In recent years, there has been an explosion of interest in the field of knowledge management (KM). This intense interest stems, in part, from the widespread recognition that the knowledge possessed by an organization's employees is a highly valued, intangible, strategic asset (Foote, Maison & Rudd, 2001). Appropriately managing knowledge is a critical factor in a business' ability to create and maintain distinctive core competencies; unfortunately, doing so has become a major challenge (Hinds & Pfeffer, 2003). The short history of knowledge management has shown that managers have had difficulty leveraging the knowledge assets of their firm because of misguided approaches and hurried excitement.

When KM became a substantial issue in the early nineties, academics and professionals scrambled to provide answers to KM questions. In all of the frenzy to immediately implement new initiatives, however, many KM proposals that did not have merit were accepted and implemented (O'Dell & Grayson, 1998).

Because technological breakthroughs were seen as fix-all solutions, the great majority of these hastily-adopted KM solutions seemed to offer the same advice: invest in more technology (Fiol, 2003). However, new and improved technology failed to produce the results that both academics and professionals had predicted. For example, Kluge, Stein and Licht (2001) cite the experience of a global construction company that was putting itself at a disadvantage by selecting subcontractors as its much smaller competitors did, primarily because knowledge accumulated by individual project managers about the subcontractor market was not readily accessible. Concluding that KM was the key to improving the struggling company's situation, the organization's senior management created a subcontractor database to facilitate easy access to and sharing of knowledge about the subcontractor market.

Although the database appeared to be a quick and easy solution that would aid project managers in identifying and evaluating possible subcontractors, the project failed miserably. Project managers distrusted information coming from "outside" sources, such as regional offices, and were hesitant to share knowledge about subcontractors for fear that they would be unavailable for their own projects. In addition, project managers were reluctant to spend time filling out forms or accessing the database, as these activities were seen as time taken away from "real work." As a result, the database-created to help give the company an advantage over small and mid-sized competitors-was quickly filled with incomplete records that were seldom read by other managers.

As illustrated by the construction company's attempt to implement a KM program, simply creating a database or introducing new technology does not produce the creation, sharing or transfer of knowledge. While improved technology can greatly facilitate the sharing of best practices and know-how (O'Dell & Grayson, 1998), experience is now showing that it does not in and of itself make this sharing happen. Accordingly, Davenport (1997) concludes: "The status quo approach to information management-invest in new technologies, period-just doesn't work" (p. 3).

KM solutions are more complex than simply purchasing the latest computer system or updating an old database (Davenport, Harris & Kohli, 2001). Karl-Erik Sveiby, a KM expert, agrees: "I believe that only a people-focused approach to KM will be competitive long-term, because at the end of the day, any IT solution can easily be copied by the competition" (quoted in O'Dell & Grayson, 1998, p. 74).

Consequently, as organizations are now realizing that technology is not a fix-all solution, knowledge management has begun shifting its focus to people (Poole, 2000). People are the creators, transferors, and users of knowledge. Moreover, the deep, tacit knowledge that is the root of human thought and action cannot be replicated or replaced by information and communication technologies (Walsham, 2001). For this reason, leaders as well as scholars are spending more time studying the strategic choices surrounding use of the technology, and not just the technology itself.

The purpose of this article, therefore, is to examine three of the critical human factors that lead to strategic knowledge transfer in organizations: organizational culture, organizational leadership, and chief knowledge officers (CKOs). This article will first introduce a model of these factors, and, after briefly describing what constitutes "effective" knowledge management, will examine how each factor contributes to effective knowledge management. In examining these factors, we will present the prevailing ideas among researchers and professionals involved with knowledge management. Then, after presenting what is known about KM in these areas, this paper will provide suggestions for further research.

Factors Leading to Strategic Knowledge Transfer: A Model

In Figure 1 below, a model describing the key factors that contribute to effective KM is presented. This model identifies four major factors: (1) organizational culture, which encompasses cooperation, trust and incentives; (2) organizational leadership; (3) CKOs; and (4) technology. Because our purpose is to address the human factors that drive successful knowledge transfer, and also because an extensive body of literature dealing with technology already exists (see Bellaver & Lusa, 2002; Cohen, 1998; Marshall, 1997; and Townsend, DeMarie & Hendrickson, 1998), the technology component of the model will not be discussed in this article. Furthermore, although we recognize that the factors in Figure 1 are inter-related, these inter-relationships will not be discussed in this article and are therefore not shown in our model.

Effective Knowledge Management

The existing KM literature is replete with definitions of knowledge and knowledge management. However, many of these definitions-complicated and narrow in scope-create confusion among scholars and professionals, as knowledge management means different things to different people (Nakra, 2000). Therefore, before describing what constitutes effective knowledge management, it is important to clarify what we mean by "knowledge management."

Recognizing that the KM realm encompasses a wide range of goals and activities, we will base both our discussion of factors leading to effective knowledge transfer as well as our agenda for further KM research on the definitions below:

O'Dell and Grayson (1998) describe knowledge management as "a conscious strategy of getting the right knowledge to the right people at the right time and helping people share and put information into action in ways that strive to improve organizational performance" (p. 6). Nakra (2000) provides additional insight: "Knowledge management refers to the ability to develop, share, deposit, extract, and deliver knowledge such that it may be retrieved and used to make decisions or to support the processes" (p. 54).

