\
Knowledge
I J M R organizational
work as
behavior
1
E. Kevin Kelloway and Julian Barling
September
2000
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.
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
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 CowleyRoad.OxfordOX4
organizational
knowledge
will be the single
lJF. UK MA02148,
Malden,
and 350 Main
USAStreet,.
most Important determInant of firm survival.
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
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.
ternational Journal of Management Reviews Volume 2
--I
Issue3 pp.287-304
287
.
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 managementand
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,recommendationsas 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
Ltd2000 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'
Th Df
organizations. There are several problems
with such an approach. First, the separation
of thInkIng and doIng IS a holdover from an
e
O .to
f K
I d
W k
e 1m Ion 0 now e ge or
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.
P ro,ess/on
.c .tlons
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
there are
,managers, wh0 th1
.nk and ' worthkat
ers' woo.
h d
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-basedoccupationsand 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)
A pproac h 1: K noweI dge W or k as a
ll I
Of
in
";~
t!t
U
~ ; !
:
;t
t
;;;11";
IJM R
September
2000
'
0 Blackwell
Publishers
Ltd2000
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. .m°v: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
290
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
IVIty
."
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
--
I
I
I
define knowledge
work.
At the same time, this
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
...generating
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
-simp
y
re
effing
to
wor
ers
wou
.
Imp
I
y
.
primarily
engaged
outsl
A Proposed
W
k
or
.
In
0
.
rganlza
t
existing
e
September
2000
sources
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,
.
IS
Ions
em
language
(Polyani
1966).
In
tacit knowledge refers to knowledge
bedded ..
d .. d I
.
m
m
IVI
ua
expenence
an
d
,
...
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
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'
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
constitutes
tacit knowledge
(Nonaka
and
Takeuchi 1995).
Nonaka (199la,
1994) proposed a fourfold
classification
(see Figure I) resulting from the
organization.
How then is knowledge
used in the workplace? In their investigation
of knowledge
work in 30 organizations,
Davenport
et al.
transmission
of both types of knowledge.
Socialization
involves
the transmission
of
tacit knowledge between individuals
as when
a new employee learns through observing and
(1996)
describe
knowledge
use.
working
training
at least four forms
First, employees
may
IJM R
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 .
th
.at
finding
..
systematic
...contrast,
DefinItIon
of Knowledge
in
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
..
of
be
with a skilled worker (e.g. on-the-job
or apprenticeship
systems).
Com-
elBlackweliPublishersltd2000
291
I
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
knowledge' will be a direct function of the
ability to elicit these forms of discretionary
behavior in the workplace.
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.ellormance
most important
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
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
.
Tacit Knowledge
From
Explicit Knowledge
0 BlackwellPublishersLtd
2000
292
Towards a Model of Knewledge Work
..
Know/.edge Work as DIscretIonary
BehavIor
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,
Tacit Knowledge to
Explicit Knowledge
Socialization
Articulation
Internalization
Combination
Figure 1. Nonaka's modes of knowledge conversion.
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 assetand
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
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 enhancedperformanceof
knowledge work. We suggestthat enhancing
employee ability, motivation and opportunity
provide theseconditions.
investors, employees choose when to invest
their knowledge, and how much of their
knowledge to invest. Moreover, employees
A proposed model of knowledge use in
organizations is presented in Figure 2, with
rationales for the proposedlinkages following.
" " ,,'.
"C:~fr"
c: J;
I
J
M
September
':Vi
R
2000
Towards a Model of Knowledge Use in
Or anizations
g
0 Blackwell
Publishers
Ltd2000
293
.
Knowledge work
as organizational
behavior
Knowledge
-SkillslKnowledge
Work
-Role Br~dth Self
-FinQing Knowledge
EffIcacy
-Creating
Knowledge
-Packaging
Knowledge
MOTIVATION
-Applying
Knowledge
-Trustin 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
Ltd2000 activities are not the only way to increase
294
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
.
