Organizational Human Capital Retention: 
A Qualitative Study of HRM as a Mechanism for Long-term Knowledge Retention 
 
 
 
 
 
Author: Linnea Björk 
Supervisor: Richard Nakamura 
Master’s Thesis in International Business and Trade, Spring 2025 
Graduate School, School of Business, Economics and Law, University of Gothenburg 
 
Abstract 
This study examines the extent to which human resource management (HRM) can contribute to the 
long-term organizational retention of human capital, specifically in the form of employee knowledge, 
within multinational corporations (MNCs). While the existing HRM literature has not explicitly addressed 
human capital retention, it has done so implicitly by focusing on employee retention. This study, however, 
aims to make that connection more explicit by exploring whether HRM can support knowledge retention 
beyond individual tenure, thereby contributing to a more long-term preservation of employee knowledge. 
In doing so, it integrates concepts from previously distinct bodies of literature, including knowledge 
identification, the routinization of knowledge and the practical enactment of routines. A qualitative 
multiple-case study design was employed, with semi-structured interviews conducted across several 
MNCs. This approach made it possible to assess whether certain similarities or differences in practices 
existed between cases, thereby contributing to an understanding of how knowledge retention is supported 
within organizations. The findings indicate that HRM can play a partial role in supporting long-term 
organizational knowledge retention. More specifically, it does so through the proactive identification of 
employee knowledge, particularly via in-person mechanisms and the involvement of line management 
and higher organizational levels. However, limited empirical evidence was found for the routinization of 
knowledge and the support for practical enactment of routines. As a result, the findings suggest that 
knowledge retention remains largely dependent on individual employees as carriers of knowledge, rather 
than being structurally embedded within organizations. Consequently, the extent to which HRM can 
contribute to long-term organizational human capital retention, in the form of knowledge, within MNCs, 
appears to be limited. 
 
Keywords: Human resource management, Knowledge management, Human capital retention, 
Knowledge retention, Routines, Multinational corporations, Multiple-case study  
 
 
Preface 
Before officially commencing this thesis, I would like to take a moment to express my deepest gratitude 
to everyone who has contributed to this journey over the past months. First and foremost, I wish to extend 
my sincerest thanks to my supervisor, Richard Nakamura, for his invaluable guidance throughout the 
entire process. Your support and encouragement have been deeply appreciative during moments of 
uncertainty, and I am truly grateful for your insight and direction. I would also like to thank all the 
participants who generously took time out of their busy schedules to speak with me. Without your 
willingness to share your experiences, this study would not have seen the light of day. I am sincerely 
grateful for your kindness and openness, given so freely and without expecting anything in return. 
 
On a personal note, writing this thesis has been one of the most intense and rewarding undertakings I have 
brought to completion insofar. From the initial idea to its finalization, it has been a journey filled with 
learning, growth, and discovery. While there were certainly moments of challenge, there was never a dull 
one. With this in mind, I hope that my curiosity and dedication are evident throughout these forthcoming 
pages, and that you, the reader, find the subject as fascinating as I have. Now, as I reach the end of this 
two-year journey, I do so with a mixture of pride and nostalgia. This thesis not only marks the closing of 
one chapter but also the beginning of an entirely new one. While the path ahead may feel daunting, I look 
to the future with hope and optimism as I take on new endeavors. 
 
Thank you to everyone, once again. And to you, the reader,  
I truly hope you find this subject as engaging and thought-provoking as I have. 
Sincerely, 
 
Linnea Björk 
2025.06.26 
 
List of Figures 
Figure 1 Conceptual Model         11 
Figure 2 Outline of a Deductive Research Approach      14 
Figure 3 Outline of the General Purposive Sampling Methodology    15 
Figure 4 Sampling Methodology for Phase 2 and 3      18 
Figure 5 Themes of the Interview Guide        21 
Figure 6 Outline of the Systematic Approach to Data Analysis     36 
Figure 7 Thematic Analysis of the Theme ‘Knowledge Identification’    72 
Figure 8 Thematic Analysis of the Theme ‘Routinization of Knowledge’    76 
Figure 9 Thematic Analysis of the Theme ‘Practical Enactment of Routines’   79 
Figure 10 Revised Conceptual Framework       81 
 
