The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at http://www.emeraldinsight.

com/researchregister

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0142-5455.htm

ER 25,3

Line managers: facilitators of knowledge sharing in teams

Christina M. MacNeil
The Business School, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK
Keywords Line management, Knowledge management, Facilitators, Teams Abstract As human resource management (HRM) and knowledge management are still new areas of research, if we assume the co-existence of strategic integration, and devolution of HRM responsibilities to line managers, then we can see that an organisations strategic intent could be to maximise the contribution of employees knowledge and skills, through creating competitive advantage by utilising human capital. The challenge of capturing employees tacit knowledge, to facilitate its transfer into organisational competence for todays organisations remains paramount. Competitive business pressures are leading to streamlined organisational structures, atter management layers, adoption of team-working processes and employee empowerment, which offers line managers a key role in contributing to strategic HRM outcomes by encouraging knowledge sharing in teams. Reviews and discusses the impact of such devolved HR responsibilities on the role of line managers. Intends to: explore the role of line managers facilitating creation and transfer of tacit knowledge in teams; summarise barriers concerning the transfer of tacit knowledge between individuals and teams; and nally outline the importance of developing line managers as facilitators. Aims to construct an agenda outlining future research in this eld.

294
Received January 2003 Accepted January 2003

Introduction Although distinctions can be made between line managers and supervisors (Currie and Procter, 2001, p. 54), and rst-line managers (FLM) and front-line managers (FL), the particular foci of interest here are line managers who are placed at both the lower and middle management layers of organisations. This includes FL or FLM (Storey, 1992; Marchington, 2001) who are not simply functional specialists (Legge, 1995), but whose major work activity can be assumed to be as business managers (Legge, 1989). The unique nature of the front line or middle managers role is that they occupy a position between the strategic apex and operating core of organisations (Wai-Kwong et al., 2001, p. 1325). Their power is derived not from a hierarchical position of authority, but rather from having specic knowledge that enables them to inuence both strategic and operational organisational priorities. Due to downsizing and the devolution of human resource management (HRM) responsibilities, middle managers have a key role in the implementation of day-to-day HRM activities. As a consequence of the
Employee Relations Vol. 25 No. 3, 2003 pp. 294-307 q MCB UP Limited 0142-5455 DOI 10.1108/01425450310475874

The author would like to give many thanks to the anonymous reviewers for their helpful and insightful comments and to Professor Reva Berman-Brown for her academic inspiration and guidance offered (as always) in the true spirit of knowledge sharing.

structural outcomes of organisational downsizing, they are usually to be found to be leading work teams (Claydon and Doyle, 1996). Devolution of HRM occurs where organisations pass the responsibility for HRM activities from HRM specialists to line managers (Brewster and Larsen, 2000; Hutchinson and Wood, 1995). Non-specialist line managers become responsible for HRM activities, rather than the function be passed to other HRM specialists but located at lower levels of the organisation (Hall and Torrington, 1998). A common theme in the HRM literature is that operational or transactional HRM activities are devolved to line managers, while HRM strategic decisions remain with the HRM specialist(s) often in partnership with senior management (Ulrich, 1998). The range of HRM operational or transactional activities devolved to line managers includes recruitment, appraisal, pay, health and safety, training and development and discipline. This article is concerned with the line managers HRM role, in employee learning and development, exploring the line managers potential contribution to achieving strategic HRM objectives, and in facilitating the integration of an individuals tacit knowledge by encouraging teams to share knowledge. If a work team represents a shared context in which individuals can interact with each other, and engage in the constant dialogue on which reection depends (Nonaka, 1991, p. 104), it is said to be an important forum for the creation and transfer of tacit knowledge occurring within the social and work relationship between the line manager and their team members. The team provides the learning environment (or climate) for the sharing of the individuals tacit knowledge[1] and its subsequent application to the organisational context (Beech and Crane, 1999; Sims, 1995). There are two forms of tacit knowledge, which further complicate the processes of learning communication and the understanding between people. Tacit knowledge can be articulated to others, e.g. reections after a learning incident, but can also be difcult to communicate, codify or convert into explicit knowledge, e.g. how to ride a bike (Baumard, 1999). Thus the complexity of translating individual tacit knowledge into a shared understanding of explicit knowledge within the team situation is considerable. However, if the individuals capability for creating new knowledge and application of existing knowledge can be facilitated by the line managers in teams, then this process of creating and utilising knowledge could represent a formidable core competence, which might bring signicant competitive advantage for that organisation (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). Strategic HRM and the role of the line manager A strategic HRM approach normally contains two core elements, which often occur simultaneously in organisations (Beer et al.,1984; Brewster and Larsen, 1992; Budhwar, 2000). These elements are the strategic integration of HRM

