Proceedings of the
Proceedings of the
15th European Conference on
Knowledge Management
Polytechnic Institute of Santarém
Polytechnic Institute of Santarém
Portugal
4-5 September 2014
Volume 1
Edited by
Carla Vivas and Pedro Sequeira
Volume 1
The Proceedings of the
15
th
European Conference on
Knowledge Management
ECKM 2014
The Santarém School of Management
and Technology
Polytechnic Institute of Santarém,
Santarém, Portugal
4‐5 September 2014
Volume One
Edited by
Dr Carla Vivas and Dr Pedro Sequeira
Copyright The Authors, 2014. All Rights Reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission may be made without written permission from the individual authors. Papers have been double‐blind peer reviewed before final submission to the conference. Initially, paper abstracts were read and selected by the conference panel for submission as possible papers for the conference. Many thanks to the reviewers who helped ensure the quality of the full papers. These Conference Proceedings have been submitted to Thomson ISI for indexing. Further copies of this book and previous year’s proceedings can be purchased from http://academic‐bookshop.com E‐Book ISBN: 978‐1‐910309‐35‐3 E‐Book ISSN: 2048‐8971 Book version ISBN: 978‐1‐910309‐34‐6 Book Version ISSN: 2048‐8963 CD Version ISBN: 978‐1‐910309‐36‐0 CD Version ISSN: 2048‐898X The Electronic version of the Conference Proceedings is available to download from
DROPBOX. (http://tinyurl.com/ECKM2014) Select Download and then Direct Download to access the Pdf file.
Published by Academic Conferences and Publishing International Limited Reading
UK
44‐118‐972‐4148
The Role of Human Resource Management in Knowledge
Management: The cases of Training and Career Management
Elisa Figueiredo
1, Leonor Pais
2, Samuel Monteiro
3and Lisete Mónico
21
Research Unit for Inland Development at Guarda Polytechnic Institute, Guarda, Portugal
2Faculty of Psychology and Education Sciences at University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal
3Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities at University of Beira Interior, Covilhã, Portugal
efigueiredo@ipg.pt leonorpais@fpce.uc.pt samjmonteiro@gmail.com lisete_monico@fpce.uc.pt Abstract: The aim of this article is to present some results of our research focused on the study of organizational processes related to knowledge. It is centred on their limitations and on their conceptual and operational dependence on the nature of assumptions operating in processes of human resource management (HRM) in organizations. Here, it concentrates particularly on practices related to training and career development. It aims to access knowledge of the representativeness of application of the processes referred to (of people management and knowledge management) and understand their relational dynamics in Portuguese organizations in the banking sub‐sector of the service sector. In this context, the specialized literature was reviewed, from which we inferred that HRM can be understood in two ways, setting an organic perspective based on assumptions of value and development against a mechanical perspective based on assumptions of a restricted and non‐valued orientation. This guided the empirical study of a quantitative nature carried out, which aimed to respond to the central matter of investigation, according to which the perspective forming the HRM practices implemented in an organization has an impact on how knowledge management (KM) processes operate therein. The sample of the study carried out is made up of 5306 collaborators in 634 organizations belonging to a Portuguese economic group in the banking sub‐sector. Data were collected through two questionnaires: HRMP – Human Resource Management Practices and KM – Knowledge Management. The results obtained allow us to conclude that in the organizations studied, processes of HRM and KM are considerably operational, and that those related to people management are based on assumptions which tend to be organic, valued and developmental. Multiple regression analyses, in particular, allowed us to conclude on the predictive capacity of the HRM practices studied regarding KM processes. More specifically, it stands out that the people management practices adopted from an organic and valued perspective possess a particular and distinctive capacity to predict the organizational processes related to knowledge. The paper describes the methods used in multiple regression analysis, multiple correlation coefficients and standardized and non‐standardized regression coefficients. Keywords: knowledge management, human resource management, training, career development, multiple regression analyses1. Introduction
This article focuses on the questions of organizational knowledge, human resources and the dynamics of relations developed among them, within the dominant perspectives and assumptions in people management. The literature suggests that knowledge management (KM) is not alien to the orientations adopted in the management and application of processes related to people. Specifically, training and career‐development processes are analyzed here, seeking to understand the relational dynamics developed between these 2 people‐management processes and 4 knowledge‐management processes: i) cultural orientation to knowledge; ii) competitive orientation; iii) formal knowledge management practices and; iiii) informal knowledge management practices, in organizations in the banking sub‐sector of the service sector.