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 proceduresand 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
Knowledge work
as organizational
behavior
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
...
I
re ICtors
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 thesenecessaryconditions.
The literature on knowledge managementis
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
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
I
J
M
September
R
2000
(:>Blackwell
Publishers
ltd 2000
297
-
I
I
Knowledge work
as organizational
behavior
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
researchdesigns,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 masteryexperiencesthat 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
298
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 possesseda
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.
Consistent
with our
proposed
Van
Aken
et al. (1994)
report
that themodel,
major out-
Both
aremotivation
suggestedof
here
to increase
both
thepractices
ability and
employees
to
comesof 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
managementto a new approachto knowledge
managementseem to be key aspects of this.
. t
(
M .
1998) Th
use their knowledge in organizations.Clearly,:
invest~.ent in selection and trai~ing. increases
the abilIty of employeesas orgaDlzatlonsselect,
and/or train individuals in specific competencies.However, suchinvestmentsalso 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 resourcessendsa
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
managementfrequently 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
commumca
...order
.
Ion
e.g.
artrny
,e
traInIng)
rn enhancIng
knowledge
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.
~ ~~
:
! '
,~,
c'".'"
I J
,,';
M
September
R
2000
.
.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
III i'
taff
to
attract
and
retaIn
competent
and sensl' tIve t0 emp1oyees'
' 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) and pa,Y
pry,
g.rn
bonus and Incentive schemessecondary.
'
'
O
o
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
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.
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 haveassumedthatknowledge
organization is based on a great deal of
work canbe understoodin the abstractasthe 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- emphasizesknowledge 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,
300
--
Summary
In
this paper,
and we
Conclusions
addressed the concept of
References
Ahmad,
A. (1981). Knowledge work: its evaluation;
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
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,
suggest
that
kn
I d
k .
d ..K.K.
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
.'.
is the notion that the use f kn led '
0
ow ge m
. t..
d ..
beh
A
(1996).
Impact
of
work
teams
on
...
manufactunngperfonnance:a longitudInal study
A
de
ca
1M
my
0
J
anagement
I
39
867-890
ourna"
leadership
;;&:
;'1
;rJ1l
I
J
M
R
.
.
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
I
and
September
2000
group
-"
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 transfonnationalleadershiptraining 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
London, 68(3),. 47
o~g~tI.ons.
!f Drucker (19~) IS correct m
Bird, A. (1994).Careersasrepositoriesof knowledge:
his IdentIficatIon of. enhancmg knowledge
a newperspectiveon 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,
'
.
I An award from the Queen's University,Center for
Knowledge-BasedEnterprises,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 discrepancytime
raises productivity of knowledge workers in
offices. Industrial Engineering,16(7),7077.
Cook, 1. and Wall, T.D. (1980). New work attitudes
measuresof trust, organizationalcommitmentand
personal need non-fulfillment.
Journal of
t'J8IackweIiPubiishersltd2000
301
.
Knowledge
work
as organizational
b h
.office
e avlor
.Organizational
t) Blackwell Publishers ltd 2000
302
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,
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.
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:
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
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
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.
.
55-62.
Compensation ulul Benefits Review, July-August,
II
"
creating
Company:
Japanese
Companie.\"
Nonaka,
I. and
Takeuchi,How
H. (1995).
The Knowledge-
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
Create 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,
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.
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
,~
~"
;;$;' i;
I
J
M
September
R
2000
{;}BlackwellPublishersltdlOOO
303
.
~
Knowledge
as
organlza
.
.Van
work
t .
lona
I
behavior
C Blackwell Publishers ltd 2000
304
= competence x commitment. SLoanManagement
technology and work design: towards a theoretical
Reviell',
framework.
39.
15-26.
.
Jollmal
(if
OrKani:ational
Behavior,
Aken, E.M., Monetta. D.J. and Sink, D.S. (1994).
Affinity groups: the missing link in employee
11,201-219.
Wall, T.D., Jackson, P.R. and Davids, K. (1992).
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
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.