STRATEGY, KNOWLEDGE, APPROPRIATION, AND ETHICS IN HRM 263phases of SHRM in the 1980s when personnel practitioners struggled to attain
recognition for their function. It is not surprising that this argument has
continued to underpin the emergent knowledge management debate, and as
we have shown above, the ethical perspective as well.
As far as the knowledge debate is concerned, the weight given to codified
and codifiable knowledge vis-à-vis tacit knowledge once more highlights the
significance of the tangible and empirically verifiable, which echoes Gowler
and Legge’s ‘techno-scientific’ perspective (1983). This is in keeping with
positivistic thinking and is pragmatic from a business perspective. It reminds
us that even where reference is made to other supposedly important stake-
holders, ultimately, business interests are defined very narrowly, and pertain
largely if not primarily to shareholder interests. This leads us to an important
question: how is the process of unilateral and unidimensional appropriation
legitimized? We have observed that the pursuit of business objectives offers a
rationale for the strategic management of people, which in turn demonstrates
the extent to which people are considered a valued resource. Similarly, orga-
nizations appear to be guided largely by pragmatic, objective, and measurable
reasons in the pursuit of business ethics.
Taken together, these two scenarios point to the suggestion that the appro-
priation of value (or human vitality) is legitimized on unitarist and clearly
pragmatic grounds in which ethical considerations are distilled to the purely
utilitarian. This appears to offer little scope for the consideration of other
stakeholders except to the extent that business interests are maintained. Fur-
thermore, it demonstrates how objectivity in performance parameters legit-
imizes asymmetrical power relations. Power formally embedded and insti-
tutionalized in the higher echelons of the organizational structure enables
top management to determine both what constitutes knowledge and how
the outcomes of the utilization of that knowledge are measured and dis-
tributed. Organizational members engaging in the creation and utilization
of knowledge are, ultimately, relegated to serving the interests of enterprise
and for them, the ethical question about unilateral appropriation remains
unresolved.
This has important implications for the development of the ethical per-
spective in management and academic research. It suggests that the utilitarian
perspective will remain predominant: to managers, the argument that an
ethical perspective is good for business is more compelling than any pressures
to display social responsibility for its own sake or indeed to ensure fairness
in HR practices. In fact, these latter two acquire more weight if they them-
selves can be shown to be good for business. This view echoes the scepticism
often expressed about similar management initiatives. Regarding initiatives
like gain-sharing, empowerment, teamwork, and so forth, and what they have
achieved for the intended beneficiaries, I have argued elsewhere (Kamoche
2001: 13) that: