215

Chapter 13 Worker Fair Compensation: Ethical Issues and Social Dilemmas

Gonçalo Jorge Morais Costa De Montfort University, United Kingdom

ABSTRACT One of the key characteristics in is the importance of human resources. Therefore, main stream literature has been discussing the concept of knowledge worker, its characteristics, and duties versus rights, and human resources policies in its dissimilar perspectives (knowledge workers retention, personal mastery, property rights, among others). Although, empirical studies seem to disregard if knowledge workers feel that are well compensated, or what dimensions entail faire compensation. Hence, this chapter aims to recognize knowledge workers feeling about faire compen- sation, and what elements are essential to achieve it through a conceptual framework. For that, the chapter is divided into six sections: the research questions; knowledge worker (key characteristics and responsibilities versus rights); fairness (etymology and the contribution of Rawls); linking the theoretical basis; empirical results (methodological remarks, findings and discussion); future research directions (the surrealist assumption, Dali surrealism and the metaphorical assumption).

INTRODUCTION need to realize that human resources are essential to promote knowledge creation, utilization and The last decades have witnessed production of sharing. In spite of this level of criticality that research on knowledge work, due to a conviction human resources introduce the concept of “knowl- that economic achievement of post-industrial so- edge worker” entails an ambiguous perception cieties progressively depends on skills to utilize (Pyöriä, 2005; Alvesson, 2004; 2001). This is a knowledge (Stehr, 2001; Castells, 2000). There- consequence of an attempt to resume its distinctive fore, beyond manage knowledge organizations features, as for instance: processes (Davenport, Järvenpää & Beers, 1996); utilizes DOI: 10.4018/978-1-61520-873-9.ch013 information and communication technologies

Copyright © 2011, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited. Knowledge Worker Fair Compensation

(Garavelli et al., 2003); has problem-solving 1. Do you consider that knowledge creation, skills (Tsoukas & Vladimirou, 2001); produces management and sharing into the organiza- non-routine work (Lillrank, 2002); has increasing tional environment are fairly rewarded? levels of autonomy (Darr, 2003); and, is collabora- 2. State what is meant to be a fair compensa- tive (Kristensen & Kijl, 2008). tion regarding knowledge creation, man- Furthermore, in order to attract these work- agement and sharing in an organizational ers (Gayton, 2008) with high levels of personal environment? mastery (Senge, 2006) it is essential to create an effective Human Resources policy. Literature The initial research query examines if knowl- has been recognizing this quandary and assumes edge workers feel that are fairly rewarded, as well that human resource management practices need as the question was also posed to middle manag- to be internally consistent so that they mutually ers and top managers in order to understand each reinforce each other, namely structure group perception. Yet, it is compulsory to notify and reward systems (Currie & Kerrin, 2003). In the potential Readers that is an open choice ques- that sense, an array of organizational incentives tion with the subsequent answering possibilities: can be highlighted: monetary and non-monetary never, rarely, usually, often, always, and I do not rewards, as well as intrinsic and extrinsic (Bartol respond. On the other hand, the second question & Srivastava, 2002); despite dissimilar motiva- seeks to recognize fair compensation dimensions tion strategies for knowledge workers (Petroni & through an ask for agreement option. Colacino, 2008). As a result, this contribution endeavours to discuss knowledge workers feeling about faire KNOWLEDGE WORKER compensation, and what elements are essential to achieve it through a conceptual framework Key Characteristics based on the theory of justice (Rawls, 1971). The author still refers that the argument will consider Following Kelloway & Barling (2000) it is pos- the concept of fairness about compensation as a sible to illustrate knowledge workers as investors, combination of three dimensions of organizational because these choose when they want to use their justice: distributive, procedural, and interactional knowledge. So, knowledge workers are likely to (e.g. Cropanzano & Randall, 1992). employ their knowledge as an extension of their skills, motivation and opportunity. Or, Davenport & Prusak (2000) define knowledge workers as THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS those who create knowledge, or the prevailing component of their work is knowledge. Although, Since this contribution is not promoting a tradi- this definition was enhanced in order to include tional approach to human resources managing, the ones who also distribute and employ knowl- namely knowledge workers. Despite the novelty edge (Davenport, 2002). Concluding, the author of the subject it entails a minor component of the will follow Horvath (2001) definition: “anyone author PhD research project (for further details who works for a living at the tasks of developing chapter 16), leading to the following research or using knowledge”. Additionally, for Efimova questions: (2003) knowledge work can be explained through the iceberg metaphor: unlike traditional work its interactions seem invisible, because informal circumstances may represent until 80%.

