The mediating effect of strategic human resource practices on knowledge management and firm performance

(1)

ww w . e l s e v i e r . e s / r e d e e

Revista

Europea

de

Dirección

y

Economía

de

la

Empresa

Article

The

mediating

effect

of

strategic

human

resource

practices

on

knowledge

management

and

ﬁrm

performance

Antonio

Aragón

Sánchez

∗

,

Gregorio

Sánchez

Marín,

Arleen

Mueses

Morales

DepartmentofBusinessManagementandFinance,FacultyofBusinessEconomics,UniversityofMurcia,CampusdeEspinardo,30100Murcia,Spain

a

r

t

i

c

l

e

i

n

f

o

Articlehistory:

Received7April2014 Accepted17March2015 Availableonline30June2015

JELclassiﬁcation: D830 L250 M500 Keywords: Knowledgemanagement Strategichumanresourcepractices Firmperformance

a

b

s

t

r

a

c

t

Previousempiricalevidencehassuggestedthatknowledgemanagementandhumanresource

prac-ticescaninteractinordertoimproveﬁrmperformance.Basedonthisidea,thepurposeofthisstudy

istoproposeandtestanintegrativemodelthatexaminesstrategichumanresourcepracticesasa

cat-alyticmechanisminfluencingtheeffectivenessofknowledgemanagement.Ourfindingsconfirmthat

knowledgemanagementstrategiespositivelyinﬂuenceﬁrmperformancethroughcertainhighwork

performancepractices–selectivestafﬁng,intensivetraining,activeparticipation,comprehensive

per-formanceappraisal,andperformance-basedcompensation–highlightingthemediatingroleofhuman

resourcemanagementinthisrelationshipandtheneedtoalignhumanresourcepracticeswith

organi-zationalstrategies.

BY-NC-NDlicense(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Gestión

del

conocimiento

y

resultados

empresariales:

efecto

mediador

de

las

prácticas

de

recursos

humanos

CódigosJEL:

D830 L250 M500

Palabrasclave:

Gestióndelconocimiento

Prácticasestratégicasderecursoshumanos Resultadosdelaempresa

r

e

s

u

m

e

n

Laevidenciaempíricapreviase ˜nalaquetantolagestióndelconocimientocomolasprácticasderecursos

humanospuedeninteractuardediversasformasparamejorarlosresultadosdelaempresa.Partiendo

deestaidea,elobjetivodeestetrabajoesproponerycontrastarunmodeloqueexaminalagestiónde

recursoshumanoscomomecanismocatalizadordelaefectividaddelagestióndelconocimiento.

Nue-stroshallazgosconfirmanquelasestrategiasdecodificaciónypersonalizacióndelconocimientoinfluyen

positivamenteenlosresultadosdelaempresaatravésdedeterminadasprácticasestratégicasderecursos

humanosdealtorendimiento,loqueconﬁrmaelpapelmediadordelagestiónderecursoshumanosen

dicharelaciónylanecesidaddeajustarlasprácticasderecursoshumanosalascaracterísticasestratégicas

delaorganización.

CCBY-NC-ND(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Introduction

Todaymostofthecompaniesoperateincomplexanddynamic

environments, where competition is constantly increasing and,

therefore,thetraditionalsourcesofcompetitiveadvantagedonot

∗ _{Corresponding}_author.

E-mailaddresses:[email protected](A.A.Sánchez),[email protected](G.S.Marín),

[email protected](A.M.Morales).

guaranteethesurvivaloftheorganization,creatinganeedforrapid

adaptation.Thissituationisleadingtoaredeﬁnitionofbusiness

strategies(Pfeffer,1994;Wernerfelt,1984).Thereismuchdebate

abouttheneedtopaygreaterattentiontostrategicresourcesand

howtheyaremanaged,especiallythosecapableofproviding

eco-nomicvalueand competitivenessforcompanies.Barney(1991)

arguesthatintangibleresourcescanbecomeasourceofsustainable

competitiveadvantagetomeettherequirementsofvalueand

inim-itability(Barney,1991;Black&Boal,1994).Inthissense,knowledge

andhumancapitalareimportantassetsfororganizationsandan

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.redee.2015.03.003

(2)

effectivemanagementofthoseassetscanmakepossiblefor

com-paniestoleveragetheknowledgeandskillsofemployeeswhile

developinghumanresourcemanagementmodelstailoredtothe

needstheenvironment,contributingtotheimprovementofﬁrm

performance(Soliman&Spooner,2000;Yahya&Goh,2002).

Whilesomestudieshavenotedthatknowledgemanagement

promotesﬁrm performance(Chen&Huang, 2009;Hsiao,Chen,

&Chang,2011;López-Nicolás&Mero ˜no-Cerdán,2011;Palacios& Garrigós,2006;Raˇsula,BosiljVukˇsi ´c,&Indihar ˇStemberger,2012),

othersstudiesarguethatitishumanresourcemanagementthat

helpstoimprovethisperformance(Becker&Gerhart,1996;Chen

&Huang,2009;Collins&Clark,2003;Huselid,1995;Youndt,Snell, Dean, &Lepak, 1996).In addition,someresearch suggeststhat

knowledge management and humanresource management are

closelyrelated(Aﬁouni,2007;Haesli&Boxall,2005;Oltra,2005;

Theriou&Chatzoglou, 2008;Wang,Chiang, &Tung,2012).The

majorityofthesestudiesoptfor analyzingthemediatingeffect

of knowledgemanagement in therelationship betweenhuman

resourcemanagementandﬁrmperformance(Jackson,Schuler,&

Jiang,2014).

Surprisingly,fewstudieshave suggestedaninverse

relation-shipbetweentheseconcepts,whichmightbeexpectedconsidering

thepotentialstronginteractionbetweenknowledgemanagement

andhumanresourcemanagement(Chuang,Jackson,&Jiang,2013;

Liao,2011;Shih&Chiang,2005).Therefore,themainobjectiveof

this workisoffering adifferentperspective ontherole human

resourcemanagement, respondingalsotorecent callsfor

alter-nativecausalmodelstoanalyzethecatalyticormediatingroleof

humanresourcesmanagementintherelationshipbetween

knowl-edge management and ﬁrm performance (Jackson et al., 2014;

Jiang,Takeuchi, &Lepak,2013).Thisnewperspective is

impor-tanttotheextentthatitcandeterminewhethercertainsystemsof

humanresourcemanagementareabletotranslateorganizational

needsandstrategiesintoapackageofstrategichumanresource

practicesthatcanfosteralignmentofemployeebehaviors,thereby

producingbetteroutcomesfortheorganization(Jiangetal.,2013).

Thus, recognizingtheneedfor empiricalstudiestoanalyzethe

roleofhumanresourcemanagementsystemsascatalytic

mech-anisms in developing organizational strategies and goals(Jiang

etal.,2013),weexaminethemediatingeffectsofcertainstrategic

highperformanceworkpracticesintheareasofstafﬁng,training,

participation,performanceappraisaland compensation(Chen &

Huang,2009; Huselid,1995).Itis expectedthatthesepractices

canmediatetherelationshipbetweenknowledgemanagement–

measuredthroughcodiﬁcationandpersonalizationstrategies–and

ﬁrmperformance.Therelationshipsareexaminedusingstructural

equationmodelingmethodologyinasampleof191Spanish

indus-trialcompanies.

Thespeciﬁccontributionsofthisstudycanbesummarizedin

threeparts.First,itextendsthelimitedliteraturethatrecognizes

theneedforalignmentofthehumanresourcemanagement

strate-giesasamediator ofknowledgemanagement for thecompany

thatlinksthegoalsofthecompanyanditsimprovedperformance

(Jiang et al., 2013; Wang et al., 2012).Second, it supports the

ideathatmanagingtheknowledgeemployees,throughstrategic

humanresourcepractices,isessentialfororganizationsto

maxi-mizetheirperformance(Chuangetal.,2013;Liao,2011).Finally,it

helpstoexplaintherelationshipsbetweencertainspeciﬁc

strate-giesofknowledgemanagementandthehighperformancework

systems,fromtheperspectivethattheycontributetoﬁrm

perfor-mance(Chen&Huang,2009;Snell&Youndt,1995).

Theworkis dividedinto foursections. First,theoretical and

empiricalcontributionsrelatedtotherelationshipsbetweenthe

variablesthatareincludedintheresearchmodelarereviewed.

Sec-ond,methodologyemployedtotestthemodelisdescribed.Third,

resultsarepresented,endingwithconclusionsanddiscussionof

theresultsobtained. Thisﬁnal sectionalsohighlights themain

implicationsforfutureresearch.

Researchbackgroundandhypotheses

Knowledgemanagementandﬁrmperformance

Knowledgecanbedeﬁnedasinformationcombinedwith

expe-rience,context,interpretationandreﬂection(Davenport&Völpel,

2001).Knowledgeisconsideredavaluableresourcefor

organiza-tionswhenitisincorporatedinhumancapital,allowingcompanies

toimprovetheirdistinctivecompetencies(Grant,1996;Hansen,

1999;Spender,1996).Althoughliteratureincludesnumeroustypes

oforganizationalknowledge,themostfrequentlyusedframework

is that which distinguishes between tacit and explicit

knowl-edge(Aﬁouni,2007;Hussi,2004;Polanyi,1966;Spender,1996).

