\

Knowledge I J M R organizational
September 2000

work as behavior

E. Kevin Kelloway and Julian Barling

Knowledge work has been defined as a profession. a characteristic of individuals, and as an individual activity. We review and critique these definitions of knowledge work and propose that knowledge work is best understood as discretionary behavior in organizations. As such, knowledge work is understood to comprise the creation of knowledge, the application of knowledge, the transmission of knowledge, and the acquisition of knowledge. Each of these activities is seen asa discretionary behavior. Employees are likely to engage in knowledge work to the extent that they have the (a) ability, (b) motivation, and (c) opportunity to do so. The task of managing knowledge work is focused on establishing these conditions. Organizational characteristics such as transformational leadership, job design, social interaction and organizational culture are identified as potential predictors of ability. motivation and opportunity. Implications for further research and practice are identified.

Julian Barling isfrom the School of Business, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada. Kevin Kelloway is from the Department of .(1998) Management, Samt Mary's NS Cd' University Halifax , , ana a.

Ever since Peter Drucker (1979) first coined the phrase 'knowledge workers', organizational practitioners, researchers and theorists have become increasingly concerned with the growing population of 'knowledge workers' (see for example, Horibe 1999) and, by extension, the management of organizational knowledge (e.g. Davenport and Prusak 1998; HarvardBusinessReview 1998; Stewart 1997; Yon Krogh and Roos 1996). Special issues of both the Journal of Management Studies (1993) and the California Management Review have addressed the topic and there is increasing recognition that organizational ... knowledge represents the firm's 'mtellectual capital' (Stewart 1997) and is a source of both

Despite this widespread and growing recognition, as yet there is little consensus as to exactly what constitutes 'knowledge work', making it difficult if not impossible to achieve Drucker's conditions for survival. Indeed, in researching this paper, we ended up reading the accounting literature (for the extension of human resource accounting principles to the notion of intellectual capital), the MIS literature (for the identification/evaluation of technological approaches to knowledge management) as well as the management literature (i.e. for case studies and recommendations on how to motivate the 'new' population of management workers). Given this diversity of perspectives, it is not at all surprising to find that there are a variety of definitions for 'knowledge work'. We begin, therefore, by reviewing these definitions and pointing out what we believe are cntlcal weaknesses. We suggest that some

current and future earnings. Indeed, Drucker (1999) has gone as far as to suggest that a OBlackweIiPublishersLtd2000. firm's ability to recognize and manage 108 Cowley Road.OxfordOX4 organizational knowledge will be the single lJF. UK MA02148, Malden, and 350 Main USA Street,. most Important determInant of firm survival.

ternational Journal of Management Reviews Volume 2

Issue3 pp.287-304

287

--I

Knowledge work as organizational behavior

definitions are too limiting, while others direct employees' ability to engage in knowledge our attention in the wrong direction. We end work, motivation to engage in knowledge this initial considerationby proposingour own work, and opportunities to engage in definition -knowledge work as discretionary knowledge work. It is only by identifying organizational behavior. As we discuss in and changing the organizational conditions detail, we believe that this new definition has that enhanceemployee ability, motivation and substantial implications for human resource opportunity that we can truly engage in managementin organizations. 'knowledge management'. Paralleling the recognition of the In developing this argument, we do not importance of knowledge work has been the think it useful to discredit all that we know concern that the existing body of knowledge about organizational behavior and how to we have accumulated about management and enhance organizational outcomes. Indeed, by employee motivation is no longer relevant placing the emphasis back on increasing (see for example, Giles et at. 1999). First, the motivation, ability and opportunity, we sugdemandsof the new economyare describedas gest that our accumulatedbody of knowledge forcing a new focus on the acquisition of about human resource managementbecomes analytical skills (e.g. Locke and Kochan all that much more important. Indeed, we 1995). In turn, the advent of knowledge work suggestthat the most startling implication of is seenas substantially rewriting the assump- the new knowledge economy will be the tions and managerial practices of the past. increased emphasis on human resource Proponentsof this view implicitly, or some- practices in organizations. times explicitly, assume that 'knowledge Thus, in this paper we focus on defining workers' somehow representa new breed of exactly what comprises 'knowledge work' in worker with different needs, values and organizationsratherthan on unquestionedand motivators from traditional workers. Despite untested assumptions of what 'knowledge this concern,recommendations as how best to workers' want in organizations. In doing so, manage'knowledge workers' often emphasize we hope to achieve three interrelated goals. building trust and increasing employee First, as described above, we review the autonomy recommendationsthat are substan- existing literature to propose a definition of tially the same as those contained in the knowledge work in organizations.In doing so, traditional literature on employee motivation we explicitly reject the taxonomic approach and satisfaction. Thus, although researchers favored in the popular managementliterature have recognized the emergence of a new in favor of specifying how knowledge is category of work, practical responsesto this actually used in organizations. Secondly, we new phenomenonfrequently seemlike putting proposea model of knowledge work based on 'old wine in new bottles' as traditional recomthe suggestion that the use of knowledge in mendations for job design are repackaged in organizations is largely a discretionary the language of the 'new economy'. behavior that can be encouraged but not How then are we to 'manage' knowledge demanded by organizations and their manawork and 'knowledge workers'? We suggest gers. Finally, we identify the implications of that defining knowledge work as a discreboth our definition and model of knowledge tionary activity places the emphasis back on work for researchand practice in organizamanaging people in organizations. That is, tions. In doing so, we attempt to make our .rather than 'managing knowledge', our focus assumptions about the phenomenon explicit will be on managing the true owners of and subject them to empirical enquiry and knowledge; the people who work in organiza- practical experience.We suggest that such a tions. Organizations will be successfulin this rigorous evaluation of assumptionsis neces0 Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2000 task to the extent that they increase sary in order to develop a true understanding

288

.
of knowledge work and its impact in the new economy. its roots in 'thinking' the Tayloristic separating and tradition 'doing' Of in

ll I
"; ~
t!t

Th Df
e

f K I d W k e 1m Ion 0 now e ge or

O .to

organizations. There are several problems with such an approach. First, the separation of thInkIng and doIng IS a holdover from an earlier age, which ignores the expanding role of blue-collar workers under new forms of work organization. For example, in firms that adopt strategiesof participative management, blue-collar workers are frequently highly trained in production processesand/or quality control and routinely participate in creative decision making as part of their jobs (see Cusimano 1995 for a description of such training efforts). Re-engineering groups, quality control groups, participative decisionmaking initiatives and a host of autonomous or work groups in organiza. semi-autonomous bel th . Ie e assumptIon that there are ,managers , wh0 th1 .nk and ' wor kers' woo. h d
'

U ~ ; ! :

Despite their popularity, it is increasingly clear that the terms 'knowledge worker' and 'knowledge work' are, at best, poorly defined in the literature. At least three thematic definitions of knowledge workers are evident. First, knowledge work has been defined as a profession. Secondly, knowledge work has been describedas an individual characteristic. Finally, knowledge work has been defined as an individual activity. Each of these definitions is reviewed below. A pproac h 1: K nowe I dge W or k as a