216 Knowledge Worker Fair Compensation

Thus, knowledge workers impose a shift in the FAIRNESS balance of organizational power, because power in social contexts assumes three primary sources Etymology (Nickols, 2003, pp. 5): “politics (i.e., power de- rived from relationships among people); position According to the Wiktionary (2010) fairness is (i.e., power derived from formally constituted the property of being fair; and fair means free authority); and profession (i.e., power derived of bias, which evolved from an earlier meaning from specialized knowledge).” “morally pure” (Online Etymology Dictionary, 2010). Moreover, fairness or fair entail a similar Responsibilities Versus Rights definition in nowadays: having or exhibiting a disposition that is free of favouritism or bias; Bearing in mind that every worker is bounded to impartial: a fair mediator; just to all parties; or duties and rights, it is reasonable to claim that a even, equitable: a compromise that is fair to both trade-off arises. For The Free Dictionary (2010a), factions (The Free Dictionary, 2010b). trade-off can be defined as an exchange of one thing in return for another, especially relinquishment of The Contribution of Rawls one benefit or advantage for another regarded as more desirable. John Rawls (1971) defined justice as fairness: For the purpose of this analysis the author “it conveys the idea that the principles of justice introduces the work of Storey (2005) as regards are agreed to in an initial situation as fair.” (p. to knowledge worker requirements: 12). Rawls still claims that individuals decide under the veil of ignorance, meaning that are • behaviour- resumes the organizational ex- not entirely aware of their personal features and pectation that workers have the ability to be role in society. Hence, this assumption leads us creative and proactive instead of comply- to conclude that people do not pursue personal ing with repeated custom actions. Another interests, and by that mean assuring equality. In prerequisite is to present educational quali- addition, this author refers three psychological fications along with pertinent professional factors that sustain the principle of justice: morality experiences, as well as the possess the abil- of authority, morality of association, and morality ity to learn constantly; of principles. Therefore, Okin (1989) criticizes • capabilities- ability to deal with large Rawls moral development assumptions namely amount of complex data or information, as the duty to teach morals and gender neutrality. well as to learn from it in order to respond Although, the author will disregard Okin criti- to the external environment challenges cism as pointed out by Hartline (Hartline, 2008). through semi-structured organizational routines; • motivations- knowledge workers need to LINKING THE THEORETICAL BASIS be motivated in order to enhance their per- sonal mastery, and for that the organiza- After framing the theoretical components it is time tional values, culture and climate are vital. to understand how these variables interact, and most importantly which key issues promote the existence of a fair compensation within knowledge environments.

217 Knowledge Worker Fair Compensation

Remembering Horvath (2001), “anyone who Adya, 2007). The following example resumes the works for a living at the tasks of developing or previous arguments: using knowledge” is considered a knowledge worker. This statement induces to the following an employee might compare the pay and benefits assumption: knowledge process (creation, reten- received by their fellow employee and make a tion/utilization, and sharing), meaning that Rawls comparison of their effort at work with their (1971) macro analytical guidelines will be: rewards. As a result of this comparison, individu- als decide to exert more or less effort, or change • justice and knowledge creation and their perceptions of inputs or outcomes. Equity is sharing; perceived when the input/outcome ratio of the in- • justice and fair protection and retribution; dividual is equal to those of others compared with. • justice and fair compensation; Perceived inequality, for example, an employee • justice and recognition of human dignity who perceives rewards are inequitably distributed and autonomy. among employees in their organization, might react with seeking elsewhere. (Haar Justice and Knowledge & Spell, 2009, p. 1829) Creation and Sharing

According to Hurley (2005), knowledge work- Justice and Fair Compensation ers are morally accountable with reference to knowledge production and sharing within the Distributive justice principles would acknowledge organizational environment. In addition, that moral that a worker deserves additional compensation, accountability is also bounded to organizations however does not portray the reasons to such (Costa, Prior & Rogerson, 2008a), because it is claim. In fact, distributive justice frequently compulsory the existence of a evaluates satisfaction and workers intentions environment. Nevertheless, to promote ethical to continue working (Greenberg & Cropanzano, environments concerning knowledge sharing is 2001). Although, workers are also concerned with extremely difficult, and not utopian like Wilson the fairness of procedures that enable compensa- (2002) points out. The answer relies on balanc- tion systems, which according to these authors are: ing the ethics of self-interest versus knowledge be a consistent process, free from bias, correct, sharing (Wang, 2004). participative and ethical. On the other hand, procedural justice will shed Justice and Fair Protection some light over the impact of organizational values and Retribution and mutual trust, because workers that are fairly treated easily accept if necessary a decreasing in Lambert et al. (2005) defends that exclusively their payment (Turillo et al., 2002). Furthermore, spotlighting upon employee rewards or outcomes, fair compensations must reproduce desirable is expectable to deal with sanction in a fair and values and ways of achieving organizational just manner, which is consistent with the claim goals (Verplanken & Holland, 2002), since com- of Costa, Prior & Rogerson (2008). The focus on pensation systems structure typically reflects the fairness should act for rewarding and sanction- underlying organizational ideology. Therefore, ing, because workers have a moral responsibility these systems must entail acceptable ethical and not simply to be productive but also share the moral values (Cropanzano et al., 2001), which for produced organizational knowledge (O’Neill &

218 Knowledge Worker Fair Compensation

example CEOs exorbitant are an example Theoretical Framework (Lavelle, 2002). As a final remark, the author refers that figure Justice and Recognition of 1 depicts these concepts and their relationships Human Dignity and Autonomy (theoretical framework).

