Assisting the Employees' Replacement Process - Research Paper Example

? The Role of Knowledge Management and Human Resource Management in assisting the employees’ replacement process Table of contents Introduction 4 2. What is Intellectual Capital 4 3. Knowledge and its management 5 4. Human Resource Management (HRM) 9 5. Interplay of KM and HRM 12 6. Role of HRM strategies in effective KM 16 6.1 Selection process and KM 17 6.2 Training and Knowledge Management 18 6.3 Performance management and KM 18 6.4 Rewards and KM 19 9. Knowledge worker and Talent Management in learning Organisation 21 10. Conclusions 22 References Appendices List of Abbreviations HRM: Human Resource Management KM: Knowledge Management IC: Intellectual Capital RBV: Resource-based-view 1. Introduction: Ulrich (1998) asserted that knowledge management through intellectual capital will be the basis for direct and indirect competitive advantage for organisations; and that successful organisations will be the ones that are most adept at attracting, developing and retaining individuals who can drive global organisation that is responsive for both its customers and the burgeoning opportunities of technology. Ulrich’s perspective on knowledge management and human resources management provide a strong foundation to understand contemporary organisations’ providence in sustaining their position in the global market. This paper will discuss the Ulrich perspective in depth and to show the link between the role of both Human Recourse Management and Knowledge Management in sustaining the competitive advantage of organisations through knowledge workers. 2. What is Intellectual Capital: Ulrich (1998) emphasizes the ability to attract, develop and retain individuals that can run organisations at global levels while exploiting technological advancements for achieving and sustaining success. This is possible by building intellectual capital, which the Business Dictionary explains as the collective knowledge of individuals in an organisation or society, which can be used to produce wealth, multiple output of physical assets, gain competitive advantage, and/or to enhance value of other types of capital including customer capital, human capital, intellectual property, and structural capital (Skiba & Dulong, 2010; p.264). Human capital constitutes the knowledge gained by employees through specific activities that result in learning and innovation (Edvinsson and Malone 1997). Overall, Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998; p.245) regard IC as “a valuable resource and a capability for action based in knowledge.” Moreover, they regard IC of greater value compared to other organisational assets. According to them, IC operates in two dimensions, first based on types of knowledge; secondly, levels of analysis in knowledge and knowing. From the types of knowledge perspective, its classification into tacit and explicit knowledge by Polanyi (1967) stands good in organisational contexts. Intellectual capital is the hidden value of the organisation, and closely linked to Knowledge core processes such as acquisition, codification, dissemination, development and application (Davis, 2009). Establishment of this link between Knowledge core processes and IC requires an understanding of knowledge and its management in organisational contexts. 3. Knowledge and its management: Knowledge: Distinguishing from information and data, Lang (2001) identifies knowledge as a human creation that is embodied in mind, and argues that it cannot be delivered by systems or technology. A highly accepted and notable classification of knowledge is that of Polanyi’s (1967) tacit and explicit knowledge. Tacit knowledge is that which is captured by an individual’s mindset and manifests through their actions. This knowledge can be acquired through interpersonal interaction (Lee & Choi, 2003). Explicit knowledge forms the formal and systematic knowledge which can be shared and communicated by codifying into manuals, procedures, rules etc (Nonaka & Konno, 1998; Stenmark, 2001). Explicit knowledge can be transferred to others in simpler manner than tacit knowledge. Moreover, tacit knowledge possessed by every individual within an organisation or group is unique in terms of understanding, applicability, and desired outcomes. Knowledge management generally refers to the effective management of available knowledge and knowledge worker with the ability to establish strong relationships among workers and with customers through the processes of knowledge creation, knowledge integration, knowledge sharing and knowledge application (Shanks & Tay 2001). Customer focus and employee-orientation have been management’s main area of focus for past few decades. For this, knowledge related to information, technological expertise, and customer expectations are believed to provide the basic foundation to organisational goals and performance. To acquire and use the know-how related to these components, effective knowledge management is the best approach that can provide competitive advantage to the organisation. As Gloet and Martin (2005) point out, ‘Knowledge for sustainability highlights the need for new knowledge, for new ways of managing knowledge, and for new work practices to support this process. Petersen and Poulfelt (2002; p.3) define KM as the process of developing, sharing and applying knowledge within an organisation to gain and sustain competitive advantage. The main function of KM is to influence businesses’ intellectual capital (Davis, 2009). Knowledge management helps in better decision making, increased productivity, efficiency, profitability, and customer satisfaction. Organisational performance is maximised when it is based on the management and sharing of knowledge within a culture of continuous learning, innovation and improvement (Apostolou 2000; p.21). At an organisational level, knowledge is widespread, yet distinct and unaffected. Brown and Duguid (1998) argued that knowledge is produced and held collective in organisations, which is further enriched when people work together in groups, commonly referred to as ‘communities of practice.’ In spite of heavy depository of knowledge in organisations, this knowledge cannot be truly exploited without organising it in a manner that will translate the tapped knowledge into codified and explicit manner. This process of managing knowledge will add value to their processes and performance. Burkland (2009) suggests that for knowledge possessed by employees to be effective, it should be converted to something, actions or be characterized as awareness to something; this constitutes KM in organisations. According to Rocha, Cardoso and Tordera (2008), tacit knowledge forms the ‘know how’ part of knowledge and explicit knowledge can be linked with the ‘know what’ component of knowledge management. Sustaining organisational knowledge also requires creation and maintenance of new knowledge that can be used for better performance, innovation and helps in achieving competitive advantage for the firm. A firm’s success greatly depends upon its ability to create and manage new valuable knowledge. For this, HRM managers hold special responsibility to create new initiatives that can foster organisational learning and knowledge management (Harrison, 2000). Manville and Nathaniel (1996) outlined five key steps to KM and knowledge strategies: 1. Knowledge-based strategies begin with strategy, not knowledge. 2. Knowledge-based strategies aren’t strategies unless you can link them to traditional measures of performance. 3. Executing a knowledge-based strategy is not about managing knowledge; it’s about nurturing people with knowledge. 4. Organisations leverage knowledge through networks of people who collabourate – not through networks of technology that interconnect. 5. People networks leverage knowledge through organisational ‘pull’ rather than centralized information ‘push.’ The process of KM involves acquisition, codification, dissemination, development and application of knowledge (Argyris & Schon, 1996). In the organisational context, Har et al., (2010; p.6284) referred to these five basic processes of KM with specific activities: Knowledge acquisition as the new knowledge integration in the organisation; knowledge codification as making knowledge explicit and readable by other persons; knowledge sharing as knowledge transmit across individual and group; knowledge development as combination of new insights into existing knowledge; and, knowledge application as new knowledge being applied and used by the organisation. A number of strategies have been developed by various organisations and sectors to utilize and store knowledge (see appendix 2). For instance, Hansen et al (1999) suggested two strategies for knowledge management, codification and personalization (see appendix 1). Codification refers to knowledge that is codified and stored in databases where it can be accessed and used readily by anyone in the company. Personalization refers to knowledge that is tied to the person who developed it and is shared mainly through direct person-to-person contacts (Hansen et al, 1999; p.107). Codification covers all accessible and reusable knowledge whereas personalization encompasses tacit knowledge that can only be transferred in the form of personal insight and skills (Edvardsson, 2008). Codification may be applied when similar work or challenges are surfaced again and again; this helps in building a reliable, high-quality knowledge database and information system that were proven successful (Hansen et al. 1999). Personalization is most applicable to organisations that deal with unique and highly customized products or services (Shanks & Tay, 2001; p.724). Whatever be the practices, strategies or approaches, for knowledge to be transferred to others as well as stored for future use, organisations need to adopt specific practices that will not only aid in this process but also improve commitment to learning as well as foster employee learning and development. From this perspective, Jha (2011; p.56) points out that knowledge management is a managerial philosophy, which is perceivable in the practices of different organisations. 4. Human Resource Management (HRM): Dulebohn et al defined human resources management as the branch of organisational science that deals with the employment relationship, along with the decisions, actions, and issues that relate to these relations (1995; p.18). Storey (1998) elaborates this concept stating, HRM refers to a set of interrelated policies with an ideological and philosophical underpinning, which constitute four critical aspects such as a particular constellation of beliefs and assumptions; a strategic thrust informing decisions about people management; the central involvement of line managers; and, reliance upon a set of ‘levers’ to shape the employment relationship (cited in Armstrong, 2006; p.3-4). The role of human resources in sustaining organisational competitiveness is well established, which is clear in Hoffer’s (1973) statement: ‘In a time of drastic change it is the learners who inherit the future. The learned usually find themselves equipped to live in a world that no longer exists,’ (cited in Lengnick-Hall, M & Lengnick-Hall, C, 2003; p.1). With such key role to play, HR function is responsible for recruitment, training and development, performance management, rewards and communication (Mayrhofer & Reichel, 2009). Legge (1995) classified HRM into soft and hard aspects. Soft HRM deals with activities related to employees such as commitment, communications, skills, and leadership; hard