project status (what type of work for which client), pay status (the ‘going rate’ for
a skill set), and working conditions (working hours, Xexibility, involvement)
can take place in these wider personal/professional networks and through
them employees may put pressure on their employers to adopt particular bundles
of HR practices. This pressure is very real because links within the network
also represent career opportunities and employers are well aware that a
‘better deal’ elsewhere may result in the loss of human capital. Engagement in
personal/professional networks can therefore present a threat to the Wrm’s
talent management because knowledge workers may use these networks toWnd
alternative employment.
Organizational networks, on the other hand, largely determine the nature of
the work that knowledge workers will engage in. Here, a virtuous cycle of ‘great
client—challenging work—great talent’ can be set in motion. However, these
networks are also key determinants of the nature of the employment relationship.
Clients have the power to inXuence the employment practices (for example, pay
and reward) of theWrm that they contract or work with (Kinnie et al. 2005 ;Dyer
and Nobeoka 2000 ). In extreme cases, the boundaries between theWrm and the
client can be so permeable that the client may even have an impact on the
performance appraisal objectives of individual knowledge workers.
The particular set of HR practices which are inXuenced by the networked nature
of knowledge work include recruitment, involvement, development, pay and reward,
performance management, and retention. The network represents a knowledge-
based labor market; it functions as a hothouse for skill development but it also
communicates which skills are available and at what price. Knowledge-based
Organizational
Identify
Professional
identity
Knowledge
worker
Team
Identity
Client
Identity
Fig. 22.1. The multiple sources of identity of knowledge workers
Source:Swart and Kinnie, 2004.
hrm and knowledge workers 461