Miller (1999) refers that a core component of any theory of justice embraces human rights, which EMPIRICAL RESULTS in this case configures the following dimensions: Methodological Remarks • the right to life- includes the right to feel secure and safe, which means that organi- Creswell (2003) refers that a qualitative research zations ought to inform society about po- may induce several angles of analysis. For that, tential harm (Ryan, 2002); in order to explore an event from an in-depth • the right to the freedom of expression of insight the researcher might choose a diminutive ideas- is bounded to the moral accountabil- but informative case, or might perform a simple ity of knowledge workers produce knowl- inferential numerical analysis. On the other hand, edge, as well as organizations create a Miles & Huberman (1994) denote that descriptive knowledge environment (du Plessis, Britz research intends to make complex issues logical & Davel, 2007); by reducing them to their fundamentals; or, if the • the right of access to those ideas- debates researcher is not entirely conscious of the facts, in the existing trade-off between personal ef- spite of recognizing the research issue (Zikmund fort and benefit (Ford & Staples, 2005); & Zikmund, 2000). And, explanatory research • the right to protect and control expressed endeavours to exemplify certain phenomena from ideas- resumes the trade-off among work- contrasting insights (Yin, 1994), which entails the ers faire compensation, and the organiza- research problem. tional moral right to protect its economic In addition, to consent subjective and inquisi- interests (Blyth, 2005); tive outcomes a blend of interpretative and criti- • the right to privacy recognizes the auton- cal theory is consistent with look for meaning in omy and dignity of individuals- knowl- context. So, to identify how a reality appeared edge environments must respect individual is imperative to analyse the social and historical privacy rights (Baskerville & Dulipovici, environment (Klein & Myers, 1999), regardless 2006), which leads to a necessary discus- the possibility to question the output (Sandberg, sion about privacy (Stahl, 2007). 2005). Likewise, the study of social reality is inner to critical research as acknowledged in numer- Intermediate Conclusion ous narratives of critical research (Hirschheim & Klein, 1994). The quotation of O’Reilly III & Pfeffer (2000, pp. Finally, empirical data was collected through- 3) summarizes in an interesting way the overall out questionnaires and interviews (PhD research discussion: “great people want to work at great project- see chapter 16), and informational con- places where they can actually use their talents, versations. Semi-structured interviews sponsor where they are treated with dignity, trust, and a method to acquire the informants beliefs and respect, and where they are engaged by the values opinions through a verbal exchange (Burns, and culture of the organization.’’ 2000); a questionnaire can serve as an inductive

219 Knowledge Worker Fair Compensation

Figure 1. Theoretical framework

method with the aim to formulate new theory with tive with reference to this topic. Nonetheless, a higher or lower levels of validity according to the higher detail of analysis is decisive for understand- type of questions (Gill & Johnson, 2002); and, ing these results (observe the following sections), informational conversations intend to discover, and the dimensions of faire compensation (content understand and gain insight of people experiences analysis). Hence, some keen examples of fair (Paton, 1980). compensation and its dimensions are illustrated in table 2, as well as translation was not performed Findings in order to avoid the lost of sensitive meanings.

PhD results Academic experiences

The empirical outcomes highlighted in this section This subsection endeavours to shed some light over involve two levels of analysis: pre-tests and pilot the author personal experiences in his lecturing studies results. In short, pre-tests were performed or participation in worldwide conferences, and a to 50 individuals with divergent professional and major conclusion seems to arise: fair compensa- educational backgrounds during February 2009; tion tends to demonstrate extreme positions! The and, the pilot studies have occurred in June 2009 expression “extreme positions” intends to portray within a learning organization that operates in the existing gigantic gap about faire compensation: Portugal, being their sample size objective 25 per managers’ assumption is that workers are often cent of the organizational population. Moreover, fairly rewarded; and, workers acknowledge the for further details as regards to the methodological absence of a fair compensation. For instance, dur- and analytical procedures read chapter 16; al- ing IIRH 2010 Conference in Setúbal, Portugal, though, an important remark is: the results for each devoted to Research in Human Resources it was procedure will be divided into simple inferential interesting to denote that despite literature refer numerical analysis (global and by focus group- top that people are the “core”, and what stimulus management, middle management, and workers) managers need to produce to engage a knowledge for research question 1, and content analysis for environment the empirical results demonstrate that research question 2 (just focus groups). these policies do not engage personalization, com- The results demonstrate the denial of a fair pensation features resume traditional approaches compensation, and it is interesting to denote that which are not suitable for a , middle managers seem to share workers perspec- or even that managers actions do not match their

220 Knowledge Worker Fair Compensation

Table 1. Research question 1 results

Pre-tests Results The generic results were: never (8%), rarely (50%), usually (22%), often (16%), Global always (4%) More than 80% believed that workers are fairly compensated (combining usually, Top management often and always) Group Middle management 60% referred never and rarely Workers The combination never and rarely entailed over 85% Pilot studies Results Global 52% acknowledged rarely, 24% usually and 20% often Top management 100% argued that workers were fairly compensated Group Middle management Combining never and rarely Workers 62% claimed rarely discourse. An example was the keynote speech of perception of faire compensation in knowledge Francisco Cesário, CEO of PT Contact: environments. Their responses, representing professional experiences, demonstrate that two Nós apostámos em transferir parte dos nossos call additional critical issues seem to arise: the Human centers para zonas do país com elevadas taxas de Resources policies shortcomings about intellectual desemprego (interior), pelo que se prova a nossa property rights (personal versus organizational), responsabilidade social (…) (transfer of “produc- as well as the gap amid managers and workers tion” to areas with high rates of , compensation. as a sign of moral responsibility) Eu rejeito por complete que as experiências However, when confronted about the true pessoais vivenciadas pela minha pessoa na or- reasons for this movement the answer was: ganização sejam propriedade intelectual desta (personal experiences as intellectual organization Razões económicas! Por exemplo, as entidades property- a explicit denial) públicas locais cederam um espaço para permitir a instalação da empresa, assim como efectiva- mente os salários auferidos pelos colaboradores É inacreditável a diferença existente entre os destas regiões são inferiores aos praticados em valores auferidos pelos colaboradores e a gestão, Lisboa ou no Porto (..) (economic reasons! Be- até porque esta comete erros de palmatória! (gap ing examples, the local government support, and between managers and workers compensation, these workers lower when compared with as well as knowledge workers have the ability to Lisbon or Oporto) question about strategic options)

These arguments clearly demonstrate that beyond rich literature is vital to educate manag- Professional experiences ers to be open-minded and ethical! In fact, this corroborates the numerous informal dialogues While as a Key Account (before embracing lectur- undertaken with the editor learners about the ing), or acting today as a consultant the author has