With these overall aims of KM in mind, we proceed to a brief overview of effective knowledge management. Researchers have indicated that companies gain the competitive edge that KM provides (i.e., KM is effective) when accurate and valuable knowledge is transformed, distributed, and integrated (Probst, Bchel & Ruab, 1998). Essentially, transformation of knowledge occurs when individuals communicate and interact in order to synthesize their individual knowledge. Then, distribution occurs when agreed-upon knowledge and competencies are used repeatedly and are subsequently embodied into the organization's norms and values. Finally, integration occurs when the organization successfully captures external knowledge and then successfully integrates it with internal knowledge (Probst, Bchel. & Ruab, 1998).

According to Wang and Plaskoff (2002), effective knowledge management requires a KM system that integrates organization, people, processes, and technology-not one that merely stores information; in addition, an effective KM system is flexible and context oriented, for just as knowledge is "organic," so too must each KM project be unique.

Effective knowledge management also requires that organizations incorporate KM into their overall strategies and that they include successfully managing knowledge among their corporate objectives. In their discussion of effective knowledge management, Davenport and Prusak (1998) emphasize the importance of establishing a link between KM and strategy: "Knowledge management coexists well with business strategy, with process management, with staying close to your customer, and so forth. It can help you to do a variety of things you are already doing better. Ultimately, knowledge management work needs to be blended in with these other activities or it's unlikely to be effective" (p. 163).

Although the field of KM is still relatively new, many organizations' efforts to effectively manage knowledge-i.e., to create integrated KM systems that are aligned with corporate goals and strategy and that permeate all divisions and levels of organization-are producing compelling results. As summarized by Lucier and Torsilieri (2001), the effective management of knowledge can accelerate growth, drive individual and organizational learning, provide competitive advantage and create benefits for shareholders.

As has already been pointed out, a technology-based KM system alone will not lead to effective knowledge management. However, when technology is combined with an organizational culture conducive to knowledge creation and sharing-along with organizational leadership and CKOs who champion the cause of managing knowledge-companies will have the potential to achieve the results that Lucier and Torsilieri describe (2001). To show how these elements enhance the creation, capture, and transfer of knowledge, we now turn our attention to a more detailed discussion of each.

Culture

Culture-the first element in our model of factors leading to effective KM-represents the desires, end goals, and customary practices of the corporation. In addition, culture is the set of commonly-held beliefs and assumptions within an organization (Balogun & Jenkins, 2003). As O'Dell and Grayson (1998) explain, "While never exactly articulated," this set of underlying beliefs is "always there to color the perception of actions and communications" (p. 71).

Every company or organization has its own specific culture and therefore its own unique practices (Schein, 1984). Just as organizational culture influences the actions and communications of everyone in a company, it also exerts a powerful influence on how companies manage knowledge, whether KM is intentional (i.e., done through a formally established KM program) or not.

An effective corporate culture for KM consists of norms and practices that promote the free-flow of information among employees and across department lines. In contrast is the company that rewards the hoarding of knowledge. Such a company may talk of knowledge management principles, but its corporate practices and rewards may send signals to employees that actually undermine the transfer of knowledge. For example, De Long and Fahey (2000) describe members of circuitboard design team who, while working on a government-funded project, were so concerned with accounting for their time that they refused to take time to develop lessons learned in the important product-development process. The company's practice of meticulously accounting for time in an explicit form was so ingrained into the team members' work habits that they resisted taking time to contribute to knowledge creation, even though they undertook the project with the understanding that they were to capture what they learned. Clearly it is the practices and norms of the organization, not management lip service, that ultimately influence the actions of employees.

Organizational practices include the way people answer phones and fill out time reports, company standards for performance reviews, and weekly parties. Other practices may be the type of measurements used throughout the company or the incentives used by management to help employees accomplish the organization's goals. Routine practices of a group are representative of its true goals and aspirations. Consequently, if company practices do not promote the free transfer and sharing of accurate and valuable knowledge, then the culture is a major impediment to KM initiatives and must be examined. In brief, corporate practices should align with KM objectives (De Long & Fahey, 2000).

Managers are becoming more aware of the problems created by having a corporate culture inconsistent with KM programs. A study conducted by the Journal of Knowledge Management revealed that organizational culture was one of the largest obstacles facing knowledge managers. Of the 431 senior managers interviewed, eighty percent responded that the culture of their organization in some way "hindered the development and introduction of KM strategies and programs" (Chase, 1997, p.46). For example, companies that base evaluation, promotion, or compensation on "relative numbers" (Nakra, 2000) instill in workers the perception that knowledge is power and that by sharing it they will jeopardize their chances of advancement or success. As a result, organizational members view hoarding knowledge as an effective way to secure their jobs (De Long & Fahey, 2000) and are extremely reluctant to share their knowledge and expertise. Again, the level of success for KM programs is directly affected by the company's culture.

Research now suggests that a knowledge hoarding culture is not an insignificant problem in implementing KM programs. In fact, it could be the largest obstacle companies face in KM programs (De Long & Fahey, 2000). Scholars and practitioners, intent on forming a set of best practices for knowledge sharing organizations, have searched extensively for elements that create cultures conducive to effective knowledge management. Cooperative involvement, trust, and incentives are three of the essential components they found. In the following section, some prevailing research on each of these elements will be analyzed.

Cooperative Involvement

One of the core necessities for knowledge creation, transfer, and sharing is that employees contribute their knowledge or expertise to the company. Indeed, without the several mediums through which employees transfer their knowledge-collectively referred to as cooperative involvement-a company's KM program will likely never get off the ground or bring the organization any real benefits.