HRM deals with the quantitative, calculative, and business-strategic aspects of managing the numbers of resources. Storey (2007) explains that the soft HRM is an emergent of the human relations school and emphasizes developmental activities such as communication, training and development, motivation, culture, values and involvement. Storey (2007) compares this aspect of HRM to resource-based view (RBV) of the firm. While, both, hard and soft HRM are believed to provide competitive advantage to the firm based on the kind of policies and strategies adopted, both these are dealt at different levels in business strategy. Hard HRM is directly forms a part of the business strategy in terms of achieving a strategic fit between the policies and practices and strategic objectives of the organisation, soft HRM encompasses the intangible aspects of people management. In short, hard HRM regards people as ‘resources’ required for achieving organisational goals and soft HRM regards people as ‘humans’ and need to be treated like human beings. On different platforms, Storey (1987) and Guest (1997) asserted that the soft HRM approach considers employees as the most valued assets of the organisation and that they have to be treated or managed with appropriate HRM practices that motivate them in order to improve organisation organisational performance. On the other hand, Guest (2002), as per the hard HRM perspective, regards human resources as practical and serviceable components that are required for achieving strategic objectives. According to Storey (1987) this viewpoint directs HRM towards quantitative aspects of strategic and resource management, which can be utilized for economic gains. According to Ulrich (1997), HRM plays a major role in success of many firms regardless of their sizes. HRM receives the full attention of top executives of a company because it is believed to be the source of competitive advantage (Storey, 2007). Storey (2007) elaborates specific HRM model that highlights the critical aspects of HRM (see appendix 3). It is true that HRM practices have enhanced organisations’ growth and profitability with its integration with business purposes; however, there are evidences for its failure too. The impact of HRM functions in organisation’s functioning can be felt in almost every activity. In other words, impact of HRM diffuses into every aspect of the organisation’s functions. The downbeat results of HRM are again related to the policies and practices adopted for HRM, which are not strategically aligned with organisations’ goals (Storey, 2007). While hard HRM seems practically manageable and is tangible, organisations lay more focus on soft part of HRM. Storey (2007) opines that HR policies in the hard variant are designed to be both internally and externally aligned with the organisational strategy. Marsden (1999) argues that focusing only on hard aspects could result in higher staff turnover rates, with the inevitable loss of job specific skills and accumulated wisdom, low trust, low levels of organisational commitment, and higher transaction costs (Collings & Wood, 2009). These challenges are effectively managed by soft HRM. Soft HRM essentially Legge (1998) highlighted that in a world of intense competition and challenges, organisations tend to take part in the race by using employees as the resources through tough targets, stiff controls and negligible consideration for employee concerns and/or development; in such cases soft HRM stands irrelevant and hard HRM too will not provide the desired outcomes (Armstrong, 2006). Truss et al (1997) argue that soft HRM is associated with the goals of flexibility and adaptability, which is in contrast with hard HRM that is based on stiff controls and directions. More often, evidences have indicated that soft HRM approaches are invariably linked to enhancement of organisational performance and better competitive advantage though the approaches are named for employee development. This indicates that individuals’ development is often not the only aim. Nevertheless, HRM is meant only to improve organisational effectiveness through human resources, whatever route it takes. 5. Interplay of KM and HRM: Though HRM and KM are old concepts to management, the significance of HRM in KM is only partly realized. Human resources are regarded as most critical to organisational success (Ulrich, 1997), and knowledge management is regarded as the only provide of competitive advantage in this age (Drucker, 1993). However, integration of HRM with knowledge management has not been completely achieved till date because of various reasons. As Storey and Quintas (2001; p.344) point out, ‘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. Although organisations can facilitate creation, sharing, and usage of knowledge, their effectiveness in managing KM is not absolute (Hislop, 2009). Considering the RBV, Wright et al. (1994) assert that human resources can be regarded as sustained strategic resources that are valuable, rare and non-substitutable. From human resource perspective, the RBV is also believed to be compatible with soft HRM. Many have supported the RBV as an approach to attain sustainable competitive advantage. However, Barney (1991) argues that sustainable advantages have to be universal and uniform, which has not been the case. Despite the challenges and limitations, human resources are considered as the most critical aspects for organisational success. Ruggles’s (1998) research conducted on 431 U.S and European organisations identified that though most organisations acknowledge that knowledge is highly people-based, their efforts in KM are more towards technology implementation. Moreover, this research found that the biggest difficulty to effective KM was changing people’s behaviours, and the biggest impediment to knowledge transfer was the culture. The neglect of people management issues was also evident from their responses to the leaders of their projects, which were mostly the IT professionals rather than their senior managers/leaders. 