221 Knowledge Worker Fair Compensation

Table 2. Research question 2 results

Pre-tests Results Analysis “Justa compensação: o retorno (pessoal e profissional) pela participação The importance of knowledge individual nos processos de criação, gestão e partilha do conhecimento” creation, use and sharing “Justa compensação não assenta em princípios meramente economicistas, The recognition of the financial and Top management mas também de reconhecimento e valorização do colaborador” non-financial dimensions “Justa compensação: quando alguém recebe algo em troca do seu trabalho The identification of the financial ou esforço por ter conseguido um feito com relevância para a organização, and non-financial elements sendo partilhado por toda a equipa” “Justa compensação pode ser monetária, ou melhores condições no ambi- The acknowledgment of financial ente organizacional” and non-financial realities “Todas as pessoas na organização quando partilham ideias ou colaboram Primacy regarding recognition for Middle manage- devem ser reconhecidas, ou monetariamente ou através de novos cargos, those who create, use and share ment etc” knowledge “Compensação: plano de carreira e promoção de acordo com o desem- The traditional perspective: pure penho, assim como, prémios monetário” economic “Acho que se deve recompensar de forma justa aqueles que contribuem Again, the significance of knowl- para a criação, gestão e partilha do conhecimento” edge as a process “A justa compensação poderá mostrar-se pela análise, validação e quiçá The importance of knowledge adaptação e partilha de novas ideias, podendo assim ser um contributo Workers sharing positivo para a empresa” A interesting bound: enhanced “Justa compensação pode ser monetária, flexibilidade de horários, au- autonomy as a way of fair compen- mento da autonomia” sation Pilot studies Results Analysis “Justa compensação é o reconhecimento a todos os colaboradores que The evidence of an organizational fazem parte da organização” transversal process Top management Economic and non-economic “Justa recompensa surge através de factores monetários e não monetários” factors “Tudo depende do impacto e das próprias pessoas em causa” Personalization as a fact “Entendo os valores financeiros associados (salário e/ou promoções), e os The combination of economic and não financeiros (reconhecimento)” non-economic principles “Compensação pode resumir-se apenas ao reconhecimento verbal do Middle manage- esforço no desenvolvimento do conhecimento. Não tem que se reflectir Recognition as a crucial factor ment obrigatoriamente em valores monetários” “Em termos pessoais uma perfeita compensação é saber qual o meu Autonomy and privacy as basics for trabalho e papel organizacional, e através dele respeitarem a minha auto- faire compensation nomia e privacidade” “O conhecimento que o colaborador possa partilhar e que o vá afectar Knowledge sharing substance positivamente ou negativamente na evolução dentro da empresa” “Justa compensação é a partilha de conhecimento sustentada na confiança Sharing knowledge and trust as mútua” keys for faire compensation Workers “As nossas organizações ainda não estão adaptadas à realidade de que as empresas são as pessoas e não o contrário, isto é, o mérito deve trazer The claim that Human Resources mais valias, apesar do objecto de trabalho ser raramente recompensado policies are inadequate seja por estímulo oral ou por valores compensatórios (financeiros ou outros)”

observed that faire compensation is an extremely in small and medium enterprises (SME’s). De- complex issue in organizational contexts, namely spite this observation a detailed analysis will be

222 Knowledge Worker Fair Compensation

Table 3. Professional experiences as regards to question 2

Professional Context Results Analysis experience Discussion about “Os colaboradores não necessitam de incentivos adicionais, Ignoring literature recom- Meeting innovation in re- pois já auferem o salário (…) Além disso, autonomia significa mendations warding workers que não podemos controlar o seu trabalho” “Nós temos uma verdadeira política de recursos humanos, pois valorizamos o conhecimento dos nossos colabora- Conference about Human Re- dores (…). Um exemplo foi a atribuição de um prémio de The quandary of fair organizational in- sources Manager produtividade de 400€ a um colaborador por ter criado um compensation novation speech produto financeiro totalmente novo que vai ser introduzido nos mercados financeiros” underlined in subsection discussion; so, about have demonstrated tremendous gaps between of empirical evidences at a professional level is CEOs and other professions; Piketty & Saez (2006) the author intention to highlight two essential study acknowledges that CEO salaries between quotations: the first occurred during a meeting 1980-1998 raised 9 per cent average and workers with a CEO of a medium learning organization; just 3,7; and, the major problem is the historical the second happened in a conference organized data of unethical and fraudulent behaviours as re- by a major financial institution on the topic or- gards to corporate performance for CEOs personal ganizational innovation. Nevertheless, it is vital gain (Meyer, 2003). The knowledge economy to detail the context of each quotation, as well has enhanced this dilemma because knowledge as to understand the content of these quotations workers possess enough competencies, skills (observe table 3). Once again, translation was not and knowledge to question managers’ strategic executed in order to avoid the lost of insightful decisions as well as their consequences. In ad- connotations. dition, it is common to observe that knowledge workers academic and professional background Discussion is higher than the CEO, namely in small medium companies, which enhances this dilemma. Thus, More people feel that are treated fairly, more the author disregards Nichols & Subramaniam reasons will have to identify with that group. This (2001) claim that CEO compensation is a matter assumption is also recognized in organizational of personal judgment. environments, because empirical data demonstrate On the other hand, procedural fairness is related that workers are less worried their absolute income to the process of distributive fairness and can be (Adams, 1963). In fact, Cohen (2008) highlights summarized through: that Rawls social requires benefits and burdens distribution by individuals, as well as inequalities • participation- reflects the opportunity of concerning incentive payments are indeed fair. The knowledge workers express their knowl- reason for his claim relies on the following argu- edge, which bounded to a tangible and in- ment: workers with higher levels of productivity tangible reward as regards to knowledge will benefit the organization, and as consequence sharing will promote a truthful sharing all organizational members will benefit from that environment (Cabrera, Collins & Salgado, situation. Even so, a CEO when compared to 2006). This is consistent with the recogni- the remaining organizational members is a social tion that sharing activities improves and dilemma. For instance, Söderström et al. (2003) sustains knowledge professionals (Wasko