 
List of Tables 
Table 1 List of Interviewees         19 
Table 2 Outline of Table Supporting First-order Codes      37 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table of Content 
 
1. Introduction 1 
1.1 Background 1 
1.2 Problem Discussion 2 
1.3 Delimitations 3 
2. Literature Review 6 
2.1 HRM as a Mechanism for Human Capital Retention 6 
2.2 Organizational Memory as a Mechanism for Human Capital Retention 8 
2.3 Practical Enactment as a Mechanism for Human Capital Retention 9 
2.4 Conceptual Model 10 
3. Method 13 
3. 1 Research Approach 13 
3. 2 Data Collection 14 
3.2.1 Sampling 14 
3.2.1.1 The First Phase of Sampling 16 
3.2.1.2 The Second and Third Phase of Sampling 17 
3.2.2 Sample Size 19 
3.2.3 Interview Guide 20 
3.2.3.1 Central Themes of Interview Guide 20 
3.2.3.2 Operationalization of the Interview Questions 22 
3.2.4 Semi-structured Interviews 23 
3.2.4.1 The Actual Interviews 24 
3.2.4.2 In-person vs Digital Interviews 26 
3.2.5 Critical Reflection of the Methods used for Data Collection 27 
3.2.6 Transcriptions 29 
3.2.7 Ethical Considerations in the Data Collection 30 
3.2.7.1 Pre-interviews 30 
3.2.7.2 During Interview Sessions 32 
3.2.7.3 Post-Interviews 32 
3.3. Data Analysis 34 
3.3.1 Thematic Analysis 34 
3.4 Quality Criteria 38 
3.4.1 Credibility 38 
3.4.2 Transferability 39 
3.4.3 Dependability and Confirmability 40 
4. Results 42 
4.1 Identification of Employee Knowledge 42 
4.1.1 HR Systems 42 
4.1.2 In-person Knowledge Identification 45 
 
4.1.3 Knowledge Identification through Line Management 47 
4.1.4 Organizational Coherence in Knowledge Identification 53 
4.2 Retention of Knowledge 54 
4.2.1 In-person Knowledge Sharing 54 
4.2.2 Knowledge Transfers through Digital Platforms 56 
4.2.3 Challenges in Small-scale Knowledge Transfers 57 
4.2.4 Transboundary Scaling of Knowledge 60 
4.2.5 Challenges to Transboundary Scaling of Knowledge 64 
4.3 Support for the Practical Implementation of Knowledge 67 
5. Analysis 70 
5.1 Knowledge Identification 70 
5.2 Routinization of Knowledge 73 
5.3 Support for the Practical Enactment of Routines 78 
5.4 Revised Conceptual Model 80 
6. Conclusions 82 
6.1 Conclusion 82 
6.2 Theoretical Implications 84 
6.3 Practical Implications 85 
6.4 Future Research 86 
References 88 
Appendix 94 
Appendix 1 94 
Appendix 2 98 
Appendix 3 107 
Appendix 4 116 
 
 
1. Introduction 
1.1 Background 
To remain competitive in an increasingly dynamic and globalized economy, human capital has become 
critically important for organizations (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009: 452). In general, human capital can be 
considered an umbrella term for a variety of different ‘competencies’ possessed by individuals within 
organizations. Although this study focuses exclusively on knowledge, it is important to acknowledge that 
other related concepts, such as skills and abilities, also fall under this broader framework (Laroche et al., 
1999: 89; Wright et al., 1994: 304). Whereas one may misconceive such competencies as being trivial at 
first glance, it is not until upon further scrutiny that they reveal themselves fundamentally important to 
organizations (Barney, 1991: 101). This rings particularly true in today’s dynamic and knowledge-driven 
economy, where human capital, in the form of knowledge, is increasingly considered one of the most 
valuable assets a firm can possess (Jessop, 1999: 1). Specifically, what makes knowledge strategically 
important is its underlying potential to drive incremental improvements and continuous renewals, 
enabling firms to better respond to emerging changes in the external environment (Agarwal & Helfat, 
2009: 283; Daghfous et al., 2013: 639). In this way, employee knowledge can constitute a source of 
differentiation, allowing firms to perform key activities more effectively or uniquely than their 
competitors, thereby positioning themselves more favorably within the market (Porter, 1985, p. 33). As a 
result, knowledge becomes a necessary means for organizations to both survive and thrive in today’s 
global economy. Thus, it is as important for firms to preserve valuable employee competencies, such as 
knowledge, as it is to acquire them in the first place. 
 