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. Hislop (2003) also asserts that KM and HRM integration is still not complete and effective. Employee commitment is crucial for knowledge management, and HR policies and practices directly impact employee commitment. Hislop (2003) identifies four factors that impact KM initiatives such as building community, connections or networks, organisational culture and knowledge commitment. Soliman and Spooner (2000) emphasized employees’ involvement, commitment and trust in KM, which will further foster healthy interpersonal relationships. Influencing human resources towards knowledge sharing is important in KM. They strongly emphasize the role of HRM practices in facilitating knowledge absorption, creation, sharing and transfer. In order to achieve the main aim of knowledge management, which is effective knowledge transfer, organisations’ HRM strategies and practices play the central role (Marshall et al, 1996; Shih & Chiang, 2005). However, the HRM strategies are usually aligned to the corporate and KM strategies. For instance, if corporate strategy is cost-leadership strategy, then the KM strategy would be codification strategy and HRM strategy would include Buy-bureaucratic HRM strategy with close supervision and high control to minimize cost of errors; result-oriented performance, limited training etc. (See appendix 5). Shih and Chiang (2005) assert that adoption of proper HRM strategy and practices significantly facilitates the successful implementation of KM strategy. Organisational culture that promotes learning is essential for effective KM and HRM has a major role in instilling such culture by facilitating competencies development as well as organisational knowledge creation (Lado and Wilson 1994). Later, Carter and Scarbrough (2001) emphasized the need for organisational culture that is conducive to KM as well as promotes learning and knowledge sharing attitude among employees. Effective KM requires flexible and holistic approaches that integrate organisational culture, technology and goals (Marshall et al., 1996; Afiouni, 2008). However, Hofstede (1980) highlighted a new dimension to management and its culture that is influenced by the national culture. The four main dimensions namely individualism, uncertainty avoidance, power distance, and masculinity, can have direct impact on how knowledge is transferred. This impact is even more pronounced in multinational corporations that require strong collaboration and coordination across borders (Mouzughi & Corley, 2005). McDermott and O’Dell (2001) had also suggested the importance of other organisational cultural dimensions such as the visible and invisible ones in effective KM; visible dimensions are expressed in espoused values, philosophy, and mission and the invisible dimensions are built upon previous core values of the organisation and people networks meant for knowledge sharing. Guest (2002) suggested that appropriate HRM practices have significant impact on gaining higher employee commitment. In addition, necessary training and development can go long way in facilitating self-reliant working. Effective KM practices can help organisational sustenance by storing necessary knowledge, which can be used even after the knowledge workers depart from the company Knowledge management system enables flexibility in organisational policies and practices, which opens up opportunities for better learning through effective HRM system (Yahya & Goh, 2002). According to Soliman and Spooner (2002), HRM’s involvement in KM happens in eight aspects including business strategy, programmes, know-how strategy, creating supportive environments, technological aspects, creating KM teams and leadership and identification of benefits of KM. As asserted by Davenport and Volpel (2001), managing knowledge is equivalent to managing people (Wong, 2008; p.166), and different factors are associated with effective KM (see appendix 4). In spite of immense work on KM and strategies for knowledge retention, employee retention along with employee recruitment and development, remains one of the core strategies (Wong, 2008). This effectively means employee turnover can potentially cause knowledge loss. From this viewpoint, effectiveness of HRM in sustaining KM and employee replacement will be examined further in order to understand the impact of KM strategies and HRM strategies on organisational effectiveness. 6. Role of HRM strategies in effective KM: According to Storey (1999) the traditional HRM domains revolve around selection, training, appraisal, rewards and performance management systems (see appendix 6). These domains of HRM take a different colour when we view them as contributing to organisational knowledge stocks (Narasimha, 2000). According to Storey and Quintas (2001), HR professionals confront five key challenges in knowledge economy, namely, developing and sustaining a knowledge-and-innovation-centric culture, accessing tacit knowledge, securing trust and commitment, handling nontraditional employees, and handling the organisational vulnerabilities arising out of a heavy dependence on key knowledge workers (Afiouni, 2008). All HRM strategies need to be equipped with knowledge processes in order to achieve effective KM by dealing with these challenges in an effective manner. In the next sections, an evaluation of HRM processes and their practices on KM will be carried out. 6.1 Selection process and KM: Organisations adopt highly advanced and complex methods of selecting and recruiting employees in order to attract