Technology, community, and the practice of HRM.

Technological Evolution and HRM

Technology is changing the way we work, the roles we undertake, and the interactions through which work gets done (DeFillippi, 2002). In apparently successful cases, as with the hearing aid company Oticon, technology underlies new product development and the project-based organizing through which that development happens (Larsen, 2002). In unsuccessful cases, as with the failed venture Leisureplanet.com, technology facilitates the growth of a multinational enterprise but generates simultaneous problems of "unpluggedness" among a geographically dispersed workforce (Altman & Verkinderen, 2002). Both cases illustrate a link between technology and HRM.

The Oticon and Leisureplanet.com stories suggest, however, that contemporary HRM involves more than the management of technology. Like our opening Broadway show example, they indicate that contemporary HRM is also involved with the management of knowledge. In Oticon's case, the story is about the company's ability to bring disparate components of individual knowledge together to develop a new product. In Leisureplanet.com's case, the story is about the company's struggle to better harness the considerable knowledge distributed among its worldwide workforce.

Both stories also indicate, in separate ways, that contemporary HRM is about community. This may be seen in Oticon's nurturing of temporary project communities through which new products are developed, and in Leisureplant.com's lack of coordination of rival communities working from different locations. The suggestion emerges that HRM needs to engage with all of technological advancement, knowledge management, and community participation in the company's best interests.

This suggestion comes to a field of HRM that is in a state of flux. Contemporary debates cover the need to shift from an administrative to a strategic role (Sparrow & Marchington, 1998), tradeoffs between external acquisition and internal development of sought-after resources, and the tension between controlling and motivating employees to serve the company's best interests (Bamberger & Meshoulam, 2000). Broader debates consider how much HRM can be grounded in universal assumptions versus more particular or contextual considerations (Brewster, et al., 2000), lament the lack of attention to small-medium firms (Katz, et al., 2000), and seek a stronger political voice for company employees (Sissons, 1999).

Our focus here is not on the preceding debates themselves, but on how two features of technological evolution may be affecting them. One feature is that technological innovation tends to be associated with regional clusters of firms, rather than more isolated firms (Best, 2001; Porter, 1998). The other feature is the emergence of the World Wide Web, and the new opportunities for interpersonal and inter-firm collaboration that it promotes (Castells, 2001). Both features appear to challenge the commonplace assumption that HRM is largely concerned with internal company affairs. Instead, they suggest that the people about whom HRM is concerned are everyday participants in knowledge generation, and that their activities transcend company boundaries. A principal challenge for the HRM of the future will be to capitalize on those activities.

The Professional Contract Worker

For a more general example, professional contract workers are typically recruited to bring distinctive knowledge to the hiring company for a limited period. "Leased executives" or "interim managers" are contractors who hold no exclusive loyalty to any single company, but are frequently the bearers of new technology that their services involve. They tend to coalesce and find support around the professional service agencies that locate and serve as intermediaries for the contractors' work. The contractors are typically concerned with upgrading their knowledge to remain current in their fields, to preserve autonomy, and to have some flexibility about the hours and location of their work (Parker, 2002).

A company that employs a professional contractor -- for example, to install a new Web-based financial reporting system -- can make two contrasting choices. One choice is to leave the contractor alone, and then simply to train operators to enter the data and run the system after it has been delivered. In this case the company becomes dependent on the contractor, as an external source of knowledge, to deal with any subsequent enhancements or contingencies. Also, the contractor is likely to be asked to answer relatively basic questions about how the system works, rather than the more advanced questions a better informed user may bring. Exercising this choice also suggests the company may become dependent on the operators it has trained, in the absence of similar training being offered to other employees.

An alternative choice for the company is to encourage the formation of an internal community around the contractor's work. This could be made up of volunteer user department representatives, meeting with the contractor to exchange information as needed. The group could take responsibility for the quality and viability of the system being developed, and talk about and extend people's understanding of the system in their separate departments. They could assume further responsibility for the system once it was operational, continue to disseminate what they know, and add enhancements over time. Members could also sustain a relatively sophisticated conversation with the absent but still accessible contractor. A reasonable level of employee turnover would be anticipated through the diffusion of knowledge about the system through the company's workforce.

The same kind of argument applies to all external specialists, including information technology providers, management consultants, advertisers, architects, engineers, suppliers, customers, and employees of alliance partners. In every case, companies can do much to capture the specialists' knowledge over the course of their contracts. A variant of the same argument also applies to inside specialists. Although these people may one day leave the company, having other employers interact with these specialists can ensure that critical knowledge is retained.

In sum, the management of technology, and thus knowledge, is different from people management. Companies need to have internal systems that attract and retain knowledge as an integral part of their work arrangements. These systems can draw upon both internal and external knowledge providers. People, the bearers of knowledge, have an intermediate role. But people management and knowledge management are not one and the same.

Careers and Communities

People have careers, sequences of work experiences over time, during which they accumulate knowledge. People form community attachments over the course of their careers. These communities can serve as natural arenas for knowledge sharing and new knowledge generation (Brown & Duguid, 1998; Wenger, 1998).

Some have argued that the new economy brings in its wake a loss of community (Sennett, 1998). From a traditional company standpoint this may be true. Mainstream organizational behavior textbooks have for years envisioned group dynamics, and even inter-group dynamics, as taking place within the boundaries of a single organization. The new economy brings in its wake predictably higher levels of employment mobility, and invites people to form other kinds of community attachments. Various channels exist through which people can do so.

Occupations, for example, provide natural meeting-grounds for people to identify and form allegiances with one another. So do the geographic regions in which people live and work. Industries also provide a common ground over which people can share an understanding about the nature of their work. Religious and political communities can provide people with an opportunity to share mutual values. Shared educational or military experiences give rise to alumni affiliations. Family and extended-family arrangements support their members' careers, including in some cases bringing them into family business ventures. Temporary projects can generate a sense of community that persists long after the project itself is over. Companies provide meeting-grounds for community attachments too, but they are far from alone (Parker & Arthur, 2000).

A popular example stems from independent film-making. It is now generally believed that independent film-making works better than the old studio-based system that preceded it. Although the so-called studios still provide finance, lease out movie-making facilities, and participate in film distribution, a new film is typically initiated by a director or producer or screenwriter having a new idea, calling on his or her network, and assembling the temporary company through which the film will be made.

The learning from the completed film takes two forms, one of previous knowledge shared among new people, the other of new knowledge -- about acting techniques, new technology, special effects, direction, production, or whatever -- generated through the completion of the film itself (DeFillippi & Arthur, 1998). In both cases, the enlarged body of knowledge returns to the professional communities that the industry sustains, and awaits the initiation of more films where that knowledge can be applied.

A Typology of Communities