**3.3 Knowledge-based training and development**

Training and development allow the employees of an organization to acquire and develop key skills that improve personal and organizational performance. The process itself is viewed by many scholars as being an effective HRM practice that aids the implementation of the KM strategy, activities and outcomes. HRMrelated research on KM is chiefly focused on the transfer of knowledge by training [60]. Knowledge transfer concerns various forms of learning, the creation of a knowledge sharing climate, the establishment of training units which assess and analyze training needs, provide and evaluate training, and lead towards learning organizations [10]. Application of training is important to develop employees' learning capabilities and provide a common language and shared vision. This would develop a high level of self-efficacy so that employees may feel more assured of their abilities and will be more likely to exchange knowledge with others, thus fostering the acquisition of new knowledge and the dissemination of individual knowledge within the firm [8]. Training and development has a positive effect on increasing human capital and subsequently innovation within the hotel industry [51]. They argued that employee development tends to be much more effective than recruitment in increasing human capital. Similarly, Keat and Lin [61] found that talent development has a mediating effect between knowledge management and organizational performance in Malaysian private colleges. They added that employee development is more important than retention management, as their findings found no support that talent retention has a mediating factor between knowledge management and organizational performance.

*Current Issues in Knowledge Management*

encourage network cohesion. Yet, they also acknowledge the importance of all incentive levels being included in the overall compensation of individuals. Laursen and Mahnke [41] state that individual incentives serve to underline the strong performance of individual employees when carrying out personal tasks. Yet, they also stress that the process of allocating individual incentives should be reliably measured or the process could be viewed as being complicated and lacking in fairness. Siemsen et al. [56] graded compensation management based on inter-employee linkages within workgroups. These gradings can be categorized under three group headings: outcome, help and knowledge linkages. The first group, outcome, tends to emphasize the coordination of the group whilst the latter two promote cooperation. They found that if employees are "outcome-linked" then individual incentives were found to work best; however, if the employees are reliant on helping each other (or "help-linked") within the group to complete the goal, then group incentives produce an optimal result. When employees are knowledge-linked then both individual and group incentives are considered vital and complementary. Individual incentives are important in encouraging an employee to put his/her acquired knowledge into use, while the group incentives encourage possessors to share their knowledge. Siemsen et al. [56] made similar findings that add to Taylor's [50] contribution in which he found that group-based incentives promote a greater degree of co-operation between employees. Moreover, Quigley et al. [57] found that group incentives are stronger in promoting knowledge sharing

from the provider perspective when supported by organizational norms.

Therefore, whenever tasks are interrelated, group incentives are perceived as a better choice of compensatory measure for employees. This holds true whenever the standardization level is low and the output process is complex. Another potential drawback to individual incentives is that they limit potential knowledge and information sharing, i.e., they create an atmosphere of secrecy. When individual incentives are used by organizations, they tend to be used to reward the achievement of personal and short-term goals. Overall knowledge creation and the achievement of long-term objectives are rewarded through group incentives. Thus, the literature indicates that group incentives are more suitable than individual ones when interaction and direct tacit knowledge sharing are required. In this fashion, group incentives then seem to serve companies that adopt personalization strategies the best; however, individual incentives are not wholly excluded: rather they are relegated to playing a secondary role. If individual incentives were dominant in this type of organization, then employees would be encouraged to push for an outcome favorable to themselves as opposed to pursuing the group goal. For companies with a codification-based strategy, personal incentives are more commonplace. This is due to the fact that interaction between employees is less necessary to the company goal and personal effort in extracting explicit knowledge is considered more essential. Another issue related to compensation management is whether intrinsic rewards, extrinsic rewards or a combination of the two should be given to personnel completing KM-based tasks. For this circumstance, it seems that the characteristics of personnel described in knowledge worker-based literature are in alignment with those described in the literature published about the personalization strategy. Smith [36] claimed that knowledge workers value nonfinancial incentives more than financial ones. Consistently, Zhou et al. [31] found that performance-based compensation (extrinsic) has an insignificant effect in supporting absorptive capacity and knowledge transfer in mergers and acquisitions. Additionally, Despres and Hiltrop [54] suggested that effective compensation systems during the knowledge economy era should place emphasis on social and intrinsic needs rather than extrinsic needs (which should be regarded as secondary). Not underestimating extrinsic motivators, Hosseingholizadeh et al. [38] empirically demonstrated that intrinsic motivators have much more influence on knowledge-work than extrinsic motivators. Lee and Ahn [58], in addition to