IJM R
September 2000

;t

;;;11";

P ro,ess/on .c .tlons

First, knowledge work is most frequently defined in terms of a CirCUDlSCribed list of occupations, typically comprising professional occupations and those associated with information technology or high tech industries (Choi and Varney 1995; Dove 1998). For example, Nomikos (1989, 165) has defmed knowledge workersas comprising 'a group that includes scientists, engineers, professors, attorneys,physicians,and accountants'. Others, although not identifying specific occupations, identify educationor organizationallevel as the defining characteristicof knowledgework. For example, Bentley (1990) defines knowledge workers as those with high education and training, thereby indirectly limiting the definition to professionaloccupations.Janz et alo (1997, 878) similarly defined knowledge workers as 'high level employees who apply theo~eticaland analytical knowledge,acquired through formal education'. Wuthnow and Shrum (1983) took this form of definition to an extreme by defining knowledge workersas a 'new class' due to .a rising number of knowledge-based occupationsand rising levels of educationo As others have noted, this is an elitist view (Choi and Varney 1995) that we believe finds

Rather, current models of production and organization require the active involvement of all workers in the planning of production processes and the resolution of specific problems in organizations. This is an important exclusion because every major analysis of workplace change has identified increased worker participation as a central feature of the new environment (Giles et al. 1999). By excluding certain groups of employees from our definition of knowledge workers, we take away both the opportunity for these individuals to contribute to the organization as well as the expectation that such contributions will be made. We suggest that both employees and their employing organizations are considerably disadvantagedby this approach. Secondly, defming knowledge workers in terms of specific occupations focuses on credentialism rather than contribution. That is, this approachfocuses on what individuals have done (i.e. education, experience,professional qualifications) rather than on what they are doing (i.e. the way they are currently contributing to the organization). For example, although they encourage a broader definition, even Choi and Varney (1995)

0 Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2000

289

I
,

Knowledge work as organizational behavior

retain the qualification of 'well educated' (p. 41) as part of their definition of knowledge worker. As Dove (1998) points out, it is the possession of 'knowledge' that defines knowledge workers, not the possession of credentials. In defining knowledge workers as those possessingeducational or professional qualifications, researchersdivert focus from what workers actually do in favor of a focus on what position individuals hold in the organization. Finally, defining knowledge workers in terms of occupations can be misleading. As Scarbrough (1999, 8) notes 'Knowledge workers are not a discrete occupationalgroup and most of the descriptions of such workers tend to lump together a variety of education and roles.' In doing so, researchers risk muddying the waters by focusing on a diverse and heterogeneous 'category' (i.e. knowledge workers) comprising many individual subcategories (i.e. occupations) A h2 K I d W k pproac : now e ge or as an I d .. d I Ch ct . t .others. n IVI ua ara ens IC

In partial recognition of these problems,some authors have begun to define knowledge workers in terms of individual characteristics as opposed to characteristics of the job. For example, Ahma~ (!981) defined. .mv:l~~e workers as egotistical and sensitive mdiviM h thri bl... duals wove on pu iC recognition. ore typically, Tampoe (1993) emphasizes creativity and innovation in his definition as does Brophy (1987). An extension of this strategy is to define knowledge workers in terms of what they contribute to the organization as a result of personal characteristics such as creativity and innovation. For example,Harris and Vining (1987) emphasize the role of knowledge workers in adding value to products and services. Similarly, Harrigan and Dalmia (1991) define knowledge workers as those who create intangible value-added assets. This approachhas the advantageof moving 0 Blackwell Publishers ltd 2000 beyond the occupational title to a

consideration of what an individual actually contributes. Thus, the creation of value or being innovative becomes the hallmark of knowledge work rather than incumbency in a particular position. However, it must be noted that occupations in most- organizations are hierarchically structured such that the opportunity to make this type of contribution is not open to all. Again, focusing on individual characteristics or their expression in the workplace runs the dangerof setting up two 'classes' of workers; those that display creativity and those that do not" More importantly, such a definitional strategy confounds ability and opportunity (Parker and Wall 1998); it is not clear whether knowledge workers are more creative or more innovative as much as they are simply given the opportunity to express thesecharacteristicsin the workplace. This is an important consideration, because most organizations are designed along lines that create opportunities to contribute for some individuals and take away opportunities for . It remaInsunclear whether the level of .. contrIbution an employee makes to the organization is a function of his/her ability or creativity or whether it is a function of the opportunity to contribute. Approach 3: Knowledge Work as an I d d I Act" . n IVI ua IVI ty
."

A final and still emergingdefinitional strategy has beento define knowledge work in terms of the balance of 'thinking' and 'doing' activities. For example, Drucker defines knowledge work as comprising those jobs in which incumbentswork more with their heads than with their hands. In this approach, the focus is on what employees actually do in their day-to-day activities (i.e. creation of ideas,Conn 1984; work that entails high levels of cognitive activity, Helton 1988; individuals who work with information to make decisions, Fox 1990). Again, recognizing the potential confound with opportunity, this approachhas the merit of attempting to focus on behavior to

290

--

I
I

define knowledge

work.

At the same time, this

primarily

engaged

in

finding

existing

approach is not without its critics. Several authors have noted the potential to define the category of 'knowledge work' out of existence by relying on contribution or the use of intellectual abilities. Most employees, for example, make some contribution to the firm (thereby adding value) and use some intellectual abilities in the daily completion of their duties. Yet, if all work is rightly understood as knowledge work, then the category is superfluous. That IS, If we are all knowledge ..accessing workers, then there IS no need to use the term . 1 ti .' k ' ' kn led k ' ow ge wor ers .k. We suggest that this is the case and that the al d fi .. f ' kn led k,' categonc e mltlon 0 ow ge wor led k '.. I d. I d ' kn an wor ers IS mls ea mg. n . 1 ow 1ge . h d fi .. h partlCU ar, re lance on suc e Imtlons as focused attention on specific groups of k th th h th k wor ers ra ...pa er an on w at ose wor ers actually do m organizations. In contrast, we ..measunng propose that knowledge work IS not a category, but rather a continuum along which work may vary. Thus, all employees may well be knowledge workers although the extent and nature of knowledge use may vary substantially both within and across organizations.
Id . I -simp y re effing to wor ers wou Imp y

...generating

knowledge. Secondly, employees may be involved in creating new knowledge. Existing knowledge may be packaged by employees for other consumers or may be applied to a production process or problem. These four themes are also evident in the eight categories of firm knowledge use identified by Ruggles (1998) who suggested that organizational knowledge use consists of: . new k now led ge . va I ua bl e k now Ie d ge f rom . d .usIng accessl bl e k now led ge . m d eclslon ..
outsl e sources ..

IJM R
September 2000

ma mg .. embedding knowledge In process, od ts . pr uc , or services .. .representing knowledge m documents etc. f . I. ta . aci I tlng k now led ge gro wth t ti .. t. k 1d . .rans effing exls mg now e ge m t 0 0 th er rt s 0f th e orgamza . t.Ion . kn ow led ge asse ts . Similarly, Nonaka (199Ia) focuses on the creation of knowledge and in particular the interrelations between explicit and tacit knowledge. Explicit knowledge is that which can be transmitted to others through formal, systematic language (Polyani 1966). In tacit knowledge refers to knowledge bedded .. d .. d I .
m m IVI ua expenence an d ...