Facilitators of knowledge sharing 295

ER 25,3

296

with the organisations business policy, and the devolution of responsibility for implementing HRM policies to line managers. Where an organisations business strategy emphasises maximising the contribution of people through the use of high performance HRM practices (Huselid, 1995; Boxall and Purcell, 2000), then the integration of HRM with strategic planning is likely to result in the employees demonstrating higher levels of competence, commitment and exibility in the workplace (Guest, 1987; 1998). Nevertheless other writers point out that the simultaneous achievement of the previous strategic HRM outcomes, particularly those of employee exibility and commitment, is difcult in practice (Gratton et al., 1999; Legge, 1995; Storey, 1989, 2001). There can be a contradiction where the strategy of the organisation requires exibility from its employees with regards to the terms and conditions of the employment contract offered to them, e.g. security of tenure, hours worked, etc., but it is still expected that despite the limitations of the employment contract offered, the workforce demonstrate high levels of commitment to organisational goals, e.g. be willing to work beyond contract (Guest, 1991). For some organisations that are competing globally and operating within tight prot margins (e.g. clothing manufacturing), a strategic option might be the implementation of a cost-leadership strategy, together with the utilisation of a core and peripheral workforce. This may seem a more logical strategic choice (to enable the senior management to reduce business costs) rather than the alternative long-term nancial investment in their employees achieved by implementing HRM practices which are designed to result in high performance and high commitment (Legge, 1995; Purcell, 2001). The link between business strategy and HRM strategy must accommodate the important, and different, inuences organisations face concerning their nal strategic choices, e.g. sector, competitive strategy, technology, levels of nance and human capital. These strategic choices and ultimately the contribution of HRM policies and practices to nal HRM outcomes represent a complex rather than universally applicable set of decisions. Thus a superior business strategy is one which links all of the pieces into a more effective conguration or Gestalt (Boxall, 1999). To understand fully the relationship between business strategy and HRM requires examination of both the policy and relevant implementation issues to include strategic outcomes, e.g. decisions taken, and the strategic processes, e.g. actions taken (Purcell, 2001). Then the process of strategic integration becomes something other than an assumed, simplistic form of market positioning, designed to match the movements in the external competitive environment, which recognises the reality of emergent as well as rational strategy perspectives in organisations (Lewin, 1951; Mintzberg et al., 1998), and a complex, reciprocal interaction between business strategy and HRM strategy. This will give equal value to the