Businesses that create opportunities for employees to openly share what they know have better success with KM programs than those that don't. Many academics and professionals believe that two heads are better than one and that the best ideas will surface when as many people as possible are involved in the knowledge creation process. Essentially, they argue, a culture that involves everyone in the organization is prone to create, transfer, and share better ideas. The former CEO of GE, Jack Welch, holds that using insights from every employee produces the finest ideas. Welch says: "The only ideas that count are the A ideas. There is no second place. That means we have to get everybody in the organization involved" (quoted in Stewart, 1997, p. 87).

The optimal culture for KM programs is one that fosters interaction between employees and uses these occasions to leverage the greatest amount of knowledge possible (McDermott, 1999). Many companies are therefore using cooperative involvement to make their cultures more innovative and to accomplish this objective of getting the right knowledge to the right people at the right time. 3M Corporation, for example, has made a commitment to have every division within the company involved in the knowledge sharing process. Top managers encourage informal meetings where representatives from every department can discuss customer problems and receive new advice from helpful colleagues. One of 3M's Information Services managers described the goals of cooperative involvement by saying that information sharing "must permeate the entire fabric of an organization and every department within a company" (Brand, 1998, p. 18). With these types of gatherings, the knowledge embedded in the organization can flow to areas that can use it, yet individuals are not overloaded with knowledge that is not vital to their specific functions.

Although researchers and professionals continue to stress the importance of organization-wide involvement in KM, many of them now realize and are quick to emphasize that effective KM does not result from everyone knowing everything all the time (Kluge, Stein & Licht, 2001). Rather, an organization reaps the greatest benefits from KM when its members are given the opportunity to contribute to and learn from the knowledge that affects the decisions and practices in their particular departments or divisions of the company. As O'Dell and Grayson put it, effective KM strategies aim to get "the right knowledge to the right people at the right time" (1998, p. 6) instead of seeking to overload employees with knowledge that does not affect them or that is not relevant to what they do.

Research suggests various methods for incorporating employees at every level and in every department in order to get the right knowledge to the right people in the most effective ways possible. One such method is to have managers from different divisions debate on internal and external issues. The relevant ideas that managers give and receive through these debates are then shared with co-workers back in their divisions. These debates serve to squeeze out hidden ideas and encourage paradigm shifts-both outcomes which effectively leverage knowledge. De Long and Fahey (2000) reason: "This type of productive conflict is essential to first generate and then reconcile disparate views, and to create new knowledge that will become the basis of action" (p. 13). Bringing workers from various departments together enables fresh new looks at old stagnant issues. In addition, knowledge will be created and transferred better with intense employee interaction on all levels (De Long & Fahey, 2000).

Furthermore, research has indicated that one of the most effective ways to increase cooperative involvement and leverage knowledge within particular departments of an organization is through creating and participating in communities of practice. Traditionally, communities of practice have been viewed as voluntarily formed groups built upon either work- or interest-related fields. As such, their value has been considered primarily from the standpoint of what they provide for the individuals themselves.

However, Storck's research (2001) indicates that companies are now beginning to recognize the value of these communities from an organizational standpoint. In such a fast-moving economy, Storck explains, communities of practice enable companies to improve performance for a variety of reasons. For example, communities of practice offer companies an alternative way to handle unstructured problems and also to reduce rework and reinvention of the wheel by enabling members to more easily reuse existing knowledge assets. In addition, communities provide employees with a motivating and safe environment in which they can share what they know and apply what they learn.

Another far-reaching benefit of communities of practice is their ability to overcome problems associated with knowledge transfer in companies experiencing increasing growth in terms of not only size, but also in terms of geographic scope and complexity. An interesting study in the Journal of Knowledge Management (Sveiby & Simons, 2002) found that collaborative climate tends to improve with organizational size, at least up to mid-size, following an inverted U-shaped pattern. As communities of practice are most common in such mid-sized firms, these findings reaffirm the idea that communities of practice can effectively counter the negative effects organizational size can have on sharing.

Trust

Cultures that are highly cooperative are built upon a foundation of trust. For this reason, organizational trust, like cooperative involvement, is a critical component of culture in our model of effective knowledge management. Researchers and professionals in all types of organizations concur on the importance of trust in a culture that is conducive to knowledge sharing. According to Snowden (2000), for example, trust is the most critical prerequisite for knowledge exchange. Davenport and Prusak (1998) agree: "Without trust, knowledge initiatives will fail, regardless of how thoroughly they are supported by technology and rhetoric" (p. 34).

Although trust is a complex and multidimensional concept, researchers have concluded that it can be divided into two distinct categories: (1) trust in others, or knowledge-based trust; and (2) trust in the organization as a whole, or institution-based trust (Ardichvili, Page & Wentling, 2003; Hinds & Pfeffer, 2003).

Critical to the development of knowledgebased trust within a company are the recurring face-to-face interactions that allow people to get to know one another and to be able to predict how the other party will react or behave in various circumstances. However, the frequency of interactions and the familiarity among an organization's members-although important-do not alone guarantee knowledge-based trust; the presence of such trust also requires integrity and competence on the parts of all involved in the knowledge-sharing process. Essentially, workers will be reluctant to share their knowhow and expertise with those they believe will take advantage of the knowledge provided them (Ardichvili, Page & Wentling, 2003) and likewise will resist receiving knowledge from sources they perceive as unreliable or incompetent (Szulanski, 1996).

The second category of trust, institution-based trust, is built upon the belief that "necessary structures are in place which will ensure trustworthy behavior of individual members, and protect the members from negative consequences of administrative and procedural mistakes" (Ardichvili, Page & Wentling, 2003, p. 73). Research has indicated that institutional trust is best established when trust is visible, ubiquitous, and top-down (Davenport & Prusak, 1998).