However, because these competencies are inherently embedded within individuals (Cairó Battistutti & 
Bork, 2017: 461; Nonaka, 1994: 16), they are notoriously difficult for others to access and make practical 
use of. As a result, there are no guarantees that that human capital will remain within the organization 
after its bearers decide to depart. In fact, such loss is inevitable, as employees will eventually come to 
1 
leave their workplaces for various reasons. Even if individuals remain loyal to the same company 
throughout their entire professional careers, they will eventually face retirement and depart the 
organization (Daghfous et al., 2013: 641). In less dramatic cases, transitions into new roles or transfers to 
other departments can pose similar risks of knowledge loss (Mariano, 2023: 874). Collectively, these 
scenarios highlight the inherent vulnerability organizations face to the loss of critical knowledge in the 
wake of both external mobility (i.e., employee departures) and internal mobility (e.g., role changes or 
departmental transfers). 
 
1.2 Problem Discussion 
A common strategy to retain human capital has primarily involved reactive approaches, such as offering 
incentives to encourage employees to remain within organizations (Daghfous et al., 2013: 642). These 
measures have typically taken the form of human resource management (HRM) practices, such as 
compensation, training, and development, all of which aim to attract, retain, and motivate personnel 
(Porter, 1985: 42; Schuler & McMillan, 1984: 242). While these practices may offer a temporary solution, 
they fall short of addressing long-term organizational human capital retention, as they rely on individuals 
as the primary carriers of knowledge. As such, these shortcomings reveal both practical and academic 
limitations inherent to the current approaches. 
 
From an academic perspective, the literature has offered inadequate insight into how organizations can 
retain human capital through HRM, beyond simply incentivizing individuals to stay (e.g., Gaertner & 
Nollan, 1989: 986-987; Grover & Crooker, 1995). As a result, it fails to explain how such competencies 
can prevail over time within organizations once employees become subject to mobility. In turn, this points 
to a broader practical implication, namely, the difficulty for organizations to engage more meaningfully 
and strategically with their human capital in the long run. This is particularly detrimental to organizations, 
as employee mobility not only results in significant losses of organizational knowledge and subject-matter 
expertise (Daghfous et al., 2013: 641; Mariano, 2023: 874), but also incurs substantial costs in terms of 
2 
time, money, and resources (Laroche et al., 1999: 89-90; Mariano, 2023: 872). Furthermore, it risks 
eroding potential sources of competitive advantage. This concern arguably becomes even more 
pronounced in a transboundary context, where multinational corporations (MNCs) operate across 
geographically dispersed locations, particularly since the scale of such operations tends to promote 
employee mobility, as global work arrangements creates cross-boundary opportunities within the firm 
(Reiche et al., 2019: 360). Not only does this increase the likelihood of internal movement alongside 
external mobility, but it also raises the risk of valuable knowledge being lost in the process. 
 
This discussion leads us to the question whether HRM can support long-term organizational human 
capital retention, in the form of knowledge, not only by extending employee tenure, but by enabling 
processes that allow knowledge to decouple from individuals and persist independently within 
organizations over the long-term. It also raises the question whether the contemporary understanding of 
HRM can be conceptually expanded to include additional practice which support such long-term 
retention. Accordingly, this study seeks to contribute to the HRM literature by examining the extent to 
which HRM can be extended to include practices that promote long-term organizational retention of 
knowledge as a form of human capital. To explore this, the following research question is posed: 
 
- RQ: To what extent can HRM contribute to long-term organizational retention of human capital, 
in the form of employee knowledge, in MNCs? 
 