internal resources of the rm, particularly the organisations unique capabilities, including its culture, learning networks and the implementation process to achieve strategic intent (Amit and Schoemaker, 1993; Barney, 1999; Boxall, 1999; Prahalad and Hamel, 1990; Kamoche, 1999). However, there remains a lack of clarication over the relationship between the line managers role, and his/her inuence on the implementation of HRM strategies. There is some research which shows that involvement of line managers does have a favourable effect on the achievements of the business strategy, HRM strategy and ultimately performance. These outcomes were closely linked, during the implementing of a cost leadership strategy rather than a differentiation strategy (Wai-Kwong et al., 2001). There is also an acknowledgement that line managers are important for successful policy implementation in organisational change situations, as a vital communication link between senior management and team members (McHugh et al., 1999). Logically the essential nature of the line manager role must increase in importance as organisations continue to experience unrelenting, turbulent change. There is also recognition that under-utilisation of line managers does occur in organisations, where problems are experienced by line managers engaged in HRM activities without adequate support from senior management (or the HRM specialist) (Brewster and Larsen, 2000; Marchington and Wilkinson, 2002; Thornhill and Saunders, 1998). In organisations, the line managers role is important in ensuring that the implementation of HRM strategy and policies are successfully implemented. The devolution of HRM activities to line managers is potentially a useful tool for achieving through the implementation of HRM policies and practices that are consistent with the desired strategic intent (Brewster and Larsen, 1992; Budhwar, 2000; Hall and Torrington, 1998; Hope-Hailey et al., 2002). However, the role of the line manager in the implementation of HRM policies and practices has frequently been overlooked, or at best taken for granted by many organisations. There is little evidence of organisations providing formal training to enable their line managers to undertake the role of facilitating HRM outcomes (Cunningham and Hyman, 1995; MacNeil, 2001). This is despite the transfer of responsibility for HRM to line managers with the implied facilitation role. Brewster and Larsen (2000) identify, in a recent Europe-wide investigation, three main reasons for this. First, senior management believe that line managers already have the relevant technical knowledge of HRM, to make decisions. Second, senior management believe line managers will, through practical experience, learn their HRM role experientially. Third, senior management do not offer line managers training prior to, let alone during, the experience of their devolved HRM role. This lack of training and development is a negative factor inuencing the line managers performance within their HRM role and there is at the end of the day consistency of HRM outcomes (Renwick, 2000). More worrying, however, is

Facilitators of knowledge sharing 297

ER 25,3

298

the notion that line managers can learn their HRM role experientially, particularly in the absence of evidence of senior management encouraging them to reect on their performance, or of the line managers performance actually being monitored in organisations. The inadequacy of the standards and quality of HRM practices which line managers could learn on the job, without sufcient guidance or feedback from senior management can only be imagined (Brewster and Larsen, 1992, 2000; IRS, 1996). In the context of the trend for downsizing in organisations, atter structures, the outsourcing of internal functions (including HRM), and the advent of team working to maximise continuous improvement in processes and services (Applebaum and Lavigne-Schmidt, 1999), senior management often regard team working as encouraging employee empowerment to maximise opportunities for continuous learning in the workplace (Molleman, 2000; Wilkinson, 2001). The line manager as a facilitator encouraging knowledgesharing can be useful for developing the teams collective learning capability and learning as a core competence for the organisation (Ellinger and Bostrum, 1999). Managing the knowledge worker In the existing literature, the lack of awareness concerning links between knowledge management and HRM is surprising, given the often discussed importance of people as a learning resource for organisations. If in the past industrial societies produced goods, as distinct from post-industrial societies, which are required produce knowledge as a major source of wealth (Bell, 1974), then organisations will need to rely on their people as a resource, to transform information into knowledge, providing core competences on which to base competitive advantage. However managing the resources of knowledge and people in organisations are both notoriously difcult tasks. If the main challenges are to develop an organisational culture which supports and promotes knowledge creation, the difculties of accessing the tacit knowledge which knowledge workers possess, and the problem of obtaining knowledge workers trust, commitment and motivation become apparent. These include how to manage those knowledge workers who are not typical, and the vulnerability which organisations face when they cannot retain their knowledge workers (Storey, 2001). However, a wider denition of knowledge workers (than that of workers who resist the command and control model of management) is now needed, to encompass the changes in technology and skills that ensure a wider group of people are actually conducting knowledge-based work, e.g. technical assemblyline workers (Choi and Varney, 1995). If knowledge workers have greater needs for autonomy and self-regulation, due to their wider skills, expertise and work responsibilities (Storey, 1992), therefore they need to be managed differently. Managers cannot simply rely on the traditional, command and control