Whilecodiﬁedorexplicitknowledgeistransmittedthrough

for-malandsystematiclanguage,andmaytaketheformofsoftware,

patents,diagramsandthelike,tacitknowledgeisacquiredthrough

experienceandresidesinthehumanmind.Thatis,tacit

knowl-edge issituational andsubjective natureand thusit is difﬁcult

toformalize, communicate and share withothers (Martensson,

2000;Polanyi,1966).Itshouldbenotedthatmuchorganizational

knowledgeistacit,anditisconsideredanimportantsourceof

com-petitiveadvantage(Ambrosini&Bowman,2001).Therearetwo

basicstrategiesforknowledgemanagement:acodiﬁcationstrategy

basedonexplicitknowledge,andapersonalizationstrategybased

ontacitknowledge(Choi&Lee,2003;Hansen,Nohria,&Tierney,

1999).Codiﬁcationextractsknowledgefrompeopleandstoresit

with thehelp of technological systems for re-use.

Personaliza-tionemphasizesdialogandpersonalcontacttoshareandmanage

knowledge(Hansenetal.,1999).However,thesetwostrategiesare

notmutuallyexclusive,andmayfunctiontogetherinsome

com-bination(Hussi, 2004).Thus,fromthepointofviewofbusiness

effectiveness,knowledge,bothtacitandexplicit,isrecognizedasa

keyresourcethatcanproducecompetitiveadvantageifitis

man-agedproperly(Wangetal.,2012).NonakaandTakeuchi(1995)

viewknowledgemanagementasatoolthatallowsthecompany

toemphasizeandpromotetheproductivity,ﬂexibilityand

creativ-ityneededtoincreaseitsvalueandcompetitiveness(Davenport&

Völpel,2001;Salojärvi,Furu,&Sveiby,2005).

Research on how and under what circumstances the

vari-ousknowledge management strategieslead tobetteroutcomes

has provided ample evidence that generally support the

pos-itive relationship between the knowledge management and

ﬁrm performance(Yang,2010).For example,López-Nicolásand

Mero ˜no-Cerdán (2011) show that thetwo knowledge

manage-mentstrategiesofcodiﬁcationandpersonalizationaremechanisms

through which companiesmanage toachieve greater

effective-nessandperformance.Adoptingabroaderapproach,Palaciosand

Garrigós (2006) ﬁndthat sixknowledge management practices

–knowledge;learning;organizationalunderstanding;innovative

culture;individualizedapproachandskills–haveapositiveand

signiﬁcanteffectonﬁrmperformance. Chenand Huang (2009),

takingamoreholisticapproach,noticethattheimplementation

ofknowledgemanagementsystemshasapositiveandsigniﬁcant

inﬂuenceontheﬁnancialand operationalperformance of

orga-nizations. Also, thestudy of Hsiao et al. (2011) showthat the

capacitytomanagetheacquisitionanddisseminationof

knowl-edgearepositivelyrelatedtotheﬁrm’sperformance,andpointout

thatsocial interactionincreasesthestrength oftherelationship

betweenknowledgemanagementskillsandperformance.Finally,

Raˇsulaetal.,2012showthatthefourstrategiesofcreation,

accumu-lation,organizationanduseofknowledgehaveapositiveimpact

(3)

Otherstudiesfoundnopositiveevidenceinthisregard,usually

explainingthisresultbypointingtoalackofaproper

implemen-tationstrategyand interactionbetweenthevariousdimensions

ofknowledge.Yetultimatelythereisarecognitionthatthereis

a clear theoreticaland empirical foundation for the belief that

knowledgemanagementisinﬂuentialinobtainingsuperiorﬁrm

performance(Darroch,2005;Mills&Smith,2011;Seleim&Khalil,

2007).Therefore,itcanbeconcludedthattheliteraturelargely

sup-portstheidea,basedontheresource-basedview,thatproperly

implementedknowledge management, and therelated

interac-tionsandcomplementaritiesbetweenthestrategiesofcodiﬁcation

andpersonalization,cancontributepositivelytoﬁrmperformance.

Therefore,theﬁrstresearchhypothesisproposedinthefollowing

terms:

H1. Knowledgemanagement –throughtheimplementationof

codiﬁcationstrategiesandpersonalizationstrategies–hasa

posi-tiveeffectonﬁrmperformance.

Strategichumanresourcespracticesandﬁrmperformance

Incomplexanddynamicbusiness environmentsliketoday’s,

effective management of human capital is increasingly

impor-tant,beingthefoundationformuchofthesustainablecompetitive

advantageofacompany(Barney,1991;Wernerfelt,1984).Inthis

sense,humanresourcemanagement is essential asa structural

mechanisminthedevelopmentandadaptationofhumancapitalto

achievesustainablecompetitiveadvantage(Collins&Clark,2003;

Jacksonetal.,2014).Throughhumanresourcepractices,

compa-niescaninﬂuenceandshapetheskills,attitudesandbehaviorsof

individuals,sothattheycandotheirjobbetterandachievethe

objectivesoftheorganization(Delery&Doty,1996;Collins&Clark,

2003).

In fact, numerous studies have shown that certain human

resourcepractices,eitherindividuallyorasasystem,candirectly

and positively affect the individual and collective outcomes of

thecompany(BeckerandGerhart,1996;Jiangetal.,2013).Thus,

empiricalstudieshavemadeconsiderableefforts tolinksets of

humanresourcepracticestobusinessoutcomes,whetherthrough

so-called high performance work systems (Becker & Huselid,

1998;Delaney &Huselid,1996; Huselid,1995), based on trust (Arthur, 1994), through highengagement (Batt, 2002; Guthrie,

2001), or innovative practices (Ichniowski, Shaw, & Prennushi,

1997;MacDufﬁe,1995;Youndtetal.,1996),atthelevelof

indi-vidualbusinessunits(Koch&McGrath,1996),andintermsofthe

globalﬁnancialandeconomicperformanceofcompanies(Becker

&Huselid,1998; Delaney&Huselid,1996; Huselid,1995).The

commonthreadin these investigations is theidea that certain

humanresourcepracticescaninﬂuenceﬁrmperformancethrough

theirinﬂuenceonthebehaviorofemployees.Thoseemployeesare

affectedpositivelyintheirperformance,andthisimproves

indi-vidualand/orgroupproductivity(Becker&Huselid,1998;Guest,

1997).Althoughtherearesomestudiesthatdidnotfullyconﬁrm

thepositiverelationship(Guest,Michie,Conway,&Sheehan,2003),

theirﬁndingscontinuetobeconsistentwiththemainideathat

strategichumanresourcepracticesinﬂuenceemployeebehavior

andgeneratepositiveeffectsinindividualperformanceand

there-forecollectiveenterprise-levelperformance(Jacksonetal.,2014).

Speciﬁcally,Huselid(1995, 635)describes highperformance

workpractices, which “can improve the knowledge, skills, and

abilities of a ﬁrm’s current and potential employees, increase

theirmotivation,reduceshirking,andenhanceretentionofquality

employees”,therebyimprovingindividualandorganizational

per-formance(Arthur,1994;Becker&Gerhart,1996;Ichniowskietal.,

1997;Jiangetal.,2013;Youndtetal.,1996).Itistherefore

possi-bletorefertostrategichumanresourcepractices(Chen&Huang,

2009),to theextentthattheyenhance theabilityand

involve-mentofemployees,encouragetheircommitmentandencourage

theirefforts,providingscopefortheorganizationtobeproactive

andmorecloselylinkedwithlearning,innovationandknowledge

(Chen&Huang,2009;Jacksonetal.,2014).Inthissense,ithasbeen

shown that selective selection, intensive training, encouraging

activeemployeeparticipation,conductingthoroughperformance

assessmentandestablishingincentiveslinkedtoperformanceare

highperformance workpracticesthat arerelated,throughtheir

impactonthedevelopmentandmotivationofemployees,with

bet-terﬁrmperformance(Jacksonetal.,2014;Jiangetal.,2013).These

arethereforestrategichumanresourcepractices,totheextentthat

theypromoteinimitableattributesinemployeesthatcontribute

totheachievementand maintenance ofa sustainable

competi-tiveadvantagefortheorganization(Chen&Huang,2009;Collins&

Clark,2003;Guest,1997;Huselid,1995;MacDufﬁe,1995;Youndt etal.,1996).

Therefore,consideringtheabovearguments,itisexpectedthat

theextenttowhichhumanresourcepracticesarestrategically

ori-entedtowardhighperformanceworkpractices(selectivestafﬁng,

intensivetraining,activeemployeeinvolvement,acomprehensive

performance assessment, and incentive systems linked to

per-formance),employeeswill beencouragedin thebehaviors and

attitudesthatpromotebetterindividualandorganizational

per-formance.Thus,thesecondhypothesisisproposedasfollows:

H2. Strategichumanresourcepractices–selectivestafﬁng,

inten-sive training, active participation, comprehensive performance

appraisal,andperformance-basedcompensation–haveapositive

effectonﬁrmperformance.

