**1. Introduction**

In the knowledge economy, knowledge is recognized as the major source of wealth production, and managing knowledge effectively and efficiently is considered to be a key success factor to gain sustainable competitive advantage for organizations [1–3]. Notably, competitive advantage is increasingly based on the successful application, leverage and creation of knowledge—especially knowledge embedded

in human assets. Managing knowledge effectively is as a significant factor in innovating faster and better than competitors [4–6]. Human resource management (HRM) practices—major contributor to organizations' competitive advantage—should be utilized to manage organizational human assets through facilitating the development of competencies that generate organizational knowledge [4, 5, 7–9]. Ananthram et al. [3] suggested that a new paradigm of HRM is evolving towards "strategic human assets" theory in pursuit of firm global competitive advantage. This paradigm is built on two pillars: strategic agility and knowledge management (KM). However, much of the literature of KM continues to reflect a techno-centric focus, similar to that of information management, which in essence regards knowledge as an entity that can be captured, manipulated and leveraged. This is a limited and ultimately hazardous perception [4]. It is widely accepted that "it is not technology, but the art of humanand humane-management" that is the continuing challenge for executives [5]. In this regard, Gloet [4] illustrated a revitalization of the HRM function to respond to the demands of the knowledge economy, looking both within and outside the organization. The traditional focus on managing people has been broadened to managing organizational capabilities, relationships, learning and knowledge. Banerjee [6] also believes that we must look beyond human capital to a more sustainable and holistic view of individuals; suggesting the term "sustainable human capital" that moves away from the traditional view of human capital.

The collective knowledge of human expertise through their abilities, experience and interaction with the individual's environment has become such a critical resource to reinvest [1]. It is important that knowledge is viewed as a social creation emerging at the interface between people and information, especially within communities engaged in communication, knowledge-creation, and knowledgesharing and learning [4]. The most crucial point about HRM is that people and their interpersonal relations become and are treated as resources [10]. The success of strategic HRM in the knowledge economy also depends on its ability to harness the hidden potential in the informal social architecture, including tacit knowledge, co-operation and informal learning [5].

HRM and KM are two people-centered concepts focusing on using, sharing and creating knowledge [5, 8]. Mainly, knowledge cannot be managed in the void without people—and vice versa [10]. As Thite [5] identified some key HR strategies for effective people-centric partnership in KM, namely, trusting HR philosophy, institutionalizing learning to learn, and fine-tuning HR systems in recruitment, retention, performance and reward management [5]. Most researchers suggest that KM can be interpreted as a form of HRM. In particular, HRM supports employees in creating and managing knowledge through the sharing of ideas, opinions and experiences [8].

Successful businesses demand high-performing HRM practices and effective KM capacity. Those are two complementary processes and interdependent constructs in the theory of knowledge-based view of the firm as they have a direct link with strategic management and strategic HRM [3, 8]. At the firm-level, the theory suggests that organizations must make investments in developing the human capital of their workforce in order to increase firm performance [6]. Svetlik and Stavrou-Costea [10] demonstrate the benefits of using an integrative approach between HRM and KM, where one reinforces and supports the other in enhancing organizational effectiveness and performance. Gope et al. [8] argue that HRM practices can improve management process at the organizational level by increasing employees' skills and abilities, influencing their behavior and attitudes and increasing their motivation and learning capacity, and through facilitating the development of competencies. Specifically, the contribution of HRM to KM is at the high end of the value chain as it primarily creates and sustains a culture that fosters innovation,

**79**

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

creativity and learning [5]. A collection of research articles explores how HRM and KM are interrelated and provide empirical support for such a connection, and many will be highlighted in this review. The implicit assumption is that HRM and KM

To this end, this chapter examines developments in research on KM and HRM linkage and then seeks to elaborate on their implications for practice. The chapter is structured as follows, a background to conceptualization, approaches and strategies

In order to understand KM, the underpinning idea of the knowledge concept needs to be examined and understood, as differing perceptions of knowledge tend to shape the various KM perspectives. Broadly, the knowledge concept is debated among two main groups: objectivists and those who adopt "epistemology of practice" [11]. This categorization in Ryle (1963), cited in Nilsson and Ellström [12], is referred to as a "theoretical component" and a "practical component". Objectivists view knowledge as an object that can be referred to as declarative, propositional or codified knowledge and can be managed separately. Objectivists classify knowledge into various types and provide models of how to manage their interactions and transformations. The most popular categorization is the differentiation between explicit and tacit knowledge, for example, see [13]. Another common labeling is concerned with where knowledge is situated. It differentiates between personal and organizational knowledge. Organizational knowledge is infused in the organization itself, whether systematically through procedures or unsystematically through culture [14]. Their main philosophical approach is dualism,

Alternatively, members of the "epistemology of practice" propose that knowledge

is tacit in nature and is unlikely to be transformed fully into explicit knowledge. Practical knowledge or "know-how" is associated with experience, is implicit or expressed only in practice, and is thus inseparable from actions [12, 15]. Even if tacit knowledge was partially transformed into explicit knowledge, it will unavoidably contain tacit aspects. Moreover, even if employees are willing to express the knowledge they are in possession of, the likelihood is that they know more than they initially realize. In this sense, knowledge cannot be perceived as a separate object from the knower. "Epistemology of practice" follows a duality philosophy that depends upon structurational models, theories of practice and pragmatism [15]. The most important factor here is the personal nature of tacit knowledge, which requires the willingness, on the part of those workers who possess it, to share and communicate it [16]. Differing perspectives of what knowledge is lead to differing KM formulations. Reviewing existent various KM definitions and categorizing them based on defining the nature of knowledge, reflects the basic assumption of two paradigms that have been labeled differently. These two paradigms can be illustrated in a continuum with a range from IT-based/Hard/Calculative/Mechanistic/Scientific paradigm to a Social/Organic/Soft/Humanistic one. In reality, juncture and coproximity orientations of each paradigm stem from ontological and epistemological assumptions on KM's nature [17]. Those two paradigms lead to two KM approaches/ perspective. The first is IT-focused, where organizations approach KM in a mechanistic, systematic and techno-centric way to enhance knowledge integration and creation [2, 17]. The second is HR-focused, where firms' orientation to KM is more ecological-focused and people-centric, aiming to increase employee interaction and to flourish employee behaviors and an organizational culture that enhances KM

of KM, and then the role of HRM in supporting various KM strategies.

which depends on classifications, taxonomies and contingencies [15].

activities such as knowledge sharing and creation [2, 17].

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

**2. Knowledge and knowledge management**

should still come closer together.

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

creativity and learning [5]. A collection of research articles explores how HRM and KM are interrelated and provide empirical support for such a connection, and many will be highlighted in this review. The implicit assumption is that HRM and KM should still come closer together.

To this end, this chapter examines developments in research on KM and HRM linkage and then seeks to elaborate on their implications for practice. The chapter is structured as follows, a background to conceptualization, approaches and strategies of KM, and then the role of HRM in supporting various KM strategies.