approach, which is based on scientic management assumptions concerning the rigid roles of management and workers i.e. that management think and workers must do (Taylor, 1911). Thus where knowledge is not derived from existing, explicit or codied information, then it will not be possible for managers to instruct, supervise and monitor workers to achieve predetermined, controlled outputs without workers using any discretion. Rather the manager must utilise the workers knowledge, gaining their involvement in not only how but what must be done (Storey, 2001). Therefore the power relationship between the manager and the knowledge worker could arguably shift in favour of the latter. However, if the role of the line manager moves away from that of controlling information (as distinct from knowledge), to that of engaging their team in a two-way learning dialogue (Storey, 2001), if the line manager is to become a facilitator of the teams knowledge-sharing capacity, this change in the line managers role will also impact on his/her individual development needs. The different approach required to manage people using the facilitator rather than command and control approach, will create different demands on line managers existing skills and require them to demonstrate different behaviours too. Barriers to knowledge sharing in the workplace Research indicates that the management of individual learning to ensure its transfer to collective organisational knowledge is notoriously difcult to control (Dixon, 1999; Senge, 1990). A useful denition of knowledge sharing is when people who share a common purpose and experience similar problems come together to exchange ideas and information (Storey, 2001). Where an organisation is pursuing an HRM strategy designed to retain and develop high quality employees who are identied as crucial for current and future success, that organisation will try to utilise the knowledge and skills of employees to create intangible assets, which cannot be easily replicated by their competitors (Boxall and Steeneveld, 1999; Mueller and Kamoche, 2000). Therefore those organisational learning processes which are responsible for the creation and sharing of knowledge should produce a core competence representing a form of valuable, intellectual human capital for the organisation (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; St Leon, 2002). However, there are persistent barriers to workplace learning, which will prevent the communication and sharing of tacit knowledge between management and workers in teams (Argris and Schon, 1978). Hislop (2002) argues that the success of any knowledge management initiative is highly dependent on the workers willingness to share their individual information, and those workers attitudes towards knowledge sharing will be inuenced by their perceptions of the fairness of their psychological contract with the organisation. Such perceptions inuence workers willingness to stay or quit, and their overall commitment to the organisation. The level of commitment

Facilitators of knowledge sharing 299

ER 25,3

300

will, in turn, inuence their attitudes and behaviours to sharing their knowledge for the benet of the organisation (Hislop, 2002). Robertson and OMalley Hammersley (2000) argue that workers who have high levels of job satisfaction and commitment to their organisations do so as a consequence of believing their organisations had delivered on the deal concerning the psychological contract. This reinforces the knowledge work perspective dened by Scarbrough and Carter (2000), who suggest knowledge workers have different expectations of the psychological contract relative to those workers without such valuable knowledge or skills. Thus knowledge workers tend to be very specic about the employment conditions, which they expect and want. They have sufcient mobility (in market scarcity) to leave and nd another job, without having to tolerate a negative psychological deal from an organisation. Hislop (2002) asserts that the relationship between the attitudes and behaviours of workers to knowledge sharing, and those workers willingness to share their knowledge, is not a one-way process. The relationship between positive perceptions of the workers psychological contract and their willingness to engage in knowledge sharing will be a two-way reciprocal process between attitudes and behaviour. Where workers have positive experiences from knowledge sharing, this is likely to inuence their attitudes towards the values of the organisation. This process could inuence the knowledge workers willingness to exert overall effort on behalf of, and ultimately their willingness to, remain with that organisation (Hislop, 2002). Bouty (2000) regards a positive perception of fairness in knowledge sharing as essential to facilitate the process at the individuals level, and highlights social capital as a key successes factor for organisations, while noting that this strategic resource will only be exchanged between individuals under conditions where mutual trust exists. The desired level of trust is seen as only occurring where researchers have mutual expectations of positive outcomes, one actor being condent that the other actor in the dyad will give in return. It is particularly important that each researcher trusts the other in terms of the quality of information which is exchanged, and that both researchers play a fair game, and do not trick each other or behave opportunistically (Bouty, 2000, pp. 50, 61). The working relationships that encourage knowledge sharing develop over time based on mutual trust derived from a positive perception that there is equity and truth between both parties, which creates a willingness to relinquish information on the expectation that something of equal value will be gained in return. If line managers are capable of facilitating knowledge sharing in their work teams, then this could represent an important communication process to capture tacit knowledge in an organisation. The line managers are in a position to inuence the experience of workers, their attitudes to, and perhaps willingness to share knowledge in teams. However, in the facilitation and

