The knowledge strategy orientation scale: individual perceptions of firm-level phenomena.

When compared to measurement based on single-item measures, archival data, and proxies, a scale such as ours captures the essence of the Explorer and Exploiter constructs much more accurately. The relatively simple and easy to use scale allows managers to gather primary data about their organizations regarding knowledge strategy orientation, and then use the subsequent analysis to inform decisions that pertain to knowledge management and innovation in their firms. We believe the establishment of a commonly accepted measure of knowledge strategy orientation will help managers to identify organizational strengths and weaknesses within the focus areas delineated by each of the KSOS items (e.g., radical versus incremental innovation). Managers need to be able to objectively evaluate their organization's knowledge base, discern how knowledge is transferred and integrated in the organization, and develop knowledge strategies that maximize the potential of their knowledge base.

Use of the KSOS will help managers to better understand and assess their strategic choices regarding the creation or acquisition of new knowledge and the ability to leverage existing knowledge. The firm's knowledge strategy orientation should help to guide managerial choices regarding resource allocation in the firm. For example, an exploration orientation may support the allocation of additional resources to new product development within a small firm that relies on advances in technology to ensure its competitive viability. In low-tech firms resources may best be used to support incremental continuous improvement and a focus on marketing (e.g., reinforcing brand image) rather than on attempts at radical innovation. These choices are particularly important to smaller firms that are more resource constrained and thus cannot pursue both the Explorer and Exploiter strategies simultaneously.

Geiger and Cashen (9002) address the important issue of resource allocation and its affects on innovation in their article exploring the effects of organizational slack. The KSOS, which helps firms identify their propensity for radical versus incremental innovation, could be very useful in future research of these issues. Additionally, the scale could be used by researchers exploring ways to retain and manage intellectual capital in organizations. For instance, Droege and Hoobler's work (2003) discusses the relationship between employee turn-over and tacit knowledge loss in organizations. Their research indicates that allocating resources to enhance and promote social network structures within the organization is vital to retaining tacit organizational knowledge. Studies such as these indicate the potentially widespread usefulness of the KSOS measure in further research and practical application in the management field.

Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

Scale construction is a dynamic process, with the objective of continually improving the measurement of a construct (DiTommaso et al., 2004), and therefore we suggest that the validity characteristics of our scales need further study. Accordingly, the generalizability of our findings is limited by the nature of our samples: three (although very heterogeneous with respect to position held) groups of respondents from small manufacturing companies located in the mid-Atlantic region of the U.S. However, we do acknowledge that a conceptual difference exists between "position" and "level" in an organization such that some positions exist at different levels and some levels do not align perfectly across functions. For example, in an accounting department one might find three levels: accounting directors, cost accountants, and accounts payable clerks. In a manufacturing department one might find first-line supervisors, journeyman welders, and welder helpers. In the organizational hierarchy, accounting directors and first-line manufacturing supervisors might be on different levels with only a few levels of management above the former, but numerous levels above the latter. Clearly, a difference exists between positions, functions, and levels and future research might seek to explore differences in perceptions of a firm's knowledge strategy orientation both between and among positions, functions, and levels in a particular firm. Another step might be to employ our scales in a predictive validity study using large organizations in both manufacturing and service industries.

This would allow for the assessment of the measurement characteristics of our scales in different samples and in different domains of industry. We believe that our KSOS can provide researchers with an alternative measure of firms' strategic orientation and that employees' perceptions of firm strategy can help overcome some of the measurement shortcomings of using archival data as proxies for organizational-level variables.

References

Bentler, P. M. 1990. "Comparative Fit Indexes in Structural Equation Models." Psychological Bulletin 107: 238-246.

Bergh, D. D. 2001. "Diversification Strategy Research at a Crossroads." Chapter in Handbook of Strategic Management. Eds. M. A. Hitt, R. E. Freeman and J. S. Harrison. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. pp. 362-383.

Bierly, P. and A. Chakrabarti. 1996. "Generic Knowledge Strategies in the U.S. Pharmaceutical Industry." Strategic Management Journal 17 (Winter Special Issue): 123-135.

--and P. Daly. 2002. "Aligning Human Resource Management Practices and Knowledge Strategies." Chapter in The Strategic Management of Intellectual Capital and Organizational Knowledge. Eds. C. W. Choo and N. Bontis. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. pp. 277-295.

