P1: GDW

Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal [jerrj] pp590-errj-379291 August 27, 2002 12:56 Style file version May 30th, 2002

Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, Vol. 14, Nos. 2/3, September 2002 (°
C 2002)

Employee Rights, Employee Responsibilities

and Knowledge Sharing in Intelligent Organization
Sandra Jones1

Much is currently being written about the need to encourage employees to share knowledge
in order for companies to maintain a role as an intelligent organization in a technologically
sophisticated environment. However, there is little written of the relationship between em-
ployee rights to satisfactory employment conditions, employee responsibilities in decision-
making, and employee willingness to share their knowledge collaboratively. This paper
seeks to redress this gap by discussing the importance of the relationship between employee
rights and responsibilities and employee willingness to share knowledge. The reaction of
a group of employees (academics) employed in an Intelligent Organization (university) to
a reduction in their rights and responsibilities is discussed in order to design a frame-
work of employee rights and responsibilities required for knowledge sharing in intelligent
organizations.
KEY WORDS: knowledge sharing; employee participation; employment conditions; intelligent organizations;
universities; employee rights.

INTELLIGENT ORGANIZATIONS AND KNOWLEDGE

It is argued that competition in the technologically sophisticated twenty-first century

requires “intelligent organizations” that manage knowledge rather than rely on hard assets.
In the early 1990s, Quinn stated that the value of goods and services would be based pri-
marily on the development of knowledge-based intangibles including “technical know-how,
product design, marketing presentations, understanding customers, personal creativity, and
innovation” (Quinn, 1992, p. 241). More recently, Allee (1997) has argued that knowledge
has to be developed constantly and shared collectively in order to facilitate a fundamental
change in thinking from that based on Newtonian to one based on quantum physics.
Recognition of the importance of knowledge for organizational development is not
new. In the late nineteenth century, Marshall (1890/1920) argued that knowledge was the
most important engine of production. In the 1960s, Machlup (1984) argued that knowledge
was a major item of production within the U.S. economy. One hundred years after Marshall,
Senge (1990) argued that the ability to learn and to gain leverage from learning is a critical
1 School
of Management, The University of the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, GPO Box 2476V,
Melbourne, Australia; e-mail: sandra.jones@rmit.edu.au.

69
0892-7545/02/0900-0069/0 °
C 2002 Plenum Publishing Corporation
P1: GDW
Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal [jerrj] pp590-errj-379291 August 27, 2002 12:56 Style file version May 30th, 2002

70 Jones

skill for future success. By the late 1990s, Herzenberg et al. (1998, p. 91) have argued that the
“transfer and sharing of knowledge holds considerable untapped potential for performance
gains.” What has changed is that technology has increased exponentially the ability to trans-
fer data within and between organizations. McDermott claims that information technology
led many companies to imagine a new world of leveraged knowledge:
companies believe that if they could get people to simply document their insights and draw on each
other’s work they could create a web of global knowledge that would enable their staff to work
with greater efficiency and effectiveness. (McDermott, 2000, p. 22)

