The effect of human resource management control systems on the relationship between knowledge management strategy and firm performance

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study is to examine whether the relationship between knowledge management (KM) strategy and firm performance is contingent on human resource management (HRM) control systems.

Design/methodology/approach

Surveys were collected in computer and peripheral equipment manufacturing industries in Taiwan. A total of 111 presidents returned usable questionnaires.

Findings

When firms emphasize personalization strategy, the use of behavior control will enhance firm performance. In contrast, when firms emphasize codification strategy, the use of output control will make firm performance better. If personalization and codification strategy were emphasized simultaneously, firms would not use single HRM control system to better performance.

Research limitations/implications

First, the use of a self‐rating performance measure may constitute a limitation of the study. Second, this study is confined to a limited scope of control system. Third, perhaps the most obvious limitation is inherent to the selected research methodology that the one‐time data resemble a snapshot. Finally, it is not known how the selection of industries and geographical areas affect this study's findings.

Practical implications

Results from this study suggest that managers can leverage their best performance by matching the HRM control system to a particular KM strategy.

Originality/value

This study contributes to the knowledge about the importance of HRM control for KM methods. The firm's HRM control systems can be expected to contribute significantly to KM‐performance. Understanding how an organization can use its control systems to support KM will help firms sustain their competitive advantage.

Citation

Liao, Y. (2011), "The effect of human resource management control systems on the relationship between knowledge management strategy and firm performance", International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 32 No. 5/6, pp. 494-511. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437721111158170