In operationalizing the nuclear objective of this article, it was structured in 4 sections following this introduction. Therefore, Section 2 presents the literature review, with Section 3 describing the research design. Sections 4 and 5, respectively, present and discuss the results.
2. Theoretical background
In the current context, where change is the main factor affecting evolution at the most varied levels, the greatest challenge organizations face is in their capacity to create and manage new knowledge. This implies thinking of people as knowledge‐creators, with potential and competences that should be directed and collectively organized, besides reorienting management practices according to the demands of the emerging knowledge society.
Elisa Figueiredo et al.
Concerning people or human resource management (HRM), the above‐mentioned knowledge era presents it with new and complex challenges, potentiating and promoting the change from traditional and eminently bureaucratic, mechanistic staff management to another based on distinct functions. By adhering to integration criteria, this should function as a support for the organization’s competitive advantage, contributing to better organizational performance. In this context, and setting out from the literature review regarding, firstly, human resource management processes(e.g. Burns & Stalker, 1961; French & Bell, 1990; Lerín Martinez‐Tur & Peiró, 2001; Magalhães, 2005; Lopes, 2008) and secondly, the relational dynamics between resource management and knowledge management(KM) (e.g. Carter & Scarbrough, 2001; Soliman & Spooner, 2000;Terriou & Chatzoglou, 2008; Chen & Huang, 2009; Escuder, Vázquez & García, 2010) we can conclude that: 1) HRM processes can be configured according to distinct perspectives and assumptions (not necessarily mutually exclusive):i) a more mechanic perspective highlighting the principles of bureaucracy and showing rationality, formalization, centralization and control, with routine tasks defined in detail; and ii) another more organic one which values flexibility, informal communication, job enhancement, polyvalence and delegation of responsibilities, requiring higher levels of competence, responsibility and autonomy from collaborators; 2) the operation of KM processes depends on a set of HRM practices, commonly called best practices. In this theoretical framework, Terriou and Chatzoglou (2008) define best practices as a set of all HRM practices and policies that lead to effective improvement of organizational performance. In their opinion, the best and most referred to practices are: a) high levels of group work; b) remuneration associated with performance; c) de‐centralized decision‐making process; d) intelligent recruitment and selection processes; e) limited differences in status; f) extensive training g) procedures/agreements for internal communication and collaborator involvement; h) internal career opportunities and; i) generic description of functions in no great detail. These have to do with: valuing collaborators’ competences, skills and knowledge through effective recruitment and training; motivation setting out from a strong incentive system; and promoting opportunities for the most highly qualified and motivated collaborators, contributing to increasing their levels of knowledge and competence through (re)designing work and indirect forms of participation. Camelo‐Ordaz, García‐Cruz, Sousa‐Ginel and Valle‐Cabrera (2011) agree with this position when they state that the literature identifies two basic perspectives which organizations can choose concerning the management of relationships with their employees. They distinguish between a transactional or traditional perspective that determines the application of HRM practices promoting short‐term exchange relationships between the organization and its employees, and another based on HRM practices of high‐involvement, emphasizing long‐term relationships of mutual exchange. While admitting these practices of major involvement can vary from one study to another, they nevertheless say they include generically: the creation of opportunities for development and promotion in the internal market; recruitment and selection based more on adjustment between external applicants and the organization than on the specific requirements of the function; assessment and reward systems based on the performance of the organization or the team; training and development practices that promote long‐term collaborator development and teambuilding. They confirm in their study that these practices of high‐ involvement, coinciding with those previously referred to here as best practices, are more positively related to organizational performance and KM practices than is the case with traditional or transactional practices. In turn, Yahya and Goh (2002) say that the connection between HRM and KM is so deep that we can consider KM as an evolved form of HRM, as through the use of information technology it supports human interactions and collaborative processes. According to the authors, in this relationship, HRM is responsible for monitoring tasks, measuring and intervening in the construction, incorporation, spread and use of knowledge by collaborators. Svetlik and Stavrou‐Costea (2007) also justify this relationship, defending the idea that with HRM concerning effective people management and if people are the most valuable resource in knowledge, then HRM and KM are intimately inter‐related.