the best talent in the market. To create knowledge repository, selection of individuals with competent skills and right attitude is essential for creating knowledgeable teams. Highly innovative selection processes have been introduced that are technologically sound and efficient (Scarbrough, 2003). Selection processes are highly customized to the job descriptions and corresponding skills and competencies that ensure the right candidates are hired for the job. However, such customized selection process can conceal certain employee behaviours (Narasimha, 2000). Another implication for appropriate selection is the person-organisation (PO) fit, which means to ensure that the perceived values of the new staff are similar to the organisational values or, at least, can be adjusted according to the organisational culture. Such non-job-related criteria are usually assessed through face-to-face interviews, which do not vouch for absolute predictive validity (Chatman, 1991). Moreover, such selective hiring procedures can slow down or even obstruct knowledge sharing between individuals from different departments (Currie & Kerrin, 2003). However, certain job descriptions have to adhere to specific skills. In such cases, codified knowledge can be of great assistance in knowledge transfer to individuals from other functions. The main idea behind selection practice to work in KM is that the value perception of the hired individuals should fit with the organisation’s values. This requires highly selective hiring, which will also aid in higher level of knowledge management, as hypothesized by Har et al (2010). 6.2 Training and Knowledge Management: Training activities are regarded as core knowledge sharing processes, and the most important practices adopted by HRM in KM process. Training is a process that directly connects HR personnel with other employees to source knowledge transfer, which stands at the core of any KM process. Training also has an important role to play in the development of three dimensions of organisational knowledge: breadth/depth of knowledge, competence, and exploratory/exploitative knowledge (Narasimha 2000). Training provides opportunity to improve employee performance through work-related knowledge and skills-development process (Swanson, 1999). Tacit and explicit knowledge related to skill-specific work can be transferred through systematic and frequent training (Robertson and Hammersley, 2000). Cross-cultural training in multinational corporations can help employees to understand other cultures and perform better in a collaborative manner (Mead, 2005). Har et al, (2010) hypothesized that higher training leads to higher knowledge management. This may be supported by what Suff and Reilly (2005; p.27) argued, that the training and development focus for knowledge workers should be on developing individual and organisational capabilities rather than on developing individual skills and competencies. This can be accomplished by creating a learning culture. By and large, training is considered as a practice to improve competitiveness, enhance technical and social learning, acquiring knowledge outside one’s main domain, and to improve overall business performance. 6.3 Performance management and KM: Armstrong (2006; p.184) explains that performance management processes by HR can make an important contribution to knowledge management, by providing for behavioural expectations which are related to knowledge-sharing to be defined, and ensuring that actual behaviours are reviewed and, where appropriate, rewarded by financial or non-financial means. Performance appraisal is a key PM process by which employees’ performance and improvement is assessed, and it aims at providing role and goals clarity to individuals (Dubinsky & Mattson, 1979). Soliman and Spooner (2000) put forward that HR can drive KM by evaluating employee performance, feedback for leadership, decision making capabilities of individuals, interpersonal relationships, high turnover and absenteeism, and role and goal clarity. Performance appraisals should be designed in a manner that evaluates degree of usage of competencies, which can be taken as indication for further training and development (Narasimha, 2000). Performance appraisals can also be used to evaluate knowledge sharing practices of employees. Moreover, a good performance appraisal system can help in aligning individual actions and knowledge to organisational strategies (Burkland, 2009). Strategies of employee selection and training assist in acquisition and development of individual knowledge and experiences for the organisation, which can be molded to mach the organisational strategies through performance management systems. Effectively, performance management also helps in reviewing coherence of selection and training strategies with requirements (Burkland, 2009). Therefore, performance appraisal system is an effective mechanism to enhance knowledge creation and sharing process, which can result in higher level of KM (Har et al., 2010). 