**88**

To begin with, this section investigates the subjects of training under each KM strategy. Training subjects under personalization are more diverse than under codification and include subjects that strengthen employees' technical and interpersonal skills. Yahya and Goh [46] also declared that training should include some leadership skills and the ability to manage change as well as further training in the use of creativity, problem-solving skills and quality initiatives. Training is an important way of complementing the breadth and depth of knowledge that already exists in individuals in line with the KM strategy of the organization (which should identify the current competencies and the competencies that are desired in the future) [49]. Similarly, Kianto et al. [33] stated that knowledge-based training and development involve regularly developing the depth and breadth of employees' knowledge and expertise, personalizing training to fit particular needs and, finally, ensuring continuous employee development. In order to stay at the forefront of their professional fields they must be constantly aware of developments within their specific disciplines and professions and they need to participate in activities that offer opportunities to further their own professional development [22]. Smith [36] also added that developing a breadth of knowledge helps to create a strong general ability within employees, whilst developing a depth of knowledge produces employees with specialist knowledge. Training should be suggested as a means of focusing on growing the exploratory knowledge of employees instead of simply concentrating on developing traditional exploitative knowledge [36]. For skilled workers, providing team-based training, project-oriented training, on-the-job training, leadership development and other programs that are designed to improve quickly the employees' learning capability are vital [8].

On the other hand, the vast majority of training under a codification strategy is concerned with equipping employees with the technical skills that are needed for employees to be functional within their current role. The main training subjects focus on gaining procedural knowledge and enabling employees' to effectively utilize IT.

The training and development process is generally classified as being either formal or informal, with each classification contributing differently to KM. Brelade and Harman [47] saw formal training as an aid enabling employees who have the relevant skills to utilize information, create knowledge and work in teams. Smith [36] highlighted the importance of educating employees to enable them to understand the knowledge concept and the approach to knowledge that their company has adopted. This can be achieved by using awareness programs and by informing the employees within the company of new processes and procedures. The training should also include the appropriate usage of IT, and employees should know how and what knowledge should be located, extracted, used and shared. Moreover, as the mentors and coaches of employees, managers should be well trained especially when it comes to delivering feedback on how they can improve and foster creativity [59]. According to O'Neill and Adya [32], effective communication strategies by themselves are insufficient to transform employees into active knowledge workers. Managers must educate employees on how to share knowledge in ways that benefit the organization as well as their own careers. This necessitates familiarity with effective knowledge sharing practices, processes, and supporting technologies [32]. Direct training also involves building people skills such as networking, team building and effective communication.

As for informal training and development, Olomolaiye and Egbu [39] highlighted its importance in strengthening knowledge sharing and competencies such as through mentorship and on-the-job training. They suggested that employees should be involved in different teams, to help build their cooperation and knowledge-sharing capabilities, as an excellent informal training method. Alonderiene

**91**

external training is seen to be favorable.

Moving onto a different aspect of training and development, Robertson and Hammersley [48] stated that training and development needs should be specified by the employees themselves due to the fact that they, more than anyone