Themediatingeffectofstrategichumanresourcepractices

Much of the original literature on knowledge management

focusedontechnologicalissues,butovertimethehuman

dimen-sionhasbecomemoreimportanttotheextentthat ithasbeen

discoveredthattechnologyaloneis notaseffectiveasexpected

(Aﬁouni, 2007;Haesli & Boxall,2005).In this sense, Theriou & Chatzoglou (2008) note that although technology is necessary,

itis notsufﬁcientalone toensureknowledgemanagement and

itsrelationshipwithhumanresourcemanagement.Ifthehuman

resourcemanagementisabouttheeffectivemanagementofpeople,

andthemostvaluableresourceofindividualsisknowledge,then,

humanresourcemanagementandknowledgemanagementmust

becloselyrelated,astheysharesomeactivitiesandobjectivesand

bothfocusonpeople(Oltra,2005;Svetlik&Stavrou-Costea,2007).

DavenportandVölpel(2001)summarizethesituationby

stat-ingthatknowledgemanagementmanagespeople,andviceversa.

Scholl, Koenig, Meyer, & Heisig (2004) explain that the most

effectivemethodforknowledgemanagementisanapproachthat

combines different disciplines.According totheir research,the

mosturgentanddifﬁcultaspectforunderstandingand

advanc-ingknowledgemanagementistogiveprioritytohumanfactors.

Chuangetal.(2013)andYahyaandGoh(2002)notethathuman

resourcepracticesshouldbeusedtomonitor,measureand

inter-veneintheconstruction,personalization,disseminationanduseof

knowledgeofemployees.Thatis,theorganizationmustusehuman

resourcemanagementtoincreasetheknowledge,skills,experience

andcreativity ofallitsemployees(SolimanandSpooner,2000;

Wangetal.,2012).Inthissense,theknowledgemanagement

strat-egycanbeakeyfactortoconsiderwhenestablishingtheobjectives

ofenterprise-levelstrategichumanresourcepractices(Liao,2011;

Chuangetal.,2013).

In this vein, some researchers have begun to

conceptual-izehumanresourcemanagement andtheorientationofhuman

(4)

theorganizationanditsknowledgestrategy(Chuangetal.,2013; Jiangetal.,2013).Thesestrategichumanresourcepracticesreﬂect

(mediate)thedemands oftheorganizationandprovide

mecha-nismstostrengthentherequiredoutcomesofemployeesaswell

astosupportthemintheirwork(Jiangetal.,2013).For

exam-ple, when a company has a knowledge management strategy,

whetheritdependsoncodiﬁcationoronpersonalization,strategic

humanresourcepracticesareclearlyorientedtowardahigh

per-formanceworksystem(Chuangetal.,2013;Huselid,1995;Snell

&Youndt,1995).Speciﬁcally,emphasisonthoroughrecruitment

andselectionofemployeeswhocansolveproblems,tolerate

ambi-guity,andarewillingtosharetheirknowledgeandexperience,is

extremelyimportantandwillhelpemployeestoengagewiththe

developmentofaknowledgemanagementsystem.The

organiza-tionmay,afterathoroughassessmentofemployees’skills,train

themintensivelyandextensivelyaccordingtothespeciﬁcneeds

oftheindividualandoverallcompanygoals,usingcompensations

packagestoencourageemployeestosharetheirtacitandexplicit

knowledge(Wangetal.,2012).

Liao (2011) and Chuang et al. (2013) argue that, although

companiescanuseinterconnectedpersonalizationand/or

codiﬁ-cationstrategies,globalknowledgemanagementstrategiesalways

requirethedevelopmentandimplementationofstrategichuman

resourcepractices(aimedathigh-performancesystems)covering

aspectsofselectiveselection,intensivetraining,active

participa-tion,performanceevaluationandincentive-basedcompensation.

Ifsuchstrategichumanpracticesaredesignedandproperly

ori-ented,knowledgemanagementwillhelpthecompanytomaintain

its competitiveadvantage, contributing to the improvement of

ﬁrm performance (Chuang et al., 2013; Meso & Smith, 2000;

Shih&Chiang,2005).So,itisexpectedthattheimplementation

of strategic humanresource practices willfacilitate knowledge

management, and actas acatalyst in therelationship between

knowledgemanagementandﬁrmperformance.Thethird

hypoth-esisis,therefore,proposedasfollows:

H3. Strategichumanresourcepracticesmediatetherelationship

betweenknowledgemanagementandﬁrmperformance.

Methodology

Population,sampleanddatacollection

DatawerecollectedfromSpanishcompanies.Theinitial

popula-tion,selectedfromtheSABIdatabase,was4112companies,which

employedbetween25and249workers,fromallindustrialsectors.

Atelephonesurveyofthispopulationwasconductedbetween1

December,2011and18January,2012basedonastructured

ques-tionnaire.Informationwasobtainedfrom191companiesoutofa

totalof2251companiescontacted,representingaresponserate

of8.48%.Smallerbusinesseswereexcludedduetopoor

formal-izationofknowledgemanagementstrategiesandhumanresource

practices.Similarly,weexcludedlargerenterprisesbecausethere

areimportant differencesregarding themanagement of human

resources in small and medium sized enterprises, which could

distort the empirical analysis. Finally, it should be noted that

the survey wasaddressed to the chief executive ofﬁcerof the

company,1 _as_it _was_considered _that_his/her _position_ensures _a

1_In_order_to_minimize_the_risk_of_common_method_bias_arising_from_taking

infor-mationfromonlyonesource,thisstudyusesdatafromtwosources:thetelephone interviewformeasuresofknowledgemanagementandhumanresourcepractices andtheSABIdatabaseformeasuresofﬁrmperformance.Inaddition,as recom-mendedbyPodsakoffetal.(2003,2012),wehavetestedfortheabsenceofasingle commonfactorthathasaneigenvalueofgreaterthanone.Apoorﬁtofthe sin-glefactormodelisanindicationthatcommonmethodvarianceisnotamajor

Table1

Manufacturingsub-sectors.

Industries CNAE2009 N %

Meatproducts,beberages, foodandtobacco

10,11,12 21 11.62%

Textile,leatherproductsand footwear

13,14,15 5 2.53%

Paperproducts,printingand publishing,lumberand wood

16,17,18 22 11.11%

Chemicalproducts,rubber andmiscellaneousplastics productsandfuels

19,20,22,23 46 23.74%

Primarymetalindustries, fabricatedmetalproducts

24,25 26 14.65%

Electricalequipment, computerandoptical industry

26,27 7 3.54%

Industrialmachineryand equipment,motorvehicles

28,29,30 19 9.60% Otherindustries 21,31,32,33, 35,36,37,38, 39 45 23.23% Total 191

thoroughunderstandingoftheorganization,itshumanresources practicesandknowledgemanagementstrategies.Theoverall sam-plingerroris6.8%,foraconﬁdencelevelof95.5%2_and_p₌_q₌_0.5.

ThedistributionofthesampleisrepresentedbysectorsinTable1.

Variablesandmeasures

Strategichumanresourcepractices

Measuringthesetstrategichumanresourcepracticeswasbased

onamultidimensionalscaledrawnfromtheliteratureonhigh

per-formanceworkpracticesprovidedbyHuselid(1995),MacDufﬁe

(1995),Youndtetal. (1996),Collinsand Clark(2003)andChen andHuang(2009).Speciﬁcally,weappliedthemodelofChenand Huang(2009),whomeasuredﬁvedimensionsofhumanresource

practices related to the stafﬁng, training, participation,

perfor-manceappraisalandcompensation,using15itemsformulatedon

a5-pointLikertscale(seeAppendixII).Astheitemsaredeﬁned,

scorescloserto5indicatethatthecompanyisimplementingahigh

performanceworkpractice,asitplacesmoreemphasisonselective

selection,intensivetraining,encouragingactiveemployee

partic-ipation,makingacomprehensiveevaluationofperformanceand

establishingincentivesystems linkedtoperformance.Thescale

forstafﬁnghasareliability(c)of0.849andtheaveragevariance

extracted(ave)is 0.652,values whichconform tothose

recom-mendedintheliterature(Bagozzi&Yi,1988,2012).Similarly,for

trainingthevalues (c=0.843and ave=0.642),for participation

(c=0.880andave=0.711),forperformanceappraisal(c=0.834

andave=0.623),andforcompensation(c=0.815andave=0.597).

Knowledgemanagement

Knowledgemanagementwasmeasuredusinganadaptationof

thescaledevelopedbyChoiandLee(2003),inwhichthetwo

strate-gies,codiﬁcationandpersonalization,aredimensions.Thesescales

havesubsequentlybeenusedandvalidatedinotherstudies,such

problem. The single factor model has a 2₌_1241.26 _with ₂₅₂◦ _of _freedom

(NFI=0.473;NNFI=0.479;CFI=0.524;IFI=0.530;RMSEA=0.142),whichismuch worse thanthe measurement model(2 ₍₂₂₄₎₌_288.74₍_p₌_0.002), _NFI₌_0.90,

NNFI=0.96,CFI=0.97,IFI=0.98,RMSEA=v0.04)(seeAppendixIIfordetails)which suggeststhatcommonmethodbiasisnotapotentialprobleminthedatacollection.