Other authors such as Kase and Zupan (2007), Minbaeva, Foss and Snell (2009), Razouk, Bayad and Wannenmacher (2009), Tessier and Bourdon (2009), Lopez‐Cabrales, Pérez‐Luno and Cabrera (2009) and Brewer and Brewer (2010) underline and demonstrate this strategic relationship, stressing the benefits of an integrated approach. The literature review carried out points to understanding of HRM from a dual perspective, with the perspective having the most positive effect on both KM processes and organizational performance being the one which promotes so‐called best practices or practices of high‐involvement.
Elisa Figueiredo et al.
3. Research design
Based on the literature review, we assume that HRM practices can form a determinant of organizational processes related to knowledge. In this context, we define as the central research question empirical support for the (conceptually defined) relationship according to which the perspective configuring the HRM practices implemented in an organization has an impact on how KM processes operate therein.
3.1 Hypotheses
To achieve the goals of this study, we formulate the following hypotheses:
HypothesisH.1Collaborator perception corresponding to the development of human resource management from a more organic perspective will correspond to a positive impact on how knowledge management processes operate.
HypothesisH.2 Collaborator perception corresponding to the development of human resource management from a more traditional/mechanistic perspective will correspond to the lack of impact or negative impact on how knowledge management processes operate.
3.2 Method
3.2.1 Population and sample
Sample selection was made from a universe of 9509 permanent collaborators in an economic group in the banking sub‐sector of the service sector.
The sample was formed using the cluster random sampling method, with a total number of 5306 collaborators. From that total, we obtained 850 completed questionnaires, corresponding to a response rate of16%. The response rate was found to be robust and sufficiently large to produce statistically significant results (Takeuchi, Wakabayashi & Chen, 2003). Isobe, Makino and Montgomery (1999) indicate approximately 14.5% as the minimum response rate for studies resorting, as here, to the survey research method. The 850 competed questionnaires were from collaborators carrying out leader and management functions and the majority (54.5%) have higher education (university degree). 3.2.2 Material We used the following scales for data collection: i) HRMP‐ Human Resource Management Practices, specifically the sub‐scales CMPA – Career Management Perspectives and Assumptions (Figueiredo, 2013) and PTPA– Professional Training Perspectives and Assumptions (Monteiro, 2010); and ii) KM – Knowledge Management (Pais, 2014).
It should be noted that the CMPA and PTPA sub‐scales of the HRMP scale present a two‐factor structure, resulting from Principal Component Analysis (with varimax rotation) with CMPA being made up of a total of 15 items (αglobal: .869) and PTPA by a total of 23 items (αglobal: .912). It is important to point out that the two factors integrating the sub‐scales analyzed here are, from the content of their constituent items, conceptually distinct. Specifically, factor 1 of both sub‐scales is composed of items of a more organic nature, as opposed to factor 2 which tends to be more mechanic.
As for the CMPA sub‐scale, the first factor called F1 –Career Management based on merit and development groups a set of items that value personal merit and development of aptitudes and competences, from a perspective of less programmed careers, linked to higher levels of initiative and autonomy (eigenvalue = 5.95; % of variance of 39.64%; α = .919). Here, career management is perceived as a responsibility shared between the employee and the organization, the former expecting development opportunities with a view to maintaining his employability, more than job security. In this setting, career management implies multiple routes to acquire competences, not being restricted to a rising set of hierarchical movements (Gomes, Cunha, Rego, Cunha, Cabral‐Cardoso & Marques, 2008; Lerín et al. 2001). The second refers to items that highlight length of service and job security, representing traditional career management following the principle of hierarchical progression based on length of service(eigenvalue = 2.43; % of variance of 12.44%; α =.654). Here, responsibility for career management is a unilateral process, depending only on the organization, and is
Elisa Figueiredo et al.
