Motivation

Astudy by Tampoe (1993) identified four key motivators for knowledge workers:


1. Personal growth – the opportunity for individuals to fully realize their potential.

2. Occupational autonomy – a work environment in which knowledge workers can achieve the task assigned to them.

3. Task achievement – a sense of accomplishment from producing work that is of high quality and relevance to the organization.

4. Money rewards – an income that is a just reward for their contribution to corporate success and that symbolizes their contribution to that success.


Hansen et al (1999) state that in their ‘codification model’, managers need to develop a system that encourages people to write down what they know and to get these documents into the electronics depository. They believe that real incentives – not just enticements – are required to get people to take these steps. In companies following the personalization model, rewards for sharing knowledge directly with other people may have to be different. Direct financial rewards for contributing to the codification and sharing of knowledge may often be inappropriate, but this could be a subject for discussion in a performance review as part of a performance management process.

Performance management 

The promotion and development of performance management processes by HR can make an important contribution to knowledge management, by providing for behavioural expectations which are related to knowledge-sharing to be defined, and ensuring that actual behaviours are reviewed and, where appropriate, rewarded by financial or non-financial means. Performance management reviews can identify weaknesses and development needs in this aspect and initiate personal development plans which are designed to meet these needs. 

One starting point for the process could be the cascading of corporate core values for knowledge-sharing to individuals, so that they understand what they are expected to do to support those core values. As mentioned earlier, knowledgesharing can be included as an element of a competency framework, and the desired behaviour would be spelt out and reviewed. For example, positive indicators such as those listed below could be used as a basis for agreeing competency requirements and assessing the extent to which they are met. The following are examples of positive behaviour in meeting competency expectations for knowledge-sharing:

● is eager to share knowledge with colleagues; 

● takes positive steps to set up group meetings to exchange relevant information and knowledge; 

● builds networks which provide for knowledge sharing; 

● ensures as appropriate that knowledge is captured, codified, recorded and disseminated through the intranet and/or other means of communication.

Hansen et almention that at Ernst & Young, consultants are evaluated at performance reviews along five dimensions, one of which is their ‘contribution to and utilization of the knowledge asset of the firm’. At Bain, partners are evaluated each year on a variety of dimensions, including how much direct help they have given colleagues. 

In a 360-degree feedback process (see Chapter 34), one of the dimensions for an assessment by colleagues and direct reports could be the extent to which an individual shares knowledge.