These multiple, and sometimes competing, identities challenge the management
of knowledge workers because identity is intimately linked to knowledge-sharing
(Gupta and Govindarajan 2000 ; Nonaka et al. 2000 ; Strock and Hill 2000 ).
Knowledge workers tend to share knowledge with others who ‘speak the same
language,’ with whom they can relate. The danger lies in having strong client, team,
and professional/occupational identities that pull away from organizational iden-
tity. Non-organizational identities signify a possibleXow of knowledge outside the
organization. In extreme cases, they also represent a possible career path. For
example, aWnancial services team may break away from the ‘parent’ organization
and establish a rivalWrm or a software developer may use his or her professional
networks to explore job opportunities or a lawyer may be oVered an in-house
position by a client.
Successful knowledge-basedWrms tie occupational identity into organizational
identity by facilitating professional development (Swart and Kinnie 2004 ). The
message sent is one of: ‘identify withyourprofession throughourorganization.’
These successful organizations have less to fear fromXuid client and team identities
established through work arrangements across multiple project and client account
teams.
The third theme that can be identiWed running through knowledge-based
organizations and knowledge work is the notion of ‘knowledge-trading.’ Theraison
d’eˆtreof the networks, the employment relationship and indeed the client rela-
tionship, can be seen as the development and application of human capital. This is
one area where an interdependence between theWrm and the knowledge worker
can be identiWed. Individuals are often dependent on the organization for access to
other knowledge workers, including those with complementary skills. They also
rely on the physical andWnancial capital in research laboratories or technology to
develop their core skills. The organization, on the other hand, relies, increasingly,
on the knowledge and skills of its human capital to create a competitive advantage.
Knowledge-trading between knowledge workers and organizations has an
impact on recruitment, development, work organization, and pay and reward. First,
managers need to take a human capital focus in employee resourcing activities by
specifying the nature of knowledge inputs that are needed within the organization:
which skills need to be developed to ensure eVective knowledge-trading. A human
capital focus also has an impact on resource allocation. For example, if a particular
skill is in demand by a client group, it is often the case that key skilled employees will
be placed across project teams to allow for dispersion of the particular skill set across
the organization. Here the organization needs to create tacit learning environments
to ensure cost-eVective skill development. Finally, the nature of knowledge-trading
may have an impact on pay and reward by putting the employer in a stronger
bargaining position. Knowledge workers often claim high rewards given the com-
plexity and uniqueness of their skill, but if the interdependency of knowledge-
trading is emphasized, the employer can argue that knowledge production would
hrm and knowledge workers 463