A Proposed
W or k . In 0

...contrast, DefinItIon of Knowledge

. rganlza t .at Ions

th

IS

em

We suggest that knowledge work is best understood, not as all occupation, but as a dimension of work. That is, the most appropriate focus for researchers and managers is on the use of knowledge in the workplace. While occupations may be expected to vary in the role that knowledge plays, there is also expected to be considerable variation within occupations as individuals choose (or choose not) to use their knowledge to aid the organization. How then is knowledge used in the workplace? In their investigation of knowledge work in 30 organizations, Davenport et al. (1996) describe knowledge use. at least four forms First, employees may of be

as a result, IS difficult to communIcate to others. Polyani (1966, 4) defines the essence of tacit knowledge with his observation that 'We know more than we can tell.' A set of technical drawings or measurements constitutes explicit knowledge; the skill that a master craftsman has 'at his finger tips' constitutes tacit knowledge (Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995). Nonaka (199la, 1994) proposed a fourfold classification (see Figure I) resulting from the transmission of both types of knowledge. Socialization involves the transmission of tacit knowledge between individuals as when a new employee learns through observing and working training with a skilled worker (e.g. on-the-job or apprenticeship systems). ComelBlackweli Publishersltd 2000

291

Knowledge work as organizational behavior

bination involves the transmission of explicit knowledge betweenindividuals and is perhaps best illustrated by the activities that constitute formal education (i.e. teaching a class). Articulation refers to the conversion of tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge. Literally, articulation involves making the 'unknown' known. As Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) the use of metaphor and analogy constitute articulation. Finally, internalization is represented by the conversion of explicit knowledge to tacit knowledge. Professions that involving diagnosis and trouble-shooting (e.g. mechanics, medicine, repair) are based on internalization whereby the individual learns the formal knowledge so well it becomes 'second nature'. As a result, skilled workers in these areas will often know the answer to a problem without being able to reproduce their decision-making steps. Nonaka (199la) also suggestthat articulation and internalization are the most important .ellormance forms of knowledge creabon because they result in an increasein the organization's store of knowledge. Thus we define knowledge work as a discretionary behavior focused on the use of knowledge. Based on the foregoing, we have suggestedthat there are at least four forms of knowledge work in organizations: (a) the creation of new knowledge or innovation; (b) the application of existing knowledge to current problems; (c) the packaging or teaching (see Bird (1994) and Nonaka (1991a) for a discussion of the importance of knowledge transmission) of knowledge; and (d) the acquisition of existing knowledge through research and learning. We suggest that eachof theseforms may be manifested by workers at all levels of the organization and that the organization's ability to 'manage

knowledge' will be a direct function of the ability to elicit these forms of discretionary behavior in the workplace.

Towards a Model of Knewledge Work .. Know/.edge Work as DIscretIonary BehavIor It has become increasinglypopular to link the notion of knowledge work to the notion of intellectual capital (Edvinssson and Malone 1997;Stewart 1997)and, hence,directly to the value of the firm. Drucker (1999), for example, describes knowledge workers as 'capital assets' (p. 87). Ulrich (1998) defined a fInn's intellectual capital as a multiplicative function of 'competence' and 'commitment'. Previously, Barling et al. (1996a) described the fundamental equation of industrial/ organizational psychology as P -& .li ty x M obvabon .. = Ab1 Implicit in this multiplicative model is the assumptionthat if either quantity (i.e. ability or motivation) equals zero, then performance will also equal zero. Thus, the model is noncompensatoryin that high levels of ability do not compensatefor a lack of motivation and vice versa. Wall et al. (1992) extended this basic formula to include the role of opportunity -in addition to ability and motivation, employees must have the opportunity to perform. Our proposed model of knowledge work draws on these formulations to propose that the use of knowledge at work is enhanced by organizational practices that increase employee's knowledge (i.e. ability), employee's motivation to use knowledge or e.mployees' opportunities to use knowledge in the workplace. More formally, employee ability,
Explicit Knowledge Articulation Combination

.
Tacit Knowledge From Explicit Knowledge 0 Blackwell PublishersLtd 2000

Tacit Knowledge to Socialization Internalization

Figure 1. Nonaka's modes of knowledge conversion.

292

motivation and opportunity are posited as mediators of the relationship between organizational practices and the use of knowledge in the workplace. Implicit in this formulation is the notion that knowledge use in organizations is fundamentally a discretionary behavior. Drucker (1999, 84) suggested that increasing knowledge worker productivity 'requires that knowledge workers want to work for the organization in preference to all other opportunities'. It is this 'wanting to work for the organization' that is characteristics of employees' affective commitment (Meyer and Allen 1997). In advancing the position that knowledge work is discretionary behavior, we explicitly deny any direct link between employees' knowledge and the intellectual capital of the firm. Put simply, the organizationdoes not and cannot 'own' the knowledge of employees,and to categorize such knowledge as an 'asset' is fundamentallymisleading. Stewart (1998,169) captured this perspective with his observation that 'It is more accurate-and more useful- to think of employeesin a new way: not as assets but as investors.' Pfeffer and Sutton (2000) agreethat knowledge is not a tangible asset and suggest that simply increasing the stock of knowledge is not enough. Rather, organizations need to ensure that knowledge is used appropriatelyand efficiently. For theseauthors, it is the discretionary use of knowledge by individuals that leads to organizational growth and survival. Similarly, Davenport (1999) explicitly rejects the metaphor of employees' intellectual capital as a flnn asset. Pointing to the fact that the individual not the organization controls the asset, Davenport (1999) argues that employees are most properly viewed as investors of their intellectual capital. As ~nvestors,.em~lo~ees c~oosewhether or not to mvest theIr SkIl~sm a gIven company. Perhapsmore to the pomt, as investors, employees choose when to invest their knowledge, and how much of their knowledge to invest. Moreover, employees

choose to withdraw their investment in the workplace when the 'pay-off' falls below acceptable levels. An organization's intellectual capital can only be enhanced by catalysts that encourage these investment: decisions. Importantly, simply employing an individual is not a guarantee that the investment will be made. Rather, the organization's task is to stimulate employee investment by creating the appropriate conditions. Importantly, these choices cannot be constrained by the organization. For example, an organization can send an employee on a training program but it cannot insist that the employee learn. The organization can request, but not demand,the creation of new ideas that will add value to the firm. These observations proceed from Drucker's (1999) observation that knowledge work is not primarily a matter of the quantity of output (which is easily mandated by the organization). Rather, it is the quality of output that is important, and it becomesdifficult if not impossible to mandate the quality of knowledge use in organizations. This, then, is the fundamental distinction between knowledge and physical work. It is relatively easy to coerce and control physical labor that by definition is observable and measurable. Indeed,by applyingthe appropriate levels of job designand control, an employing organization can fairly easily ensure that employeesare operating at 'peak efficiency'. In contrast,knowledge work is fundamentally unobservable-one observesthe outcomesnot the processof knowledgework. As a result,the organization cannot impose external controls. Rather,the organizationmustfocus on creating the conditions for the enhanced performanceof knowledge work. We suggestthat enhancing employee ability, motivation and opportunity provide theseconditions. Towards a Model of Knowledge Use in Or anizations g A proposed model of knowledge use in organizations is presented in Figure 2, with rationales for the proposedlinkages following.