2_There_are_no_{statistically}_signiﬁcant_differences_between_the_companies_in_the

populationandthoseinthesampleonanyofthekeyvariables,includingtotal investment,totalturnover,returnonsales,returnonassetsorreturnoninvestment, whichistosaythereisnoevidenceofaselectionbiasinthesample.

(5)

Table2

Means,standarddeviations,correlations,anddiscriminantvalidity.

Variables Mean S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1.FirmPerformance 2.38 7.11 0.844 2.Stafﬁng 9.64 1.76 0.179** _0.807 3.Training 8.95 2.24 0.275*** _0.623*** _0.801 4.Participation 8.37 2.25 0.152** _0.465*** _0.470*** _0.843 5.Performanceappraisal 7.75 1.82 0.186*** _0.469*** _0.465*** _0.596*** _0.789 6.Compensation 6.65 2.45 0.141** _0.284*** _0.264*** _0.316*** _0.337*** _0.773 7.Knowledgecodiﬁcation 2.82 0.68 0.128* _0.400*** _0.501*** _0.402*** _0.432*** _0.188*** _0.760 8.Knowledgepersonalization 2.74 0.56 0.225*** _0.369*** _0.456*** _0.460*** _0.479*** _0.227*** _0.603*** _0.791 * _p_<_0.1. ** _p_<_0.05. ***_p_<_0.01.

asLópez-Nicolásand Mero ˜no-Cerdán(2011).Thismeasure

con-sistsofsixitemsdeﬁnedona5-pointLikertscale(seeAppendix

II)toidentifyand evaluatetheapproach thecompanytakesto

knowledgemanagement.Thehighertheratinggivenbythe

com-panytoeachitem,themorethecompanyisinvolvedinintensive

knowledgemanagement.Ofthesixitems,theﬁrstthree

repre-sentknowledgecodiﬁcationinitiatives(c=0.801andave=0.578),

whiletheremainingthreeareknowledgepersonalizationpractices

(c=0.833andave=0.626).

Firmperformance

Firm performance was measured using an indicator that

combinesglobaleconomicandﬁnancialperformanceofthe

com-pany(Beltrán-Martín,Roca-Puig,Escrig-Tena,&Bou-Llusar,2008; Delaney&Huselid,1996;Sanchez-Marin,Baixauli-Soler,& Lucas-Perez,2011).Speciﬁcally,weusedanindicatorthatreﬂectsthe

returnonsales(ROS),returnonassets(ROA)andreturnonequity

(ROE) of the companies in the sample, measured as the

aver-agevalue for each year from 2010to 2012,using information

fromthe SABI database (composite reliability is c=0.877 and

averagevariance extracted, ave=0.712). Using an average of 3

years’ﬁrmperformanceisintendedtomaintainthestabilityofthe

measureovertime,atthesametimeasavoidinganydistortion

introducedbythedelaybetweentheimplementationofa

knowl-edgemanagementstrategyandhumanresourcepracticesandﬁrm

performance(Aragón-Sánchez,Barba-Aragón,&Sanz-Valle,2003;

Sanchez-MarinandBaixauli-Soler,2015).

Controlvariables

Twocontrolvariables wereincluded.Theﬁrstisﬁrmsize,as

companiesmayhaveorganizationalcharacteristicsanddeploy

var-iousresourcesaccordingtotheirsize(Gilman&Raby,2013).Firm

sizewas measuredas its total number of employees.The

sec-ondis thetechnologicalintensity,sincethisisanindicatorthat

reﬂectsanydifferencesinstrategiestowardknowledgeandhuman

resourcepractices(Lepak,Takeuchi,&Snell,2003).Technological

intensitywasmeasuredusingtheOECD’s2011classiﬁcation(ISIC

REV3TechnologyIntensityDeﬁnition,2011),whichranks

compa-niesonascalewithtwolevelsoflowormedium-lowtechnological

intensity,withavalueofzero,orforhighormedium-high

techno-logicalintensity,withavalueofunity.

Goodnessofﬁtmodel:reliabilityandvalidity

Forthemeasurementmodelassessmenttwo-stageprocedure

recommendedbyAndersonandGerbing(1988)wasfollowed.In

theﬁrststage,weestimatedthemeasurementmodelusing

con-ﬁrmatory factor analysis (CFA) using the method of maximum

likelihood,whichissuitablewhenthenormalityofthedataisgiven

(Chou,Bentler,&Satorra,1991;Fornell&Larcker,1981;Gerbing &Anderson,1988;West,Finch,&Curran,1995).Inthiscasewe

haveusedtheindicesproposedbyFornellandLarcker(1981)and

BagozziandYi(1988,2012)ofaverageextractedvariance(ave)and

compositereliability(c)respectively,astheyprovideindicators

thataremoreaccuratethanothermethods,andalsousingthe

chi-squarestatisticaldistributionofSatorra-Bentler(Hair,Anderson,

Tatham,&Black,2006;Satorra&Bentler,1994;Westetal.,1995).

TheCFAadjustmentmeasureswereestimatedusingEQSV.6.3.

AsshowninAppendixII,theindicatorsarewithintheranges

rec-ommendedintheliterature(Anderson&Gerbing,1988;Fornell

& Larcker, 1981; Hoyle & Panter, 1995; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee,&Podsakoff,2003),sothereisagoodﬁtandtherobustness

ofthemodelisassured(2 ₍₂₂₄₎₌_288.74₍_p₌_0.002),_NFI₌_0.90,

NNFI=0.96,CFI=0.97,IFI=0.98,RMSEA=0.04).Ifwefocusonthe

analysisofindividualindicatorsforeachitem,allhavesigniﬁcant

valuesfortheirstandardizedcoefﬁcients(p<0.05),beingthemodel

suitableformeasuringthespeciﬁedconstructs.Regardinginternal

consistency,allscaleshaveanappropriatevalueofcgreaterthan

0.6(BagozziandYi,1988,2012).Withrespecttoconvergent

valid-ity,allscaleshaveanaveabovetherecommendedlimitof0.5,while

thediscriminantvalidityhasbeenconﬁrmedbycheckingthatthe

squarerootofave(valuesonthediagonalofTable2)isgreater

thanthecorrelationsbetweenconstructs(off-diagonalinTable2)

(Fornell&Larcker,1981).

Table3showstheestimatedsecond-orderconstructfor

strate-gichumanresourcepractices.Constructestimatorsforthesecond

orderofthefivefirst-orderfactorsaresignificant,aswellas

indi-catorsofoverallmodelﬁt(2₍₈₄₎₌_151.943₍_p₌_0.000),_NFI₌_0.91,

NNFI=0.95,CFI=0.96,RMSEA=0.06),asrecommendedinthe

lit-erature(Hoyle &Panter, 1995).In addition, themodel hasa T

ratio(ratioofthetotalvalueof2 _of_ﬁrst_and_second_order)_of

0.84,indicatingthatthehigherorderfactorrepresentsaverylarge

proportionof thecovariance betweenfactorsof theﬁrstorder,

implyingtherelationshipiscapturedappropriatelyandsufﬁciently

by the second order (Marsh & Hocevar, 1985). Table 4 shows

the estimated second-order construct knowledge management.

Theestimates forthetwo primefactors aresigniﬁcantandthe

resultssuggestagoodﬁtofthemodelspeciﬁcation(2₍₆₎₌_13.050

(p=0.042),NFI=0.98,NNFI=0.97,CFI=0.98,RMSEA=0.08),which

isalsoconﬁrmedbytheTrelationship,withavalueof0.87,

indicat-ingthatthehigherorderfactorrepresentsasigniﬁcantproportion

ofthecovarianceoftheﬁrst-orderfactors(Marsh&Hocevar,1985).

Table3

Secondorderconstructforstrategichumanresourcepractices.

Variables Factorloadings Compositereliability

Stafﬁng 0.767 0.840

Training 0.765

Participation 0.755

Performanceapraisal 0.811

Compensation 0.449

(6)

Table4

Secondorderconstructforknowledgemanagement.

Variables Factorloadings Compositereliability

Knowledgecodiﬁcation 0.743 0.871

Knowledgepersonalization 0.999

2₍₆₎₌_13.050₍_p₌_0.042),_NFI₌_0.98,_NNFI₌_0.97,_CFI₌_0.98,_RMSEA₌_0.08.

Results

Descriptiveanalysisandstructuralmodel

Table 5 shows the means, standard deviations and

correla-tionsof thevariables.It canbeseenthatthere arecorrelations

betweenthem,althoughtheyarenotveryhighexcept,asexpected,

thecorrelationbetweenstrategichumanpracticesandknowledge

management.

Table6andFig.1showtheresultsofstructuralequation

mod-eling.Inviewoftheresultsweconﬁrmhypothesis1asknowledge

management hasa positive effect onﬁrm performance, witha

directeffectof0.18(Model1).Similarly,itisfoundthat

strate-gichumanresourcepracticeshaveapositiveandsigniﬁcanteffect

onﬁrmperformance,withapositiveandsigniﬁcantdirecteffect

of0.31(Model2),conﬁrminghypothesis2.Also,itisconﬁrmed

thatknowledgemanagementhasapositiveinﬂuenceontheuseof

strategichumanresourcepractices,withapositiveandsigniﬁcant

directeffectof0.78(Model2)andthattheindirecteffectof

knowl-edgemanagementonﬁrmperformancethroughstrategichuman

resourcepracticesispositiveandsigniﬁcant,withavalueof0.24,

whichleadsustoexaminethemediatingeffectofhumanresource

management,asdescribedinthemediationtestsetoutbelow.