223 Knowledge Worker Fair Compensation

& Faraj, 2005), as well as if knowledge images in the same composition (Salvador Dali Art workers feel that their knowledge is Gallery, 2010). Moreover, his artwork is not merely “snatched” tend to become self-protective used in artistic creation, but equally in scientific and secretive; work because surrealist theory of automatism was • neutrality- a precondition to achieve it the transformed in a method. For Ruffa (2005), by link- conviction that rules do not allow personal ing surrealist actions and scientific research Dali advantages to enter their decision-making. demonstrates that we systemically have partial or Fehr & Rochenbach (2003) also demon- total lack of understanding regarding a subject, strate that sanctions that serve the pun- meaning that reflection upon existing models is isher’s self-interests disable cooperative required. As a result, “Dalí draws our attention behaviour, whereas sanctions perceived as to the fact that there is no ontological difference pro-socially; between the scientific and artistic spheres, and • and dignity/respect/autonomy- empiri- nor is one superior to the other in terms of their cal evidences highlight that knowledge approach to reality” (Ruffa, 2005, pp. 12). workers treated with dignity and respect enhance their levels of sharing behaviour The Metaphorical Assumption and altruism (Moorman, Niehoff & Organ, 1993). Furthermore, autonomy encom- After a careful research with reference to Salvador passes for managers the following actions: Dali paintings, the author has decided to illustrate acknowledge the knowledge worker un- The Ship (1943). In his painting, Dali inspires us derstanding, afford it significant informa- to question ourselves instead of being slaves (“tied tion in a non-manipulative way, offering up to the strings of life”), as well as to promote decision making, and encouraging proac- change (“go by the wind”). The wind is seen as tivity (Baard, Deci & Ryan, 2004), because the life flow which people may dare (Coelho, a supportive management style to autono- 2009). In fact, the aim of these proposals is to my is crucial to promote knowledge shar- acknowledge the need to challenge the established ing (Vansteenkiste et al., 2004). principles with reference to knowledge workers without ignoring compensation systems literature FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTION (e.g. Scott et al., 2007) despite the several critics that will arise. The Surrealist Assumption Therefore some proposals that organizations should entail are: According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary (2010), surrealism resumes the principles, ideals, • personalize the compensation systems- as or generating fantastic or inconsistent imagery or Cohen (2008) demonstrates it is possible to effects in art, literature, film, or theater through sustain equity and fairness; deviant juxtapositions and blends. As such, it re- • creative rewarding systems- personaliza- produces quite well the proposals to be introduced tion will promote creative rewarding sys- by the author for future research. tems. From the author professional expe- rience, typically too many constraints are Dali Surrealism imposed in designing novel ways of ac- knowledging the topic. For some ideas the Dali through is Paranoia Critical Method assumed author suggests the work of Zairi, Jarrar & a way to observe reality in order to reflect double

224 Knowledge Worker Fair Compensation

Aspinwall (2010), or Petroni & Colacino that knowledge management enables” (2008); (Costa, Prior & Rogerson, 2010, pp. 84). • protect tacit and explicit knowledge- is Although, to recognize values diversity common that organizational tacit and ex- and knowledge workers autonomy will al- plicit knowledge is not entirely protected. low to enhance knowledge sharing (Berg, Explicit knowledge encompasses a simple 2010), and ultimately a growing identifica- resolution; however, organizational tacit tion with the organization ethical values; knowledge is bounded to workers personal • actions versus discourse ethics- managers knowledge which resumes the trade-off primary responsibilities inherent in the or- between self-interest and versus knowl- ganizational ontology through discursive edge sharing (Wang, 2004). A potential ethics resumes two assumptions: norma- solution is to “draw a moral flexible rule” tive claims in order to be valid require a that acknowledges personal experiences as cognitive meaning and can be treated like non-organizational property. Through this claims to truth; the justification of norms assumption knowledge workers will feel involves a real discourse be carried out and treated with fairness and dignity leading to thus cannot occur in a strictly monologi- a truly knowledge sharing environment; cal form, i.e., in the form of a hypothetical • acknowledge rights- process of argumentation occurring in the as previously referred Human Resources individual mind (Rhen, 2002). policies do not address this issue. Define a Solomonic decision, meaning to acknowl- As a final remark, the author reveals the fol- edge workers intellectual property rights lowing thought for managers: do not question as for instance, offer a percentage over the the financial value of increasing compensations market outcome of the product or service if knowledge workers demonstrate higher levels for a period of time which can be dimin- of productivity, because it would be a sign of a ished if the worker leaves the organization. competitive organization as well as additional Bearing in mind the second example of profits. Besides, the economic approach skews professional experiences, the financial in- any changing attitude as regards to non-monetary stitution ought to reward the worker with compensation, which is sometimes far more im- a percentage of the market result during a portant than the monetary one. year!; • create a knowledge sharing environment- despite the existing backgrounds and com- CONCLUSION petences of knowledge workers, it is vital to be aware of the existing relationships Changing traditional compensation systems in knowledge sharing amid “those who enable several theoretical constraints namely know” and the “know-notes” (Wang & “psychological and cultural”, however neglecting Noe, 2010); that possibility induces to a lack of organizational • assume that knowledge workers values retention concerning knowledge workers. Knowl- maybe contradictory to organizational edge workers have distinctive characteristics that values- organizational culture is “a spheri- require a novel approach to its rewarding as the cal concept (metaphorical symbolism for empirical results clearly demonstrate, which top perfect and constant), and therefore does management continues to ignore. A potential jus- not reproduces the existing challenges tification for today’s organizational reality might

