A Model of the Transfer of Knowledge in Human Resources Management

A Model of the Transfer of Knowledge in Human Resources Management

This chapter presents a model of the transfer of knowledge in HRM and argues that there are reciprocal relations among HRM practice, research, and education. However, current problems in the transfer of knowledge prevent (a) the results of research from being incorporated into HRM practice and (b) changes in practice from influencing HRM research and education. Thus, we explain how the transfer of knowledge system can become more integrated, using examples of how changes in HRM technology influence HRM research and education. In addition, we offer suggestions for generating research in HRM and revitalizing HRM educational systems.

Academicians in the field of HRM are concerned with facilitating the transfer of knowledge between research and practice (Baldwin & Ford, 1983; [Page 202]Dunnette, 1991; Latham & Daghighi Latham, 2003). However, there is often a discrepancy between the goals of academicians (e.g., generating and disseminating scientific knowledge) and the goals of HRM practitioners (e.g., increasing the effectiveness of organizations; Latham & Daghighi Latham, 2003). For example, although research suggests that HRM practitioners should evaluate recruitment yield ratios, fewer than 5% of companies actually calculate them (Bernardin & Russell, 1998). Likewise, research shows that situational or structured interviews are more valid than unstructured interviews, but only 18% of companies use situational interviews (Bernardin & Russell, 1998). Similarly, in spite of the fact that performance appraisal research indicates that traits should not be included on rating forms and that rater training enhances the effectiveness of ratings, 75% of firms still include traits on rating forms, and fewer than 24% train raters (Bernardin & Russell, 1998). Thus, it is clear that much research-based knowledge is not being used in organizations. In addition, many academicians (Dunnette, 1991) contend that HRM research is often barren because it is divorced from the reality of organizational contexts. Similarly, we believe that HRM educational programs are often inconsistent with the practice of HRM. As a result, some academicians have lamented that HR education has become stagnant, and questioned whether “HR education is dead or just sleeping” (Scarpello, 2002).

It should be evident from the above that there is a growing concern about the transfer of knowledge among HRM research, education, and practice. For instance, the examples just noted suggest that there are barriers in the transfer of knowledge system that prevent scientific knowledge from being used in organizations (Dunnette, 1991), and there are obstacles that prevent changes in HRM practice from influencing both research and education (Latham & Daghighi Latham, 2003). For example, although there have been numerous changes in HRM practice in recent years (e.g., globalization, increased use of technology, outsourcing), relatively little research has focused on these and other critical issues facing HRM practitioners. In addition, HRM educational curricula continue to focus primarily on functional processes rather than the issues that actually confront organizations. Thus, the primary purposes of the chapter are to (a) present a model of the reciprocal relations among HRM research, education, and practice, and (b) illustrate these relations with reference to the impact of technology on HRM.

...