STRATEGY, KNOWLEDGE, APPROPRIATION, AND ETHICS IN HRM 253of the dynamics of the creation, diffusion, and appropriation of knowledge
attributable to HR requires that we appreciate how the rationale for appro-
priation has come about, whether it is recognized as such or not. Once it
became clear, and generally accepted that HR constitute a source of strategic
value which is appropriable by the organization, the knowledge HR generate
inevitably came to be seen as potentially appropriable by the organization.
This raises some difficulties because the organization’s proprietorial claims
over HR become equally controversial when applied to the knowledge they
generate. These difficulties in turn assume an ethical dimension not only
because the organization’s claims to ownership over its workforce are suspect,
but also because it is often not explicitly recognized that the workforce itself
retains any proprietoral claims over the knowledge it generates. The extreme
situation is one in which the organization seemingly rationalizes the appro-
priative exploitation of the vitality of people in a manner akin to vampirism,
which Garrick and Clegg (2000) refer to as ‘organizational gothic’. For our
purposes the important question is how does the organization assume these
appropriative powers, and on what basis are they legitimized to the exclusion
of other relevant stakeholders, in particular the employees who are directly
involved in generating knowledge? These are the issues that this chapter
intends to grapple with.
The origins of the RBV can in fact be traced back to the work of Edith
Penrose (1959) and even earlier. The debate remained dormant and only
began to be revived in the early 1990s (e.g. Barney 1991), and went on to
make a substantial impact, which predictably, began and stubbornly remained
largely within the strategic management paradigm. This perspective has
directly or indirectly shaped our views on the utilization of HR, especially
with the gaining popularity of SHRM onwards from the late 1980s and early
1990s. As a result of these developments, HR increasingly came to be viewed
as one of many different types of assets whose purpose is to facilitate the
achievement of strategic objectives. Strategic objectives thus assumed pre-
eminence, and have, over time, become the vehicle through which profitability
and productivity are nurtured, measured, and realized. The inclusion of a
strategic dimension within the HR discourse achieved a number of significant
objectives. In addition to the more controversial views about enhancing the
perceived status of HR practitioners and the HR function, it also reaffirmed
the status of the HR as a valuable asset. This gave rise to the axiom ‘human
resources are our most important asset’. Some would argue, however, that
given the flippant manner in which hire and fire decisions are made par-
ticularly in difficult economic times, this axiom is but an empty platitude.
The ambiguity surrounding the question of what exactly is a resource has
also spawned a number of interpretations which ultimately attach a notional
monetary value to people. One example isthe idea that people are valued only
to the extent that they generate financially quantifiable outcomes. When they