225 Knowledge Worker Fair Compensation

be the novelty of the topic, but clearly depicts Bartol, K. M., & Srivastava, A. (2002). En- the status quo of and manag- couraging knowledge sharing: The role of ers lack of moral reasoning. In fact, despite the organizational reward systems. Journal of Lead- introduction of ethics in business the truth is that ership & Organizational Studies, 9(1), 64–76. managers still ignore it, or use it as a marketing doi:10.1177/107179190200900105 tool (similar to corporate social responsibility) Baskerville, R., & Dulipovici, A. (2006). The which will endanger organizational survival. The ethics of knowledge transfers and conversions: assumption for this resumes the lack of recognition Property or privacy rights. In K. VanLehn (Ed.), about justice in knowledge creation and sharing, Proceedings of the 39th Hawaii International fair protection and retribution, fair compensa- Conference on System Sciences (pp. 144-152). tion, and the recognition of human dignity and Hawaii: IEEE. autonomy. As a final remark, the author argues that the conceptual framework also enables a positive Berg, A. M. (2010, September). “Lean and mean or and feasible response to the research questions; fat and good?”- On organizational redundancies yet, is urgent to enhance the number of empirical and diversity. Paper presented at the 32nd EGPA studies and novel approaches to the topic. Annual Conference, Toulouse, France. Blyth, A. (2005). Business behaving responsibly. Director (Cincinnati, Ohio), 59(1), 30. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Burns, R. B. (2000). Introduction to research The editor would like to thank the insightful methods. London: Sage Publishers. comments of Nuno Sotero Alves da Silva to the Cabrera, A., Collins, W. C., & Salgado, J. F. earlier versions of this chapter, as well as to all that (2006). Determinants of individual engagement shared their insights with the editor with reference in knowledge sharing. International Journal of to fair compensation in knowledge environments. Human Resource Management, 17(2), 245–264. Castells, M. (2000). The rise of the network society. REFERENCES Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.

Adams, J. S. (1963). Toward an understanding of Coelho, P. (2009). Salvador-Dali. Paulo Coelho’s inequity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psy- Blog. Retrieved September 2, 2010, from, http:// chology, 67(5), 422–463. doi:10.1037/h0040968 paulocoelhoblog.com/2009/03/13/my-favorite- painters-salvador-dali/ Alvesson, M. (2001). Knowledge work: Ambigu- ity, image and identity. Human Relations, 54(7), Cohen, C. A. (2008). Rescuing justice and equal- 863–886. doi:10.1177/0018726701547004 ity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Alvesson, M. (2004). Knowledge work and Costa, G. J. M., Prior, M., & Rogerson, S. (2008a). knowledge intensive firms. Oxford, UK: Oxford Individual ethics and knowledge management: University Press. Arising conflicts . In Bynum, T. (Eds.), ETHI- COMP 2008: Living, Working and Learning Be- Baard, P. P., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). yond Technology (pp. 117–129). Mantua, Italy: Intrinsic need satisfaction: A motivational basis of University of Pavia. performance and well-being in two work settings. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(10), 2045–2068. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004. tb02690.x

