Grounding in the premise that motivation in a knowledge work environment is an outcome of the existence of certain antecedents that are responsive to the dynamics of motivation in this environment, this work develops a conceptual model synthesizing motivations "what" and "how" that will bring human creativity in organizations which thrive on innovation. The presented model embodies these dynamics into five drivers of motivation practice in the knowledge work environment and then leads to three sources of motivation into which its antecedents should be loaded to motivate knowledge employees for innovation.

Abstract. This paper takes a sociotechnical viewpoint of knowledge management system (KMS) implementation in organizations considering issues such as stakeholder disenfranchisement, lack of communication, and the low involvement of key personnel in system design asking whether KMS designers could learn from applying sociotechnical principles to their systems. The paper discusses design elements drawn from the sociotechnical principles essential for the success of IS and makes recommendations to increase the success of KMS in organizations. It also provides guidelines derived from Clegg's Principles (2000) for KMS designers to enhance their designs. Our data comes from the application of a plurality of analysis methods on a large comprehensive global survey conducted from 2007 to 2011 of 1034 participants from 76 countries. The survey covers a variety of organizations of all types and sizes from a comprehensive selection of economic sectors and industries. Our results showed that users were not satisfied with the information and knowledge systems that they were being offered. In addition to multiple technology and usability issues, there were human and organisational barriers that prevented the systems from being used to their full potential. We recommend that users of KMS are integrated into the design team so that these usability and other barriers can be addressed during the feasibility stage as well as the actual design and implementation phases. IntroductionDespite much theoretical (e.g., DeLone and McLean (1992;2003)) and some practical works within organisations that study measures of organizational support such as * To maintain the page limit imposed by IFIP 8.6, we eliminated a number of tables, literature, and other information from this paper. Interested readers may contact authors for them. (Jennex and Olfman, 2003). Davenport, DeLone, and Beers (1998), in the context of KM projects, consider senior management support, motivational incentives, and knowledge friendly culture among their eight factors for success. In their KM success model, Massey, Montoya-Weiss, and O'Driscoll (2002) consider three key managerial influences: coordination, control, and measurement; disciplined project management; and leadership. However, no study considered detailed sociotechnical factors in a wide population of KMS users, managers, and knowledge workers. The question, therefore, this paper addresses is: what can KMS designers learn from sociotechnical principles to improve the success rate, and avoid the failure rates of these systems, and reduce user experiences and beliefs about system quality and knowledge/information quality that then discourage KMS use? In particular, the paper addresses the underlying factors that cause failure in three specific sociotechnical areas: technology; human; and organisational. Additionally, it investigates the underlying organisational, human and technical conditions that should be put in place as part of the overall knowledge management system design.The reasons for KMS failure are...

Purpose-To give some theoretical foundation to leadership function and style for managing knowledge workers whose work, by definition, is non-routine, thrives on innovation, and places a special demand on autonomy for its execution. Design/methodology/approach-Extant search of literature to look for evidence supporting successful leadership theories and practices that are shown to improve performance of knowledge workers. Synthesis of findings to structure a framework in the form of major propositions for their testing by future research. Findings-We begin with establishing our first finding that states that leadership of knowledge organizations is different from the leadership of traditional organizations. Then we build six additional findings for shaping a successful leadership process for knowledge organizations. Research limitations and/implications-Since it is a theoretical paper built on a search of literature in the field of leadership, there is a need to empirically test the findings to give them their final shape. Each of the seven propositions in this paper would result into many hypotheses that should initiate several empirical studies. Practical implications-We consider individual and organizational/group contexts of the leadership proposed here, and also provide recommendations for carrying out this research further. While the paper is written more specifically with regard to

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Two models of corporate brand or reputation management include "leadership and success" as a dimension that influences reactions of multiple stakeholders to organisations. Primary groups of stakeholders such as shareholders/investors, employees, and customers, often associate leadership of organisations with Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) or managing directors. This paper proposes that if CEOs are to be capitalised as part of corporate brand management, their leadership should be projected clearly to stakeholders to influence stakeholder attitudes. Although some studies tend to focus on linking leadership brands and transformational leadership to employees' commitment, little is known what type(s) of leadership is (are) attractive to multiple stakeholders. Both, leadership brands and transformational leadership, can be presented as leadership archetypes, that is, personifications of abstract leadership qualities summing up leaders' traits and behaviours in situational contexts. Using the Competing Values Framework (CVF) for leadership, the researchers reviewed publications of CEO leadership in situational contexts and classified the CEO leadership roles based on the respective scholars' conceptual definitions. The classification revealed that CEOs were perceived as playing multiple leadership roles, which are manifested into leadership archetypes. The archetypes were derived from respondents' perceptions and had different labels subject to the situational contexts. Some of the archetypes reflect CEO functional roles, whilst others were metaphoric. A few leadership archetypes were common across academic literature, whilst others were not. These archetypes offer explicit representations of "leadership" dimension of the CBM models and can assist image generators to gauge which leadership archetypes are excellent or appealing to multiple stakeholders.

No abstract