Search results

This paper aims to develop a reliable and valid scale for measuring the underlying knowledge involved in work. To do so, it builds on the knowledge-in-practice (KIP) framework that suggests different types of work have different underlying knowledge characteristics. This allows us to answer two important questions: What are the underlying characteristics of KIP that are important to effectively manage a firm’s knowledge resources? How do we measure these characteristics? The answers help to build theoretical and empirical understanding of the construct of KIP.

The study uses a discovery-oriented survey design methodology to design the survey instrument, followed by a mixed-methods approach to validate the scale.

A new scale is developed for measuring the tacitness and learnability of the knowledge involved in work. It allows work units to be evaluated based on the underlying knowledge involved in different types of work.

The KIP scale can be used for measuring the type of knowledge characteristics in organizations. Academics can use this study as a basic model to explore knowledge across different contexts and focus on the different characteristics within and across work contexts.

The study provides a clearer and more granular understanding of knowledge in organizations that can be used as a guideline to refer to when measuring and assessing knowledge requirements.

Scholars have pushed to understand work from a knowledge and collaboration perspective. A measurement scale for the KIP framework provides a critical first step towards this outcome.

Prior literature has established the theoretical and statistical linkages between monetary compensation and firm performance, yet little is known about how the association between monetary compensation and firm performance is moderated by companies’ engagement in corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities. Further, compared to executive compensation, non-executive compensation remains an underexplored topic. The purpose of this paper is to investigate how workforce-oriented CSR moderates: first, the association between non-executive compensation and firm performance; and second, the association between executive compensation and firm performance.

Using a sample of 181 from the largest 3,000 US companies for the years 1991-2011, the authors investigate how workforce-oriented CSR moderates the association between compensation and firm performance. Compensation is examined at two levels – non-executive versus executive compensation. The workforce-oriented CSR score is constructed as total strengths minus total concerns in Kinder, Lydenberg, and Domini’s employee relations dimension.

The authors find an improvement in firm performance with increases in both non-executive and executive compensation. Further, workforce-oriented CSR positively moderates the association between non-executive compensation and firm performance, and negatively moderates the association between executive compensation and firm performance.

This study adds to the literature of the compensation-performance linkage by including both non-executive and executive compensation as important determinants of firm performance and incorporating workforce-oriented CSR as a moderator on the compensation-performance linkage. It also provides new angles for CSR scholars.

This study helps managers understand the importance of fulfilling employees’ social emotional needs and the potential of workforce-oriented CSR in shaping employees’ perceived distributive justice. The findings also help managers make critical decisions regarding the allocation of limited corporate resources and prioritization of investment options. In addition, the findings are also useful to boards of directors and human resources managers who are in charge of hiring executives, building top management teams, and deciding executive compensation.

This study helps advance our understanding of the compensation-performance linkage. The results suggest that the relationship between compensation and financial performance is contingent on other organizational factors. In addition, the findings provide practical implications on how CSR engagement moderates the association between non-executive compensation and firm performance differently than the association between executive compensation and firm performance and how to allocate corporate resources and prioritize strategic options effectively.