sharing of knowledge the line are dependent on both HR managers and other line managers to share their knowledge and experience of facilitating knowledge sharing. Moreover, to be effective this process needs to take place in a series of work relationships between these managers of mutual trust and nonduplicity. However, it is not easy to ascertain whether such a situation exists. The role of the line manager, facilitating knowledge sharing in teams There is overall agreement in the academic literature concerning the role of the facilitator within the context of most team or group situations. These tend, however, to refer to training situations rather than work team situations:
Group facilitation is a process in which a person who is acceptable to all members of the group, who is substantively neutral, and has no decision-making authority intervenes to help a group improve the way it identies and solves problems and makes decisions, in order to increase the groups effectiveness (Schwarz, 1994, p. 4).

Facilitators of knowledge sharing 301

Although this denition can be problematic if directly applied to the line managers in teams within the work context, it is still useful as the line manager is part of the organisations political power structure. As a member of management, he or she have some authority over his/her team, and is not therefore an entirely neutral person in the teams learning process. The line manager communicating a positive learning climate For a line manager to be an effective facilitator it can be argued he/she must have highly developed learning and interpersonal skills. This arises because the line managers own attitude to learning is communicated to team members, and therefore impacts powerfully on team members motivation and willingness to share their knowledge as a team (Cunningham and Iles, 2002). The line manager can be responsible for communicating a negative learning climate to his/her team. This occurs frequently where the line manager establishes learning norms, values and attitudes that convey the expectation to team members that they will be blamed when they make mistakes (Antonacopoulou, 1999). This has important implications for reducing learning, as a negative learning climate does not create sufcient trust nor the support necessary to encourage knowledge exchange within the team. There are risks for team members in admitting their mistakes publicly, either individually or within the peer group, and receiving negative feedback from the line manager. This environment of fear and threat may prevent any innovation occurring through learning, making mistakes, and tacit knowledge sharing within the team. The line manager who does communicate a positive learning climate will convey to their team members that they will not be punished by ridicule, blame or criticism when they make mistakes (Antonacopoulou, 1999). This increases the probability that team members will share their knowledge, prevents the learning process from being a fragmented, individualised process.

ER 25,3

302

In his/her role as a facilitator, the line manager must be able to communicate a positive learning climate to establish the level of trust necessary to encourage knowledge sharing within the team. However, the whole responsibility for the process of transferring individualised, fragmented learning into shared tacit team learning does not lie with the line manager. The learning climate will also be strongly reinforced by the organisations own wider environment, characteristics and value systems, e.g. culture, progression and reward systems. These factors in total have a powerful inuence on shaping employee behaviour (Doyle, 2002). To prevent line managers functioning in the command and control mode, they may well require development to become facilitators of shared learning. However, the wider organisational value systems, HRM processes and senior management support may also need to reinforce this overall knowledge sharing process. It is unlikely otherwise that the line manager can be effective in isolation from the wider powerful, political forces expressed in the value and reward systems of the organisation. The need to develop the line manager as a facilitator Knowledge sharing within the work team will represent a core competence for the organisation. This learning process will enable the exchange of collective knowledge, which can then be transformed into innovation and change. The team, encouraged by line managers intervention, provides an opportunity for this process of collective knowledge. Sharing through the learning relationship between team members is reinforced by the values of an organisations positive learning climate. Collective knowledge exchange and sharing should lead to the outcomes of ongoing and continuous improvement in the teams performance. Thus knowledge sharing at the team level will be an internal capability that is not easily copied by competitors. Knowledge sharing within the team will constitute a source of non-imitable, core competence for that organisation. The line manager as a facilitator is the important learning link for collective knowledge sharing in the team. Thus it is essential that the line managers as a potential resource are not wasted. The development of line managers as facilitators of knowledge sharing in work teams is important to creating and ensuring the core competence of knowledge sharing for the organisation (Bryans and Smith, 2000; Larsen, 1997). Those organisations that invest in the provision of appropriate development and support for line managers will ensure their effectiveness as facilitators of knowledge sharing in teams. In comparison to the more traditional command and control managerial role, the facilitator role makes different demands on line managers in terms of management style and skills. Organisations will need to develop their line managers as facilitators, as it cannot be assumed that all line managers possess the requisite facilitator skills and behaviours, necessary to encourage knowledge sharing in teams (de-Jong et al., 1999). The nature of line