" " ,,'.

"C:~fr" c: J;

':Vi

R
2000

September

0 Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2000

293

Knowledge work as organizational behavior

-SkillslKnowledge
-Role Br~dth Self

Knowledge

Work

-FinQing Knowledge

EffIcacy
MOTIVATION

-Creating Knowledge -Packaging Knowledge

-Applying Knowledge

-Trust in theOrganization -Commitment totheOrganization Organizational

Culture -Expectations
-Rewards

Figure 2. Model of knowledge use in organizations.

As shown, we suggest that three central characteristics (i.e. employee ability, employee motivation and opportunity) mediate the relationships betweenthe use of knowledge in organizations and various organizational predictors of knowledge use. Consistent with this mediational view, we suggest that changes in organizational practices are likely to affect the use of knowledge in organizations to the extent that they act to increaseemployee ability, increase employee motivation or increase employees' opportunity to use their knowledge in the workplace. M d. t e la ors One of the central requirementsfor employees to engagein knowledge work is that they have the ability to do so. Indeed, prescriptions for managing knowledge workers frequently focus on the organization's need to invest in training and developmental activities (e.g. Beatty et aL. 1997). In arguing the need for ongoing training as a retention hook, Zidle (1998) suggested'In other words, give knowledge workers room to grow -or others will'. Of course, training and developmental ~ Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2000 activities are not the only way to increase

employee abilities. There are two basic choices organizations face in acquiring the competencies they need. Organizations can make the required competencies through training and development or they can buy these competencies through employee selection. Others have also focused on rigorous selection as a key component of human resourcesstrategy (Pfeffer 1998). Selectionand training operate in tandemto ensure that employees have the knowledge required to do the job. However, the promotion of knowledge work in organizations requires going beyond the objective attainment of knowledge or credentials to include employees' perceptionsof their skill baseand I . f h b. l . h. eva uatlon 0 t elr a I Ity to use t IS knowledge.This is the notion of self-efficacy: 'concernednot with the skills one has but with the judgments of what one can do with whatever skills one possesses' (Bandura 1986, 391). Research on self-efficacy has confirmed that individuals who see themselves as being efficacious in particular areas (a) cope more effectively with change (Hill et aL. 1987), (b) perform better on related tasks (Barling and Beattie 1983), and (c) persist at tasks when faced with adversity (Lent et aL. 1987). A substantialbody of evidencehas now

294

accumulated linking self-efficacy perceptions and work performance (Stajkovic and Luthans 1998). Recently, Parker (1998) hasexpandedon the notion of self-efficacy to define a new construct: role breadth self-efficacy. In her words,role breadth self-efficacy is the senseof confidence individuals have in their ability to 'carry out a broader and more proactive role, beyond traditional, prescribed technical requirements' (Parker 1998,835). Knowledge work, as we have defined it, is likely to be enhanced by being proactive and using one's initiative, being self-managing, having high levels of interpersonal and problem-solving skills. Role breadth self-efficacy is the confidence individuals have that they can engage in activities such as solving long-term problems, designing new procedures and products, setting goals and targetsand exchanging information with colleaguesand customers.As such, we suggest that organizational features that enhance an individual's sense of role breadth self-efficacy will result in enhanced use of knowledge in the workplace. Acquiring required competenciesis only the fIrst chore of an effective human resource system. In the current context, ability is a necessary but insufficient condition for knowledge work in organizations. Directing the expression of individual skills and knowledge toward the achievement of organizational goals ~s an equally important function. This is the question of motivation; given that employees have knowledge and have the skills to exploit that knowledge, why do they choose to use, or not to use, their knowledge to organizationally defined goals? One answer to this questioncan be derived from the notion that employees 'invest' their knowledge in the organization(Stewart 1998). Like all investors, employees expect a return on their investment; the more attractive that return, the more likely individuals are to make the investment. Moreover, we know that the attractiveness of a return on investment is predicated on two central features;risk and the rate of return.

We suggestthat the analogueto investment risk in this context is employees' trust in the

,,!1 '

c :

organization. Trust has been defined as comprising both a cognitive and an affective c component (Cook and Wall 1980; McAllister c ,,' 1995). The cognitive component reflects the ," belief that managementis sufficiently skilled to justify employees' confidence in their I J M R actions. The affective componentreflects the belief that managementwill not do anything deliberately to harm employees, vindicating September 2000 employees' faith in management'sintentions. The importance of trust in managementis indicated by data showing that the initial development of trust in management was critical for the formation of high performance work teams,and ultimately, high performance levels (Banker et al. 1996). We suggest that the 'rate of return' on employees' investment of knowledge in the organization is reflected in employees' sense of affective commitment to the organization. First, affective commitment is defined as individuals' desire to remain in the organization and work hard for the organization because they want to (Meyer and Allen 1997) as opposed to because they have to (continuance commitment) or because they feel obligated (normative commitment). As such, affective commitment reflects employees' pride in their membership of the organization, their desire to be a part of the organization, and to their willingness to retain membership in the organization. Employees who display these positive attitudes to the organization would be motivated to help the organization, and one way of doing this would be to elevate one's performance.Empirically, the available data confIrm the suggestionthat affective commitment is a predictor of performance (e.g. Barling et al. 1996b, 1998; Keller 1992; Meyer and Allen 1997; Meyer et al. 1989). Secondly, affective commitment is based on a reciprocal and exchange-based relationship betweenthe organization and the individual. That is, the individual offers his! her talentsto the organization in exchangefor the rewards of organizational membership. ~ Blackwell Publishers ltd 2000

