interdependent work structures, clan-fostering initiatives, and broader skill
development initiatives. Anentrepreneurialarchetype is characterized by more
sparse and non-redundant networks, relatively weak and intermittent ties among
employees, based on dyadic trust among some members of the network. This
looser and moreXuid network structure is anticipated to allow employees to
pursue more novel and diverse knowledge exchanges necessary for exploratory
learning and innovation. The primary HR activities that support an entrepreneur-
ial archetype are Xexible work structures, results-based incentives, and trans-
specialist development.
- 1 Research Implications
One of the underlying rationales for using diVerent employment subsystems is that
they aVordWrms diVerent types ofXexibility (Lepak et al. 2003 ; Wright and Snell
1998 ). Core knowledge workers provide organizations with a greater degree of
resourceXexibility—the ability to perform a wide assortment of tasks—compared
to traditional employees. With regard to external or contingent workers, contract
arrangements provide organizations with morecoordinationXexibility—the ability
to adjust the number and types of skills in use—as compared to more long-term
alliances. In contrast, while short-term contractual arrangement and many
oVshoring arrangements provide companies with coordinationXexibility, long-
term partnerships may provide an additional beneWt—knowledge accessXexibility.
The increasing reality is that the knowledge that companies rely on for com-
petitive success not only resides in the minds of their employees but also in the
minds of contractors, consultants, and other external workers with whom they
collaborate. Of course, realizing these beneWts requires a concerted eVort by
organizations for managing theXow of knowledge across these subsystems, both
within and outside of the organization.
A key challenge is that employment subsystems directly impact the opportun-
ities and patterns of interactions among internal and external employees as well as
the knowledge foundation that each group possesses (cf. Boxall 1996 , 1998 ). By
inXuencing how diVerent employment groups interact, the structure of the HR
architecture inXuences the nature of the network structure. Some HR architectures,
with a greater reliance on internal employment and possibly long-term partner-
ships, may be characterized by dense network connections. In contrast, HR archi-
tectures with a greater use of external employee groups and moreXuid alliance
partnerships may be characterized by sparse networks with relative weak ties. An
important research question is if, and how, the overarching structure of employ-
ment subsystems impacts theXow of knowledge within the HR architecture. Are
there certain structural patterns that are more appropriate for exploration of new
sources of value creation versus exploitation of current knowledge bases to leverage
employment subsystems and hr architecture 225