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

et al. [62] stated that up to 70 or 90% of workplace learning takes place at an informal level. Kase and Zupan [35] also stressed that employees' skills can be developed strongly if they are moved between different workgroups to experience different working patterns. Filius et al. [44] also state that a high level of effective learning takes place when employees are involved in innovative projects. Smith [36] added that partnership working, peer assistance and a strong apprentice-mentor relationship all contribute to effective informal training. Cai et al. [63] found that informal network, not a formal one, has a significant impact on employees' performance. A study conducted by Manuti et al. [64] showed that communities of practice are effective learning spaces; beneficial for both individuals and organizations. From an individual perspective, communities could be beneficial in developing professional skills, a stronger sense of identity and finding continuity even during discontinuity and change. From an organizational perspective, communities of practice could help drive the strategy, start new lines of business, solve problems quickly and transfer best practices. Sprinkle and Urick [65] suggested that improved learning will occur in organizations that facilitate targeted socialization, respond to new preferences and trends in development programs while leveraging multiple approaches including informal/individualized initiatives (such as on-the-job education, mentorship programs), and embrace multiple types of volunteering activities. The majority of literature that focuses on informal training tends to emphasize its role in building interaction, tacit knowledge sharing, creativity and innovation, which directly contribute to the goals of a company that has a personalization-based approach. Formal training is still important in an organization that has adopted this strategy type, but it tends to play a more secondary role. As for organizations that have a codification-based approach, the majority of the training is conducted formally and consists of the teaching of routine skills that are generally basic business- and IT-based. Also, training can be classified as internal or external. Laursen and Mahnke [41] realized that internal training helps to form effective teams and develop strong team working. Internal training also aids in the externalization (converting tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge) and socialization (sharing tacit knowledge) phases in Nonaka's Socialization-Externalization-Combination-Internalization (SECI) model whilst external training strengthens the internalization phase (converting explicit knowledge into tacit knowledge). Both are essential for knowledge creation and sharing. External training can help employees to acquire new skills and learn about new technologies. However, the training is not usually firm-specific. Varying forms of internal training such as internal seminars and "on-the-job" training are seen to be of greater help in nurturing more company-specific knowledge. Kase and Zupan [35] also stated that internal training helps to build cohesive groups while external training helps to form intra-organizational and extra-organizational networks. Firms adopting codification strategies tend to hire undergraduates and train them in groups to be implementers, i.e., to emphasize knowledge acquisition, manipulation, and storage, including the focus on technology [21, 52]. Personalization firms hire graduates to be inventors, i.e., to use their analytical and creative skills on unique business problems, and to share and disseminate knowledge [22]. In codification-based firms, employees are trained to achieve specific tasks that generally only need existing firm processes to achieve their goals; therefore, internal training is seen to be sufficient. However, personalization-based firms tend to emphasize knowledge creation and innovation, which often require both external and internal input. Consequently, the dual use of both internal and

*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*

et al. [62] stated that up to 70 or 90% of workplace learning takes place at an informal level. Kase and Zupan [35] also stressed that employees' skills can be developed strongly if they are moved between different workgroups to experience different working patterns. Filius et al. [44] also state that a high level of effective learning takes place when employees are involved in innovative projects. Smith [36] added that partnership working, peer assistance and a strong apprentice-mentor relationship all contribute to effective informal training. Cai et al. [63] found that informal network, not a formal one, has a significant impact on employees' performance. A study conducted by Manuti et al. [64] showed that communities of practice are effective learning spaces; beneficial for both individuals and organizations. From an individual perspective, communities could be beneficial in developing professional skills, a stronger sense of identity and finding continuity even during discontinuity and change. From an organizational perspective, communities of practice could help drive the strategy, start new lines of business, solve problems quickly and transfer best practices. Sprinkle and Urick [65] suggested that improved learning will occur in organizations that facilitate targeted socialization, respond to new preferences and trends in development programs while leveraging multiple approaches including informal/individualized initiatives (such as on-the-job education, mentorship programs), and embrace multiple types of volunteering activities.

The majority of literature that focuses on informal training tends to emphasize its role in building interaction, tacit knowledge sharing, creativity and innovation, which directly contribute to the goals of a company that has a personalization-based approach. Formal training is still important in an organization that has adopted this strategy type, but it tends to play a more secondary role. As for organizations that have a codification-based approach, the majority of the training is conducted formally and consists of the teaching of routine skills that are generally basic business- and IT-based.

Also, training can be classified as internal or external. Laursen and Mahnke [41] realized that internal training helps to form effective teams and develop strong team working. Internal training also aids in the externalization (converting tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge) and socialization (sharing tacit knowledge) phases in Nonaka's Socialization-Externalization-Combination-Internalization (SECI) model whilst external training strengthens the internalization phase (converting explicit knowledge into tacit knowledge). Both are essential for knowledge creation and sharing. External training can help employees to acquire new skills and learn about new technologies. However, the training is not usually firm-specific. Varying forms of internal training such as internal seminars and "on-the-job" training are seen to be of greater help in nurturing more company-specific knowledge. Kase and Zupan [35] also stated that internal training helps to build cohesive groups while external training helps to form intra-organizational and extra-organizational networks.

Firms adopting codification strategies tend to hire undergraduates and train them in groups to be implementers, i.e., to emphasize knowledge acquisition, manipulation, and storage, including the focus on technology [21, 52]. Personalization firms hire graduates to be inventors, i.e., to use their analytical and creative skills on unique business problems, and to share and disseminate knowledge [22]. In codification-based firms, employees are trained to achieve specific tasks that generally only need existing firm processes to achieve their goals; therefore, internal training is seen to be sufficient. However, personalization-based firms tend to emphasize knowledge creation and innovation, which often require both external and internal input. Consequently, the dual use of both internal and external training is seen to be favorable.

Moving onto a different aspect of training and development, Robertson and Hammersley [48] stated that training and development needs should be specified by the employees themselves due to the fact that they, more than anyone

*Current Issues in Knowledge Management*

ees' learning capability are vital [8].

ing and effective communication.

utilize IT.

To begin with, this section investigates the subjects of training under each KM strategy. Training subjects under personalization are more diverse than under codification and include subjects that strengthen employees' technical and interpersonal skills. Yahya and Goh [46] also declared that training should include some leadership skills and the ability to manage change as well as further training in the use of creativity, problem-solving skills and quality initiatives. Training is an important way of complementing the breadth and depth of knowledge that already exists in individuals in line with the KM strategy of the organization (which should identify the current competencies and the competencies that are desired in the future) [49]. Similarly, Kianto et al. [33] stated that knowledge-based training and development involve regularly developing the depth and breadth of employees' knowledge and expertise, personalizing training to fit particular needs and, finally, ensuring continuous employee development. In order to stay at the forefront of their professional fields they must be constantly aware of developments within their specific disciplines and professions and they need to participate in activities that offer opportunities to further their own professional development [22]. Smith [36] also added that developing a breadth of knowledge helps to create a strong general ability within employees, whilst developing a depth of knowledge produces employees with specialist knowledge. Training should be suggested as a means of focusing on growing the exploratory knowledge of employees instead of simply concentrating on developing traditional exploitative knowledge [36]. For skilled workers, providing team-based training, project-oriented training, on-the-job training, leadership development and other programs that are designed to improve quickly the employ-

On the other hand, the vast majority of training under a codification strategy is concerned with equipping employees with the technical skills that are needed for employees to be functional within their current role. The main training subjects focus on gaining procedural knowledge and enabling employees' to effectively

The training and development process is generally classified as being either formal or informal, with each classification contributing differently to KM. Brelade and Harman [47] saw formal training as an aid enabling employees who have the relevant skills to utilize information, create knowledge and work in teams. Smith [36] highlighted the importance of educating employees to enable them to understand the knowledge concept and the approach to knowledge that their company has adopted. This can be achieved by using awareness programs and by informing the employees within the company of new processes and procedures. The training should also include the appropriate usage of IT, and employees should know how and what knowledge should be located, extracted, used and shared. Moreover, as the mentors and coaches of employees, managers should be well trained especially when it comes to delivering feedback on how they can improve and foster creativity [59]. According to O'Neill and Adya [32], effective communication strategies by themselves are insufficient to transform employees into active knowledge workers. Managers must educate employees on how to share knowledge in ways that benefit the organization as well as their own careers. This necessitates familiarity with effective knowledge sharing practices, processes, and supporting technologies [32]. Direct training also involves building people skills such as networking, team build-

As for informal training and development, Olomolaiye and Egbu [39] highlighted its importance in strengthening knowledge sharing and competencies such as through mentorship and on-the-job training. They suggested that employees should be involved in different teams, to help build their cooperation and knowledge-sharing capabilities, as an excellent informal training method. Alonderiene

**90**

else, should have an idea of their strengths and weaknesses. Employees should be trusted with their choices and consequently make it their own personal responsibility to integrate training activities into their schedule without interfering with their workload and productivity. A parallel view of this theory was found by Filius et al. [44], who noted that firms seem to prefer unstructured training. However, many scholars argue that such freedom offered to workers should be infrequent and training direction should be disseminated from the top of an organizational hierarchy downwards. There are also positive aspects to such structured training, which consist of the ability to build a common understanding of a workforce that helps lower "barriers" when developing a work culture. Bearing these factors in mind, it can be hypothesized that structured training best serves firms that have a codification-based approach. For firms that have an underpinning personalization-based strategy, unstructured training can act as a primary teaching tool, with structured training acting as a secondary training method.

### **3.4 Knowledge-based performance management**

When compared with other HRM practices, performance management seems to have the strongest impact on the activity of knowledge sharing within an organization [53]. Criteria that are measured send a message to employees of what is valued in the organization; therefore, performance management can hinder or support KM activities within and across organizational agents. Hannula et al. [45] stressed the use of this practice in measuring various competencies, as it tends to be a strong indicator for assessing KM activities within a firm. Olomolaiye and Egbu [39] went one step further by stating that performance appraisal should measure its outcome in terms of knowledge sharing and not simply through inputs and processes. Yahya and Goh [46] also emphasized its importance in changing employees' behavior towards KM and also in highlighting the knowing-doing gap. The outcome of such an assessment should then act as an input to the KM process. Additionally, Arunprasad [25] found that performance evaluation, in addition to other HRM practices, contributes significantly to the organizational learning dynamics. He added that performance evaluation contributes to individual and team level learning, which is in line with some of the previous research conclusion.