6.4 Rewards and KM: The means to improve knowledge sharing have to be motivational enough, and rewards and recognition improve employee motivation and commitment. Har et al., (2010) suggest that learning behaviours should be rewarded when performance is achieved, else it will affect their performance and desired outcomes may not be achieved. Serenko, Bontis and Hardie (2007) emphasize that internal reward structures are necessary to motivate people to communicate and share their knowledge. Employee commitment and willingness are critical to knowledge sharing process, which can be achieved by motivating them through rewards and recognition (Storey & Quintas, 2001). Encouraging innovation also requires motivation through rewards and recognition (Scarbrough, 2003). Knowledge sharing that is backed by reward system is an excellent tool to instill KM in organisational culture through group performance, knowledge sharing, and innovative thinking (Yahya & Goh, 2002). An effective and appropriate reward system can influence employee performance by motivating competent and talented employees (Har et al., 2010). Encouraging learning and knowledge sharing can be achieved through reward systems (Hansen et al., 1999). Incentives help in creating, capturing, and transferring personal knowledge on a continuous basis. This process must also be backed by appropriate intrinsic rewards in the form of recognition and appreciation. Barney (1991) asserts that permanent employees that possess unique and intellectual knowledge actually form the base for sustainable competitive advantage. Rewards such as internal career progression, promotions, empowerment etc can be a great strategy to retain valuable knowledgeable workers within the organisation. Therefore, HR practices should incorporate strong reward system that not only enables effective knowledge creation and sharing but also retention of inimitable knowledge possessed by employees. Thus, reward system can contribute significantly to effective knowledge management (Har et al., 2010) 7. Knowledge worker and Talent Management in learning organisation: Talent management is one of the most burning concepts in contemporary management that is pressured by globalization issues, immense competition in labour market, vast advancements in information and technology and enormous struggle to compete in businesses. According to Serrat (2010; p.3), ‘talent management refers to the additional processes and opportunities that an organisation makes available strategically to a pool of people who are deemed to have talent. If talent is not identified and managed by the entire management team, not only the human resource management unit, talent may just as well be defined as a dormant or untapped quality to be accessed in the future, either in an individual or in the collective.’ These statements drive home the significance of talent management, which is equivalent to KM. Drucker (2002) refers to knowledge workers as capital and not labour. Employees with specific skills and talents can use their ideas and expertise during turbulent times, which can add great value to organisations during such challenging situations (Lawler, 2008). Talent management of knowledge workers is highly essential as it creates value for their knowledge; it creates systems and procedures that track and manage the talented personnel. Bano et al., (2010; p.7) assert, ‘The organisation which is dealing with the management of talent strategically and purposefully explains that how they attract, source, select, develop them by trainings and ultimately retain them by promoting and rotating them throughout the organisation.’ Knowledge workers’ turnover is a major challenge to firms because when the knowledge workers leave, they take along their tacit knowledge. Even if firms develop highly sophisticated codification processes to tap employee knowledge, these processes cannot capture the employees’ willingness, attitude, and passion for knowledge. Hence, the focus of HR towards talent management of knowledgeable workers should constitute appropriate selection, rewards, retention and KM processes. The knowledge workers form the human capital that is developed through continuous learning and innovation. A learning atmosphere that provides flexibility and a holistic learning opportunity for knowledge creation and sharing is most favourable for knowledge workers (Storey & Quintas, 2001). A learning organisation instills learning behaviour in their culture; they have a supportive and encouraging leadership; strong information and technology base; strategically aligned rewards and performance management system; and constantly strive for employee retention (Nelson & McCann, 2010). Organisational culture influences the behaviours required for KM in four ways. Firstly, it educates people about KM and highlights the critical knowledgeable aspects. Secondly, it establishes a relationship between individual and organisational knowledge. Thirdly, it creates framework for network processes for fostering knowledge sharing and usage. Lastly, it shapes processes for creation, sharing, and usage of new knowledge (De Long & Fahey, 2000). 8. Conclusions: Ulrich (1997) had indicated that attracting, retaining, and measuring competence and intellectual capital would be a major challenge for organisations in achieving competitive advantage. Based on this conceptual research, it can be derived that the role of HRM in effective KM is quintessential for sustaining organisational competitiveness by endorsing effective HRM practices that can not only motivate employees but also enhance employee commitment and retention. Effective KM lifts the company to better competitive levels, and knowledge can be saved in its KM system forever. HRM can accomplish this through high-quality selection processes, effective training, appropriate rewards and recognition programmes and effective performance management system. The biggest challenge that organisations still face is to manage employee behaviour, willingness and commitment to learning and knowledge sharing, which can be addressed through effective HRM strategies and leadership, to a large extent. Besides the core domains, HRM can exert its influence on KM and knowledge retention by creating a learning organisation through its culture and management style that is flexible and encourages innovation. When organisations can create such effective KM system, employee turnover would affect their knowledge repository to a minimum extent. Considering the competitiveness in knowledge organisations and rampant efforts to create IC, accompanied by high-quality HRM practices, employee replacement cannot be considered as an overstated issue provided the hiring organisations are adopting effective practices to align the new employees with organisational values at the earliest. References Afiouni, F. 2008. Human Resource Management and Knowledge Creation: A Knowledge-based perspective. In O’Sullivan, K (Ed.) 5th International Conference on Intellectual Capital, Knowledge Management and Organisational Learning: New York Institute of Technology, New York, USA, Academic Conferences Limited. Argyris, C and Schon, D, A. 1996. Organisational Learning II: Theory, method, and practice. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. Armstrong, M. 2006. A handbook of human resource management practice. 10th ed. London: Kogan Page Publishers. Barney, J.B. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1): 99-120. Bano, S, Khan, M.A, Ur Rehman, Q.H and Humanyoun, A.A. 2010. Schematizing talent management, a core business issue. Far East Journal of Psychology and Business, 2(1): 4-16. Burkland, S. 2009. Managing the Development of Valuable Intellectual Capital: The Role of Management Control. University of Vaasa, Finland. Carter, C., and Scarbrough, H. 2001. Towards a second generation of KM? The people management challenge. Education + Training, 43 (4/5), 215 - 224. Chatman, J. A. 1991. Matching People and Organisations - Selection and Socialization in Public Accounting Firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(3), 459-484. Collings, D.G and Wood, G. 2009. Human resource management. In Wood, G’s Human resource management: a critical approach. Oxon: Routledge. Currie, G. and M. Kerrin, 2003. Human Resource Management and Knowledge Management: Enhancing Knowledge Sharing in a Pharmaceutical Company. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14(5): 1027-1045. Davis, M. 2009. "The value of knowledge management". Intellectual capital management. Knowledgepoint.com.au. Viewed 19 August 2011 from, http://www.knowledgepoint.com.au/intellectual_capital/Articles/IC_MD001c.html De Long, D.W and Fahey, L. Diagnosing cultural barriers to knowledge management. Academy of Management Executive, 14(4): 113-127. Drucker P. (1993). Post-Capitalist Society. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford. Drucker, P. F. (2002). Knowledge work. Executive Excellence, 19(10), 12 Dubinsky, A. J., and Mattson, B. E. 1979. Consequences of Role-Conflict and Ambiguity Experienced by Retail Salespeople. Journal of Retailing, 55(4), 70-86. Dulebohn, J.H, Ferris, G.R and Stodd, J.T. The History and Evolution of Human Resource Management. In Ferris, G.R, Rosen, S.D and Barnum, D.T’s Handbook of Human Resource Management. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers. Edvinsson, L., and Malone, M. S. 1997. Intellectual capital: the proven way to establish your company's real value by measuring its hidden brainpower. London: Piatkus. Edvardsson, I. R. 2003. Knowledge Management and Creative HRM. Occasional paper, Department of Human Resource Management. University of Strathclyde. Edvardsson, I. R. 2008. HRM and knowledge management. Employee Relations, 30 (5), 553 – 561. Gloet, M and Martin, B. 2005. Knowledge Management and HRM as a means to develop leadership and management capabilities to support sustainability. Proceedings of the KMAP 2005 Conference Program. Victoria University of Wellington: New Zealand. Guest, D. E. 1997. Human resource management and performance: a review and research agenda. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 8(3), 263-276. Guest, D. 2002. Human Resource Management, Corporate Performance and Employee Wellbeing: Building the Worker into HRM. Journal of Industrial Relations, 44(3), 335-358. Hansen, M. T., Nohria, N., and Tierney, T. 1999. What's your strategy for managing knowledge? Harvard Business Review, 77(2), 106-116. Har, W. C., In, T. B., Phaik, L. S., and Hsien, L. V. 2010. The Impact of Hrm Practices on Km: A Conceptual Model. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 4(12), 6281-6291. Harrison, R. 2000. Learning, knowledge productivity and strategic progress. International Journal of Training and Development, 4(4), 244-258. Hislop, D. 2003. Linking human resource management and knowledge management via commitment: A review and research agenda. Employee Relations, 25 (2), 182 - 202. Hislop, D. 2009. The socio-cultural aspects of knowledge management and the links to HRM. In Wood, G’s Human resource management: a critical approach. Oxon: Routledge. Jha, S. 2011. Human Resource Management and Knowledge Management: Revisiting Challenges of Integration. IJMBS 1(2), 56-60. ISSN: 2231-2463. Lado, A. A., and Wilson, M. C. 1994. Human-Resource Systems and Sustained Competitive Advantage - a Competence-Based Perspective. Academy of Management Review, 19(4), 699-727. Lang, J. C. 2001. Managerial concerns in knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 5(1), 43-59. Lawler, E.E. 2008. Talent. Making people your competitive advantage. San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers. Lee, H., and Choi, B. 2003. An empirical investigation of KM styles and their effect on corporate performance. Information & Management, 40(5), 403-417. Lengnick-Hall, M.L and Lengnick-Hall, C.A. 2003. Human resource management in the knowledge economy: new challenges, new roles, new capabilities. California: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Manville, B and Foote, N. 1996. Strategy as if Knowledge Mattered. Fastcompany.com. Published 30 April 1996. Viewed 25 August 2011 from, http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/02/stratsec.html Marshall, C., Prusak, L., and Shpilberg, D. 1996. Financial risk and the need for superior knowledge management. California Management Review, 38(3), 77-101. Mayrhofer, W and Reichel, A. Comparative analysis of HR. 2009. In Sparrow, P’s Handbook of international human resource management: integrating people, process, and context. Sussex, UK: John Wiley and Sons. McDermott, R., and O’Dell, C. 2001. Overcoming cultural barriers to sharing knowledge. Journal of Knowledge Management, 5(1), 76 - 85. Mead, R. 2005. Training and Supporting and Expatriate Assignment. In International management: cross-cultural dimensions. 