295

Thus, we suggestthat employees' willingbased on (a) employees with high levels of nessto use their knowledge for organizational ability who are (b) motivated to use their ends is a function of both their trust in the knowledge toward organizationalends and (c) organization and their commitment to the given the opportunity to use their knowledge organization. We note that data consistently in the workplace. We now turn our attention indicate empirical relationships between trust toward organizational practices that we and affective commitment (Barling et af. believe will facilitate these three conditions. 1998; Cook and Wall 1980). Even if employees are willing and able to P d. th . kn led tors ... I re IC use elr ow ge to attaIn orgarnzatlona goals, they may be prohibited from following What, then, are the organizational practices through on this investment. That is, the that contribute to increasing employee organization and its culture act to encourage motivation, ability and opportunity? Drawing or inhibit knowledgeuse in the workplace,and on contemporarytheories of job design (e.g. the third necessary precondition for Wall and Parker 1998)and previous research, knowledge use is that employeesare accorded severaljob/organizational features emerge as the opportunity to use their knowledge. likely predictorsof thesenecessary conditions. The literature on knowledge management is Bass (1985, 1990) initially presented a replete with strategiesdesigned to encourage model of transformational leadership comknowledge sharing within the organization prising four components, namely idealized and, more particularly, the sharing of influence, inspirational motivation, knowledge across functional or disciplinary intellectual stimulation and individualized boundaries.Davenportand Prusak(1998,88), consideration. Idealized influence takes place for example, suggestthat the simplestand best when leadersbuild subordinates' respectand means to encourage knowledge transfer in trust by behaving in a fair manner, and do organizations is to 'hire smart people and let what is right rather than what is expedient. them talk to one another'. As these authors Inspirational motivation occurs when leaders point out, the key to this strategy -increase followers' awarenessof the mission encouraging interaction and knowledge or vision toward which they are working, and sharing among employees -is where raise followers' expectationsof what they can organizations most frequently discourage achieve, thereby motivating them to pursue knowledge sharing. 'Organizations often hire the groups' goals. Transformational leaders bright people and then isolate them or burden use intellectual stimulation when they them with tasks that leave no time for encourage their followers to look at old conversation and little time for thought' problems from new and differing perspectives, (Davenport and Prusak 1998,88). giving rise to followers' creative thinking and Similarly, the historical separation of innovation. Lastly, transformational leaders 'thinking' and 'doing' in the workplace that grant individualized attention to their began with the Scientific Management followers, considering their needs and movement, actively inhibits the use of abilities. With their use of individualized knowledge in the organization. Indeed, those consideration, transformational leaders play employees who are frequently the most an especially important role in followers' knowledgeable about specific production growth and development(Bass 1985, 1990). .processes are most frequently the last We suggest that these characteristics are consulted; despite widespread recognition of reasonable predictors of knowledge use in the adage that 'nobody knows the job as well organizations. First, conceptually, the dimenas the personwho does it'. Thus, we propose sions of transformational leadership are C Blackwell Publishers ltd 2000 that knowledge use in organizations must be designed directly to influence knowledge use

Knowledge work as organizational behavior

296

(e.g. intellectual stimulation) or to provide an indirect influence by creating the conditions (e.g. commitment, trust) that would lead to such use. Secondly, in a series of studies we have demonstrated that transformational leadership is related to a diverse array of productivity and morale-related outcomes (Barling et al. I 996b, 1998). Of particular note, we have shown that supervisor's transformational leadership is related to both employee trust and employees' affective commitment to the organization. Most important to the proposed model, these variables were found to mediate the links between transformational leadership and performance. Consistent with the definition of knowledge work as discretionary behavior, there is evidence that transformational leadership is related to discretionary organizational citizenship behaviors (Podsakoff et al. 1996). There are also data supporting the relationship between research group productivity (i.e. knowledge work) and supervisors' transformational leadership (Keller 1992). One study in particular provides powerful evidence to support the linkages hypothesized above. Utilizing a field experiment design, (i.e. with random assignmentto treatmentand control conditions), Barling et al. (1996b) conducted an evaluation of the effectiveness of training transformational leaders. They trained nine bank managers in transformational leadership techniques emphasizing intellectual stimulation. Barling et al. (1996b) were able to show that the subordinates of the trained leaders evidenced increased affective commitment to the organization relative to subordinates of untrained leaders. Moreover, the data showed that branch level (sales-based) financial outcomes improved in the branches where the managershad participated in training. These results are important in the current context for two reasons.First, these results go beyond simple tests of association/correlation to allow for causal inference. Thus, these data indicate a causal relationship betweenleader-

ship training and enhanced commitment! financial performance. Secondly, the training focused largely on intellectual stimulation and on teaching managers how to increase employees' ability and willingness to solve problems and market product lines. In short, managerswere taught to facilitate their employees' use of knowledge in the workplace. Secondly,the proposedmodel identifies the role of job design features, specifically the dimensions corresponding to the Hackman and Oldham (1975, 1976, 1980) theory of job design, i.e. autonomy, task variety, task significance, task identity and feedback. Studies of technological changesto jobs, for example, have"'round that such changes affected worker satisfaction indirectly through the mediating variables of job scope(i.e. job design features) and role ambiguity (cf. Coovert 1995). That is, to the extent that new technology affected task variety, task identity, feedbackand the other traditional job characteristics, worker satisfaction was affected, Moreover, there is widespread agreementthat knowledge work is predicated on controVautonomy(e.g. Drucker 1999; Wall et al. 1990). Indeed, Drucker (1999) emphasizes the role of autonomy and the resulting senseof responsibility as being critical to the managementof knowledge workers. Of course these suggestionsare not new. Control at work is thought to have almost uniformly positive benefits for all workers (for reviews of this literature, see Ganster and Fusilier 1989; Terry and Jimmieson 1999). In particular, high levels of control have been associated with a wide range of positive outcomes, including decreased anxiety and depression(e.g. Carayon 1993; Mullarkey et al. 1997),burnout (e.g. Melamed et al. 1991), and somatic health complaints (e.g. Carayon 1993; Fox et al. 1993)as well as increasedjob satisfaction (e.g. Tetrick and LaRocco 1987), and job performance (e.g. Greenbergeret al. 1989). It is clear that control is a multidimensional construct (Coovert,I995). Mcinerney (1989), for example, suggested that technological

R
2000

September

(:> Blackwell Publishers ltd 2000

297

changesin the workplace are associatedwith at least five types of control: (a) an individual's control over others; (b) an individual's control by others; (c) planning and the use of information; (d) an individual's control over work; and (e) access to information and people within the organization. The ability to accessinformation and control the use of such information would seemto be particularly important to knowledge work. The ability and requirement to learn new skills/knowledge (i.e. task variety) also appearsto contribute to both the ability and motivation of knowledge workers. Janz et af. (1997) note that these effects may not be simple linear relations -rather aspectsof job design (i.e. control and interdependence) may interact to influence knowledge work. In the context of the current model, there is consistent evidence that job design, and in particular features characteristic of enriched jobs, is related to affective commitmentto the organization(Mathieu and Zajac 1990; Meyer and Allen 1997).Thesedataare consistentwith the exchange-based notion of affective commitment that identifies commitment as resulting from the organization providing a more enrichedand stimulating work environment. Using both cross-sectionaland longitudinal research designs,Parker(1998)showedthat job enrichmentwas a key predictor of role breadth self-efficacy and suggeststhat this enhanced sense of confidence may be one mechanism through which work redesignresults in higher performance.This prediction was grounded in the observation that enhancing day-to-day autonomyand participation in decisionmaking has two major effects. First, employees' sense of control is enhanced.Secondly, individuals are provided with sustained opportunities to acquire masteryexperiences that are critical to the developmentof self-efficacy. Basedon her results, Parker (1998, 850) suggestedthat 'Job enrichment is thus likely to be an especially salient initiative when it comes to promoting RBSE'. Thirdly, social interaction appearsto be an () Blackwell Publishers ltd 2000 important predictor of knowledge use. Firms