managers training and development needs for the facilitator role requires further clarication and understanding. This will enable line managers to make a full contribution, in their role as facilitators encouraging knowledge sharing in work teams. Conclusion There is a lack of research concerning the links between HRM and knowledge management. This is surprising given that knowledge creation represent a valuable source of core competence for organisations. The encouragement of knowledge sharing in work teams facilitated by line managers can permit the organisation to capture tacit knowledge. The relationship between business and HRM strategy in organisations is complex, inuenced not only by the external environment, but also by the internal characteristics particularly the process of strategy implementation. The trends in organisations of atter structures, empowerment and devolvement of HRM to line managers mean that line managers are at the interface between the strategic intentions of senior management, and the implementation level, i.e. facing the team. The management of knowledge workers requires a move away from the command and control approach to management, to the role of a facilitator. However, barriers to knowledge sharing in organisations and the extent to which managers and employees will share their knowledge is inuenced by their level of commitment to the organisation, and perceptions of equity and trust in their working relationships. Although the line manager cannot override the overall systems context of the organisation, e.g. culture, reward systems, the organisational context should emphasise the importance of knowledge sharing, thus creating an environment where people feel that they are treated fairly in exchange for their knowledge. Nevertheless, the role of the line manager as a facilitator of knowledge sharing in teams could make a signicant contribution to maximising the core competence of learning in the organisation. The role of the line manager has been overlooked, and the lack of support and development for this role represents signicant potential costs of damaging the effectiveness of processes of implementation and change for organisations. Further, the extent to which the line manager communicates a positive learning climate within the work team, whether they encourage the exchange of individual learning is an area open for further investigation. Additionally, so is the extent to which knowledge and mistakes can be shared within the team ultimately leading to innovation and change. To function appropriately as a facilitator makes different demands on the role of the line manager who must develop the relevant interpersonal and learning skills sets. Future research may well be usefully conducted to gain a greater understanding of both the facilitator role and the development

Facilitators of knowledge sharing 303

ER 25,3

necessary for line managers to be effective as facilitators who are able to encourage knowledge sharing in teams.
Note 1. Tacit knowledge is dened here as tacit knowledge is personal, context-specic, and therefore hard to formalize and communicate (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995, p. 59). References Amit, R. and Schoemaker, P.J.H. (1993), Strategic assets and organisational rent, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 14, pp. 33-46. Antonacopoulou, E. (1999), Developing learning managers within learning organisations, in Easterby-Smith, M., Burgoyne, J. and Araujo, L. (Eds), Organisational Learning and the Learning Organisation, Sage Publications, London, pp. 217-42. Applebaum, S.H. and Lavigne-Schmidt, S. (1999), Down-sizing: measuring the cost of failure, Journal of Management, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 436-63. Argris, C. and Schon, D.A. (1978), Organisational Learning a Theory of Action Perspective, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. Barney, J.B. (1999), Looking inside for competitive advantage, in Schuler, R.S. and Jackson, S.E. (Eds), Strategic Human Resource Management, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 128-42. Baumard, P. (1999), Tacit Knowledge in Organisations, Sage, London. Beech, N. and Crane, O. (1999), High performance teams and a climate of community, Team Performance Management, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 87-102. Beer, M., Walton, R.E. and Spector, B.A. (1984), Managing Human Assets, Free Press, New York, NY. Bell, D. (1974), The Coming of Post-industrial Society: A Venture in Social Forecasting, Heinemann, London. Bouty, I. (2000), Interpersonal and interaction inuences on informal resource exchanges between R&D researchers across organisational boundaries, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 50-65. Boxall, P. (1999), The strategic HRM debate and the resource-based view of the rm, in Schuler, R.S. and Jackson, S.E. (Eds), Strategic Human Resource Management, Blackwell, Oxford. Boxall, P. and Purcell, J. (2000), Strategic human resource management: where have we come from and where are we going?, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 183-203. Boxall, P. and Steeneveld, P. (1999), Human resource strategy and competitive advantage: a longitudinal study of engineering consultancies, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 442-63. Brewster, C. and Larsen, H.H. (1992), Human resource management in Europe: evidence from ten countries, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 409-31. Brewster, C. and Larsen, H.H. (2000), Responsibility in human resource management: the role of the line, in Brewster, C. and Larsen, H.H. (Eds), Human Resource Management in Northern Europe: Trends, Dilemmas, and Strategy, Blackwell, Oxford. Bryans, P. and Smith, P. (2000), Beyond training: reconceptualising learning at work, Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 228-35.