associated with stable job relations, in general, in exchange for more modest remuneration (Gomes et al., 2008). It contains the principle of a job for life. This was called F2 –Career Management based on length of service and tenure (Figueiredo, 2013). Regarding the PTPA sub‐scale, the two factors are designated: F1 – Training as investment and F2 –Training as restriction (Monteiro, 2010). The first factor refers to a perspective of valuing training as strategic investment, with the emphasis on pro‐active collaborator development (eigenvalue = 7.32; % of variance of 36.58%; α = .919). “(…) Training is seen as a form of organizational individual development. The second factor represents an understanding of “training as a restriction for organizations” (eigenvalue = 3.38; % of variance of 16.92%; α = .835). In this context, training activities are perceived as irrelevant, useless or even harmful and burdensome both in terms of the time spent on them and the cost involved. Training is an end in itself, and seen in the strict sense of meeting administrative‐legal requirements, as an obligation to be met and not as a form of individual and/or organizational development”. (Monteiro, 2010, p. 249).
Finally, we performed confirmatory factor analysis on the KM scale by Pais (2014), obtaining a good adjustment to the four‐factor structure presented by the author, CMIN/DF = 7.36, χ2(205) = 1565.62, p< .001, NFI = .845, CFI = .863, RMSEA = .087: F1 –Cultural Orientation to Knowledge(α= .877), F2 –Competitive Orientation (α = .750), F3 –Formal Knowledge Management Practices (α = .827) and F4 –Informal Knowledge Management Practices (α = .790).
According to the designation attributed, the first reflects a shared set of values, a framework that guides practices, rules, norms and procedures established in the organization. This factor relates to a "knowledge oriented culture", where the value of knowledge is central in promoting organizational performance. The second factor mirrors the organization’s orientation to its external environment, from a perspective of comparative assessment, constant adaptation and looking for a sustained position in the market. The third factor joins organizational actions developed and formally established, centred on knowledge of a mainly explicit nature (its creation/acquisition, preservation, share and use). Finally, the fourth factor includes informal interactions occurring in the organization which facilitate the social construction of knowledge, emerging from the use of a common and collective language. This is mainly tacit knowledge which is difficult to create and put into practice in the absence of (face‐to‐face) contact between the different organizational actors.
3.2.3 Procedure
The study made was of a non‐experimental and transversal nature, based on data of a quantitative nature (Anastas & MacDonald, 1994; Robson, 2002). Data were therefore collected through the survey method, resorting to the technique of the self‐administered questionnaire (Ghiglione & Matalon,2001 [1977]). All the procedures adopted in this empirical study aimed to respect all the ethical assumptions of an empirical study, ensuring maximum confidentiality.
4. Results
Aiming to assess to what extent the factors of the CMPAQA and PTPA sub‐scales are good predictors of knowledge management and test the hypotheses formulated, we performed a set of multiple regression analyses, considering the global measure of KM and each of its constituent factors.
4.1 Knowledge management forecast from career management
For the two factors of career management (CMPA_F1 – Career Management based on merit and development
and CMPA_F2 –Career Management based on length of service and tenure), the multiple regression carried
out with the global scale of the KM questionnaire presented a multiple correlation coefficient of rmultiple=.627,
classified as of moderate magnitude according to Cohen (1988), indicating that, overall, the two career management factors are responsible for 39.3% of the variability of global knowledge management, F (2, 847) = 274.14,p<.001,R2 =.393, R2aj=.392, SE=.391.
Table 1 presents the non‐standardized (b) and standardized (β), regression coefficients, standard errors (EP)
and t tests of statistical significance, for both the global scale of Knowledge Management and its four constituent factors.