Essentially, evidence of institution-based trust within an organization must exist; simply referring to trust in a corporate mission statement is not enough. Members of the organization must see others get credit for knowledge sharing and utilization and must also experience reciprocity of trust from all other members in the organization, including top-management. In addition, clarity and transparency of organizational expectations and procedures-especially those concerning KM objectives and initiates-must exist within organizations if its members are to possess institutional-based trust (Ardichvili, Page & Wentling, 2003).

The degree of trust employees have in both the organization itself as well as in co-workers essentially determines the extent to which they participate in both open dialogue and the free flow of knowledge. However, getting workers involved in the knowledge-sharing process has proven to be a difficult task for many companies. Research indicates that while companies are seeking to leverage the knowledge of their employees, their employees are opposing such efforts (Brand, 1998; Dash, 1998).

One reason for employee resistance to knowledge sharing is that many people view their expertise as an intangible asset they are unwilling to part with. Put differently, many workers these days view their knowledge or expertise as a source of power (Nonaka, Toyama & Konno, 2001) that is critical to their value as employees (Davenport & Prusak, 1998). This led one CKO for a global engineering firm to lament, "People view knowledge as a method of securing their job. So they're reluctant to share" (De Long & Fahey, 2000). With the increasing number of downsizings among companies during the past several years, however, it is no wonder that many employees are finding it difficult to trust the organizations they work for. Employees who fear that sharing their knowledge will have negative effects on their tenure or career advancement are likely to distrust the organization and to be reluctant to share the knowledge they possess.

Another closely related factor contributing to lack of trust within organizations is the decline of company loyalty during the past few decades (Challenger, 1997). This is perhaps most visible in the increasingly common practice of job-hopping. As a result of this and other similar practices that are becoming more and more widespread, employers and employees alike have had to become more strategic. Employers are faced with the challenge of motivating short-term employees to contribute to organizational knowledge. A graduating college student, for example, may not find interest in adding knowledge to a long-term program he or she will most likely never benefit from. Also, employees are finding that training may be more difficult to obtain because businesses are hesitant to dump company information into a new and unproven staff member. These are the types of circumstances that create a sense of mistrust.

While the lack of trust can undoubtedly hinder the sharing of knowledge, the presence of trust, on the other hand, can lead to considerable results in the realm of knowledge management. The success experienced by British Petroleum's Virtual Teamworking project, for example-evidenced through measurable improvements in honoring commitments and meeting delivery dates among participants-was attributed largely to the trust that was established and subsequently existed among the project team members, management and other project participants (Davenport & Prusak, 1998).

Despite such promising results experienced by BP and other companies, however, bridging the gap of mistrust remains one of the most significant cultural challenges facing KM. Where lack of trust exists, a great amount of sharing will not happen (Hinds & Pfeffer, 2003). This is evident in the use of technology to enhance the knowledge-leveraging programs. Employees will be hesitant to contribute to a knowledge database if they think that by doing so they will in some way devalue themselves to the organization or that the information they contribute will somehow be used against them (Orlikowski, 1993). Without the assurance and reassurance that negative effects will not come by sharing their valuable knowledge, workers may avoid participation despite numerous opportunities to do so (Brelade & Harman 2000; Brand, 1998). Without trust, the whole KM program is undermined. New, useful, and lucrative knowledge will not be created without a solid foundation of trust.

Incentives

While cooperative involvement and trust are critical elements in a culture that is conducive to knowledge sharing, a third element, incentives, must not be overlooked. Self-interest is, after all, a principle motivator for many-if not most-people's actions. And because KM is, at its roots, dependent on people's actions, corporations willing to implement KM strategies are now finding that they must also be prepared to implement new reward policies and programs in order to motivate employees to take part in knowledge management programs.

The KM programs introduced by knowledge managers are not always widely accepted in every department of an organization. Employees may not be excited to change their daily routine or to learn a new skill. Others could be intimidated by new technology. Regardless of which concerns prevent employees from contributing relevant knowledge, research has found that unless there is some type of positive incentive system, employees will be less likely to put forth the extra effort called for in KM programs (Stevens, 2000; Hansen, Nohria & Tierney, 1999; Stewart 1997).

Incentives-whether tangible or intangible-are an integral part of the knowledge management process because they can be used to motivate employees to share knowledge they otherwise might hoard (Hansen, Nohria & Tierney, 1999). Tangible incentives could include bonuses, stock options, plane tickets, or vacations, whereas intangible rewards might consist of empowerment, praise from managers and senior executives, special recognition, prestigious platforms at internal events, or public recognition as KM role models (Kluge, Stein & Licht, 2001). In offering incentives for participation in the knowledge sharing process, however, organizations must provide the right incentives for what they are trying to accomplish.

According to Chase (1997), unproductive reward and recognition programs are one of the major obstacles to creating knowledge-focused companies. Like technology solutions, KM incentive programs are not "one-size-fits-all;" that is, the same set of rewards will not work for every company due to variations in cultures and employees. For this reason, researchers concur that every business must personalize its recognition programs. For example, although monetary rewards are often viewed as highly motivating incentives, some companies have found that simply paying employees to contribute to knowledge databases often results in simply more, rather than better, input. Clearly, selecting the right incentives requires an understanding of the impediments to sharing and participating in a KM-sponsored environment, as well as an understanding of what motivates employees best.

