**4. Discussion, recommendations and conclusions**

The contributions made by this chapter can be separated into two major areas. The first contribution can be deemed as being the utilization of the KM Sequential Model to produce a logical link between various knowledge concepts, KM perspectives and KM strategies (**Figure 1**). The second contribution can be deemed as the suggestions made, based on the literature review, for the role of various HR practices in supporting different KM strategies (**Table 1**). The chapter suggests an alignment between HRM and its practices and various KM strategies. As many scholars have highlighted, in this study we proposed an integrative approach between KM and HRM, so that if we compare the KM cycle with HRM processes, we found that various activities are shared between both.

The constructed framework of HR practices under each KM strategy assumed that the practices should be consistent in order to best support the organizational strategy towards KM. Arguably, the HR strategy achieves its optimal supportive role by constructing a combination of practices that are consistent and complimentary in catering to the objectives set by the organizational strategy. However, in reality this might not be the case. HR strategies are subject to other forces such as organizational size, available resources, leadership climate, internal politics and power

**97**

serve various needs.

*Aligning Human Resource Management with Knowledge Management for Better Organizational…*

So far, the available literature on the role of HRM in supporting KM theoretically suggests a strong potential contribution for HR practices in implementing effective KM strategies. Various HRM practices were discussed and relationships made with KM activities, although the relationships mooted were mainly theoretical in nature or focusing on a few HR practices to empirically claim such a relationship. Due to the perceived novelty of this research field within HRM specifically and management studies in general, there are many contributions that have the potential to be made in this field. That being said, there is a definite niche for empirical research to be undertaken in this particular area. There is, of course, a probability that undiscovered gaps between theory and practice do indeed exist. Moreover, most of the studies focused on a few HR practices and not comprehensively covered HR practices in supporting KM strategies. Therefore, future empirical studies that look at HR practices as a combination in supporting KM are needed to claim the alignment of HR practices in supporting KM activities in practice and not only in theory. A targeted empirical research effort is definitely needed to uncover the mechanisms that link HRM and KM and aid the deepening of our academic and practical understanding of the subject. Academically, empirical research will add to the available body of knowledge in the KM and HRM literature and allow amendments to be made to theoretical assumptions. Practically speaking, this effort would help to enforce KM initiatives within firms and it would assist in repositioning HRM in a

structures, structural inertia and cultural considerations that might inhibit the

alignment of HR practices with the identified KM strategies.

more strategic position fit for tackling the knowledge economy era.

contradictory—HRM practices suggested to support each strategy.

employees are treated differently within one firm.

With the KM strategy and the implications it has for HRM, there is a debate regarding whether organizations should place emphasis on the personalizationbased approach, the codification-based approach or a combination of the two. Although this argument may sound theoretical in nature, its empirical consequences are, nonetheless, important. Agreeing with Hansen et al. [21], the chapter indicates complications and inconsistencies when both a personalization strategy and a codification strategy are stressed. This is due to the differing—and sometimes

However, the suggestion put forth by Edwards et al. [23] is equally viable, based on a number of reasoning points. Firstly, both standpoints agree that a personalization approach and a codification approach coexist within a single organization, yet with different roles. They can either be rated as being of equal importance or as one method acting as a primary method with the other as a secondary method. Therefore, if Hansen et al. [21] are indeed right, then how can a supportive strategy be highlighted given that the firm places sole emphasis on its primary strategy? Secondly, although a combination approach may indicate an unclear strategic orientation within a company; this may actually be a reflection of the organizational complexity and the need to accommodate different strategies to

Nonetheless, the combination approach is tempting in that it sums up well the benefits of the personalization and the codification strategies. However, if it is practiced then empirical examinations are needed so its implementation mechanisms can be understood. In theory, the combination approach seems more inclined towards a personalization-based approach, with minor differences. So, it can be hypothesized that, within a combination strategy, the HRM and organizational practices of a company with a personalization approach would prevail over those of a company that has adopted the codification approach. Yet, how would contradictory practices be resolved in such a strategy? Also, the adoption of the combination strategy would raise issues, one being equality and fairness based on whether

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86517*

## *Aligning Human Resource Management with Knowledge Management for Better Organizational… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86517*

structures, structural inertia and cultural considerations that might inhibit the alignment of HR practices with the identified KM strategies.