226 Knowledge Worker Fair Compensation

Costa, G. J. M., Prior, M., & Rogerson, S. (2008b, Davenport, T. H., Järvenpää, S. L., & Beers, M. September). Free ride in knowledge management? C. (1996). Improving knowledge work processes. Ethical and moral dilemmas! Paper presented Sloan Management Review, 37(4), 53–65. at the ETHICOMP 2008: Living, Working and du Plessis, J. C., Britz, J. J., & Davel, R. (2007). Learning Beyond Technology, Mantua, Italy. Slave or sibling: A moral reframing the corpo- Costa, G. J. M., Prior, M., & Rogerson, S. (2010). rate knowledge sharing community. University Individual ethics and knowledge management: of Pretoria. Retrieved August 25, 2010, from, Arising conflicts . In Bynum, T. (Eds.), ETHI- http://ol.up.ac.za/upspace/bitstream/2263/1808/1/ COMP 2010: The “Backwards, Forwards and DuPlessis_Slave%282006%29.pdf Sideways” Changes in ICT (pp. 117–129). Tar- Efimova, L. (2003). Knowledge worker para- ragona, Italy: University of Rovira i Virgili. dox. Knowledge Board. Retrieved August 28, Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualita- 2010, from, https://doc.novay.nl/dsweb/Get/ tive, quantitative and mixed methods approaches Version-12745/knowledge_worker_paradox.pdf (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Fehr, E., & Rockenbach, B. (2003). Detrimental Cropanzano, R. (2001). Moral virtues, fairness effects of sanctions on human altruism. Nature, heuristics, social entities, and other denizens of or- 422(13), 137–140. doi:10.1038/nature01474 ganizational justice. Journal of Vocational Behav- Ford, D. P., & Staples, D. S. (2005). Perceived ior, 58(2), 164–209. doi:10.1006/jvbe.2001.1791 value of knowledge: Shall I give you my gem, my Cropanzano, R., & Randall, M. L. (1992). Injus- coal? In W. Arbeitspapiere (Ed.), Proceedings of tice and work behavior: A historical review . In 38th Hawaii International Conference on Systems Cropanzano, R. (Ed.), Justice in the Workplace: Sciences (pp. 247-256). Hawaii: IEEE. Approaching Fairness in Human Resource Man- Garavelli, A. C., et al. (2003). How motivat- agement (pp. 3–20). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence ing knowledge workers. European KM Forum. Erlbaum. Retrieved August 25, 2010, from, http://www. Currie, G., & Kerrin, M. (2003). Human resource knowledgeboard.com/download/480/Theme2- management and knowledge management: En- Synthesis_Report-_public_.v03.2003-02-06.pdf hancing knowledge sharing in a pharmaceuti- Gayton, C. M. (2008). Business ethics, restrictions cal company. International Journal of Human on employment and knowledge management. Resource Management, 14(6), 1027–1045. VINE: The Journal of Information and Knowledge doi:10.1080/0958519032000124641 Management Systems, 38(2), 174–183. Darr, A. (2003). Control and autonomy among Gill, J., & Johnson, P. (2002). Research methods knowledge workers in sales: An employee per- for managers (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage spective. Employee Relations, 25(1), 31–41. Publications. doi:10.1108/01425450310453508 Greenberg, J., & Cropanzano, R. (2001). Advances Davenport, T. (2002). Can you boost knowledge in organizational justice. Stanford, CA: Stanford work’s impact on the bottom line? Management University Press. Update, 7(11), 3–5. Haar, J. M., & Spell, C. S. (2009). How does Davenport, T., & Prusak, L. (2000). Working distributive justice affect work attitudes? The knowledge: How organizations manage what moderating effects of autonomy. International they know. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(8), Press. 1827–1842. doi:10.1080/09585190903087248

227 Knowledge Worker Fair Compensation

Hartline, T. (2008). Rawls’s a theory of justice: Lavelle, L. (2002). Executive pay. Business Week. Addressing the criticisms of Okin and Pateman . Retrieved August 29, 2010, from, http://www. In Wolf, M. P., & Musselman, L. (Eds.), Voicing businessweek.com/magazine/content/02_15/ Ideas (Vol. 3, pp. 59–63). Fresno, CA: California b3778012.htm State University. Lillrank, P. (2002). The broom and nonroutine pro- Hirschheim, R., & Klein, H. K. (1994). Realizing cesses: A metaphor for understanding variability emancipatory principles in information systems in organizations. Knowledge and Process Man- development: The case for Ethics. Management agement, 9(3), 143–148. doi:10.1002/kpm.145 Information Systems Quarterly, 18(1), 83–109. Linking the theoretical basis- justice and knowl- doi:10.2307/249611 edge creation ahd sharing Horvath, D. (2001). Knowledge worker. Merriam-Webster Dictionary. (2010). Surrealism. SearchCRM. Retrieved August 28, 2010, from, Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Retrieved Septem- http://searchcrm.techtarget.com/definition/ ber 2, 2010, from, http://www.merriam-webster. knowledge-worker com/dictionary/surrealism Hurley, T. A., & Green, G. W. (2005). Knowledge Meyer, P. (2003). From halos to horns: Demon- management and the nonprofit industry: A within izing the American CEO. Directorship. Retrieved and between approach. Journal of Knowledge September 10, 2010, from, http://www.allbusi- Management Practice, 6. Retrieved September 15, ness.com/marketing-advertising/branding-brand- 2010, from, http://www.tlainc.com/articl79.htm development/972067-1.html Kelloway, E. K., & Barling, J. (2000). Knowledge Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative work as organizational behavior. International data analysis: An expanded source book (2nd ed.). Journal of Management Reviews, 2(3), 287–304. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. doi:10.1111/1468-2370.00042 Miller, D. (1999). Principles of justice. London: Klein, H. K., & Myers, M. D. (1999). A set of prin- Harvard University Press. ciples for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. Management Moorman, R. H., Niehoff, B. P., & Organ, D. W. Information Systems Quarterly, 23(1), 67–93. (1993). Treating employees fairly and organiza- doi:10.2307/249410 tional behavior: Sorting the effects of , organizational commitment, Kristensen, K., & Kijl, B. (2008). Productivity and procedural justice. Employee Responsibilities in -intensive knowledge work: The and Rights Journal, 6(3), 209–225. doi:10.1007/ collaboration management imperative. In K.-D. BF01419445 Thoben, K. S. Pawar & R. Gonçalves (Eds.), Pro- ceedings of the 14th International Conference on Nichols, D., & Subramaniam, C. (2001). Ex- Concurrent Enterprising. Lisbon: Nova Univer- ecutive compensation: Excessive or equitable? sity. Retrieved August 25, 2010, from, http://www. Journal of Business Ethics, 29(4), 339–351. ice-proceedings.org/default.asp?P=408&obj=B1 doi:10.1023/A:1010764828523 Lambert, E. G. (2005). The impact of distributive Nickols, F. (2003). The shift to knowledge work. and procedural justice on social service work- Distance Consulting. Retrieved August 28, 2010, ers. Social Justice Research, 18(4), 411–427. from, http://www.nickols.us/shift.pdf doi:10.1007/s11211-005-8568-4