The case of Xerox in developing a database to help the company manage its knowledge assets illustrates this point well. While participating in the design of the unique Eureka database, employees declined the corporation's offer to pay for tips included in the database and instead chose to have their names attached to the tips (Kikawada & Holtshouse, 2001). Employees thought that because of the thorough peer-review and approval process that tips would have to go though before being published in the database, including their names on the tips would earn them positive recognition and motivate them to continue to submit quality tips for inclusion in the database. The employees designing the system were right; not only did Xerox's incentive strategy improve the quality of the knowledge available in the database, but as Brown and Duguid (2000) point out, "Because even good tips vary in quality," the employees who contribute view their ability to "build social capital through the quality of their input" (p. 80) as an incentive to share.

In addition to differences among companies, differences among the various departments within an organization demand customized incentive programs. Staff in the IT department, for example, may value a weekly department party-while the marketing division may prefer notification or praise from a top executive. Furthermore, the value of rewards will vary on the individual level as well. For example, one employee may be motivated by winning a free trip while another employee may find greater satisfaction from a small plaque on the wall. One way to implement such customized incentive programs is to provide a list of reward options to employees whose performances exceed prescribed levels. By so doing, the recognition program remains flexible to variations among employees and their personal preferences. Research by Angus (2000) supported this type of system: "Reward systems should be customized, too, to recognize that each individual has unique aptitudes and needs" (p. 16).

Managers have found unique solutions to diversify the way in which their employees are rewarded. One method for recognition is to post employees' names next to their knowledge-enhancing contributions on the company's intranet website. Ellen Knapp, CKO at Coopers & Lybrand, found that the creation of a special category called Knowledge Champions helped motivate numerous employees to supply innovative ideas and share best practices on their company intranet. Knapp said it was all part of the company's overall goal to support KM objectives (Dash, 1998).

In addition to providing incentives for contributing knowledge, researchers have also found that companies need to reward employees for using the knowledge available to them. To ensure that employees at Texas Instruments were being rewarded for utilizing best practices, for example, knowledge managers created the NIHBIDIA Award (Not Invented Here But I Did It Anyway) to promote the use of best practices (O'Dell & Grayson, 1998) among employees. As O'Dell and Grayson (1998) point out, "If both ends are not feeling rewarded, you'll run out of content pretty quickly" (p. 84).

Incentives-tangible or intangible; big or small-will ultimately teach employees what the company really wants out of them. With the right rewards in place, a company's culture has a much higher chance of living up to management's expectations for KM; a lack of incentives, on the other hand, may prevent the whole KM program from ever leaving the ground (Stevens, 2000). Pfeffer and Hinds (2003) warn that too many companies want to experience a return on investments in knowledge management without actually making the investments. In short, if a company wants to benefit from KM programs and initiatives, it must make the necessary investments by adequately compensating and rewarding employees for their efforts to share and use knowledge. To do this, the leaders in the organization must be responsible for establishing optimal incentives and performance levels as well as for setting good examples for other employees.

Organizational Leadership

Because leaders set the example for others in the company, they have a direct impact on the organization's culture and on how the company approaches and deals with knowledge management. Therefore, another element of our model-organizational leadership-is critical to the overall success of any KM program. A recent study of 431 U.S. and European organizations confirms this: of the executives surveyed in the study, more than 67 percent admitted that their number one obstacle to knowledge management-culture (i.e., barriers related to cooperative involvement, trust, and incentives)-could be overcome by "more deliberate management" (Ruggles, 1998). Clearly, companies cannot afford to overlook the role organizational leadership plays in the knowledge management process.

KM practices must be actively and aggressively endorsed and practiced by the company's leaders; if KM does not permeate all levels of an organization, beginning at the top, it is unlikely that KM programs will ever catch on or be effective. In essence, the leaders are the hands and mouth of the company. As such, the managers set the standards for conduct at every level throughout the business. Without managers stressing the importance of KM programs, employees will assume that KM is just a passing fad, and not something that needs to be taken too seriously.

The term "leader" refers to everyone from the CEO and board of directors down to the unofficial opinion leader who works on the factory floor. Kluge, Stein, and Licht (2001) point out that while leaders across all levels of the organization have unique and important roles to play in managing knowledge, it is particularly important for the CEO to be involved in knowledge-sharing processes. This involvement is critical because the CEO sets the tone and establishes the rules for an organization; therefore, he or she has an enormous impact on whether or not KM becomes a company-wide effort. "If the boss takes knowledge seriously," they explain, "the rest of the company will follow" (p. 201).

In his research, Takeuchi (2001) describes three ways in which CEOs and other top managers should provide direction for where the company should head in terms of KM. First of all, top managers must articulate a 'grand theory' of what the company as a whole ought to be. second, top management must incorporate its vision for knowledge management into the company's corporate objectives or policy statement. Third, top managers must strategically decide which KM efforts to support and develop and then must follow that strategy. By performing these actions, Takeuchi argues, the organization's leadership will not only link together the many disparate activities of the organization into a coherent whole, but will also establish clear and visible standards and objectives for the rest of the company to follow.

While direction from top management is crucial to effective KM, well-trained middle managers also have a critical role to play in bridging the gap that exists between top managers and front-line workers. Again, Takeuchi (2001) gives important insight into the function of this level of management: "Middle managers mediate between the 'what ought to be' mindset of the top and the 'what is' mindset of the front-line employees" (p. 323). To do this, middle managers must make the visions and 'grand theory' created by top management understandable and executable for front-line employees. They must also synthesize the knowledge generated by both top management as well as front-line workers, converting the knowledge into usable technologies, products, or systems (Takeuchi, 2001).

In emphasizing that leaders are an integral component in the KM process, researchers and professionals alike have determined many ways in which a company's top management should facilitate the knowledge- sharing process. For example, Eppler and Sukowski (2000), who place leadership at the top of the pyramid of the platforms, norms, processes, and tools necessary for effective team knowledge management, emphasize the need for knowledge managers to achieve and maintain an equilibrium between motivating team members with urgency and providing them with time and space to reflect.