Despite this potential, the reality of knowledge sharing is minimal. In 1999, a survey by the
“Foundation for the Baldridge award” found that, of the 3000 CEOs surveyed, all ranked
knowledge management second in importance after global trends. Of these, however, only
30% felt they had come out of the “Trough of Disillusionment” and were heading towards
productivity improvement (Ruggles & Holthouse, 1999, p. 11). This has led to discussion
on what constitutes knowledge and how data collected by technology is transformed into
information and knowledge (Davenport & Prusak, 1998).
It is acknowledged that knowledge is not one entity. Knowledge can be explicit (open)
or tacit (within the heads of employees; Leonard-Barton, 1995; Nonaka, 1998; Nonaka
& Takeushi, 1995). Humans are required to interpret the explicit data that is more easily
collated and stored by computers. Humans also need to be encouraged to reflect upon,
and share, their tacit knowledge. Accordingly, it is argued, intelligent organizations need
to develop a culture and practices that support knowledge sharing (Long & Fahey, 2000).
This requires organizations to better manage their intellectual resources and capabilities
(Zack, 1999). This means exploring ways to encourage employees to share their knowledge
by tapping the tacit knowledge, that is the subjective insights, intuitions, and hunches of
individual employees (Nonaka, 1998).
Such discussion has produced a spate of literature on how to encourage knowledge
sharing. First, there are those who argue the need for improved recruitment practices to
ensure that companies employ people who are good “knowledge transmitters as well as
knowledge-creators” (Leonard-Barton, 1995, p. 10). For some, this illustrates the need to
ensure that information professionals are able to not only collect data and provide it in
context, but also to choose the right presentation medium by which to provide it to non-
IT users (Davenport, 1997). For others, starting from a broader definition of a knowledge
worker as any “person dealing in data and ideas” (Cordata, 1998, p. xiii), a new role for all
employees is envisaged. This new role requires all employees to be encouraged and trained
to ask not “How do I do the job right?”—but—“What is the right job to do?” (Kelly, 1997,
p. 137). This requires a more fundamental “socio-organizational and strategic change”
(Bartoli & Hermel, 2001, p. 16) that encourages a cultural change from the individual
employee to groups of employees working together to develop “collective capacities of
listening, and a shared motivation” (Bartoli & Hermel, 2001, p. 33).
The need for a collective approach has produced arguments for acknowledging and
supporting communities of practice. These communities are defined as “collections of in-
dividuals bound by informal relationships that share similar work roles and a common
context” (Snyder [1997] quoted in Lesser & Prusak, 2000, p. 125). They share the capacity
to create and use organizational knowledge through informal learning and mutual engage-
ment (Wenger, 2000, p. 3). They also require a new relationship between managers and
employees, as managers need to steward, rather than manage, knowledge. Wenger states
P1: GDW
Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal [jerrj] pp590-errj-379291 August 27, 2002 12:56 Style file version May 30th, 2002

Employee Rights and Responsibilities—The Missing Link for Knowledge Sharing 71

“knowledge managers who think that their role is to manage knowledge had better think
twice. Knowledge is not an object that can be managed from outside” (Wenger, 2000, p. 18).
The idea that there is need for a new relationship between employees and employers is
supported in the literature. Kelly claims that the new networked economy, although founded
on technology, is built on relationships: “It starts with chips and ends with trust” (Kelly, 1997,
p. 137). Seely Brown and Duguid (2000, p. 117) argue that employees in corporations that
treat information as a commodity, and that allow unequal bargaining power in the negotiation
of terms of exchange, will be less able to “surrender their knowledge freely.” Thus it is
acknowledged that there is need of a new organizational culture in which knowledge does
not bestow special benefits or power. Long and Fahey (2000) claim that if employees fear
that what they know may incur personal risk and threaten their power this will decrease
their willingness to interact with others.
Davenport and Prusak recognize that this change will not be easy given the history of
knowledge as a source of power. They state that knowledge management is a highly political
undertaking given a history in which those who know have power and those who have power
will have control over who knows what. In these circumstances knowledge management
activities aimed at sharing knowledge threaten this power (Davenport & Prusak, 1998).
To overcome this limitation Davenport (1997) suggests a new total systems approach
that he terms “Information Ecology.” This approach takes account of all of a firm’s values
and beliefs about information (culture); how people actually use information and what they
do with it (behavior and work processes); the pitfalls that can interfere with information
sharing (politics); and what information systems are already in place (technology).
Despite recognition of the extent of change required to the management–employee
relationship there is little detailed discussion about how this can be achieved, particularly
how to encourage employees to share their knowledge. There appears to be an assumption
that employees, once they understand the importance of knowledge, will be willing to share
it. This is an extraordinary assumption given that the outcome of recent workplace reforms
(Total Quality Management, Best Practice and Business Process Engineering) has been to
require employees to be more flexible and to accept reduced autonomy as their performance
is monitored. At the same time employees are required to accept reduced remuneration, and
less security of employment. This assumption also ignores the negative effects of reduced
employment conditions in many emerging industries. For example, Frenkel et al. describe
employment in call centers as:

external recruitment based on criteria that substantially restricted the number of likely candidates;
training for job proficiency rather than employee development; limited employment security and few
internal career opportunities; and reward systems that discriminated in favor of higher performing
and skilled Customer Service Representatives. (Frenkel et al., 1998, p. 966)