Boyd, B. K., S. Gove and M. A. Hitt. 2005. "Construct Measurement in Strategic Management Research: Illusion or Reality?" Strategic Management Journal 26: 239-257.

Browne, M. W. and R. Cudeck. 1993. "Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit." Chapter in Testing Structural Equation Models. Eds. K. A. Bollen and J. S. Long. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. pp. 445-455.

Comrey, A. L. 1988. "Factor-analytic Methods of Scale Development in Personality and Clinical Psychology." Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 5: 754-761.

Damanpour, F. 1991. "Organizational Innovation: A Meta-analysis of Effects of Determinants and Moderators." Academy of Management Journal 34: 555-590.

Delaney, J. T. and M. A. Huselid. 1996. "The Impact of Human Resource Management Practices on Perceptions of Organizational Performance." Academy of Management Journal 39: 949-969.

Dewar, R. D. and J. E. Dutton. 1986. "The Adoption of Radical and Incremental Innovations: An Empirical Analysis." Management Science 32: 1422-1433.

DiTommaso, E., C. Brannen and L. A. Best. 2004. "Measurement and Validity Characteristics of the Short Version of the Social and Emotional Loneliness Scale for Adults." Educational and Psychological Measurement 64: 99-19.

Droege, S. B. and J. M. Hoobler. 2003. "Employee Turnover and Tacit Knowledge Diffusion: A Network Perspective." Journal of Managerial Issues 15 (1): 50-64.

Ettlie, J., W. Bridges and R. O'Keefe. 1984. "Organization Strategy and Structural Differences for Radical Versus Incremental Innovation." Management Science 30: 682695.

Fan, X., B. Thompson and L. Wang. 1999. "Effects of Sample Size, Estimation Methods, and Model Specification on Structural Equation Modeling Fit Indexes." Structural Equation Modeling 6: 56-83.

Floyd, F.J. and K. Widaman. 1995. "Factor Analysis in the Development and Refinement of Clinical Assessment Instruments." Psychological Assessment 7: 286-299.

Garcia, R., R. Calantone and R. Levine. 2003. "The Role of Knowledge in Resource Allocation to Exploration Versus Exploitation in Technologically Oriented Organizations." Decision Sciences 34: 323-349.

Geiger, S. W. and L. H. Cashen. 2002. "A Multidimensional Examination of Slack and Its Impact on Innovation." Journal of Managerial Issues 14 (1): 68-85.

Godfrey, P. C. and C. W. L. Hill. 1995. "The Problem of Unobservables in Strategic Management Research." Strategic Management Journal 16: 513-533.

Grant, R. M. 2005. Contemporary Strategy Analysis. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Hair, J. E., Jr., R. E. Anderson, R. L. Tatham and W. C. Black. 1998. Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Hambrick, D. C. 1989. "Guest Editor's Introduction: Putting Top Managers Back in the Strategy Picture." Strategic Management Journal 10: 5-15.

Harris, M. M. and J. Schaubroeck. 1990. "Confirmatory Modeling in Organizational/Human Resource Management: Issues and Applications." Journal of Management 16: 337-360.

He, Z. and P. Wong. 2004. "Exploration vs. Exploitation: An Empirical Test of the Ambidexterity Hypothesis." Organization Science 15: 481-494.

Hedlund, G. 1994. "A Model of Knowledge Management and N-form Corporation." Strategic Management Journal 15 (Summer Special Issue): 73-90.

Helfat, C. and R. Raubitschek. 2000. "Product Sequencing: Co-evolution of Knowledge, Capabilities and Products." Strategic Management Journal 21: 961-979.

Holmqvist, M. 2004. "Experiential Learning Processes of Exploitation and Exploration Within and Between Organizations: An Empirical Study of Product Development." Organization Science 15: 70-81.

Hoyle, R. H. and A. T. Panter. 1995. "Writing about Structural Equation Models." Chapter in Structural Equation Modeling: Concepts, Issues and Applications. Ed. R. H. Hoyle. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. pp. 158-176.

Hu, L. and P. M. Bender. 1999. "Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria Versus New Alternatives." Structural Equation Modeling 6: 1-55.