That said, performance management systems can inhibit knowledge sharing. Along the performance management lines, Currie and Kerrin [53] recognized that varying company departments have differing performance management systems that tend to reflect an individual department's goal as opposed to a company one. This seems to have caused knowledge sharing to be stronger within the company departments but weakened from department to department. Consistently, Edvardsson [22] found that conflict between different functions can be due to the divergent objectives set out for employees in the performance agreements. In this circumstance, the focus should be given to long-term organizational goals such as learning rather than solely stressing the short-term targets set for departmental performance. O'Neill and Adya [32] stressed the need to involve managers to individually motivate workers to share knowledge, especially that knowledge-sharing as an activity tends to be intrinsically motivating to employees on their own and in the moment. Therefore, orientation coaching and mentoring should be provided by managers in addition to including knowledge sharing in performance appraisals.

Olomolaiye and Egbu [39] also argued that performance appraisal should stress intrinsic needs, teamwork and collaboration. Additionally, Brelade and Harman [47] were of the view that the assessment should include the acquisition of new skills and knowledge by an employee and how he or she has taken on new projects and responsibilities, contributed to a community or a team and participated in

**93**

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

developing others. Along similar lines, Narasimha [49] looked at the performance appraisal process as a measurement of innovation level and how an employee has sought to develop knowledge. However, Smith [36] raised the issue of complexity and difficulty in measuring intangible outcomes such as tacit knowledge sharing. That said, Kianto et al. [33] stressed that performance appraisal should focus on development and feedback, rather than taken as an evaluative tool only. Feedback

One of the main outcomes of the appraisal process is the aim to reward employees who contribute positively to KM outcomes and activities. Reasonable failures should be tolerated in order to promote a culture of action and risk-taking [46]. In their case study on a knowledge-intensive organization, Robertson and Hammersley [48] realized that underperformers were endured due to the realization that the knowledge-creation process is inconsistent and unpredictable and holds the possibility that it may not succeed. Olomolaiye and Egbu [39] added that performance appraisal helps to allocate key knowledge holders, which then enables organizations to focus on the retention of those employees. However, all of these aims are based on healthy feedback from management, which requires a high level

Finally, performance management has been recognized by some as one of the strongest influences on KM as a whole. The topics of debate that have occurred in the literature about this subject can be summarized as follows: how and what is measured in the appraisal process, who should be rewarded and the process to deal with underperformers. In companies with a codification approach, performance management is all about measuring and improving known and expected tasks, which are based around an employee's ability to grasp and implement basic business and IT knowledge. Underperformers can be considered somewhat expendable and easily replaced due to the simple nature of the skills needed for the role. Also, within the codification strategy, efforts associated with systems and technologies are more likely to be recognized and rewarded. Inside such a paradigm, key performance is related to technology, technology application and the volume of data [22]. At the opposite end of the scale, a company with a personalization-based approach is concerned with the breadth and depth of an employee's skills and competencies. Underperformers are tolerated as the tasks they undertake can be considered as relatively more complex, mostly intangible and riskier. Moreover, the personalization paradigm focuses more on people, where key performance indicators are related to people and tacit forms of knowledge as well as the quality of data [22].

Many scholars claim that organizations should value the high levels of tacit and personal knowledge that many people have, and it should be down to HRM to build effectively a good level of loyalty and retention rates [39]. Papa et al. [66] found that employee retention improves the effect of knowledge acquisition and innovation performance. They explained that employee retention increases employee commitment and trust, thus fostering knowledge specialization and fortification and creating an innovation culture. Moreover, employee retention increases knowledge retention and organizational knowledge base. Knowledge retention will even

Developing the knowledge worker's organizational loyalty does appear to be more problematic because of labor market conditions, where the skills and knowledge of knowledge workers are typically relatively scarce, creates conditions for knowledge workers which are favorable to mobility. This is a potential problem because the knowledge possessed by knowledge workers is typically highly tacit [18].

augment when benefiting from the employee knowledge-acquisition.

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

helps to identify gaps between performance and targets.

of specific training for managers on how to develop such skills.

**3.5 Knowledge-based retention management**