In these circumstances, ignoring the relationship between employee rights to improved em-
ployment conditions, employee responsibilities in company decision-making, and employee
willingness to share knowledge, is curious. This is especially so given the extent of literature
in the 1990s that argued that there is a positive link between improved employment condi-
tions, employee participation in decision-making, and productivity improvement. The next
section revisits this literature before presenting a case study of the effects of recent changes
to employment conditions and employee responsibility in decision-making on employee
willingness to share knowledge, in an intelligent organization.
P1: GDW
Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal [jerrj] pp590-errj-379291 August 27, 2002 12:56 Style file version May 30th, 2002

72 Jones

EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS, EMPLOYEE RESPONSIBILITIES,

AND WORKPLACE REFORM

Labor process theory has long argued that employee rights will not be maximized
in a capitalist society in which there is an inevitable unequal distribution of power be-
tween management, who hold decision-making responsibility, and employees who do as
they are told (Braverman, 1974). This provided the basis for the union movement to ar-
gue that it collectively represents employees in arguing for improve employment condi-
tions, and as a means of “countervailing power” to management. Industrial democracy, it
was initially argued, can only be achieved by unions outside the organization engaging in
collective bargaining with managers inside the organization (Webb & Webb, 1897). This
argument was questioned in the 1960s by writers such as Flanders (1968) who argued
that collective bargaining from outside the organization may confine worker representa-
tives to economic, or labor market matters, rather than enabling an extension of worker
responsibility into labor process matters. Clegg (1961) argued that although collective
bargaining should be the prime focus of union activity it was possible for workers to
be involved in decision-making at lower levels of management where they have special-
ist knowledge. Such arguments were reiterated in the 1970s through to the early 1990s
as unions argued that workforce participation could assist in productivity improvements
that were then partly distributed to employees through improved employment conditions
(Australian Council of Trade Unions [ACTU], 1988). At the same time it was agreed
that employee participation would lead to a reduction in the frontiers of control between
managers and employees (Batstone, 1984; Brown, 1981; Edwards, 1979; Kochan et al.,
1984; Millward & Stevens, 1986; Sisson, 1987). Indeed Poole (1975, p. 24) argued that
worker participation is the principle means by which workers gain greater control over their
working lives.
Management theory, although historically arguing for “managerial prerogative” as part
of Taylor’s (1964) managerial control concepts, began to recognize the need to satisfy a
broader range of employee needs through greater employee involvement as part of a so-
ciotechnical system (Trist, 1981). This went further than Maslow’s (1954) “needs hierarchy”
and questioned the frontier of management control.
By the late 1980s, management theory advocated improved quality of working life and
increased employee participation in decision-making in order to satisfy employee needs for
self fulfilment and encourage their participation in productivity and quality improvement.
Researchers on best practice in the United States found that successful companies were
characterized by significant levels of participation by employees on a wide range of matters
(Dertouzos et al., 1989). Deming (often considered the father of the quality movement)
stated that employees ability to improve quality was handicapped by the system that be-
longed to management (Deming, 1982). In an international study of the motor vehicle
industry, Womack et al. (1990) concluded that there was need for new structure of manage-
ment with fewer layers of middle management and senior management. The conclusion in
a 1994 U.K. government report was that effective employee involvement was a prerequisite
for business growth (Fernie & Metcalf, 1995). Kaufman (1992, p. 37) provides a good
summary of these claims “without the participation of both parties to the employment rela-
tionship, the firm will not be a viable concern and neither profit nor wages will be earned.” In
response management encouraged employees to participate in quality circles (Imai, 1986;
P1: GDW
Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal [jerrj] pp590-errj-379291 August 27, 2002 12:56 Style file version May 30th, 2002