Elisa Figueiredo et al. Table 1: Multiple regression analysis of knowledge management forecast from the two factors of the career management sub‐scale Knowledge Management (KM) Criterion: Global scale Career Management (CMPA) Predictors: b SE β t CMPA_F1 ,51 ,02 ,64 22,38*** CMPA_F2 ‐,04 ,02 ‐,05 ‐1,78 Criterion: KM_F1 ‐ Cultural Orientation to Knowledge Predictors: b SE β t CMPA_F1 ,49 ,03 ,58 18,96*** CMPA_F2 ‐,08 ,03 ‐,09 ‐2,80** Criterion: KM_F2 ‐ Competitive Orientation Predictors: b SE β t CMPA_F1 ,40 ,03 ,45 13,40*** CMPA_F2 ‐,05 ,03 ‐,05 ‐1,50 Criterion: KM_F3 ‐ Formal Knowledge Management Practices Predictors: b SE β t CMPA_F1 ,72 ,03 ,72 27,66*** CMPA_F2 ‐,04 ,03 ‐,04 ‐1,60 Criterion: KM_F4 ‐ Informal Knowledge Management Practices Predictors: b SE β t CMPA_F1 ,39 ,03 ,42 12,55*** CMPA_F2 ,01 ,03 ,01 0,24 *** p< .001
Regarding KM_F1‐Cultural orientation to knowledge, we obtained an rmultipleof .556, F (2, 847) = 189.54,
p<.001,R2 =.309,R2aj=.308, SE = .443. Observation of Table 1 of the standardized regression coefficients β and
the respective tests of statistical significance shows that both factors of career management predict cultural orientation to knowledge, albeit in opposing directions: whereas career management based on merit and development is seen to promote KM_F1, career management based on length of service and tenure is seen to inhibit that factor.
As for factor KM_F2‐Competitive orientation, the r multiple obtained was .431, F(2, 847) = 96.45,p<.001,R2
=.186,R2aj=.184, SE = .503. Similarly to the global KM scale, only the first factor of the career management sub‐
scale (CMPA) is seen to predict KM_F2. Therefore, the more career management is based on merit and development, the greater the competitive orientation to knowledge.
Concerning factor KM_F3‐ Formal knowledge management practices, the rmultiple obtained was considerably
higher, being .707, F (2, 847) = 424.42,p<.00,R2 =.501,R2aj=.499, SE= .445. However, also regarding KM_F3, only
career management based on merit and development is shown to be a significant and positive predictor of formal knowledge management practices, with career management based on length of service and tenure showing no predictive effect.
The result obtained for KM_F2 and KM_F3 was shown to be extendable to factor KM_F4‐Informal Knowledge Management Practices, which presented an rmultiple of .423, F (2, 847) = 92.26,p<.001,R2 =.179,R2aj=.177, SE =
.529. Specifically, only career management based on merit and development is shown to be significant in forecasting informal knowledge management practices.
Elisa Figueiredo et al.
4.2 Knowledge management forecast from professional training
As for the factors of professional training (PTPA_F1‐Training as investment and PTPA_F2‐Training as
restriction), the multiple regression performed with the global scale of the KM questionnaire presented a high rmultiple of .829, indicating that the two factors of professional training explain 68.7% of the variability of global
knowledge management, F (2, 847) = 930.13, p<.001, R2 =.687,R2aj =686,SE =.281.
Table 2 presents the non‐standardized and standardized regression coefficients, the standard errors and t tests of statistical significance, for the global scale of Knowledge Management and for its four constituent factors. Table 2: Multiple regression analysis (enter method) of knowledge management forecast from the two factors of the professional training sub‐scale Knowledge Management (KM) Criterion: Global scale Professional Training (PTPA) Predictors: b SE β t PTPA_F1 ,76 ,02 ,82 42,30*** PTPA_F2 ‐,01 ,01 ‐,02 ‐1,13 Criterion: KM_F1 ‐ Cultural Orientation to Knowledge Predictors: b SE β t PTPA_F1 ,75 ,02 ,77 35,95*** PTPA_F2 ‐,04 ,01 ‐,07 ‐3,09** Criterion: KM_F2 ‐ Competitive Orientation Predictors: b SE β t PTPA_F1 ,688 ,026 ,675 26,58*** PTPA_F2 ‐,034 ,018 ‐,049 ‐1,93 Criterion: KM_F3 ‐ Formal Knowledge Management Practices Predictors: b SE β t PTPA_F1 ,93 ,02 ,81 38,27*** PTPA_F2 ,05 ,02 ,06 2,99** Criterion: KM_F4 ‐ Informal Knowledge Management Practices Predictors: b SE β t PTPA_F1 ,62 ,03 ,58 20,51*** PTPA_F2 ‐,03 ,02 ‐,04 ‐1,52 * p< .05 ** p< .01 *** p< .001 We can state that, despite the high predictive power of the professional training sub‐scale, only the first factor (PTPA_F1‐Professional training as investment) is shown to be a predictor of the global KM scale, with the second factor (PTPA_F2‐Professional training as restriction) being negligible in predicting knowledge management.
