Search results

The purpose of this paper is to examine the suitability of job and work design theory for investigating knowledge workers’ productivity. The review is a response to recommendation and adoption of the motivational human resource management approach by a number of knowledge management researchers. The authors show that the existing literature on this topic overlooks key criticisms of HRM job and work design theory itself. The authors suggest modifications.

The paper proceeds by outlining knowledge management researchers’ arguments rejecting the application of traditional measurement approaches to investigating knowledge workers’ productivity. The review develops to examine the various arguments for adopting work design theory and considers the key contributions and critiques in this field. Drawing on the insights of key HRM work design critics, the paper concludes by offering suggestions for a model suitable for examining the drivers of knowledge work productivity in process.

The principle finding is that Morgeson and Humphrey’s (2006) Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ) stand as the most conceptually consistent and methodologically considered human resource management work design theory. However, this model must itself be modified to include a category of organizational contextual work characteristics. For application to the filed of knowledge management, WDQ must also be expanded to include knowledge sharing, role breadth self-efficacy and employee well-being as key work design mediators and outcomes.

Greater consideration needs to be given to the distinction between knowledge sharing as a work design mediator and as a work design outcome. Morgeson and Humphrey themselves note that the “common method variance” problems arising in psychometric research have been reduced but not completely eliminated from their model.

Survey instruments based on the recommended model potentially provide a valuable means for understanding and enhancing productivity in a variety of knowledge intensive service industries. The pronounced benefit of this model is that it is applicable in cross-industry and cross-occupational contexts, unlike many existing knowledge worker productivity models. This is an advantage, given the centrality of the inter-connectivity of different types of activities and industries in knowledge work.

Work design prioritizes employee motivation and support and links this to the quality of work and the well-being of clients. The benefits of well-designed knowledge work extend well beyond the generation of specific innovations and macroeconomic productivity improvements.

Job design and work design theory have been applied in the field of knowledge management. However, the applications have largely overlooked key critiques of the established models in the human resource management literature. The paper fills this gap. Its original suggestions for modifying Moregeson and Humphry’s (2006) WDQ reflect the authors’ in-depth analysis of the literature.

The purpose of this paper is to present a collection of ongoing experiences with a value‐added reporting model in Latin America, positing its pertinence with regards to CSR accountability.

The paper utilises a qualitative methodology in which a series of semi‐structured telephone interviews and/or e‐mail questionnaires with managers from six reporting companies in Latin America (Chile, Colombia, Uruguay) was conducted. The fact that one of the authors of this paper created the reporting model facilitated easier access to company managers and a deeper understanding of each situation. A literature review from European, US and Latin American sources provides a framework for discussion.

The paper illustrates how value‐added statements (which are based on conventional financial accounting) can provide relevant information for CSR accountability. The variety of experiences shown (different industries and diverse company ownership in separate countries) may suggest the wide potential of this reporting model.

As the paper deals with a recent, ongoing experience (this model has been in use for the last six years only), the results have to be treated with caution. Even though many firms are interested in adopting this value‐added model, there are currently fewer than 20 reporting firms using it.

The paper aims to position value distribution and its accountability as relevant issues in CSR, particularly for developing countries. In addition, such an intuitive model might more easily reach the general public, something that rarely happens with conventional CSR reporting models.

This is the first academic paper that demonstrates the application of this reporting model (though the authors already published a practitioner‐oriented article in Spanish). Furthermore, there are few documented cases of value‐added reporting experiences in emerging markets, particularly in Latin America.