Employee Rights and Responsibilities—The Missing Link for Knowledge Sharing 73

Watanabe, 1991), in teams (Bryant et al., 1994; Kinlaw, 1991; Ray & Bronstein, 1995;
Wellins et al., 1991), and on consultative committees (Jones, 2000; Marchington, 1990;
Morehead et al., 1995).
Despite the rhetoric there is little evidence of any major long-term increase in em-
ployee participation in company decision-making or any improvement in employee rights.
Indeed Marchington et al. (1993) claim that teams were not designed to substantially al-
ter the existing governance in organizations. While Lawler and Mohrman (1985) state that
generally quality circles in American companies were restricted to recommending solutions
for quality and productivity problems to management. Similarly, only 33% of companies
involved in the “Best Practice Demonstration Project” in Australian in the early 1990s
had empowered their direct employees with control over their daily work and in only two
companies were direct employees involved in strategic decision-making (Rimmer et al.,
1996, p. 55). From her detailed study of the relationship between workforce participation
and workplace reform in three automotive components companies in Australia in the early
1990s, Jones concluded that despite the rhetoric of improved employment conditions and
increased employee responsibility in decision-making, there was little demonstration of
this in practice (Jones, 2000). Indeed it is claimed that in some organizations teams led to
increased management surveillance and control, diminished employee discretion, increased
stress, and new peer group pressure (Delbridge, 1998; Graham, 1995; Parker & Slaughter,
1988a,b; Stewart & Garrahan, 1995).
In summary, it appears that managerial support for employee participation in the period
immediately preceding the Internet explosion was designed to increase employee satisfac-
tion without increasing employee rights to improved employment conditions or increase
employee responsibility in decision-making. Given this, it is not surprising that current
discussion on how to increase knowledge sharing within intelligent organizations focuses
on the role of managers rather than addressing how to increase employee rights to improved
employment conditions or increased responsibilities to participate in decision-making. In-
deed many writers claim that managerial roles should be strengthened. Nonaka (1998) and
Nonaka and Takeushi (1995) propose a model in which senior managers become knowledge
officers who articulate company strategy and provide the conceptual framework through
metaphors, symbols, and concepts that “orient the knowledge-creating activities of employ-
ees” (Nonaka, 1998, p. 40). Middle managers become knowledge engineers who retain their
role as a link between senior managers and workers and serve as, “a bridge between vision-
ary ideals of the top and the often chaotic reality of those on the front-line of the business”
(Nonaka & Takeushi, 1995, p. 5). In this way they are seen as providing employees with
a “conceptual framework that helps them make sense of their own experience” (Nonaka,
1998, p. 40).
In contrast to these assumptions it is proposed that unless employees are provided with
the opportunity for increased responsibility through participation in decision-making, and
that unless employee conditions of employment are improved, they will have little incentive
to share their knowledge and assist companies to become intelligent organizations. To test
this theory, the next section explores the willingness of academics (employees) employed in
Australian universities (intelligent organizations) to share their knowledge as their degree
of responsibility over decision-making decreases and their employment conditions decline.
This experience is then used to develop a framework of employee rights and responsibilities
for an intelligent organization.
P1: GDW
Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal [jerrj] pp590-errj-379291 August 27, 2002 12:56 Style file version May 30th, 2002

74 Jones

ACADEMIC RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES IN A TECHNOLOGICALLY