Analyzing now the contribution of professional training to each factor of KM, we find that in relation to KM_F1‐Cultural orientation to knowledge, the rmultiple is .787, F (2, 847) = 689.43,p<.001,R2 =.619,R2aj =.619, SE=
.329. Concerning the regression coefficients and respective tests of statistical significance (see Table 2), in forecasting cultural orientation to knowledge, we find that both factors of Professional Training are contributors, albeit in opposing directions: if professional training as investment increases cultural orientation to knowledge, professional training as restriction inhibits it.
As for factor KM_F2‐Competitive orientation to knowledge, the rmultiple obtained was .685, F (2, 847) =
374.61,p<.001,R2 =.469,R2aj =.468, SE= .406 and, contrary to Factor 1 of KM, for Factor 2 only the factor of
Elisa Figueiredo et al.
professional training as investment of the professional training sub‐scale (PTPA) was shown to be significant in predicting competitive orientation. We conclude, therefore, that the more professional training is seen as investment, the greater the competitive orientation to knowledge. That is, perceptions of greater applicability of the former correspond to greater applicability of the latter.
Concerning factor KM_F3‐Formal knowledge management practices, the rmultiple is high, being .797, F (2, 847) =
738.47,p<.001,R2 =.636,R2aj =.635, SE= .380. Here, similarly to KM_F1‐Cultural orientation to knowledge, both
factors are seen to predict formal knowledge management practices, and in the same direction. To specify, both professional training as investment and professional training as restriction contribute positively to increased formal knowledge management practices.
Finally, factor 4 of KM (Informal knowledge management practices), when forecast by the two factors of professional training, indicated an rmultiple of .587, F (2, 847) = 223.07,p<.001,R2 =.345,R2aj=.343, SE= .472. For
factor 4, similarly to KM_F2‐Competitive orientation to knowledge, only the factor of professional training as investment was shown to be a significant and positive predictor of informal management practices, the factor of professional training as restriction showing no predictive effect.
The results obtained from the multiple regression analyses performed let us conclude there is statistical support for the formulated hypotheses H1 and H2.
5. Discussion, conclusions and limitations
Attempting to interpret the results relating to the sub‐scales in analysis (CMPA – Career Management and PTPA – Professional Training), we find that for career management, factor 1 – Career Management based on merit and development presents a positive predictive capacity for the KM scale as a whole and for each of its constituent factors. It stands out, however, that the predictive capacity shown is greater concerning factors 1 and 3 of KM (Cultural orientation to knowledge and Formal Knowledge Management Practices). Factor 2 – Career Management based on length of service and tenure only allows a forecast of F1 – Cultural Orientation to Knowledge, this forecast being negative. Therefore, the more an organization adopts career management practices based on length of service and tenure, the lesser the presence of a culture oriented to knowledge. Indeed, whereas F1 – Career Management based on merit and development is a factor promoting and facilitating cultural orientation to knowledge, F2 is seen to inhibit this.
Concerning the PTPA (Professional Training) sub‐scale, we observe that only F1 – Professional Training as investment presents positive predictive capacities for the global KM scale and for each of its constituent factors. F2 – Professional training as restriction only allows prediction of factors 1 and 3 of KM (Cultural orientation to knowledge and Formal Knowledge Management Practices), this relationship being negative in the case of F1. This result replicates what happened with the factors of the CMPA scale, where we also find contrary predictive effects. Indeed, and specifically in this case, if F1 – Professional Training as investment facilitates and promotesculturalorientation to knowledge, F2 – Professional Training as restriction hinders the occurrence of internal cultural orientation to knowledge. As happens with career management, professional training also shows greater predictive capacity for factors 1 and 3 of KM.