Mediationtest

Four conditions are necessary for the existenceof aneffect

ofmediation(Baron&Kenny,1986).First,theindependentand

dependentvariablemust becorrelated:as shownin Fig.1, the

independentvariable, knowledge management, and the

depen-dentvariable,ﬁrmperformance,arecorrelated(Model1:=0.18,

p<0.05).Second,theindependentvariableandmediatormustbe

correlated:theindependentvariable,knowledgemanagement,and

themediator,strategichumanresourcepractices,arecorrelated

(Model2:=0.78,p<0.01).Third,themediatorandthe

depen-dentvariablemustbecorrelated:themediator,strategichuman

resourcepractices,andthedependentvariable,ﬁrmperformance,

arecorrelated(Model2:=0.31,p<0.1).Finally,theeffectofthe

independentvariable onthedependentvariableshould change

whenthemediatingvariableisintroduced:inModel2itcanbe

seen thattheeffect ofknowledgemanagement onﬁrm

perfor-mancechangeswhencontrollingforthestrategichumanresource

practices,tobecome=−0.07 (p>0.1,not signiﬁcant).Since all

conditionsaremet,itisconcludedthatstrategichumanresource

practicesmediatetherelationshipbetweenknowledge

manage-mentandﬁrmperformance.Inaddition,weusedtheSobeltest

(Baron&Kenny,1986;Sobel,1982)toconﬁrmthatitiscomplete

mediation,sincethetestvalueforSobelzissigniﬁcant,andthe

ratiooftheeffectisgreaterthan0.8(z<1.82,p<0.1)(Zattoni,Gnan &Huse,2012).

Table5

Means,standarddeviations,andcorrelations.

Mean S.D. 1 2 3 4

1.Firmsize 4.42 0.43 1

2.Technologicalintensity 0.22 −0.01 0.07 1

3.Firmperformance 2.38 7.11 0.04 0.16* ₁

4.Knowledgemanagemente 4.83 0.96 0.14** _0.07 _0.20*** ₁

5.Strategichumanresourcepractices 29.83 5.49 0.16** _0.14** _0.25*** _0.61***

*_p_<_0.1. **_p_<_0.05. ***_p_<_0.01.

Table6

Directandindirecteffectsinthestructuralmodel.

Independentvariables Dependentvariables

Model1 Model2

Firmperformance Strategichumanresource practices

Firmperformance

Directeffects Directeffects Directeffects Indirecteffects

Strategichumanresource practices – – 0.31* (1.87) – Knowledgemanagement 0.18** (2.13) 0.78*** (7.81) −0.07 (0.41) 0.24* (1.85) Firmsize 0.00 (0.03) – 0.01 (0.16) – Technologicalintensity 0.12 (1.41) 0.10 (1.36) *_p_<_0.1. **_p_<_0.05. ***_p_<_0.01. tvaluesinparentheses.

Goodnessofﬁtofmodel1:2₍₃₇₎₌_37.65,_NFI₌_0.95,_NNFI₌_0.99,_CFI₌_0.99,_RMSEA₌_0.02.

(7)

Model

1 Modelo 2

Knowledge condification Knowledege codification Knowledge management Knowledge management Performance appraisal Participation Strategic human resource practices Compensation Training Staffing Knowledge personalization Knowledge personalization

Note: χ2_{(37) = 37.65, NFI = 0.95, NNFI = 0.99, CFI = 0.99, RMSEA = 0.02}

Note: χ2_{(283) = 381.27, NFI = 0.87, NNFI = 0.96, CFI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.04} 0.18** 0.31* 0.01 0.10 –0.07 0.78*** 0.12 0.00 Firm performance Firm performance Firm size Firm size Technological intensity Technological intensity

Fig.1. Relationshipsamongknowledgecodiﬁcation,strategichumanresourcepracticesandﬁrmperformance.

Furthermore, the mediating effect of each of the strategic

human resource practices was checked individually. This has

beentested withstructural modelsfor each of theﬁvehuman

resource practices and the results are shown in Table 7. In

terms of direct effects, knowledge management has a positive

andsigniﬁcanteffectonstafﬁng,training,performanceappraisal

and participation practices which, withthe exception of

com-pensation practices, conﬁrms the role of these practices as

disseminatorsofknowledgemanagementintheorganization.In

terms of indirect effects, stafﬁng and training have signiﬁcant

impactasmediators(total)of therelationshipbetween

knowl-edge management and ﬁrm performance (with coefﬁcients of

0.49 and 0.30 respectively). In contrast, performance appraisal

andparticipationdonotexertanysigniﬁcanceeffect,despitethe

positiveandsigniﬁcantinﬂuenceofknowledgemanagement on

(8)

Table7

Directeffectsinthestructuralmodelswithstrategichumanresourcepractices.

Independentvariables Dependentvariables

Model1 Model2

FirmPerformance Stafﬁnga _Trainingb _Performance_appraisalc _{Participation}d _Compensatione _Firm_performance Knowledgemanagement 0.18** _0.18** _0.68** _0.63*** _0.57*** ₋_0.27 _n.s.f Stafﬁng – – – – – – 0.49*** Training – – – – – – 0.30*** Performanceappraisal – – – – – 0.12 Participation – – – – – – 0.12 Compensation – – – – – – −0.15** Firmsize 0.00 0.13* ₋_0.05* _0.01 _0.01 _0.01 _– Technologicalintensity 0.12 0.09 0.12 0.08 0.08 0.10 – *_p_<_0.1. **_p_<_0.05. ***_p_<_0.01.

Goodnessofﬁtofmodel1:2₍₃₇₎₌_37.65,_NFI₌_0.95,_NNFI₌_0.99,_CFI₌_0.99,_RMSEA₌_0.02. a_Fit_model_with_stafﬁng:2₍₅₈₎₌_58.46,_NFI₌_0.95,_NNFI₌_0.99,_CFI₌_0.99,_RMSEA₌_0.01. b_Fit_model_with_training:2₍₅₈₎₌_78.44,_NFI₌_0.94,_NNFI₌_0.98,_CFI₌_0.98,_RMSEA₌_0.04.

c _Fit_model_with_performance_appraisal:2₍₅₈₎₌_48.05,_NFI₌_0.95,_NNFI₌_0.99,_CFI₌_0.99,_RMSEA₌_0.01. d _Fit_model_with_{participation:}2₍₅₈₎₌_70.29,_NFI₌_0.95,_NNFI₌_0.99,_CFI₌_0.99,_RMSEA₌_0.03. e_Fit_of_model_with_{compensation:}2₍₅₈₎₌_65.17,_NFI₌_0.94,_NNFI₌_0.99,_CFI₌_0.99,_RMSEA₌_0.03.

f _In_the_five_models_with_human_resource_practices_variables_as_mediators,_there_is_no_significant_influence_of_knowledge_management_on_firm_performance,_with_the

respectivefollowingvaluesfound:0.08,−0.03,0.11.0.12and0.13.

Conclusionsanddiscussion

Currently,bothknowledgeandhumanresourcesmanagement

havebecomeimportantassetsfororganizationsthatcangenerate

valuableandinimitableresourcesandcapabilitiesforcompanies

(Barney, 1991; Pfeffer, 1994; Wernerfelt, 1984). Several

stud-iesagreethatknowledgemanagementandhumanresourcesare

closelyinterrelated(Aﬁouni,2007;Haesli&Boxall,2005;Theriou

&Chatzoglou, 2008; Wang et al.,2012), which hasledto

var-iousapproaches tocausality betweenknowledge management,

human resources management and ﬁrm performance (Jackson

etal.,2014).Thispapergoesbeyondtheclassicvisionofknowledge

management asamediator of therelationshipbetweenhuman

resourcemanagement andﬁrmperformance (Becker&Huselid,

1998;Delaney&Huselid,1996;Delery&Shaw,2001;Guest,1997; Huselid,1995)toproposeanalternativemodelthatlinkstheroleof

strategichumanresourcepracticesasacatalyticmechanismthat

modiﬁestheeffectiveness(intermsofﬁrmperformance)of

knowl-edgemanagementstrategies(Chuangetal.,2013;Jiangetal.,2013).

Thus,itﬁllsanimportantgapinthisareaofresearch,asindicated

byrecentreviewsofliterature(Jacksonetal.,2014;Jiangetal.,

2013)whichcallforstudiesanalyzingthemediatingroleofhuman

resourcemanagementinthelinksbetweenknowledge

manage-mentandﬁrmperformance.

Overall,thisstudyprovidesempiricalevidencetosupportthe

ideathataknowledgemanagementstrategy,actingasa

coordi-natingmechanism,indicatestheneedforenterprise-levelstrategic

humanresourcepractices(Chuangetal.,2013;Liao,2011;Wang

etal.,2012),recognizingtheimportanceoftargetingthese

prac-ticestocreateahighperformanceworksystem(Chen&Huang,

2009;Huselid,1995).Humanresourcemanagementcanthenplay

amediatingroleand,therefore,determineoftheeffectivenessof

knowledgemanagementstrategiesandtheircontributiontothe

competitivenessofthecompany.