ENHANCED INDUSTRY

Universities, it has been claimed, are all about knowledge, and the key to the future lies
in considering their capacity to produce knowledge, to process it in a sophisticated way, to
understand and use it, and to diffuse knowledge and exploit it (Senate Employment Work-
place Relations, 2001, p. 13). Universities in Australia have traditionally been the major
source of graduates with advanced skill, systems understanding, and intuition. Demands for
graduates with self-motivated creativity and the ability to extract information from those
who have it, put it in a structured form, and maintain and refine it over time, places further
pressure on universities (Davenport & Prusak, 1998).
Faced with pressure to increase graduate capabilities, rely more upon private self-
funding public, and provide for a more diverse educational community, Australian univer-
sities have had to reconsider both what educational opportunities to offer and how to offer
them. Students now demand greater flexibility through “virtual” educational opportunities,
a more student-centred approach that recognizes capabilities developed though experi-
ence, and emphasis on the global factors affecting business (Nunan, 1999). Universities,
it is claimed, need to develop a knowledge management strategy underpinned by technol-
ogy that can spearhead a strategically guided approach to technology-mediated instruction
(Privateer, 1999).
The strategies being developed by universities require academics, previously employed
to teach students detailed discipline content, to design educational experiences that are
student-centred, interdisciplinary, and focussed on developing graduates with knowledge
and skill capabilities. Duderstadt (1998) claimed that although the primary mission of the
university is not changing, the particular realization of each of these roles is changing
dramatically as the university evolves into a global knowledge industry.
Universities have historically been places of work in which individual academics with
research expertize in a discrete area of study are encouraged to undertake research in their
discipline and to translate this research into teaching and learning opportunities for students
in that discipline. In this process academics have traditionally had full autonomy over the
process from the discovery of the knowledge, the method used to integrate and interpret it,
and finally to the means used to convey it to students and to assess student abilities. Current
changes are reducing the autonomy of academics to decide what and how to teach and
research. A recent submission to a Senate Inquiry on Australia’s higher education needs
stated that academics are losing authority—“to students on the one hand and to managers
on another” (Senate Employment Workplace Relations, 2001, p. 5).
For example, technology can expand the opportunity to develop a student-directed
teaching environment by assisting academics to model real world activities, create inter-
active opportunities for students, and support a two-way dialogue between teacher and
students. However, many academics do not have the skills to adapt to a new role as a facil-
itator of knowledge “preparing, supervising and de-briefing the multimedia assisted learn-
ing and providing students with interactive access to large text and audio-based learning”
(Laurillard, 1994, p. 21). This is illustrated in literature on academic experiences of teach-
ing on-line. Hannah (1997) claimed that new forms of expertize are required for electronic
inquiry and discourse. Smith (1997) argued that teachers have to continually develop new
multimedia skills in order to constantly recreate the instructional process and offer a variety
P1: GDW
Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal [jerrj] pp590-errj-379291 August 27, 2002 12:56 Style file version May 30th, 2002

Employee Rights and Responsibilities—The Missing Link for Knowledge Sharing 75

of choices. Collings (1999) identified that there are different knowledge and skills required
for teaching or “real work” compared to that required for “articulation” or the use of the
information technology infrastructure to support teaching.
Academic resentment at this decline in their autonomy has reduced their preparedness
to share knowledge at the very time that intelligent organizations need both these factors
to increase. This is demonstrated by the increased reference by academics to, and increase
disputes with their employer over, “intellectual property rights.” Jones (2001) has argued
that academics are loath to collaborate through fear of their contribution not being rec-
ognized, as well as concern that they do not possess all the required skills to continue to
work autonomously. This outcome was not unexpected. Davenport and Prusak (1998) have
claimed that knowledge will not be shared if there is fear or feelings of not being valued
and receiving an acceptable return.
Given this resistance, universities are being forced into reconsidering employment con-
ditions so that individual contributions to knowledge sharing and collaboration are rewarded
and recognized (Jones, 2001). Promotion based on individual discipline-based research out-
put, and quality awards based on individual “teaching excellence” need to be reconsidered.
Decision-making about the technology driven teaching process needs to allow academic
input to develop appropriate student-centred teaching experiences with technology aug-
menting rather than replacing face-to-face contact (Jones & Richardson, 2002).
This case study of academic response to a reduction in their right to make decisions and
to work autonomously is evidence of the direct relationship between employment condi-
tions, levels of responsibility, and employee preparedness to share knowledge. As employee
rights to improved employment conditions are reduced and their level of participation in
decision-making is reduced, so is their preparedness to share knowledge. Given this the next
section presents a framework of employee rights and responsibilities that aims to maximise
employee knowledge sharing.

