15

Strategy,

knowledge,

appropriation,

and ethics in HRM

Ken Kamoche

Managing people and knowledge ‘strategically’

Are people valuable to the organization? Do they add value? Do they con-
stitute a strategic asset? These are some of the questions that have shaped
the HRM debate particularly in the last decade or so. They are important
questions, and the associated debate has spawned an extensive literature which
continues to bring us closer to understanding what it really means to manage
people (Kamoche 2001; Legge 1995; Mabey, Salaman, and Storey 1998; Storey
1992). The interpretations of what is really happening in HRM range from
the sceptical and cynical to the optimistic and laudatory. The debate now
needs to go further, and in our view there are two interrelated questions that
must be addressed more critically: first, how are organizations going about
the task of appropriating the value inherent in HR; and, second, what are
the ethical implications of these appropriative actions? Some authors are now
recognizing that employees do not always willingly allow the organization
to appropriate their knowledge (e.g. Currie and Kerrin 2003). We build on
this argument and develop a more critical perspective of the problematic
nature of appropriation including the ethical questions arising therefrom.
The problematic nature of the appropriation of HR value has been high-
lighted in particular by Kamoche and Mueller (1998) who argue that the
purpose and mechanics of appropriating value needed to be recognized more
explicitly than has been the case so far if we are to grasp the full meaning
of strategic HRM. In this chapter, attention shifts to the appropriation of
knowledge and in particular tacit knowledge which is recognized as more
difficult to manage and diffuse than the more visible forms of explicit/codified
knowledge.
We begin by recognizing the pivotal role played by developments in the
SHRM debate especially the role of the RBV. This is because an understanding