304

Budhwar, P.S. (2000), Evaluating levels of strategic integration and devolvement of human resource management in the UK, Personnel Review, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 141-61. Choi, T.Y. and Varney, G.H. (1995), Rethinking the knowledge workers: where have all the workers gone?, Organisation Development Journal, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 41-51. Claydon, T. and Doyle, M. (1996), Trusting me, trusting you? The ethics of employee empowerment, Personnel Review, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 13-25. Cunningham, I. and Hyman, J. (1995), Transforming the HRM vision into reality: the role of line managers and supervisors in implementing change, Employee Relations, Vol. 17 No. 8, pp. 5-20. Cunningham, P. and Iles, P. (2002), Managing learning climates in a nancial services organisation, The Journal of Management Development, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 477-92. Currie, G. and Procter, S. (2001), Exploring the relationship between HR and middle managers, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 53-69. de-Jong, J.A., Leenders, F.J. and Thijssen, J.G.L. (1999), HRD tasks of rst-level managers, Journal of Workplace Learning: Employee Counselling Today, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 1366-5626. Dixon, N. (1999), Learning across organisational boundaries: a case study of Canadian museums, in Easterby-Smith, M., Burgoyne, J. and Araujo, L. (Eds), Organisational Learning and the Learning Organisation: Developments in Theory and Practice, Sage, London, pp. 115-29. Doyle, M. (2002), From change to novice to change expert, Personnel Review, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 465-81. Ellinger, A.D. and Bostrum, R.P. (1999), Managerial coaching behaviours in learning organisations, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 18 No. 9, pp. 752-71. Gratton, L., Hope-Hailey, V., Stiles, P. and Truss, C. (1999), Strategic Human Resource Management, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Guest, D. (1987), Human resource management and industrial relations, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 503-21. Guest, D. (1991), Human resource management: its implications for industrial relations and trade unions, in Storey, J. (Ed.), New Perspectives on Human Resource Management, Routledge, London, pp. 41-56. Guest, D. (1998), Combine harvest, People Management, 29 October, pp. 64-7. Hall, L. and Torrington, D. (1998), Letting go or holding on? The devolution of operational personnel activities, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 41-55. Hislop, D. (2002), Managing knowledge and the problem of commitment, conference paper presented at The Third European Conference on Organisational Knowledge, Learning, and Capabilities, Athens, April Hope-Hailey, V., Gratton, L., Stiles, P. and Zaleska, J. (2002), Paying the piper: choice and constraint in changing HR functional roles, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 39-63. Huselid, M. (1995), The impact of human resource practices on turnover, productivity, and corporate nancial performance, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 635-72. Hutchinson, S. and Wood, S. (1995), The UK experience, in Personnel and the Line, IPD, London. IRS (1996), The changing world of personnel, IRS Employment Trends, No. 604, pp. 4-11.