A KNOWLEDGE SHARING MATRIX FOR

AN INTELLIGENT ORGANIZATION

A framework for an intelligent organizations designed to share knowledge is pre-

sented in Fig. 1. This framework identifies first, various levels of employee participation
that affords employees increasing levels of responsibility (y axis). Employee participation
is shown as progressing from zero (where employees simply follow instructions) to a maxi-
mum where employees are self-managed. In between these points employees are gradually
given more responsibility as managers inform, then consult, then involve employees in joint
decision-making. Second, there are different types of employee rights (x axis). Employ-
ment conditions vary from simply providing payment in exchange for labor, to providing a
healthy and safe work environment in which social contact is encouraged, employee effort
is recognized and employees have some degree of autonomy over their work.
The combination of these factors suggests that the higher the degree of employee
participation in decision-making, and the more employment conditions are satisfied, the
greater will be the preparedness of employees to share knowledge. This then has implications
for both organizational structure and organizational culture. It suggests that improving
employment conditions is a necessary, but not sufficient, requirement for knowledge sharing.
Intelligent organizations also have to reconsider their decision-making structure.
P1: GDW
Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal [jerrj] pp590-errj-379291 August 27, 2002 12:56 Style file version May 30th, 2002

76 Jones

Fig. 1. A knowledge sharing matrix for an intelligent organization.

CONCLUSION

This paper sought to explore the relationship between employee rights to improved
employment conditions and employee responsibility to participate in decision-making, and
employee willingness to share their knowledge collaboratively. It was argued that despite
acknowledgement of the need for employees to share their knowledge, little has been writ-
ten on how to encourage such knowledge sharing. The paper sought to reduce this gap
by exploring the proposition that unless employees are provided with the opportunity for
increased responsibility through participation in decision-making, and unless employee
conditions of employment are improved, employees will have little incentive to share their
knowledge and thus assist companies to become intelligent organizations. A case-study of
the response of academics to a reduction in their rights and responsibilities supported this
proposition, and resulted in the proposed framework of employee rights and responsibilities
that aims to maximize employee knowledge sharing. This framework suggests that improv-
ing employment conditions is a necessary, but not sufficient, requirement for knowledge
sharing. Intelligent organizations also have to reconsider their decision-making structure.
This framework is presented for further testing as organizations consider their approach to
becoming intelligent organizations.
P1: GDW
Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal [jerrj] pp590-errj-379291 August 27, 2002 12:56 Style file version May 30th, 2002

Employee Rights and Responsibilities—The Missing Link for Knowledge Sharing 77

REFERENCES

Allee, V. (1997). The Knowledge Evolution. Newtown, MA: Butterworth–Heinemann.