So far, the available literature on the role of HRM in supporting KM theoretically suggests a strong potential contribution for HR practices in implementing effective KM strategies. Various HRM practices were discussed and relationships made with KM activities, although the relationships mooted were mainly theoretical in nature or focusing on a few HR practices to empirically claim such a relationship. Due to the perceived novelty of this research field within HRM specifically and management studies in general, there are many contributions that have the potential to be made in this field. That being said, there is a definite niche for empirical research to be undertaken in this particular area. There is, of course, a probability that undiscovered gaps between theory and practice do indeed exist. Moreover, most of the studies focused on a few HR practices and not comprehensively covered HR practices in supporting KM strategies. Therefore, future empirical studies that look at HR practices as a combination in supporting KM are needed to claim the alignment of HR practices in supporting KM activities in practice and not only in theory.

A targeted empirical research effort is definitely needed to uncover the mechanisms that link HRM and KM and aid the deepening of our academic and practical understanding of the subject. Academically, empirical research will add to the available body of knowledge in the KM and HRM literature and allow amendments to be made to theoretical assumptions. Practically speaking, this effort would help to enforce KM initiatives within firms and it would assist in repositioning HRM in a more strategic position fit for tackling the knowledge economy era.

With the KM strategy and the implications it has for HRM, there is a debate regarding whether organizations should place emphasis on the personalizationbased approach, the codification-based approach or a combination of the two. Although this argument may sound theoretical in nature, its empirical consequences are, nonetheless, important. Agreeing with Hansen et al. [21], the chapter indicates complications and inconsistencies when both a personalization strategy and a codification strategy are stressed. This is due to the differing—and sometimes contradictory—HRM practices suggested to support each strategy.

However, the suggestion put forth by Edwards et al. [23] is equally viable, based on a number of reasoning points. Firstly, both standpoints agree that a personalization approach and a codification approach coexist within a single organization, yet with different roles. They can either be rated as being of equal importance or as one method acting as a primary method with the other as a secondary method. Therefore, if Hansen et al. [21] are indeed right, then how can a supportive strategy be highlighted given that the firm places sole emphasis on its primary strategy? Secondly, although a combination approach may indicate an unclear strategic orientation within a company; this may actually be a reflection of the organizational complexity and the need to accommodate different strategies to serve various needs.

Nonetheless, the combination approach is tempting in that it sums up well the benefits of the personalization and the codification strategies. However, if it is practiced then empirical examinations are needed so its implementation mechanisms can be understood. In theory, the combination approach seems more inclined towards a personalization-based approach, with minor differences. So, it can be hypothesized that, within a combination strategy, the HRM and organizational practices of a company with a personalization approach would prevail over those of a company that has adopted the codification approach. Yet, how would contradictory practices be resolved in such a strategy? Also, the adoption of the combination strategy would raise issues, one being equality and fairness based on whether employees are treated differently within one firm.

*Current Issues in Knowledge Management*

decreasing retention rate.

career progression in such mundane environments.