Speciﬁcally, our ﬁrst result indicate clear support for the

assumptionthat knowledgemanagement hasa positiveimpact

onﬁrmperformance,consistentwithmostoftheliterature(Chen,

Monahan,&Feng,2009;Hsiaoetal.,2011;Huang,2011; López-Nicolás&Mero ˜no-Cerdán,2011;Palacios&Garrigós,2006;Raˇsula

et al.,2012).In this regard, studies point totheimportance of

concentratingeffortsandresourcesontheactivemanagementof

knowledge,asthiswillallowcompaniestoremaincompetitiveand

grow.Oursecondresultevidencethatthestrategichumanresource

practicesbasedonhighperformanceworkmodel(Huselid,1995;

Snell&Youndt,1995)positivelyinﬂuenceﬁrmperformance,which

isconsistentwithmoststudiesinthisﬁeld(Becker&Gerhart,1996;

Chen&Huang, 2009;Collins&Clark,2003;Delaney&Huselid, 1996;Guest,1997;Youndtetal.,1996).

Third,andmostimportant,ourstudyconﬁrmedthatthe

strate-giesofknowledge management determinethestrategic human

resourcemanagementpracticesthatcanbeused,and,in

partic-ular,guidetheorientationofthemanagementofhumanresources

towardselectiveselection,intensivetraining,activeparticipation

and comprehensive performance appraisal. Our results support

thetheoreticalapproachofSnellandYoundt(1995),Liao(2011),

Wangetal.(2012)andChuangetal.(2013),whoproposedthatthe

knowledgemanagementstrategyindicatesthecompany’sneedsin

termsofhumanresourcesmanagement.Thuscompaniesrequire

an appropriatemix of knowledgeconstruction, personalization,

disseminationanduseofknowledgeonthepartoftheir

employ-ees,andthenatureofthatmixwilldecidewhichelementsofa

highperformanceworksystemwillbestalignwiththecompany’s

requirements, mediating then ﬁrm performance (Chuang etal.,

2013;Liao,2011).

Inaddition,checkingthemediatingeffectofstrategicresource

managementpracticesindividuallyhasconﬁrmedthatonlystafﬁng

and training fullymediatetherelationshipbetweenknowledge

management and ﬁrm performance. A less prominent role can

beassignedtoperformanceappraisalandparticipation;although

knowledge management hasa signiﬁcanteffect on them, they

cannot,alone,improveﬁrmperformance.Moreover,incentivesin

isolationareneitherinﬂuencedbyknowledgemanagementnordo

theyhaveaneffectonﬁrmperformance.Thisservestohighlight,

asshownintheliterature,thathumanresourcepracticesaremost

effectivewhenanalyzedassystemsofpracticesthathave

syner-gisticeffectsbeyondtheindividualpractices(Arthur,1994;Chen&

Huang,2009;Delery&Doty,1996;Huselid,1995;MacDufﬁe,1995; Youndtetal.,1996).

Inthissense,wehavefoundthatthereisafullmediatingeffect

ofstrategichumanresourcepracticesintherelationshipbetween

knowledgemanagement and ﬁrm performance,which

(9)

suggeststheneedforcausalmodelswheretheeffectsofhuman

resource management act as a mediating mechanism between

knowledge management and organizational outcomes (Chuang

et al.,2013; Jackson et al., 2014). In this context, ourresearch

respondtothesuggestionofJiangetal.(2013:1469),encouraging

“futureresearcherstoexploreamorecompletemediationmodel

inwhichHRsystemscanmediatetheinﬂuenceoforganizational

characteristics,includingbusinessstrategy,onemployeeoutcomes

whichmayfurtherleadtoﬁrmperformance”.Thispaper,therefore,

inpartprovidesevidenceinthislineofresearch,whichcontributes

toknowledgeaboutthecontributionofhumanresourcesystems

toorganizations.

Furthermore,inviewoftheresultsofthisstudy,wecan

high-lightseveralimplicationsforbusinesspractice.Ontheonehand,

managersshouldemphasizetheadoptionofknowledge

manage-mentstrategiesthatsuittherequirementsoftheorganizationand

theenvironment,and thusconcentrateeffortsand resourceson

theactivemanagementofsuchknowledge.However,thereisalso

a need to align knowledge management withstrategic human

resource practices, so that they can contribute to a successful

knowledgemanagementstrategyfromaperformanceviewpoint.

Accordingto the knowledge management strategy adopted by

thecompany, managers should select appropriate high

perfor-manceworkpractices, focusing onconstruction, customization,

disseminationanduseofknowledgebyemployees.Itistherefore

importantforcompaniestoinvestinthedesignand

implemen-tationof suchstrategic humanresource practices,ranging over

stafﬁng,training,participation,evaluationandcompensation.

Finally,thisworkisnotwithoutitslimitations,whichinturn

provideopportunitiesfor futureresearch.Theﬁrst limitationis

linkedtotherestrictionofthestudytothecontextofsmalland

mediumcompanies,which do not usuallyimplement themost

developedbusinessmanagementpractices,amongwhichwecan

includehumanresourcepractices.Itwouldbevaluabletoextend

thestudywithlargercompanies,whichcanprovideamore

vari-ableframeworkofhumanresourcemanagement.Similarly,further

studiescouldextendthemodeltoincludeotherfactorsthatmay

helpspecifytherelationshipbetweenhumanresource

manage-mentandknowledgemanagement.Forexample,theinclusionof

variablessuchasﬂexibilityorambidexterityofhumanresources

could contribute to the development of the model, since it is

conceivable that thesefactors may have moderatingeffects on

the relationship between knowledge management and human

resourcepractices.Inmuchthesamewayitwouldalsobe

desir-abletotestthemodelatdifferentlevels,analyzingtherelationships

fromtheperspectiveofmanagementcomparedtooperational

con-siderationsortakingintoaccounttheviewsofkeyemployeesas

comparedwithmoreperipheralemployees.Itisalsopossiblethat

thespeciﬁcationofthemodelforaspeciﬁcsectorcouldhelpto

deepenunderstandingofthemechanismsinvolvedindetermining

howhumanresourcepracticescontributetotheeffective

imple-mentationofknowledgemanagementstrategiesinthecompany.

Nevertheless,thisstudyisaﬁrstapproachtoanalternative

per-spectiveregardingtheroleofhumanresourcemanagementasa

catalyticmechanismofobjectivesandstrategiesofthe

organiza-tion.

AppendixI. Measurementscales

1.Strategichumanresourcepractices3_:

Stafﬁng

STAF1.Selectivityinhiring

STAF2.Selectionforexpertiseandskills

STAF3.Selectionforfuturepotential

Training

TRA1.Availabilityofformaltrainingactivities

TRA2.Availabilityofcomprehensivetrainingpoliciesand

pro-grams

TRA3.Availabilityoftrainingfornewhires

Participation

PART1.Employeesareallowedtomakedecisions

PART2.Employeesareallowedtosuggestimprovementsinto

work

PART3.Employees’voicesarevaluedbytheorganization

Performanceappraisal

APPR1.Developmentalfocus

APPR2.Results-basedappraisal

APPR3.Behavior-basedappraisal

Compensation

COMP1.Proﬁtsharing

COMP2.Incentivepay

COMP3.Thelinkbetweenperformanceandreward

2.Knowledgecodiﬁcationandpersonalization4_:

Knowledgecodiﬁcation

KC1.Knowledge(know-how,technicalskill,orproblemsolving

methods)iswellcodiﬁedinyourcompany

KC2.Resultsofprojectsandmeetingsshouldbedocumentedin

yourcompany

KC3.Knowledgeissharedthroughcodiﬁedformslikemanuals

ordocumentsinyourcompany

Knowledgepersonalization

KP1.Knowledgecanbeeasilyacquiredfromexpertsand

co-workersinyourcompany

KP2.Itiseasytogetface-to-faceadvicefromexpertsinyour

company

KP3. Informal dialogsand meetings areused for knowledge

sharinginyourcompany

3_Scale:₁₌_minimal_improvement,₅₌_maximum_improvement. 4_Scale:₁₌_minimal_improvement,₅₌_maximum_improvement.

(10)

AppendixII.