In this assessment analysis of the impact of HRM practices on KM processes, we find that the factor of KM showing the greatest impact is factor 1 – cultural orientation to knowledge. This result reveals the close relationship that seems to exist between organizational positioning regarding how people are looked on and managed and the dominant cultural context in relation to knowledge. Therefore, thinking how an organization’s human resources are managed necessarily implies consideration of their impact on the organization’s culture in terms of orientation to knowledge. The KM factor least predicted by career management and professional training is factor 4 – Informal Knowledge Management Practices. The explanation for this finding may perhaps lie inthe fact of HRM being seen as a formal and institutional set of practices that are more visible and perceptible in collaborators’ daily life, as opposed to informal practices and processes which occur and develop on the margins of institutional mechanisms and procedures and are therefore less visible and more difficult to perceive, identify, characterize and understand.
So there is evidence that HRM practices related to career management and professional training, in their assumptions and perspectives of value and development, are significant and positive predictors of all the
Elisa Figueiredo et al. knowledge management processes assessed here. On the other hand, the same HRM processes, when framed by restrictive and limiting assumptions and perspectives, have no effect, or a negative one, on those same KM processes. In this context, it is possible to state that the more HRM practices are applied or in operation, in this case those of career management and professional training, from a perspective of value, development and investment, the greater the likelihood of the occurrence of processes facilitating and promoting knowledge of a more explicit and formal nature and a cultural, strategic and competitive internal orientation to knowledge.
We can state therefore that the main contribution of this study is confirmation of the close relationship of dependency between organizational management processes regarding people and knowledge, showing the positive effect of best practices or high involvement practices of HRM on KM processes, as opposed to traditional or transactional practices.
Finally, though the empirical results of the current research mainly support the current model, some restrictions must be taken into account: i) The empirical research is based on a study of a transversal nature; ii) Survey as the only source of data collection; iii) The results are based on collaborator perception; and iiii) The data has been collected in the banking sub‐sector. Therefore, additional studies of a longitudinal nature in other sectors and other organizational contexts are needed, in order to establish causal inferences with greater accuracy and precision and to confirm or invalidate the relationship explained here.
Acknowledgements
Publication supported by the PEst‐OE/EGE/UI4056/2014 UDI/IPG project, financed by the Foundation for Science and Technology
References
Anastas, J. &MacDonald, M. (1994). Research Design for Social Work and the Human Services. New York: Lexington. Brewer, P. & Brewer, K. (2010). Knowledge Management, Human Resource Management and Higher Education: A theoretical model. Journal of Education For Business, 85, 330–335. Burns, T. e Stalker, G., (1961) – The management of innovation.London. Tavistock Publications. Camelo‐Ordaz, C., García‐Cruz, J., Sousa‐Ginel, E. & Valle‐Cabrera, R. (2011). The influence of Human Resource Management on Knowledge Sharing and Innovation in Spain: The mediating role of affective commitment. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22 (7), 1442‐1463. Carter, C. & Scarbrough, H. (2001).Towards a second generation of KM? The people management challenge. Education & Training, 43, (4/5), 215‐224. Chen, C‐J., & Huang, J‐W.