Brelade and Harman (2000) point out the need for leaders to help employees avoid conflicts of interest with KM practices and to help resolve such conflicts when they occur. While going through this "process" of change, the authors state that managers' roles will change to "facilitators rather than controllers" due to the increased power of the knowledge workers in relation to the managers themselves. Beckman (1999) further expands management's responsibilities in the KM process to include motivating employees, providing equal opportunities and development, and measuring and rewarding the performance, behaviors, and attitudes that are required for effective KM.

Stewart (1997) asserts that even companies with promising cultures and highly effective incentive programs will not succeed without dedicated and responsible managers. Interestingly, however, many researchers and professionals are now realizing that if firms wish to have such managers-managers who are dedicated to achieving KM goals and who are prepared to do what is necessary to achieve those goals-they must be willing to deliberately develop these managers and provide them with adequate and on-going training, direction and incentives.

While developing leadership that values and is committed to knowledge management certainly will require investments of both time and resources from companies, researchers are beginning to show that the benefits that come from doing so more than make up for the costs associated with such efforts (Ichijo, von Krogh & Nonaka, 1998). One such investment that companies have found beneficial is the establishment of a CKO.

Chief Knowledge Officers (CKOs)

The position of Chief Knowledge Officer is relatively new because Knowledge Management itself is a very young field. As KM expanded during the late-nineties, though, so did the need for managers who understood knowledge practices and earnestly strived to achieve them. Researchers are now showing that such managers are perhaps best developed and coordinated under the direction of a CKO. Because of this, the CKO is the third element of our model of factors leading to effective KM.

Almost every company regards the CKO in its own unique light. Due to this ambiguity, many executive titles have been associated with this position. Philip Morris has a Knowledge Management Champion. At Johnson & Johnson it's a Director of Knowledge Networking, and AT&T Labs calls theirs a Futurist-in-Chief (Copeland, 1998). Although these various appellations provide insight into the unique expectations that each company has for their chief knowledge officer, leaders filling this position nevertheless share many of the same responsibilities and qualifications.

Firms that implement KM practices are the most likely to create CKO positions. The Conference Board found: "At least one half of U.S. companies and up to 72 percent of overseas firms have some kind of knowledge management initiative planned or underway" (quoted in Bonner, 2000, p. 36). With so many organizations using or beginning to use KM practices, many researchers and professionals argue that it has become critical to have a central figure in the company who is responsible for KM success (Herschel, 2000).

Although at the time of its study the Conference Board found that only 25 percent of the companies with KM efforts underway employed a CKO or someone with a similar job description and title (e.g., Chief Learning Officer), this new assignment of CKO is becoming more and more commonplace for companies deciding to seriously pursue knowledge-leveraging plans.

Because of such rapid growth and expansion into the KM realm, however, many companies have struggled to properly define the roles and responsibilities of their chief knowledge officers. Consequently, the position of CKO is still being defined because of the short history they have to build upon. Stewart (1998) states: "The job is still so new that few people who hold it know quite what it is. There are CKOs with large staffs and CKOs with none; some who report to the chairman and others who report several layers down" (p. 154). And Bonner (2000) put the age of the position in perspective when he wrote: "Most chief knowledge officers and chief learning officers are first-generation incumbents. They typically started their jobs less than three years ago and did so without clearly defined roles, responsibilities, and daily activities" (p. 37). In the following section we will consider common responsibilities of a CKO, after which we will review some prevailing qualifications for the job.

Roles of the CKO

What exactly does a CKO or knowledge manager do? What falls under the CKO's umbrella of responsibilities? Research has sought to outline common responsibilities so the knowledge manager can become more effective and more efficient. Although one clear set of responsibilities does not exist, many roles have become generally accepted as pertaining to the knowledge manager.

Chief Knowledge Officers are at the heart of KM processes. An empirical study performed by the Conference Board (www.conferenceboard.org) found a majority of top CKOs agreed on many common KM responsibilities. These activities included the following: integrating diverse functions or groups, developing cultures conducive to knowledge sharing and creation, leveraging corporate-wide learning, establishing partnerships with senior managers, and championing all knowledge management issues.

In alignment with these findings, Copeland (1998) suggests that CKOs facilitate knowledge sharing, document areas of expertise, and also set up incentive programs. He adds: "A big part of the CKO's job is getting employees to abandon their territorial ways and share what they know" (p. 2). In addition to these roles, Herschel (2000) describes one of the CKO's main functions as follows: "The CKO's goal is to foster a corporate culture that is constantly learning and growing by getting the firm's individuals committed to learning, and to embed that in the process structure of the business" (p. 38).

Stewart's (1998) research shows that most CKOs shoulder at least three core responsibilities. The first is evangelizing the necessity of knowledge sharing in every department of the organization. The second is to find and endorse projects that effectively distribute knowledge throughout the firm. The third responsibility of CKOs is to maintain the performance levels of their own staff. This threefold mission of CKOs is a firm starting point in defining this new position.

The idea that CKOs should maintain their staffs performance levels gave rise to the common imagery of the CKO as a knowledge cheerleader for the company. This metaphor is not far off, since the knowledge manager needs to continually encourage the organization's workers to participate in the free flow of information (Tobias, 2000). Both professionals and academics believe that an important part of the CKO's job is to cheer the employees along as they strive to reach their KM goals.