Knowledge work as organizational behavior

interested in increasingthe use of knowledge frequently establish opportunities for employeesto gather either formally or informally for the purposes of sharing information and knowledge. Referred to variously as learning communities (Martiny 1998),communities of practice (Stewart 1997), or affinity groups (Van Aken et of. 1994), the intent of such groups is typically to achieve a variety of objectives suchas (a) sharing information, (b) solving problems and capturing improvement opportunities, (c) identifying and addressing educationand training needs,and (d) building trust and cohesiveness (Van Aken et al. 1994). The establishmentof a 'user community' or of 'affinity groups' is increasingly recognized as an important part of knowledge management in organizations (Nonaka 1991b). Moreover there is evidence that increasing such social interactions will impact on both individual and organizational performance. Wall et al. (1990) identify both the quantity and quality of social interaction in the workplace as predictors of performance in advanced manufacturing technological environments. Parker (1998) found that participation in 'improvement groups' was associated with increased role breadth selfefficacy. Van Aken et al. (1994) outline several key characteristics of affinity groups. First, participants held the same job position, thereby excluding the possibility of power imbalances basedon hierarchical position in the organization. Secondly, formal group member roles (e.g. recorder, convener, reporter) were assignedin order to structure group processes. Thirdly, groups met regularly, frequently and typically off-site. Fourthly, groups possessed a group charter or 'mission'. Finally, groups were self-managed. It is doubtful whether these specific characteristics are actual requirementsfor successfulgroups. However, it is likely that the underlying principles that they represent(e.g. equalize power within the group, focus on group processes,move the group through the stages of group development) are key to success.

298

Consistent with our proposed Van Aken et al. (1994) report that themodel, major outcomesof the groupswere to increasemembers' ability by ~haring.i?formation and increasing the educatlon/tralDlng and development of group members. Membership in the affinity gro~ps .also acted .to increase employee motivation. In particular, group members reported that enhancedtrust in each other and the organizationwas a primary benefit of group membership. Finally, membership in such a group may, in and of itself, establishthe opportunity for membersto use their knowledge, Finally, the fourth major category of predictors identified in the model comprises the 'culture' (i,e. expectations and reward structure) of the organization. In essence,the suggestion here is that organizations will encouragethe use of knowledge to the extent that they expect and provide opportunities for skilI/knowledge growth and to the extent that they reward such opportunities, Organizations communicate their expectations aboutknowledge use in organizationsin a variety of ways. Identification of the need for change in knowledge use practices, development and dissemination of a vision statement and the demonstrable commitment of top management to a new approachto knowledge managementseem to be key aspects of this. . t ( M . 1998) Th
commumca ...order

Both practices are suggested here to increase both the ability and motivation of employees to use their knowledge in organizations.Clearly,: invest~.ent in selection and trai~ing. increases the abilIty of employeesas orgaDlzatlons select, and/or train individuals in specific competencies.However, suchinvestments also send a messageabout the importanceof knowledge use in organizations. The longstanding corporatetradition of providing employeeswith information tools/resourcesbut not providing training or the time to use the resources sendsa very clear message about the importance of knowledge sharing. Most importantly, the organization's activities in this regard will override any 'lip service' paid to the concept of knowledgemanagement. Organizationalrewards can also enhanceor detract from knowledge use in organizations. Certainly an emerging literature on skilU competency-based pay structures supports the role of salary structures in enhancing performance in high-skill occupations (Lawler 1995; Ledford 1995) and it is a truism that management frequently gets the behaviors it is willing to reward. Despres and Hiltrop (1996, 51) identify three essential characteristics of reward systems for knowledge workers: , .. (a) They will be externally competitive m
.

~ ~~
c'".'"

III i'
:

,,';

! ' ,~,

I J

R
2000

September

Ion

e.g.

artrny

,e

.s appoIntment of a 'knowledge activIst' (von Krogh et al, 1999) or knowledge champIon ..percep ...ey (b) wlthm the firm to promote knowledge use and creation has been recommendedas a vIsIble . f ' .. kn led SIgn 0 commitment to Improvmg ow ge , .m use processes,Moreover, traditional human , .u ( ) resource practices such as selection and ., .c tralDlng can either support, or detract from, th f kn led ' fi D k (1999) e use 0 ow ge m Irms. roc er th I f . I .political h . emp aslzeS e ro e 0 contInuous earning
(hence od .. I h.' d ' fi . f workers' pr UCtIVlty, n IS I entIlcatIon 0 organizational practices that create a high performance environment Pfeffer (1998) emphasized the role of both rigorous (i,e, skill-based) selection and extensive ongoing investment in employee training. traInIng) rn enhancIng knowledge

and sensl ' tI ve t0 emp1 oyees' ' tI .ons 0f '. rn..ern al eqUI ' ty, Th WI .11be percelv . ed as ratI.onaI WI .thm , their organizational context, admlDlstered ., , . a consistentway over time, and becontnb t t th ' tr t ' d t ors 0 e companys s a eglc Irec Ion, Th ' II be t ' tuted . ey WI cons I m a new ord er ..0 of thinking that makes cultural, SOCIO.., and work challenge Issue h ' ( ' . al . rima on emp aslS ) an d pa, pry, g.rn Y bonus and Incentive schemessecondary.
' ' O o

taff

to

attract

and

retaIn

competent

Taken together,theseprinciples operationalize the fundamental importance of 'fairness' in compensation systems (Harvard Business Review 1997). Compensation systems must embody both distributive (principal a) and

() Blackwell Publishers ltd 2000

299

doesa high level of ability coupled with a high level of motivation compensatefor a low level of opportunity? In adopting a multiplicative framework, we have implicitly assumed that all three conditions need to be present for knowledge work to occur. The validity of this suggestionremains open to empirical test. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the S t. f R h d P t .propositions comprising the model must be ugges Ions or esearc an rac Ice . evaluatedacrossa wide range of workers and Our proposed model of knowledge work in organizations. We haveassumed thatknowledge organization is based on a great deal of work canbe understood in the abstract asthe use empirical research. Yet, there are as many of knowledge in organizations. Yet whether questionsraised by the model as are answered knowledge use among IT professionalsis the by the model. Each of these provides some same as knowledge use among assemblyline impetus for future research. workersis a testablequestion.More importantly First, the explicit proposition on which our from our perspective,whetherthe propositions model is based is that knowledge work is an comprisingthe model can accountfor any such inherently discretionary activity. That is, we differences remains the central test of model suggest that knowledge work is somehow validity. different from physical work, and that this In developing suggestionsfor research,we difference is crucial to understanding how to naturally consider the validity of the manageknowledge work. Our model is based assumptions underpinning our model. Three on the suggestionthat organizations 'manage' such assumptions are identified above, and knowledge work by creating the conditions each has implications for research on that enhance employees' ability, motivation organizational knowledge use. Having said and opportunity. this, we also believe that our model has A rival hypothesis is that knowledge work implications for organizational practice. is no different from physical work. Most importantly, we believe that our Organizations can get employees involved in model of knowledge use in organizations knowledge work by the creation of organiza- emphasizes knowledge work as organizational tion policies (e.g. policies on knowledge behavior. As a result, our focus is on improvsharing) or through reward and punishment ing the management of human resources systems (e.g. financial penalties for not within organizations and, through these complying with knowledge sharing policies). improvements,stimulating greater knowledge The relative effectiveness of a 'commitment' use. Pfeffer and Sutton (2000) point ~o the versus a 'control/compliance' orientation in knowing-doing gap that exists in many enhancingknowledge work in organizationsis organizations. That is, organizations know an empirical question. If we are correct, then what to do but simply do not do it for a coercive or control-based policies will variety of reasons.We believe that the most ultimately fail because of the organization's substantial implication of our model for inability to control the quality of the resulting organizations is not the identification of effort. 'new' practices. Rather, our model highlights .Secondly, we suggest that ability, motivathe importanceof doing what we know works tion and opportunity create the proximal (i.e. implementing what we know to be the conditions for knowledge use in organizations. most effective human resource practices). Yet the relationships between these three tj Blackwell Publishers ltd 2000 conditions remain unspecified. For example,