Facilitators of knowledge sharing 305

ER 25,3

306

Kamoche, K. (1999), Strategic human resource management within a resource capability view of the rm, in Schuler, R.S. and Jackson, S.E. (Eds), Strategic Human Resource Management, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 90-110. Larsen, H.H. (1997), Do high-yer programmes facilitate organisational learning? From individual skills building to the development of organisational competence, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 21 No. 9, pp. 310-7. Legge, K. (1989), Human resource management: a critical analysis, in Storey, J. (Ed.), New Perspectives on Human Resource Management, Routledge, London, pp. 19-41. Legge, K. (1995), Human Resource Management: Rhetorics and Realities, Macmillan, Basingstoke. Lewin, K. (1951), Field Theory in Social Science, Harper, New York, NY. McHugh, M., OBrien, G. and Ramondt, J. (1999), Organisational metamorphosis led by front-line staff, Employee Relations, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 556-76. MacNeil, C.M. (2001), The supervisor as a facilitator of informal learning in work teams, Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 13, Nos 5 and 6, pp. 246-53. Marchington, M. (2001), Employee involvement at work, in Storey, J. (Ed.), Human Resource Management: A Critical Text, 2nd ed., Thomson, London. Marchington, M. and Wilkinson, A. (2002), People Management and Development: Human Resource Management at Work, CIPD Publishing, London. Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B. and Lampel, J. (1998), Strategy Safari: A Guided Tour through the Wilds of Strategic Management, The Free Press, New York, NY. Molleman, E. (2000), Modalities of self-managing teams: the must may can and will of local decision-making, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 20 No. 8, pp. 889-910. Mueller, F. and Kamoche, K. (2000), The implications of the appropriability perspective for human resource management, Comportamento Organizacional e Gestao, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 227-49. Nonaka, I. (1991), The knowledge creating company, Harvard Business Review NovemberDecember, pp. 96-104. Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge-creating Company, Oxford University Press, New York, NY. Prahalad, C.K. and Hamel, G. (1990), The core competence of the corporation, Harvard Business Review May-June, pp. 79-91. Purcell, J. (2001), The meaning of strategy in human resource management, in Storey, J. (Ed.), Human Resource Management: A Critical Text, 2nd ed., Thomson Learning, London. Renwick, D. (2000), HR-line work relations: a review, pilot case and research agenda, Employee Relations, Vol. 22 Nos 1 and 2, pp. 179-205. Robertson, M. and OMalley Hammersley, G. (2000), Knowledge management practices within a knowledge-intensive rm: the signicance of the people management dimension, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 24 No. 2-4, pp. 241-53. Scarbrough, H. and Carter, C. (2000), Investigating Knowledge Management, CIPD, London. Schwarz, R.M. (1994), The Skilled Facilitator: Practical Wisdom for Developing Effective Groups, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, CA. Senge, P.M. (1990), The leaders new work: building learning organisations, Sloan Management Review Autumn, pp. 7-23.

Sims, D. (1995), Management learning as a learning process: an invitation, Management Learning, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 5-20. St Leon, M.V. (2002), Intellectual capital: managerial perceptions of organisational knowledge resources, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 149-66. Storey, J. (Ed.) (1989), New Perspectives on Human Resource Management, Routledge, London. Storey, J. (1992), Developments in the Management of Human Resources, Blackwell, Oxford. Storey, J. (Ed.) (2001), Human Resource Management: A Critical Text, 2nd ed., Thomson Learning, London. Taylor, F.W. (1911), Principles of Scientic Management, Harper, New York, NY. Thornhill, A. and Saunders, M.N.K. (1998), What if line managers dont realize theyre responsible for HR?, Personnel Review, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 460-76. Ulrich, D. (1998), Delivering Results: A New Mandate for Human Resource Professionals, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. Wai-Kwong, F.Y., Priem, R.L. and Cycyota, C.S. (2001), The performance effects of human resource managers and other middle managers involvement in strategy making under different business-level strategies: the case in Hong Kong, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 12 No. 8, pp. 1325-46. Wilkinson, A. (2001), Empowerment, in Redman, T. and Wilkinson, A. (Eds), Contemporary Human Resource Management, Pearson Education, London.

Facilitators of knowledge sharing 307