Qualifications of the CKO

Matching the right person to the right job is a difficult-yet vital-task in KM. Without a clear set of responsibilities, it is difficult to prescribe the optimal qualifications for the job. Unlike other senior level positions, it is still unclear as to what backgrounds make for the best knowledge managers. Consequently, companies are still unsure what to look for in applicants for their CKO and other critical knowledge management positions.

However, determining some of the basic job responsibilities has allowed for a better assessment of a CKO's optimal qualifications. Although the skill set of future CKOs may change, researchers believe that examining the characteristics of current CKOs will be helpful to companies in identifying the necessary requirements to fill the new position. Ultimately, finding personnel who are qualified to manage all of a CKO's responsibilities will help to ensure the effective implementation of KM practices.

Studies by Herschel (2000) reveal that most CKOs have little prior experience in the field of KM. Additionally, today's KM managers have very diverse backgrounds. They range from general business to competitive intelligence and library science. However, this trend may be coming to a close. In response to companies' efforts to establish the position of CKO, several universities have started granting degrees in the field. A few of the schools offering the programs are the University of California, Berkeley, and RMIT University in Melbourne, Australia. In the near future, it may not be uncommon to see KM classes and programs take hold in the majority of universities around the nation.

A study by Earl and Scott (1999) of twenty CKOs in North America and Europe found that most chief knowledge officers had been hand selected from a diverse pool of senior management. Their research also revealed some specific attributes that the majority has in common. Some of their findings are the following: all of the CKOs are established figures in their organizations, they are all at least somewhat knowledgeable about information systems and technology, most are in their forties, and most have direct access to the CEO.

With the intense growth that has occurred in the KM field, executives have rushed to fill their newly created posts with those whom they believe are competent and capable. This has led to the hiring of friends and acquaintances already in the upper echelons of the company. Most of these have not come from technology-related posts (Bonner, 2000). Instead, the roots of most CKOs are in human resources, organizational development, or sales and marketing.

Directions for Further Research

The purpose of this article thus far has been to present a model of the essential elements that lead to strategic knowledge transfer in organizations. After examining these elements and briefly reviewing what is known about each, however, it is clear that additional research is needed in order to more fully understand how organizations can best achieve effective knowledge management. The following section suggests directions for future research in each of the areas that have been discussed in this article: cooperative involvement, trust, incentives, organizational leadership, and CKOs. Table 1 below includes a summary of key questions for future research in these areas.

Organizational Culture

Cooperative Involvement

The issue of cooperative involvement raises many questions that need to be further examined. For example, while it is certain that promoting interaction will help KM programs, can excessive interaction be a detriment to the organization? Providing company time for both formal and informal meetings incurs costs and requires reliable returns. As a result, CEOs will be less likely to support these initiatives if the returns cannot be quantified. As with many KM issues, if the benefits cannot be directly accounted for, executives will be reluctant to continue supporting measures to promote cooperative involvement.

In addition to measuring the benefits of initiatives such as interdisciplinary debates, research should also determine the factors that lead employees to interact in the first place. Likewise, research can examine which involvement methods and communication media (e.g., face-to-face, email, telephone) work best for innovation and knowledge transfer.

Another area that needs to be examined is the effect that sharing has on the sharer. Freely providing knowledge benefits the business, but not always the employee. When the organization designs programs to incorporate everyone in the sharing process, they may send signals of valuing the knowledge possessed by the employee more than the employee as a person. Workers who equate their level of knowledge and expertise with their level of job security may be reluctant to give up these intangible assets.

Trust

Although researchers have determined that trust involves a level of predictability (Barney & Hansen, 1994) and that the frequency of interaction increases trust among organizational members (Davenport & Prusak, 1998), they have not provided conclusive evidence for many of the factors that determine the level of trust in an organization. Research can examine trust from both the organizational level and the individual level. Studies that examine the correlation between an individual's level of trust-in the organization itself as well as in its members-and the amount of knowledge he or she contributes will further researchers' understanding of how trust functions in a KM environment.

Measuring the correlation could be attempted in numerous ways. For example, a researcher could track the amount and quality of contributions employees make to the company intranet. This would reveal which employees are contributing to that KM program and which are not. Also, researchers could interview and/or survey employees to determine how their level of trust impacts their willingness to share ideas.

Another facet of trust that should be examined is asymmetric information. An employee's willingness to trust an employer could vary according to the employee's knowledge or information base. Low levels of individual trust may arise due to employees' lack of knowledge about the KM initiatives. Therefore, knowledge management programs may be misrepresented or simply misunderstood. Until employees fully comprehend the intentions of the KM program, they may be hesitant to share their knowledge. For example, a salesperson will be reluctant to add to a KM database if he or she believes the company will use the knowledge to eliminate positions in the sales department. Researchers could study the effects of asymmetric information by gathering data from employees to measure the depth of their understanding of the functions and purposes of knowledge management programs. During each interview, the employee could have the opportunity to explain his or her perception of the KM programs. Afterwards, the interviewer could resolve concerns while helping the employee understand the true intent of the KM initiatives. Researchers could also compare and contrast the effectiveness of individual interviews with group meetings or workshops in order to determine the ideal setting and environment to learn about KM and its intents and functions.

Incentives

Many questions arise concerning incentives for both long- and short-term employees. For example, which types of incentives work best for departments with high employee turnover as opposed to departments with company stalwarts? A study that measures employee's attitudes and performance would help answer this question. Researchers could also interview new hires as well as seasoned employees to discover the types of incentives that already do motivate them to share, create, and transfer knowledge. For new hires, who may not know what types of incentives will motivate them, researchers could also devise a survey which includes scenarios describing different types of incentives for accessing, using, and suggesting improvements to increase the usefulness of knowledge resources.