Knowledge work as organizational behavior

procedural justice (principal b). Moreover, such systems need to go beyond the typical focus on pay and benefits to recognize that intangible rewards such as autonomy, independence and recognition/appreciation also have a role to play in the organization's reward system.

300

--

Summary In this paper, and we Conclusions addressed the concept of

knowledge work in organizations. We began by r~viewing definitions of 'knowledge work' and knowledge workers' and concluded that there are few grounds on which to justify these designations as categorical labels. Rather, we ow e ge wor IS a Imenslon of work and that all employees in or ganizatlons may engage In certain forms of knowledge work (although the extent to which employees are so engaged is expected to vary both within and across occupations). We further defined four types of knowledge work in organizations: finding, creating, packaging and applying knowledge. Central to our definition of knowledge work
.'.

References Ahmad, A. (1981). Knowledge work: its evaluation;

and reward. R&D Mallagement, 11(2),69-78. Bandura,~. (1986). ~ocial F~~(ndat~on.s of Thoucl:ht and ActIon: a SocIal-cognitIveV,ew. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Pr~nticeHall. . Banker, R.D., FIeld, I.M., Schroeder, G. and SInha,
A

;; &:

;'1 ;rJ1l

suggest

that

kn

I d

k .

d ..K.K.

... manufactunngperfonnance:a longitudInal study

de 1M J I 39 867-890 . ca my 0 anagement ourna" .

(1996).

Impact

of

work

teams

on

Barling,J. and Beattie,R. (1983). Self-efficacybeliefs and salesperfonnance.Journal of Organizational Behavior Management,S, 41-51. Barling, I., Kelloway, E.K. and Cheung,D. (1996a). Time management and achievement striving interact to predict car salesperfonnance.Journal 0.(Applied Ps~chology, 81, 821-826. Barllng, J., Mounnho,S. and Kelloway,E.K. (1998).
Transformational leadership and group

September

2000

-" h d.. I f f" . pellormance: t e me latmg ro e 0 a lecnve organlza Ions IS a IscretIonary avlor. s . S b . commitment. u mItted. such we propos~ a model sugges~ng ~at Barling, J., Weber,T. and Kelloway, E.K. (1996b). employees are lIkely to engage m usmg Effects of transfonnationalleadership training and knowledge to the extent that they (a) have attitudinal and fiscal outcomes: a field experiment. the ability to do so, and (b) have the Journal ofApplied Psychology, 81, 827-832. motivation to do so. Leadership, job design, Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadershipand Performance social interaction and culture (organizational BeyondExpectations.New York: FreePress. expectations and reward structures) were Beatty, RW., Beatty, J.R. and O'Neill, D.J. (1997). identified as potential predictors of ability ~R's next ch.allenge: building an~ retaining and motivation. As such, these areas present IntellectualCapital. EmploymentRelations Today, as the most likely focus of interventions 24, 33-48. d d t h k I d .Bentley, T. (1990). The knowledge workers. eslgne .." 0 en ance now e ge use 10 lY,anagemen 01 t Acco unt Ingo Lond on, 68(3) ,. 47 o~g~tI.ons. !f Drucker (19~) IS correct m Bird, A. (1994).Careers asrepositories of knowledge: his IdentIficatIon of. enhancmg knowledge a newperspective on boundaryless careers. Journal workers' productivity as a survival challenge of Organizatiollal Behavior,15,325-344. for organizations, then the proposed model Brophy,J.T. (1987). Linking knowledgeworkersand targets the most efficacious means of ensuring infonnation technology. Office, 106(3),88-92. firm survival and growth. Carayon,P. (1993). A longitudinal test of Karasek's job strain modelamongoffice workers. Work alld Stress, 7,299-314. Choi, T.Y. and Vantey, G.H. (1995). Rethinkingthe N t knowledge workers: where have all the workers 0 e gone? Organizatiollal DevelopmentJournal, 13,
'

is the notion that the use f kn led ' 0 ow ge m . t.. d .. beh A

I An award from the Queen's University,Center for Knowledge-Based Enterprises, supportedpreparation of this manuscript. 'Correspondence regarding the manuscriptmay be sentto the first authorat the Department of Management,Saint Mary's University, Halifax, Nova Scotia B3H 3C3,Canada, or by email to Kevin.Kelioway@stmarys.ca

41-50. Conn,H.P. (1984).Improving useof discrepancy time raises productivity of knowledge workers in offices. Industrial Engineering,16(7),7077. Cook, 1. and Wall, T.D. (1980). New work attitudes measures of trust, organizationalcommitmentand personal need non-fulfillment. Journal of

t'J8IackweIiPubiishersltd2000

301

Knowledge work as organizational b h .office e avlor

OccupatiO/lll1 P.l'ycholo,~y, 53,39-52. Coovert, M.D. (1995). Technological changes in jobs. In Howard, A. (ed.), The Changing Nature of Work. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass, pp. 175-208. Cusimano, J.M. (1995). Turning blue-collar workers into knowledge workers. Training and Development, 49, 47-49. Davenport, T.H. and Prusak, L. (1998). Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Davenport, T.H., Jarvenpaa, S.L. and Beers, M.C. (1996) Improving knowledge work processes. Sloan Management Review, 37, 53-65. Davenport, T.O. (1999). Human Capital: What It Is and Why People Invest fl. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Despres, C. and Hiltrop, J. (1996). Compensation for technical professionals in the knowledge age. Research Technology Management, 39, 48-56. Dove, R. (1998). The knowledge worker. Automotive Manufacturing and Production, 110,26-28. Drucker, P.F. (1979). Managing the knowledge worker. Modem Office Procedures, 24, 12-16. Drucker, P.F. (1999). Knowledge-worker productivity: The biggest challenge. California Management Review, 41, 79-94. Edvinsson, L. and Malone, M. (1997). Intellectual Capital: Realizing your Company's True Value by Finding its Hidden Brainpower. New York: Harper Business. Fox, M.L. (1990). Arming knowledge workers with computer systems. Production and Inventory Management Review and APICS News, 10,50-54. Fox, M.L., Dwyer, D.J. and Ganster, D.C. (1993). Effects of stressful job demands and control on physiological and attitudinal outcomes in a hospital setting. Academy ofManagement Journal, 36, 289318. Ganster, D.C. and Fusilier, M.R. (1989). Control in the workplace. In Cooper, C.L. and Robertson, I.T. (eds), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 4. Chichester: John Wiley, pp. 235-280. Giles, A., Lapointe, P., Murray, G. and Belanger, J. (1999). Industrial relations in the new workplace. Relation.1' Industrielles, 54, 15-25. Greenberger, D.B., Strasser, S., Cummings, L.L. and Dunham, R.B. (1989). The impact of personal control on performance and satisfaction. Behavior and Human Decision