Australian Council of Trade Unions [ACTU] (1988). Blueprint for Changing Awards and Agreements. Melbourne:
Australian Council of Trade Unions.
Bartoli, A., & Hermel, P. (2001). Barriers to innovation in the management of information technologies. In
Terziovski, M. (Ed.), Proceedings 5th International and 8th National Research Conference on Quality and
Innovation Management, Melbourne, Feb. 2001, 13–36.
Batsone, E. (1984). Working Order. Oxford: Blackwell.
Braverman, H. (1974). Labor and Monopoly Capital. Ithaca: Monthly Review Press.
Brown, W. A. (Ed.) (1981). The Changing Contours of British Industrial Relations. Oxford: Blackwell.
Bryant, B., Farhy, N., & Griffiths, A. (1994). Self Managing Teams and Changing Supervisory Roles. Sydney:
Centre for Corporate Change.
Clegg, H. A. (1961). A New Approach to Industrial Democracy. London: Blackwell.
Collings, P. (1999). Sustaining academics’ agency in determining work practices in information technology-
mediated teaching and learning. In HERDSA Annual Conference—Proceedings, Melbourne, July 1999, 1–13.
Cordata, J. (Ed.) (1998). Rise of the Knowledge Worker. Newtown, MA: Butterworth–Heinemann.
Davenport, T. (1997). Information Ecology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Davenport, T., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working Knowledge. Boston: Harvard Business Press.
Delbridge, R. (1998). Teams in contemporary manufacturing: Some recent research findings and some pressing
questions. Paper presented at the Second International Teamworking Workshop, Adelaide, Sept. 23–25.
Deming, W. E. (1982). Quality, Productivity and Competitive Position. Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Centre for Advanced Engineering.
Dertouzos, M., Lester, R., & Solow, R. (1989). Made in America: Regaining the Productive Edge. New York:
Harper Perennial Press.
Duderstadt, J. (1998). The future of the university in an age of knowledge. Journal of Asynchronous Learning
Networks, 1(2). Accessed 28th Sept. 2001, from http://www.aln/alnweb/journal/jaln Vol1issue2.htm
Edwards, R. (1979). Contested Terrain. New York: Basic Books.
Fernie, S., & Metcalf, D. (1995). Participation, contingent pay, representation and workplace performance: Evi-
dence from Great Britain. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 33(3), 379–415.
Flanders, A. (1968). Collective bargaining: A theoretical analysis. British Journal in Industrial Relations, 6(1),
1–26.
Frenkel, S., Tam, M., Korczynski, M., & Shire, K. (1998). Beyond bureaucracy? Work organization in call centres.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 9(6), 857–979.
Graham, L. (1995). On the Line at Subaru-Isuzu: The Japanese Model and the American Worker. Ithaca: ILR
Press.
Hannah, R. (1997). An academic perspective of the evolving of internet and employment relations. In Proceedings
of the Third Annual World Web Symposium, Hong Kong, May 7–10, 106–120. Accessed 28th Sept. 2001,
from http://www.mtsu.edu/∼rlhannah/hongkong.html
Herzenberg, S., Alic J., & Wial, H. (1998). New Rules for a New Economy. Ithaca: ILR Press.
Imai, M. (1986). TQC as a Corporate Strategy. New York: Cambridge Corporation Press.
Jones, S. (2000). Workplace Reform and Workforce Participation, Unpublished PhD, Burwood, Deakin University.
Jones, S. (2001). Collaboration—a threat to academic autonomy? In ASCILLITE Conference Proceedings—
Meeting at the Crossroads, Melbourne, Dec. 2001, 299–306.
Jones, S., & Richardson, J. (2002). Designing an it-augmented student-centred learning environment. Paper ac-
cepted for presentation at HERDSA Conference, Perth, June 2002.
Kaufman, B. (1992). Industrial Relations in the USA. Ithaca: ILR Press.
Kelly, K. (1997). New Rules for a New Economy. New York: Penguin.
Kinlaw, D. (1991). Developing Superior Work Teams: Building Quality and Competitive Edge. Lexington:
Lexington Books.
Kochan, T., Katz, H., & McKersie, R. (1984). The Transformation of American Industrial Relations. New York:
Basic Books.
Laurillard, D. (1994). Multimedia and the changing experience of the learner. In Asia Pacific Information Tech-
nology in Training and Education Conference and Exhibition, Brisbane, June 28–July 2, 19–24.
Lawler, E. E., III, & Mohrman, S. (1985). Quality circles after the fad. Harvard Business Review, Jan.–Feb.,
64–71.
Leonard-Barton, D. (1995). Wellsprings of Knowledge: Building and Sustaining the Sources of Innovation. Boston:
Harvard Business School Press.
Lesser, E., & Prusak, L. (2000). Communities of practice: Social capital and organisational knowledge. In Lesser,
E., Fontaine, M., & Slusher, J. (Eds.), Knowledge and Communities, 123–132. Newtown, MA: Butterworth–
Heinemann.
P1: GDW
Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal [jerrj] pp590-errj-379291 August 27, 2002 12:56 Style file version May 30th, 2002

78 Jones

Long, D., & Fahey, L. (2000). Diagnosing cultural barriers to knowledge management. Academy of Management
Executive, Nov., 113–127.
Machlup, F. (1984). Knowledge: Its Creation, Distribution and Economic Significance, Vol. III: The Economics
of Information and Human Capital. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Marchington, M. (1990). Reponses to Participation at Work. London: Gower Press.
Marchington, M., Wilkinson, A., Ackers, P., & Goodman, J. (1993). The influence of managerial relations on
waves of employee involvement. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 31(4), 553–376.
Marshall, A. (1890/1920). Principles of Economics. 8th ed. London: Macmillan.
Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper and Row.
McDermott, R. (2000). Why information technology inspired but cannot deliver knowledge management. In Lesser,
E., Fontaine, M., & Slusher, J. (Eds.), Knowledge and Communities, 21–35. Newtown, MA: Butterworth–
Heinemann.
Millward, N., & Stevens, M. (1986). British Workplace Industrial Relations, 1980–1984. Aldershot: Gower Press.
Morehead, A., Steele, M., Alexander, M., Stephen, K., & Duffin, L. (1995). Changes at Workplace: The 1995
Australian Workplace Industrial Relations Survey. South Melbourne: Addison Wesley Longman.
Nonaka, I. (1998). The knowledge-creating company. In Harvard Business Review on Knowledge Management,
24–44. Boston: Harvard Business Review.
Nonaka, I., & Takeushi, H. (1995). The Knowledge-Creating Company. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nunan, T. (1999). Graduate qualities, employment and mass higher education. Paper presented at the Higher Edu-
cation Research and Development Society of Australasia International Conference, University of Melbourne,
Melbourne.
Parker, M., & Slaughter, J. (1988a). Choosing Sides: Unions and the Team Concept. Boston: South End Press.
Parker, M., & Slaughter, J. (1988b). Management by stress. Technology Review, 91(7), 37–44.
Poole, M. (1975). Workers Participation in Industry, Rev. London: Routledge Kegan Paul Press.
Privateer, P. (1999). Academic technology and the future of higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 70(1),
1–16.
Quinn, J. (1992). Intelligent Enterprises. New York: Free Press.
Ray, D., & Bronstein, H. (1995). Teaming Up: Making the Transition to a Self-Directed, Team-Based Organization.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Rimmer, M., MacNeill, J., Chenhall, R., Langfield-Smith, K., & Watts, L. (1996). Reinventing Competitiveness.
Melbourne: Pitman Press.
Ruggles, R., & Holthouse, D. (1999). Gaining the knowledge advantage. In Ruggles, R., & Holthouse, D. (Eds.)
The Knowledge Advantage, 1–19. USA: Capstone Dover Press.
Seely Brown, J., & Duguid, P. (2000). Organizational learning and communities of practice: Towards a unified
view of working, learning and innovation. In Lesser, E., Fontaine, M., & Slusher, J. (Eds.), Knowledge and
Communities, 99–122. Newtown, MA: Butterworth–Heinemann.
Senate Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education Reference Committee (2001). Univer-
sities in Crisis. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia, Australian Government Printing Service.
Senge, P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday
Currency Press.
Sisson, K. (1987). The Management of Collective Bargaining. Oxford: Blackwell.
Smith, (1997). Preparing faculty for instructional technology: From education to development to creative inde-
pendence. Cause and Effect, 20(3), 36–37.
Snyder, W. (1997). Communities of practice: Combining organisational learning and strategic insights to create a
bridge to the 21st Century. Paper presented at the 1997 Academy of Management Conference.
Stewart, P., & Garrahan, D. (1995). Employee responses to the new manufacturing techniques in the automotive
industry. Work, Employment and Society, 9(3), 517–536.
Taylor, F. (1964). ‘Shop Management’ Scientific Management. New York: Harper and Row Press.
Trist, E. (1981). The evolution of socio-technical systems: A conceptual framework and an action research program.
In Occasional Paper (2). Ottawa: Ontario Quality of Work Life Centre.
Watanabe, S. (1991). The Japanese quality control circle; why it works. International Labour Review, 30(1),
57–80.
Webb, S., & Webb, B. (1897). Industrial Democracy. London: Longman Green Press.
Wellins, R., Byman, W., & Dixon, G. (1991). Empowered Teams, Creating Self-Directed Work Groups that Improve
Quality, Productivity and Participation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Press.
Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of practice: The key to knowledge strategy. In Lesser, E., Fontaine, M., & Slusher,
J. (Eds.), Knowledge and Communities, 3–20. Newtown, MA: Butterworth–Heinemann.
Womack, J., Jones, D., & Roos, D. (1990). The Machine that Changed the World. New York: Rawson and Associates
Press.
Zack, M. (1999). Developing a knowledge strategy. California Management Review, 41(3, Spring), 125–145.