**4. Discussion, recommendations and conclusions**

the knowledge gaps within the organization.

various activities are shared between both.

internal network and utilizing it as they progress later on.

undertaken at the early stages of careers, so as to establish a "norm" within a career plan. This could potentially aid the new recruits from the outset, in forming their

Hansen et al. [21] suggested that different KM strategies require different methods of career management. Companies that have adopted the personalization approach like to promote upward movements: it is either "up or out" for some. Some scholars claim that knowledge workers have primary responsibility for their own career development [69]. Employee seen as especially valuable to the organization are developed more proactively by the organization and this often includes a stronger role for the organization in planning their careers and facilitating careers moves-now part of 'talent management' [70]. Along the same line, Gope et al. [8] revealed that companies encourage their employees towards self-choice career development and unhindered growth and provide them with flexibility and opportunities to enhance individual learning capabilities for creating new knowledge and sharing it in different functions and divisions. This is consistent with other studies on knowledge acquisition and knowledge sharing. Subsequently, some firms have created two hierarchies as a response to the personal career needs: a managerial hierarchy and an expert-oriented hierarchy. However, the increasing willingness of knowledge workers to stay in their domain of expertise mixed with the onset of increased organizational de-layering (which forces a reduction in the numbers of middle managers), there is a relative drought occurring of managerial talents that are needed to fill senior positions. Accordingly, firms are looking outside their own firms and recruiting externally to fill top managerial positions. This is increasing the personnel cost due to the labor market shortage and the

This is at odds with a codification-based company, where progress is limited due to emphasis being placed on routine job roles [21]. Hierarchal movements are also limited for low-skilled employees. There is always difficulty in sparking interest in

Overall, however, most scholars believe that career adjustments should always concentrate on involving KM roles and functions and then altering them to filling

The contributions made by this chapter can be separated into two major areas. The first contribution can be deemed as being the utilization of the KM Sequential Model to produce a logical link between various knowledge concepts, KM perspectives and KM strategies (**Figure 1**). The second contribution can be deemed as the suggestions made, based on the literature review, for the role of various HR practices in supporting different KM strategies (**Table 1**). The chapter suggests an alignment between HRM and its practices and various KM strategies. As many scholars have highlighted, in this study we proposed an integrative approach between KM and HRM, so that if we compare the KM cycle with HRM processes, we found that

The constructed framework of HR practices under each KM strategy assumed that the practices should be consistent in order to best support the organizational strategy towards KM. Arguably, the HR strategy achieves its optimal supportive role by constructing a combination of practices that are consistent and complimentary in catering to the objectives set by the organizational strategy. However, in reality this might not be the case. HR strategies are subject to other forces such as organizational size, available resources, leadership climate, internal politics and power

**96**

Moreover, the literature focuses on debating and studying KM strategies at the organizational level. However, this might be a limited perception of reality. Different KM strategies might exist at various organizational levels. Thus, further research studying KM strategies at the intra-organizational level might be useful to address how knowledge is managed at various geographical locations, occupational levels, departments and practices. Subsequently, How HRM practices accommodate for various KM strategies within the same organization? Are HRM practices customized within organizations to support various strategies or are they standardized based on the holistic KM orientation at the organizational level.

Also, it is possible that both the HR and IT approaches within the same organization are weak and underdeveloped. Therefore, under such circumstances, how organizations manage their knowledge to ensure their output quality and quantity?

It is also interesting to further investigate the contextual characteristics under each KM strategy. Hansen et al. [21] focused on the competitive strategy, economic models, IT and HR. Other attributes such as the leadership style, culture type and organizational structure are some factors that might act as forces influencing the KM strategy formulation and implementation.

Another factor that future studies should focus on is the rise of artificial intelligence and its impact on KM and HR practices. It might be that the debate of either having a codification or personalization dominant strategy or the argument of having an equal-dominance coexistence of those strategies are obsolete. New KM strategies might emerge in organizations that highly depend on automation, artificial intelligence and big data, with a mass customization competitive advantage. For example, KM might be leaning towards a more partnership model between human capital and machines and software. Under such a strategy, what will be the role of HRM and how HR practices will be constructed? A parallel influence, related to the increasing embedment and dependence on technology within some organizations is the changing nature of the workplace and work arrangements. For example, the impact of the increasing trends of crowd-workers, virtual employees, teleworkers, dematerialization of workplace, etc., will definitely have an impact on KM and the supporting HR practices.
