450310456479
Received July 2002
Revised October 2002
Accepted October 2002
Linking human resource
management and knowledge
management via commitment
A review and research agenda
Donald Hislop
Sheffield University Management School, University of Sheffield,
Sheffield, UK
Keywords Human resource management, Knowledge management, Employee attitudes,
Commitment
Abstract This paper contributes to the development of the knowledge management and human
resource management literatures through developing the linkages between them. Increasingly it is
being acknowledged that the success of knowledge management initiatives is fundamentally
predicated on having workers who are prepared to share their knowledge. It is suggested that
HRM concepts and frameworks could be utilized to improve our understanding of what shapes
the willingness (or reluctance) of workers to share their knowledge. Specifically the paper considers
how the motivation of workers to share their knowledge may be shaped by their level of
organizational commitment. Guest and Conway's model of the psychological contract is modified
to link commitment with knowledge-sharing attitudes and behaviours. Finally, it is suggested that,
if commitment is linked to knowledge-sharing attitudes, then the apparently low commitment
levels reported by a number of surveys may mean this represents a key problem for knowledge
management initiatives.
Introduction
It is a paradox that, while so many authorities and commentators on knowledge management
(KM) have come to the conclusion that KM ultimately depends upon people, it is precisely the
people (or HR) aspect that has been the most neglected in studies in this field. Moreover, HR
practitioners and HR analysts have been slow in making their mark in this emerging field
(Storey and Quintas, 2001, p. 344).
Since the mid-1990s KM has emerged as a subject of great interest to both
academics and organizational practitioners. This is witnessed both by the
enormous number of articles that have been published on the topic in academic
and practitioner journals (Scarbrough et al., 1999) and also from the vast
number of organizations which have attempted to implement KM systems/
strategies (Beaumont and Hunter, 2002; Kluge et al., 2001; Ruggles, 1998).
While much of the early KM literature was heavily focused on technological
issues, this has changed, such that the importance of human and social factors
has been increasingly recognized.
Paradoxically, however, while the importance of these issues has been
widely articulated, people management perspectives have yet to be fully
developed, and the KM literature has made only partial and limited use of
human resource management (HRM) concepts and frameworks. Further, as
The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0142-5455.htm
Linking
management via
commitment
183
suggested by Storey and Quintas (2001), the weakness of the linkages between
HRM and KM is to some extent because HRM academics have been loath to
enter this debate[1]. One objective of the paper is therefore to contribute to the
development of both the KM and HRM literatures through building a bridge
between the subjects.
Currently the KM literature has reached the point of acknowledging the
importance of people management themes, but has not made the next step of
investigating, and theorizing these issues in detail. As personnel issues are now
arguably regarded as the key factor most likely to affect the outcome of KM
initiatives, this represents an important task.
Two important pieces of work have engaged with this task by mapping out
an agenda of the most important linkages (Scarbrough and Carter, 2000; Storey
and Quintas, 2001). This paper has a similar purpose, but utilizes a different
method by instead examining in depth one key issue which emerged from both
of these review articles: organizational commitment.
There is an enormous literature which illustrates that the level of
commitment workers feel for their organizations is closely linked to their
attitudes to, and behaviour within, the workplace. For example, levels of
commitment have been shown to influence turnover intentions (Chen and
Francesco, 2000; Iverson and Buttigieg, 1999), and levels of ``citizenship
behaviour'' (Coyle-Shapiro and Kessler, 2000). However, whether commitment
levels affect attitudes towards, or participation in, KM initiatives is an open
question, as no research has been done on this area.
The second, narrower objective of the paper is to address this gap by
making a theoretical case which suggests there may be interesting linkages
between the levels of commitment workers feel for their organizations and their
attitudes and behaviour towards KM initiatives, and thus contribute to an
improved understanding of what encourages or discourages people with regard
to sharing their knowledge. This is an exploratory theoretical paper which
sketches out the potential links between these two factors and discusses how
research in this area can be progressed.
The starting-point for this paper is the idea that the success of any KM
initiative is likely to be critically dependent on having suitably motivated
people taking an active role in the process (Robertson and O'Malley
Hammersley, 2000). Thus the paper begins by showing how both the nature of
knowledge and the character of the employment relationship make this the
case. The paper then moves on to consider what specific factors within
organizations have been found to affect people's willingness (or lack of it) to
share their knowledge, including the general culture of organizations
(McDermott and O'Dell, 2001), as well as the type of HRM policies and practices
that are adopted.
The paper then shifts focus, to examine the concept of commitment, and
illustrate the evidence which shows how levels of commitment significantly
affect a wide range of attitudes towards, and behaviours within, the workplace.
The paper utilizes Guest and Conway's (1997, 1999, 2001) model of the
To continue reading
Request your trial