organizations rely on their networks to recruit valuable and unique talent. When
key skills become available in the network, organizations may contract or buy the
skills, regardless of the existence of an internal vacancy. Professional networks also
inXuence which skills are seen as valuable and are often used as vehicles for skill
development.
Performance management and reward systems are particularly sensitive to
network-based inXuences due to the permeability of the boundaries between the
Wrm and its professional and client networks. A key reason for this inXuence is the
abstract nature of knowledge outputs (Alvesson 2000 ). How can a line manager
possibly judge the quality of the knowledge output without gleaning information
from the users of the outputs such as the clients? However, the degree of network
inXuence over performance management goes beyond just the nature of knowledge
outputs. The business of knowledge production is an uncertain one and buyers
within this market may want a greater degree of control over the ambiguous, high-
cost products and services that they are buying. Attempts to gain control over the
process of knowledge production may impact greatly on key performance areas
within the performance management framework as well as aVecting the rewards
that are attached to performance outcomes.
The multiplicity of networks presents a very real challenge to the management of
knowledge workers. The key tension here is with identiWcation with, and commit-
ment to, the organization. In essence, networks oVer several sources of identiWca-
tion to the knowledge worker: they may identify with their occupation/profession
through their professional networks, with their client through their organizational
networks, and with their team through their team networks (Fig. 22. 1 ). For most
knowledge workers, their occupation is likely to be the base of their expertise,
status, and economic advantage. As such, it is not surprising that knowledge
workers tend to be more committed to their occupation than to their organization
(May et al. 2002 : 779 ). The alleged rivalry between occupations and organizations
as the base of employee loyalty is also a common theme in the professions like law,
medicine, and professional engineering. It is also likely that for knowledge workers,
occupational identity drives discretionary behavior rather than organizational
commitment. For example, a nurse may be motivated to ‘go the extra mile’ because
of her belief in patient care.
The nature of knowledge work means that employees will often spend consid-
erable periods of time on a client project or at a client site. Intricate and extended
client contact most often takes place within a dedicated, client-focused project
team. Once again, the opportunity to develop a strong team identity exists.
This can work to the advantage of theWrm if strong identiWcation with theWrm
is also maintained. However, it is often the case that team identity overpowers
organizational identity. This is seen in a ‘them (the organization) and us (the
team)’ discourse.
462 j u a n i s w a r t