228 Knowledge Worker Fair Compensation

O’Neill, B. S., & Adya, M. (2007). Knowledge Ryan, C. (2002). The reputation wars. Austra- sharing and the psychological contract: Manag- lian Financial Review Boss Magazine, March, ing knowledge workers across different stages of 300-305. employment. Journal of Managerial Psychology, Salvador Dali Art Gallery. (2010). Paranoia critical 22(4), 411–436. doi:10.1108/02683940710745969 method. Dali-Gallery.com. Retrieved September O’Reilly, C. A. III, & Pfeffer, J. (2000). Hidden 2, 2010, from, http://www.dali-gallery.com/html/ value: How great companies achieve extraordi- dali.php nary results with ordinary people. Boston, MA: Sandberg, J. (2005). How do we justify knowl- Harvard Business School Press. edge produced within interpretative approaches? Okin, S. M. (1989). Justice, gender and the family. Organizational Research Methods, 8(1), 41–68. New York, NY: Basic Books. doi:10.1177/1094428104272000 Online Etymology Dictionary. (2010). Fair. Online Scott, D. (2007). Reward programs: What works Etymology Dictionary. Retrieved September 10, and what needs to be improved. WorldatWork 2010, from, http://www.etymonline.com/index. Journal, 16(3), 6–21. php?term=fair Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art Patton, M. Q. (1980). Qualitative & practise of the learning organization (2nd ed.). methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. New York: Doubleday Business. Petroni, A., & Colacino, P. (2008). Motivation Söderström, H. T. (2003). Corporate governance strategies for knowledge workers: Evidences and and structural change: European challenges. challenges. Journal of Technology Management Stockholm: SNS Förlag. & Innovation, 3(3), 21–32. Stahl, B. C. (2007). Privacy and security as ide- Piketty, T., & Emmanuel, S. (2006). The evolution ology. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, of top incomes: A historical and international per- 26(1), 35–45. doi:10.1109/MTAS.2007.335570 spective. The American Economic Review, 96(2), Stehr, N. (2001). The fragility of modern societ- 200–205. doi:10.1257/000282806777212116 ies: Knowledge and risk in the information age. Pyöriä, P. (2005). The concept of knowledge work Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. revisited. Journal of Knowledge Management, Storey, J. (2005). Human resources and orga- 9(3), 116–127. doi:10.1108/13673270510602818 nizational structures . In Stephen, L., Quintas, Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice (4th ed.). P., & Ray, T. (Eds.), Managing Knowledge- An Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press. Essential Reading (pp. 349–355). London: Sage Publications. Rhen, A. (2002). Good times, bad times: The moral discourse of time and management. Revista The Free Dictionary. (2010a). Trade-off. The Free Comportamento Organizacional & Gestão, 8(1), Dictionary. Retrieved September 12, 2010, from, 49–59. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/trade-off Ruffa, A. (2005). Dalí’s surrealist activities and The Free Dictionary. (2010b). Fairness. The Free the model of scientific experimentation. Papers Dictionary. Retrieved September 12, 2010, from, for Surrealism, 4, 1–14. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Fairness

229 Knowledge Worker Fair Compensation

Tsoukas, H., & Vladimirou, E. (2001). What is Wilson, T. D. (2002). The nonsense of knowledge organizational knowledge? Journal of Manage- management. Information Research, 8(1). Re- ment Studies, 38(7), 973–993. doi:10.1111/1467- trieved August 28, 2010, from, http://informationr. 6486.00268 net/ir/8-1/paper144.html Turillo, C. J. (2002). Is virtue its own reward? Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design Self-sacrificial decisions for the sake of fairness. and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Publications. Processes, 89(1), 839–865. doi:10.1016/S0749- Zairi, M., Jarrar, Y. F., & Aspinwall, E. (2010). 5978(02)00032-8 A reward, recognition, and appraisal systems Vansteenkiste, M. (2004). Motivating learning, for future competitiveness: A UK survey of best performance, and persistence: The synergistic ef- practices. European Centre for Best Practice Man- fects of intrinsic goal contents and autonomy sup- agement. Retrieved September 10, 2010, from, portive contexts. Journal of Personality and Social http://www.ecbpm.com/files/Talent%20-%20 Psychology, 87(2), 246–260. doi:10.1037/0022- People%20Management/A%20Reward,%20Rec- 3514.87.2.246 ognition,%20and%20Appraisal%20System%20 for%20Future%20Competitiveness.pdf Verplanken, B., & Holland, R. W. (2002). Moti- vated decision making: Effects of activation and Zikmund, W. G., & Zikmund, E. G. (2000). self-centrality of values on choices and behavior. Business research methods (6th ed.). London: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Dryden Press. 82(3), 434–447. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.3.434 Wang, C.-C. (2004). The influence of ethical and self-interest concerns on knowledge sharing KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS intentions among managers: An empirical study. International Journal of Management, 21(3), Compensation: something given or received 370–381. as a counterpart for actions taken. Compensation systems in organizational systems assume two Wang, S., & Noe, R. A. (2010). Knowledge shar- major dimensions: monetary and non-monetary. ing: A review and directions for future research. Equity Theory: the perception of fairness Human Resource Management Review, 20(2), in allocating resources within social and profes- 115–131. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.10.001 sional realities. Wasko, M. M., & Faraj, S. (2005). Why should I Fairness: inexistence of favouritism or bias, share? Examining social and knowledge impartiality, or equity. contribution in electronic networks of practice. Human Resources Policies: formal rules Management Information Systems Quarterly, and guiding principles that organizations need 29(1), 35–57. to encompass for hiring, training, evaluating, and rewarding its organizational members. Wiktionary (2010). Fairness. Wiktionary. Knowledge Workers: everyone who works Retrieved September 10, 2010, from, http:// that needs to create, manage and share knowledge. en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fairness

230