Conﬁrmatoryfactoranalysis

Variable/items c.e c ave

Firmperformance 0.879 0.712

Returnonassets(ROA) 0.984 Returnonequity(ROE) 0.710 Returnonsales(ROS) 0.814

Stafﬁng 0.849 0.652

Selectivityinhiring 0.823 Selectionforexpertiseandskills 0.790 Selectionforfuturepotential 0.810

Training 0.843 0.642

Availabilityofformaltraining activities

0.813 Availabilityofcomprehensive

trainingpoliciesandprograms

0.836 Availabilityoftrainingfornewhires 0.754

Participation 0.880 0.711

Employeesareallowedtomake decisions

0.797 Employeesareallowedtosuggest

improvementsintowork

0.843 Employees’voicesarevaluedbythe

organization 0.887 Performanceappraisal 0.834 0.623 Developmentalfocus 0.853 Results-basedappraisal 0.745 Behavior-basedappraisal 0.773 Compensation 0.815 0.597 Proﬁtsharing 0.875 Incentivepay 0.737

Thelinkbetweenperformanceand reward

0.694

Knowledgecodiﬁcation 0.801 0.578

Knowledge(know-how,technical skill,orproblemsolvingmethods)is wellcodiﬁedinyourcompany

0.638

Resultsofprojectsandmeetings shouldbedocumentedinyour company

0.731

Knowledgeissharedthrough codiﬁedformslikemanualsor documentsinyourcompany

0.890

Knowledgepersonalization 0.833 0.626

Knowledgecanbeeasilyacquired fromexpertsandco-workersinyour company

0.876

Itiseasytogetface-to-faceadvice fromexpertsinyourcompany

0.771 Informaldialogsandmeetingsare

usedforknowledgesharinginyour company

0.718

Goodnessofﬁtofconﬁrmatoryfactoranalysis(CFA):2₍₂₂₄₎₌_288.74₍_p₌_0.002);

NFI=0.90;NNFI=0.96;CFI=0.97;IFI=0.98;RMSEA=0.04.

References

Aﬁouni,F.(2007).Humanresourcemanagementandknowledgemanagement:A roadmaptowardimprovingorganizationalperformance.JournalofAmerican AcademyofBusiness,11(2),124–130.

Ambrosini,V.,&Bowman,C.(2001).Tacitknowledge:Somesuggestionsfor opera-tionalization.JournalofManagementStudies,38(6),811–829.

Anderson,J.C.,&Gerbing,D.W.(1988).Structuralequationmodelinginpractice: Areviewandrecommendedtwo-stepapproach.PsychologicalBulletin,103(3), 411–423.

Aragón-Sánchez,A.,Barba-Aragón,I.,&Sanz-Valle,R.(2003).Effectsoftrainingon businessresults.InternationalJournalofHumanResourceManagement,14(6), 956–980.

Arthur,J.B.(1994).Effectsofhumanresourcesystemsonmanufacturing perfor-manceandturnover.AcademyofManagementJournal,37(3),670–687. Bagozzi,R.,&Yi,Y.(1988).Ontheevaluationofstructuralequationmodels.Academy

ofMarketingScience,16(1),74–94.

Bagozzi,R.,&Yi,Y.(2012).Speciﬁcation,evaluation,andinterpretationofstructural equationmodels.JournaloftheAcademicofMarketingScience,40,8–34.

Barney,J.(1991).Firmresourcesandsustainedcompetitiveadvantage.Journalof Management,17(1),99–120.

Baron,R.M.,&Kenny,D.A.(1986).Themoderator-mediatorvariabledistinction insocialpsychologicalresearch:Conceptual,strategicandstatistical consider-ations.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,51,1173–1182.

Batt,R.(2002).Managingcustomerservices:Humanresourcepractices,quitrates, andsalesgrowth.AcademyofManagementJournal,45(3),587–597.

Becker,B.,&Gerhart,B.(1996).Theimpactofhumanresourcemanagementon organizationalperformance:Progressandprospects.AcademyofManagement Journal,39(4),779–801.

Becker,B.,&Huselid,M.A.(1998).Highperformanceworksystemsandﬁrm per-formance:Asynthesisofresearchandmanagerialimplications.InG.R.Ferris (Ed.),ResearchinPersonnelandHumanResourcesManagement(pp.165–197). Greenwich,CT:JAIPress.

Beltrán-Martín,I.,Roca-Puig,V.,Escrig-Tena,A.,&Bou-Llusar,J.C.(2008).Human resourceﬂexibilityasamediatingvariablebetweenhighperformancework systemsandperformance.JournalofManagement,34,1009–1044.

Black,J.A.,&Boal,K.B.(1994).Strategicresources:Traits,conﬁgurationsandpathsto sustainablecompetitiveadvantage.StrategicManagementJournal,15,131–148. Chen,C.J.,&Huang,J.W.(2009).Strategichumanresourcepracticesandinnovation performance–Themediatingroleofknowledgemanagementcapacity.Journal ofBusinessResearch,62,104–114.

Chen,E.T.,Monahan,J.,&Feng,D.(2009).Alongitudinalcross-sectionexamination oftheimplementationofknowledgemanagementsystemsandﬁrm perfor-mance.JournalofInternationalTechnologyandInformationManagement,18(2), 223–238.

Choi,B.,&Lee,H.(2003).AnempiricalinvestigationofKMstylesandtheireffecton corporateperformance.Information&Management,40(5),403–417. Chou,C.P.,Bentler,P.M.,&Satorra,A.(1991).Scaledteststatisticandrobuststandard

errorsfornon-normaldataincovariancestructureanalysis.BritishJournalof MathematicalandStatisticalPsychology,44,347–357.

Chuang,C.,Jackson,S.E.,&Jiang,Y.(2013).Canknowledge-intensiveteamworkbe managed?ExaminingtherolesofHRMsystems,leadership,andtacit knowl-edge.JournalofManagement,http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206313478189 Collins,C.J.,&Clark,K.D.(2003).Strategichumanresourcepractices,top

manage-mentteamsocialnetworks,andﬁrmperformance:Theroleofhumanresource increatingorganizationalcompetitiveadvantage.AcademyofManagement Jour-nal,46(6),740–751.

Darroch,J.(2005).Knowledgemanagement,innovationandﬁrmperformance. Jour-nalofKnowledgeManagement,9(3),101–115.

Davenport,T.H.,&Völpel,S.C.(2001).Theriseofknowledgetowardsattention management.JournalofKnowledgeManagement,5(3),212–221.

Delaney,J.T.,&Huselid,M.A.(1996).Theimpactofhumanresourcemanagement practicesonperceptionsoforganizationalperformance.Academyof Manage-mentJournal,39(4),949–969.

Delery,J.E.,&Doty,D.H.(1996).Modesoftheorizinginstrategichumanresource management:Testsofuniversalistic,contingency,andconﬁgurational perfor-mancepredictions.AcademyofManagementJournal,39(4),802–835. Delery,J.E.,&Shaw,J.D.(2001).Thestrategicmanagementofpeopleinwork

organizations:Review,synthesis,andextension.InG.R.Ferris(Ed.),Research inpersonnelandhumanresourcesmanagement(20)(pp.165–197).Bingley,UK: EmeraldGroupPublishingLimited.

Fornell,C.,&Larcker,D.F.(1981).Structuralequationmodelswithunobservable variablesandmeasurementerror:Algebraandstatistics.JournalofMarketing Research,18(3),7–23.

Gerbing,D.W.,&Anderson,J.C.(1988).Anupdatedparadigmforscale develop-mentincorporatingunidimensionalityanditsassessment.JournalofMarketing Research,25(2),186–192.

Gilman,M.,&Raby,S.(2013).Nationalcontextasapredictorofhigh-performance worksystemeffectivenessinsmall-to-medium-sized enterprises(SMEs):A UK–Frenchcomparativeanalysis.InternationalJournalofHumanResource Man-agement,24,372–390.

Grant,R.M.(1996).Towardaknowledge-basedtheoryoftheﬁrm.Strategic Man-agementJournal,17,109–122.

Guest,D.E.(1997).Humanresourcemanagementandperformance:Areviewand researchagenda.InternationalJournalofHumanResourceManagement,8(3), 263–276.

Guest,D.E.,Michie,J.,Conway,N.,&Sheehan,M.(2003).Humanresource manage-mentandcorporateperformanceintheUK.BritishJournalofIndustrialRelations, 41(2),291–314.

Guthrie,J.P.(2001).High-involvementworkpractices,turnover,andproductivity: EvidencefromNewZealand.AcademyofManagementJournal,44(1),180–190. Haesli,A.,&Boxall,P.(2005).WhenknowledgemanagementmeetsHR

strat-egy:Anexplorationofpersonalization-retentionandcodiﬁcation-recruitment conﬁgurations.InternationalJournalofHumanResourceManagement,16(11), 1955–1975.

Hair,J.F.,Anderson,R.E.,Tatham,R.L.,&Black,W.C.(2006).Multivariatedata analysis.EnglewoodCliffs,NJ:PrenticeHall.

Hansen,M.T.(1999).Thesearch-transferproblem:Theroleofweaktiesin shar-ingknowledgeacrossorganizationalsubunits.AdministrativeScienceQuarterly, 44(1),82–111.

Hansen,M.T.,Nohria,N.,&Tierney,T.(1999).What’syourstrategyformanaging knowledge?HarvardBusinessReview,77(2),106–116.

Hoyle,R.H.,&Panter,A.T.(1995).Writingaboutstructuralequationmodels.InR.H. Hoyle(Ed.),Structuralequationmodeling:Concepts,issuesandapplications(pp. 158–176).ThousandOaks,CA:SagePublications.

(11)

Hsiao,Y.-C.,Chen,C.-J.,&Chang,S.-C.(2011).Knowledgemanagementcapacityand organizationalperformance:Thesocialinteractionview.InternationalJournalof Manpower,32(5/6),645–660.

