Compares the perceptions of both large organisations and small-to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) at a meta level in regard to knowledge management (KM) to improve overall understanding and synthesis of the philosophy and to develop sector-specific learning in the SME sector. First, identifies and describes the key dimensions of KM using a socially constructed KM model. Second, uses a survey of large (> 250 employees) and SME (< 250 employees) organisations to investigate the perceptions of the KM dimensions. Third, reviews a series of qualitative social constructionist workshops, involving both large and SME organisations which were run to gain a deeper insight into the sectoral comparisons. The results indicate that KM is understanding and implementation is developing in the large organisation sector and knowledge is recognised as having both scientific and social elements. However, the SME sector was less advanced with a mechanistic approach to knowledge and a lack of investment in KM approaches and systems.

High compensation contingent on organisational performance Extensive trainingReduction of status differences Sharing of information

Knowledge management is an emergent and eclectic body of knowledge which covers the systematic management of knowledge, of all kinds, within all levels and types of organisations. The relative newness of the area as a management philosophy has resulted in most research and practical application studies being based in large private sector organisations. There is relatively little information on knowledge management in the private sector, and even less on private‐public sector knowledge management comparisons. Compares the perceptions of both private and public sector organisations in regard to knowledge management to improve overall understanding and to develop sector specific learning. First, the key dimensions of knowledge management are identified using a developed knowledge management model. Second, a survey of public and private sector organisations is used to investigate perceptions of the knowledge management dimensions. Third, there are a series of qualitative social constructionist workshops, involving both private and public sector organisations which were run to gain a deeper insight into sectoral comparisons. It was found that knowledge management was more developed as a management philosophy in the public sector. This development has been caused by continual pressure for increased efficiency, reduced resources and improved quality within the public sector.

Attention has been drawn recently to the differences which exist between family and non‐family firms, but Ward indicates that there are different types of family firms. More specifically, as Dunn puts it, “in some families it is evident that the business serves the family, as opposed to the family serves the business”. For some families in business, economic rationality dominates decision making, yet for others a “family first” ethos is to the fore, while a third group recognises the need to respond to economic and family considerations. In this paper firms which pay attention to both family and business are not investigated. However, Ward’s model of the characteristics of family firms is discussed and data based on a Scottish and Irish sample of 234 firms which put family first when business and family objectives clash, and 830 firms which focus on business objectives, are presented. Results suggest that the former exhibit several of the characteristics defined by Ward. This suggests that a considerable number of family firms may be lifestyle – as opposed to growth‐oriented businesses. These results have major implications for policy makers. If a substantial number of family firms differ from rational economic ventures by their methods of operation, then policy makers should be flexible with regard to the methods of intervention required to support this important section of the SME community. Policy issues in connection with family firms in Britain are considered in the light of our findings.

This paper examines the findings of a large‐scale postal survey based on an adaptation of the Cranfield Network (CRANET) Survey of International Strategic Human Resource Management (SHRM) to facilitate the analysis of HRM practices in the SME business environment. These findings are considered in light of a review of HRM literature. The survey utilised a sample of 1,369 organisations representing every company employing between 20‐100 people in Northern Ireland. This paper analyses key issues emerging from the 219 (16 per cent) responses received and provides a comparison of HRM practices in family and non‐family businesses. Overall, the findings suggest that family business practices within HRM are different than their non‐family counterparts.