Proce.l's,43, 29-51. Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1975). Development of the Job Diagnosis Survey. Jounllli of Applied Psychology, 60, 159-170. Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performan~'e, 16, 250-279. Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1980). Work Rede.l'ign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Harrigan, K.R. and Dalmia, G. (1991). Knowledge workers: The last bastion of competitive advantage. Planning Review, 19(49),48. Harris, M.F. and Vining, G.W. (1987). The IE's future role in improving knowledge worker productivity. Industrial Engineering, 19,28-32. Ha/Vard Business Review (1998). Ha/Vard Busine.l's Review on Knawledge Management. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing. Ha/Vard Business Review (1997). Fair process is critical in knowledge work. Ha/Vard Busines.1' Review, 75, 72. Helton, B.R. (1988). The 'best work' method of knowledge worker assessment. Industrial Management, 29, 26-29. Hill, T., Smith, N.D. and Mann, M.F. (1987). Role of efficacy expectations in predicting the decision to use advanced technologies: the case of computers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 753-762. Hoffman, R.R., Shadbolt, N.R., Burton, A.M. and Klein, G. (1995). Eliciting knowledge from experts: a methodological analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 62, 129158. Horibe, F. (1999). Managing Knowledge Workers: New skills and Attitudes to Unlock the Intellectual Capital in your Organization. New York: John Wiley. Janz, B.D., Colquitt, J.A. and Noe, R.A. (1997). Knowledge worker team effectiveness: the role of autonomy, interdependence, team development and contextual support variables. Personnel Psychology, 50, 877-904. Keller, R.T. (1992). Transformational leadership and the performance of research and development project groups. Journal of Management, 18,489501 Lawler, E.E. (1995). The new pay: a strategic approach. Compensation and Benefits Review, July-August, 14-22. Ledford, G.E. (1995). Paying for the skills knowledge and competencies of knowledge workers.

t) Blackwell Publishers ltd 2000

.Organizational

302

.
55-62. Compensation ulul Benefits Review, July-August, Lent, R.W., Brown, S.D. and Larkin, K.C. (1987). Comparison of three theoretically derived variables in predicting career and academic behavior: selfefficacy, interest congruence and consequence thinking. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34, 293-298. Locke, R. and Kochan, T. (1995). Conclusion: the transformation of industrial relations? A cross national review of the evidence. In Locke, R., Kochan, T. and Priore, M. (eds), Employment Relations in a Changing World Economy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 312-384. Martiny, M. (1998). Knowledge management and HP Consulting. Organizational DYlwmics, 27, 71-77. McAllister, D.J. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 24-49 Mcinerney, W.O. (1989). Social and organizational effects of educational computing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 5, 487-506. Melamed, S., Kushnir, T. and Meir, E.I. (1991). Attenuating the impact of job demands: additive and interactive effects of perceived control and social support. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 39, 40-53. Mathieu, J.E. and Zajac, D.M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 171-194. Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1997). Commitment in the Workplace: Theory, Research and Application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Mullarkey, S., Jackson, P.R., Wall, T.D., Wilson, J.R. and Grey-Taylor, S.M. (1997). The impact of technology characteristics and job control on worker mental health. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18,471-489. Nomikod, G.E. (1989). Managing knowledge workers for productivity. National Productivity Review, 8, 165-174. Nonaka I., (199Ia) Managing the firm as an information creation process. In Advances in Information Processing in Organizations, Vol. 4. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 239-275. Nonaka, I. (199Ib). The knowledge-creating company. Harvard Business Review, 69, 96-104. Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organizational SL'ience, 5, 1437. creating Company: Japanese Companie.\" Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi,How H. (1995). The KnowledgeCreate the Dynamics of Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press. Parker, S.K. (1998). Enhancing role breadth selfefficacy: the roles of job enrichment and other organizational interventions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 835-852. Parker, S. and Wall, T. (1998). Job and Work Design. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Pfeffer, J. (1998). The Human Equation: Building Profits by Putting People First. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Pfeffer, J. and Sutton, R.I. (2000). The KnowingDoing Gap: How Smart Companies Turn Knowledge into Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B. and Bommer, W.H. (1996). Transformational leader behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 22, 259-298 Polyani, M. (1966). The Tacit Dimension London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Scarborough, H. (1999). Knowledge as work: conflicts in the management of knowledge workers. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, ll,5-16. Stajkovic, A.D. and Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 140-161. Stewart, T.A. (1997). Intellectual Capital: The New Wealth of Organizations. New York: Doubleday! Currency. Stewart, T.A. (1998) A new way to think about employees. Fortune, 13 April, 169-170. Tampoe, M. (1993). Motivating knowledge workersthe challenge for the 1990s. Long Range Planning, 26(3),49-55. Terry, D.J. and Jimmieson, N.L. (1999). Work control and employee well-being: a decade review. In Cooper, C.L. and Robertson, I.T. (eds), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 14. Chichester: John Wiley, pp. 95-148. Tetrick, L.E. and LaRocco, J.M. (1987). Understanding, prediction, and control as moderators of the relationships between perceived stress, satisfaction and psychological well-being. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(4), 538-543. Ulrich, D. (1998). Intellectual capital

II
"

,~ ~"

;;$;' i;

R
2000

September

{;}BlackwellPublishersltdlOOO

303

.
~

Knowledge
as organlza

work
t . lona I

= competence x commitment. SLoanManagement

Reviell', 39. 15-26. .

technology and work design: towards a theoretical

framework. Jollmal (if OrKani:ational Behavior,

.Van

behavior

Aken, E.M., Monetta. D.J. and Sink, D.S. (1994). Affinity groups: the missing link in employee involvement. Organizational Dynamic.l',22. 38. Von Krogh, G. and Roos, J. (cds) (1996). Managing Knoll-ledge: Perspectives on Cooperation alw Competition. London: Sage. Wall, T.D., Corbett, M., Clegg, C.W., Jackson, P.R. and Martin, R. (1990). Advanced manufacturing

11,201-219. Wall, T.D., Jackson, P.R. and Davids, K. (1992). Operator work design and robotics system performance: a serendipitous field study. Jollmal (if Applied Psychology, 77, 353-362. Zidle, M. (1998). Retention hooks for keeping your knowledge workers. Manage, 50, 21-22.

C Blackwell Publishers ltd 2000

304