3rd ed. Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing. 396-413. Mouzughi, Y. & Corley, A. 2005 Knowledge Management and Organisational Learning: Shared Theoretical Frameworks Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Intellectual Capital, Culture & Knowledge, 327-337 Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. 1998. Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organisational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23: 2, 242–266. Narasimha, S. 2000. "Organisational knowledge, Human Resource Management, and sustained competitive advantage: Toward a framework Competitiveness Review. An International Business Journal incorporating Journal of Global Competitiveness, 10 (1): 123 - 135. Nelson, K and McCann, J.E. 2010. Designing for knowledge worker retention & organisation performance. Journal of Management and Marketing Research, 1, 1-18. Nonaka, I. 1991 ‘The knowledge-creating company’, Harvard Business Review, 69, 96–104. Nonaka, I., and Konno, N. 1998. The concept of "Ba": Building a foundation for knowledge creation. California Management Review, 40(3), 40-54. Petersen, N. J, and Poulfelt, F. 2002. Knowledge management in action - A study of knowledge management in management consultancies. In Buono, A.F’s (Ed.) Developing Knowledge and Value in Management Consulting. USA: Information Age Publlishing. (33-60). Robertson, M., and Hammersley, G. O. M. 2000. Knowledge management practices within a knowledge-intensive firm: the significance of the people management dimension. Journal of European Industrial Training, 24 (2/3/4), 241 - 253. Rocha, F, Cardoso, L and Tordera, N. The importance of Organisational Commitment to Knowledge Management. COMPORTAMEN TO ORGANISACIONAL E GESTAO, 14(2), 211-232. Scarbrough, H. 2003. Knowledge management, HRM and the innovation process. International Journal of Manpower, 24(5), 501-516. Serenko, A, Bontis, N and Hardie, T. 2007. Organisational Size and Knowledge flow: a proposed theoretical link. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 8(4): 610-627. Serrat, O. 2010. A Primer on Talent Management. Knowledge Solutions, Asian Development Bank. Shanks, G. G., and Tay, E. 2001. The role of knowledge management in moving to a customer- focused organisation. Proceedings of the 9th European Conference on Information Systems, Global Co-operation in the New Millennium City: Slovenia. Shih, H. A., and Chiang, Y. H. 2005. Strategy alignment between HRM, KM, and corporate development. International Journal of Manpower, 26(6), 582-603. Skiba, D.J and Dulong, D. 2010. Advancing the use of technology in the organisation and delivery of health care. In Costello-Nickitas, DM, Middaugh, DJ and Aries, N.’s (eds.) Policy and politics for nurses and other health professions: advocacy and action. Massachusetts: Jones & Bartlett Publishers. ( 261-286). Soliman, F., and Spooner, K. 2000. Strategies for implementing knowledge management: role of human resources management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 4(4), 337-345. Stenmark, D. 2001. Leveraging Tacit Organisational Knowledge. Journal of Management Information Systems, 17(3), 9-24. Storey, J. 1987. Developments in the management of human resources: An interim report, Coventry: University of Warwick Industrial Relations Research Unit. Storey, J. 1999. Introduction: from personnel management to human resource management. In New perspectives on human resource management. London: Routledge, pp: 1-18 Storey, J. 2007. Human Resource Management today: an assessment. In Human resource management: a critical text. 3rd ed. London: Thomson Learning. Storey, J, and Quintas, P. 2001. Knowledge management and HRM. In J. Storey, J’s (ed.), Human Resource Management: A Critical Text. London: Thomson Learning. pp. 339-363. Swanson, R. A. 1999. HRD theory, real or imagined? Human Resource Development International, 2(1), 2-5. Ten Have, S, ten Have, W and Stevens, F. 2003. Key management models: the management tools and practices that will improve your business. London: Financial Times Prentice Hall. Truss, C, Gratton, L, Hope-Hailey, V, McGovern, P and Stiles, P. 1997. Soft and Hard Models of Human Resource Management: A Reappraisal. Journal of Management Studies, 34(1): 53-73. Ulrich, D. 1997. Human resource champions: the next agenda for adding value and delivering results, Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Ulrich, D. 1998. A new mandate for human resources. Harvard Business Review, 76(1), 124- 134. Wright, P.M, McMahan, G.C and McWilliams, A. 1994. Human Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage: A resource-based perspective. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 5(2): 301-326. Wong, K.Y. 2008. Generic factors for knowledge management. In Koohan, A, Harman, K and Britz, J. (eds.) Knowledge Management: Theoretical Foundation. Santa Rosa: California Informing Science Press. (157-172). Yahya, S., and Goh, W.-K. 2002. Managing human resources toward achieving knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 6(5), 457-468. APPENDICES APPENDIX 1 Adopted from Edvardsson, 2003; p.9 APPENDIX 2 Source: ten Have et al, 2003; p.83. APPENDIX 3 Source: Storey (2007), p.9 APPENDIX 4 Source: Wong, 2008; p.159. APPENDIX 5 Source: Shih & Chiang, 2005; p.586. APPENDIX 6 Source: Storey, 1999; p.7. Read More