Huang,C.L.(2011).Theinﬂuence ofknowledge managementimplementation onorganizationalperformanceatTaiwan-listedintegratedcircuitcompanies: Usingintellectualcapitalasthemediator.JournalofGlobalBusinessManagement, 7(2),1–17.

Huselid,M.A.(1995).Theimpactofhumanresourcemanagementpracticeson turnover,productivity,andcorporateﬁnancialperformance.Academyof Man-agementJournal,38(3),635–672.

Hussi,T.(2004).Reconﬁguringknowledgemanagement–Combiningintellectual capital,intangibleassets,andknowledgecreation.JournalofKnowledge Man-agement,8(2),36–52.

Ichniowski,C.,Shaw,K.,&Prennushi,G.(1997).Theeffectsofhumanresource prac-ticesonmanufacturingperformance:Astudyofsteelﬁnishinglines.American EconomicReview,87,291–313.

ISIC Rev. 3 Technology Intensity Deﬁnition. (2011). OECD, Online Document. Directoratefor Science, Technologyand Industry. Economic Analysis and StatisticsDivision. Availablefrom Internet:www.oecd.org/dataoecd/43/41/ 48350231.pdf(Accessed15.12.13)

Jackson,S.E.,Schuler,R.S.,&Jiang,K.(2014).Anaspirationalframeworkforstrategic humanresourcemanagement.AcademyofManagementAnnals,8,1–56. Jiang,K.,Takeuchi,R.,&Lepak,D.P.(2013).Wheredowegofromhere?New

per-spectivesontheblackboxinstrategichumanresourcemanagementresearch. JournalofManagementStudies,50(8),1448–1480.

Koch,M.J.,&McGrath,R.(1996).Improvinglaborproductivity:Humanresource managementpoliciesdomatter.StrategicManagementJournal,17,335–354. Lepak,D.P.,Takeuchi,R.,&Snell,S.A.(2003).Employmentﬂexibilityandﬁrm

perfor-mance:Examiningtheinteractioneffectsofemploymentmode,environmental dynamism,andtechnologicalintensity.JournalofManagement,29,681–703. Liao,Y.-S.(2011).Theeffectofhumanresourcemanagementcontrolsystemsonthe

relationshipbetweenknowledgemanagementstrategyandﬁrmperformance. InternationalJournalofManpower,32(5/6),494–511.

López-Nicolás,C.,&Mero ˜no-Cerdán,A.(2011).Strategicknowledgemanagement, innovationandperformance.InternationalJournalofInformationManagement, 31,502–509.

MacDufﬁe,J.P.(1995).Humanresourcebundlesandmanufacturingperformance: Organizationallogicandﬂexibleproductionsystemsintheworldautoindustry. IndustrialandLaborRelationsReview,48(2),197–221.

Marsh,H.W.,&Hocevar,D.(1985).Applicationofconﬁrmatoryfactoranalysistothe studyofself-concept:First-andhigherorderfactormodelsandtheirinvariance acrossgroups.PsychologicalBulletin,97,362–582.

Martensson,M.(2000).Acriticalreviewofknowledgemanagementasa manage-menttool.JournalofKnowledgeManagement,4(3),204–216.

Meso,P.,&Smith,R.(2000).Aresource-basedviewoforganizationalknowledge managementsystems.JournalofKnowledgeManagement,4(3),224–234. Mills,A.M.,&Smith,T.A.(2011).Knowledgemanagementandorganizational

performance:Adecomposedview.JournalofKnowledgeManagement,15(1), 156–171.

Nonaka,I.,&Takeuchi,H.(1995).Theknowledge-creatingcompany:HowJapanese companiescreatethedynamicsofinnovation.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress. Oltra,V.(2005).Knowledgemanagementeffectivenessfactors:TheroleofHRM.

JournalofKnowledgeManagement,9,70–86.

PalaciosMarqués,D.,&GarrigósSimón,F.J.(2006).Theeffectofknowledge manage-mentpracticesonﬁrmperformance.JournalofKnowledgeManagement,10(3), 143–156.

Pfeffer,J.(1994).Competitiveadvantagethroughpeople.Boston:HarvardBusiness Press.

Podsakoff,P.M.,MacKenzie,S.B.,Lee,J.Y.,&Podsakoff,N.P.(2003).Common methodbiasesinbehaviouralresearch:Acriticalreviewoftheliteratureand recommendedremedies.JournalofAppliedPsychology,88,879–903.

Podsakoff,P.M.,MacKenzie,S.B.,&Podsakoff,N.P.(2012).Sourcesofmethodbias insocialscienceresearchandrecommendationsonhowtocontrolit.Annual ReviewofPsychology,63,539–569.

Polanyi,M.(1966).Thetacitdimension.Chicago:TheUniversityofChicagoPress. Raˇsula,J.,BosiljVukˇsi ´c,V.,&Indihar ˇStemberger,M.(2012).Theimpactofknowledge

managementonorganisationalperformance.EconomicandBusinessReview, 14(2),147–168.

Sanchez-Marin,G.,&Baixauli-Soler,J.S.(2015).TMTpaydispersionandﬁrm perfor-mance:Themoderatingroleoforganizationalgovernanceeffectiveness.Journal ofManagement&Organization,21(4),436–459.

Sanchez-Marin,G.,Baixauli-Soler,J.S.,&Lucas-Perez,M.E.(2011).Ownership struc-tureandboardeffectivenessasdeterminantsofTMTcompensationinSpanish listedﬁrms.JournalofBusinessEconomicsandManagement,12(1),92–109. Salojärvi,S.,Furu,P.,&Sveiby,K.-E.(2005).Knowledgemanagementandgrowthin

FinnishSMEs.JournalofKnowledgeManagement,9(2),103–122.

Satorra,A.,&Bentler,P.M.(1994).Correctionstoteststatisticsandstandarderrors incovariancestructureanalysis.InA.V.Eye,&C.C.Clogg(Eds.),Latentvariables analysis:Applicationsfordevelopmentalresearch(pp.399–419).ThousandOaks, CA:Sage.

Scholl,W.,Koenig,C.,Meyer,B.,&Heisig,P.(2004).Thefutureofknowledge man-agement:AninternationalDelphistudy.JournalofKnowledgeManagement,8(2), 19–35.

Seleim,A.,&Khalil,O.(2007).Knowledgemanagementandorganizational per-formanceintheEgyptiansoftwareﬁrms.InternationalJournalofKnowledge Management,3(4),37–66.

Shih,H.A.,&Chiang,Y.H.(2005).StrategyalignmentbetweenHRM,KM,and cor-poratedevelopment.InternationalJournalofManpower,26(6),582–603. Snell,S.A., & Youndt,M. A.(1995).Human resource management and ﬁrm

performance:Testingacontingencymodelofexecutivecontrols.Journalof Man-agement,21(4),711–737.

Sobel,M.E.(1982).Asymptoticconﬁdenceintervalsforindirecteffectsinstructural equationmodels.InS.Leinhardt(Ed.),Sociologicalmethodology(pp.290–312). Washington,DC:AmericanSociologicalAssociation.

Soliman,F.,&Spooner,K.(2000).Strategiesforimplementingknowledge manage-ment:Roleofhumanresourcesmanagement.JournalofKnowledgeManagement, 4(4),337–345.

Spender,J.C.(1996).Makingknowledgethebasisofadynamictheoryoftheﬁrm. StrategicManagementJournal,17,45–62.

Svetlik, I.,&Stavrou-Costea,E. (2007).Connectinghuman resources manage-mentandknowledgemanagement.InternationalJournalofManpower,28(3/4), 197–206.

Theriou,G.N.,&Chatzoglou,P.D.(2008).Enhancingperformancethroughbest HRMpractices,organizationallearningandknowledgemanagement.European BusinessReview,20(3),185–207.

Wang,K.-L.,Chiang,C.,&Tung,C.-M.(2012).Integratinghumanresource manage-mentandknowledgemanagement:Fromtheviewpointofcoreemployeesand organizationalperformance.InternationalJournalofOrganizationalInnovation, 5(1),109–137.

Wernerfelt,B.(1984).Aresource-basedviewoftheﬁrm.StrategicManagement

Journal,5(2),171–180.

West,S.G.,Finch,J.F.,&Curran,P.J.(1995).Structuralequationmodelswith non-normalvariables:Problemsandremedies.InR.H.Hoyle(Ed.),Structuralequation modeling:Concepts,issuesandapplications(pp.56–75).ThousandOaks,CA:Sage Publications.

Yahya,S.,&Goh,W.-K.(2002).Managinghumanresourcestowardachieving knowl-edgemanagement.JournalofKnowledgeManagement,6(5),457–468. Yang,J.(2010).Theknowledgemanagementstrategyanditseffectonﬁrm

per-formance:Acontingencyanalysis.InternationalJournalofProductionEconomics, 125,215–223.

Youndt,M.A.,Snell,S.A.,Dean,J.W.,&Lepak,D.P.(1996).Humanresource manage-ment,manufacturingstrategy,andﬁrmperformance.AcademyofManagement Journal,39(4),836–866.

Zattoni,A.,Gnan,L.,&Huse,M.(2012).Doesfamilyinvolvementinﬂuenceﬁrm performance?Exploringthemediatingeffectsofboardprocessesandtasks.

Jour-nalofManagement,http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206312463936(Published