(2009). Strategic Human Resource Practices and Innovation Performance – The mediating role of knowledge management capacity. Journal of Business Research, 62, 104‐114.Cohen, J. (1988).Satistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New York: Academic Press. Escuder, A., Vázquez, J., & García P. (2010). Incidencia de las Políticas de Recursos Humanos en la Transferencia de Conocimiento y su Efecto sobre la Innovación. Investigaciones Europeas de Dirección y Ecnonomia de la Empresa, 16 (1), 149‐163. Figueiredo, E. (2013). Dinâmicas Relacionais Entre a Gestão de Recursos Humanos e a Gestão do Conhecimento. Um Estudo no Setor dos Serviços‐ subsetor Banca. Dissertação de doutoramento não publicada. Faculdade de Psicologia e de Ciências da Educação da Universidade de Coimbra. French, W. & Bell, C. (1990).Organizational development – Behavioural science interventions for organization improvement.New Jersey: Prentice‐Hall. Ghiglione, R; Matalon, B. (2001, [1977]). O Inquérito: Teoria e Prática. Oeiras, (Trad. Portuguesa), 4ª edição: Celta Editora. Gomes, J. F., Cunha, M. P., Rego, A., Cunha, R., Cabral‐Cardoso, C. & Marques, C. (2008). Manual de gestão de pessoas e do capital humano. Lisboa. 1ª Edição: Edições Sílabo. Isobe, T.,Makino, S. & Montgomery, D. (2000). Resource Commitment, entry timing, and market performance of foreign direct investments in emerging economies: The case of Japanese international joint ventures in China. Academy of Management Journal, 43 (3), 468‐484. Kase, R. & Zupan, N. (2007). HRM as a means of shaping relational networks within a company: A comparison of two knowledge‐intensive companies. Economic and Business Review for Central and South‐Eastern Europe, 9 (3), 213‐ 234. Lerín, F. G.; Martínez‐Tur, V., &Peiró, J. (2001), Tendencias y controversias en el futuro de la gestión y del desarrollo de los recursos humanos. In E. Tomás & A. Bernal (Eds.), Trabajo, individuo Y sociedad: Perspectivas psicosociológicas sobre el futuro del trabajo, 165 – 201. Espanha: Ediciones Pirámide. 360Elisa Figueiredo et al. Lopes, A. (2008). Fundamentos da gestão de recursos humanos: Para uma epistemologia do valor das pessoas nas organizações (ou a arte e a ciência do equilíbrio entre iniciativa e cooperação). Documento não publicado. Lisboa. Instituto Superior de Ciências do Trabalho e Empresa. López‐Cabrales, A., Pérez‐Luno, A., & Cabrera, R. V. (2009). Knowledge as a Mediator Between HRM Practices and Innovative Activity. Human Resource Management Review, 48(4), 485‐503. Magalhães, R. (2005). Fundamentos da Gestão do Conhecimento Organizacional. Lisboa.1ª Edição: Edições Sílabo. Minbaeva, D., Foss, N. & Snell, S. (2009). Guest Editor’s Introduction: Bringing the knowledge perspective to HRM. Human Resource Management,48(4), 477‐483. Monteiro, S. (2010). Processos organizacionais de gestão dos recursos humanos e de gestão do conhecimento: confluências e dinâmicas de influência no sector da cerâmica em Portugal. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Faculdade de Psicologia e de Ciências da Educação da Universidade de Coimbra. Pais, L. (2014). Gestão do conhecimento. In Siqueira, M. (Org.), Medidas do comportamento organizacional. Ferramentas de diagnóstico e de gestão. Porto Alegre: Artmed. Pinto, R. (2009). Introdução à Análise de Dados. 1ª Edição. Lisboa: Edições Sílabo. Razouk, Bayad & Wannenmacher (2009), Strategic HRM and tacit knowledge transfer: A case study. Human Systems Management 28, 77‐82. Robson, C. (2002). Real world research (2nd Ed.). Oxford: Blackwell. Soliman, F. & Spooner, K. (2000).Strategies for implementing knowledge management: role of human resources management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 4 (4), 337. Svetlik & Stavrou‐Costea (2007). Connecting HRM and KM. International Journal of Manpower, 28 (3/4), 197‐206. Takeuchi, N., Wakabayashi, M. & Chen, Z. (2003). The strategic HRM configuration for competitive advantage: Evidence from Japanese firms in China and Taiwan. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 20, 447‐480. Tessier, N. & Bourdon, I. (2009), Le management des hommes: Undéfi pour la gestion des connaissances, La Revue des Sciences de Gestion, Direction et Gestion, 237‐238‐Ressources humaines, May‐Aug, 35‐68. Theriou, G. & Chatzoglou, P. (2008), Enhancing performance through best HRM practices, organizational learning and KM, a conceptual framework, European Business Review, 20 (3) 185‐207. Yahya, S. & Goh, W. (2002). Managing human resources toward achieving knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 6 (5), 457‐468. 361