The correlation of the size of the knowledge contribution to the size of the incentive is another area in need of further examination. The majority of organizational rewards today are based upon quantifiable performance standards, with the size of the rewards often being directly tied to the level of performance. For example, a salesperson may be evaluated on the number of new accounts acquired per year, or a mutual fund manager by the number of basis points by which the fund beat the index. Further research is needed on determining the level and quality of KM contributions across a variety of situations. For instance, do larger rewards motivate employees to provide more valuable contributions, or are most employees willing to contribute regardless of the size of the reward?

An area for advanced research is to perform a cost/benefit analysis on the use of different incentive programs. The cost of creating unique reward systems for the company as a whole and unique systems on the department level can be high. Hence, the benefits will need to be both distinguishable and reliable. While measuring the cost to implement a reward program may not be difficult, quantifying the benefits will. Research that explores methods for estimating benefits of incentives will be of great worth.

Organizational Leadership

One of the first questions companies should consider when implementing a KM program is whether to hire new managers dedicated specifically to KM initiatives or to simply train existing managers in KM principles. How much more value do specialized knowledge managers add than general managers who have been taught a few KM techniques? When is it necessary to create a new and unique position? These issues must be addressed before knowledge management can become an established discipline in business.

Researchers should examine the productivity of firms with specialized knowledge managers as well as firms with managers who are not directly responsible for KM success. This research would reveal some of the advantages and disadvantages of utilizing a CKO or other specialized KM managers to implement KM programs. Similar research must be done to determine what types of companies will benefit most from having a knowledge leader. A cost-benefit analysis that compares specialized KM managers to general managers trained in KM practices would be helpful to companies as they face implementation decisions.

An important area task that must be undertaken by organizational leaders implementing and maintaining KM programs is that of determining what knowledge is valuable for the firm in the first place. Leaders must then determine how best to distribute knowledge based upon its value.

CKOs

One of the key knowledge leaders in an organization is the CKO. A CKO's impact on KM is another issue that needs further evaluation. The effects of leaders on KM initiatives reach beyond the culture of the company alone. For this reason, some companies have hired a Chief Knowledge Officer (CKO) to promote KM practices within their business. Thorough studies need to be performed to asses the value of CKOs and to appraise the worth of this newly created position.

If possible, researchers could collect data from CKOs who have retired or moved into other positions. These businesspeople could provide insights that would help improve future KM initiatives. A shortcoming of this strategy is the difficulty of finding retired CKOs, since most have held the position for less than three years. In addition, some current CKOs may not find it in their best interest to provide honest evaluations of the post. Alternately, researchers could collect data from CEOs or other top-level managers who work with the CKOs and who could therefore offer important insights on the value of the CKO position.

Research should also be done to determine where the CKO should be positioned in the organizational structure of the company. More empirical studies should be carried out to compare the level of responsibilities of other executive positions such as the CFO and the COO with those of the CKO. The positioning of the CKO has tremendous implications for the amount of attention that is given to KM, as companies that give executive status to their CKO are making a bold statement about their feelings towards the value and potential benefits to be gained from effective KM. Also, further research should examine the relationship between the CKO and Chief Information Officer and whether and when the two positions should be combined.

The most effective methods for evangelizing KM in the firm need to be further developed and discovered. Many researchers conclude that CKOs are to be cheerleaders, but few suggest how to do this. Rewards and recognition may be part of the cheerleading program, but research should also examine the duties of the CKO on a day-to-day basis.

Concerning the qualifications of a CKO, more research should be done to find the training and experiences that will be most useful for a CKO. While it is true that the pool of current CKOs is extremely diversified, academics and professionals should take the best from every background to create an optimal list of qualifications. Researchers could collect data from CKOs to find out what training has been the most useful to them. Comparing the most valuable experiences would aid in determining the most significant credentials that a new or existing CKO should have.

With these credentials determined, academics could then create an effective training program to be instituted at major universities. Creating a curriculum for future chief knowledge officers would be one of the most significant research contributions possible in KM. This task will require an understanding of every aspect of knowledge management.

Conclusion

Both professionals and academics agree that an organization's knowledge base is one of its most valuable assets. To stay competitive among the fast-paced companies of the twenty-first century, managers must find effective ways to leverage the knowledge that exists within their own organization. This paper has examined some of the key factors that will help managers accomplish this and has also presented many major KM issues that need to be further explored.

Organizational culture plays a vital role in the knowledge creation, sharing, and transfer process. Without a culture that fosters cooperative involvement and higher levels of trust, knowledge management programs will be stymied. Also, the incentive systems of the company can act as deterrents to knowledge sharing if they are not customized to the KM needs of the business.

Ultimately, without effective leaders who set appropriate examples, employees will not be motivated to freely participate in the KM programs. Consequently, organizational leadership plays a critical role in a company's efforts to capture and transfer knowledge. Additionally, the new position of Chief Knowledge Officer, although needing to be better understood, can greatly enhance and coordinate a company's efforts to implement and maintain knowledge management programs and initiatives.

Setting a research agenda will enhance the productivity of future KM programs. Taking the time to evaluate what has been discovered and then thoughtfully considering where to go next are two principles that always benefit business research. This paper has taken a step in that direction by examining the current thinking of professionals and academics regarding influential knowledge management topics. After examining the current findings in the areas which contribute to effective KM, the paper proposed areas for further study to help businesses use knowledge management techniques more effectively in the future. Businesses that facilitate knowledge management and promote effective knowledge transfer today will have a competitive advantage tomorrow.