1.3 Delimitations 
To lay the foundation for the rest of the study, this preliminary section outlines several deliberate choices 
made to delimit the scope of the research. The first delimitation concerns the type of employee mobility 
under consideration. While knowledge loss can occur through both internal and external mobility, this 
study focuses specifically on the latter. This choice is guided by prior research on HRM and employee 
retention, which has implicitly examined knowledge loss in the context of employee departures (e.g., 
3 
Goldberg et al., 1989: 34-35; Lähteenmäki & Paalumäki, 1993: 399). Moreover, this study focuses 
exclusively on firm-specific employee knowledge, even though human capital is commonly divided into 
two categories: general and firm-specific (Barney & Wright, 1998: 37-38; Laroche et al., 1999: 8-90). The 
rationale behind this choice lies in the strategic value of the former compared to the latter. Unlike general 
competencies, which are widely applicable and easily transferable across organizations without any 
significant loss of value, firm-specific human capital is inherently contextual (Barney & Wright, 1998: 
37). As a result, this type of employee knowledge is particularly critical for organizations to retain, as it 
can result in a significant loss of valuable knowledge that is not easily replaceable (Laroche et al., 1999: 
90). 
 
Another key delimitation is the decision to examine HRM primarily through the lens of the HR 
department and line managers. This focus enables the research to assess whether organizations’ actual 
practices align with those outlined in the proposed conceptual framework. Although HRM is a broad and 
multifaceted concept, comprising various meanings, this study focuses exclusively on its more 
performative aspects, understood as the practices used for personnel management (Storey, 1992, p. 24). 
Given the HR department’s prominent role in performing and coordinating such activities (Morley et al., 
2006: 610), along with the growing involvement of line managers in personnel-related responsibilities 
(Storey, 1992: 189), these two organizational actors serve as accessible and relevant units of analysis. It is 
important to note, however, that this delimitation was later broadened to also include individuals in senior 
roles, due to methodological constraints. 
 
Lastly, due to the transboundary nature of the research, this study also focuses on examining multinational 
corporations (MNCs) operating in Sweden, including both Swedish-based and foreign owned entities. 
More specifically, the study adopts McCormick’s (2018: 134) definition of an MNC as “a private 
enterprise that has facilities and income-generating assets in two or more countries”. Furthermore, based 
on the assumption that all organizations, irrespective of industry, possess employee knowledge, no 
4 
delimitations were placed on the type of company. Accordingly, the research includes a mix of companies 
from different industries, reflecting the diverse organizational contexts in which knowledge retention is 
strategically relevant. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5 
2. Literature Review 
2.1 HRM as a Mechanism for Human Capital Retention 
As previously stated, human resource management (HRM) practices, such as compensation, training and 
development, have been widely recognized as key instruments for retaining personnel (Porter, 1985: 42; 
Schuler & McMillan, 1984: 242). This assertion is not merely grounded in theory, but is also empirically 
supported by a range of studies. For instance, Lähteenmäki and Paalumäki (1993: 404) found that HRM 
plays a significant role in reducing employee mobility by providing adequate opportunities for career 
development. Their research showed that employees who experienced dissatisfaction with their 
occupation, whether in terms of their daily tasks or long-term career progression, were more likely to 
consider leaving the company, as such dissatisfaction increased mobility motivation (Lähteenmäki & 
Paalumäki, 1993: 399). Even more striking, however, was the earlier finding of Gaertner and Nollan 
(1989: 986-987), which showed that employees exhibited higher organizational commitment merely from 
the perception of internal career opportunities, such as internal mobility and training. This finding was 
later reinforced by Meyer and Smith (2000: 28), whose study on career development opportunities 
reached a similar conclusion. 
 
While training and development play an important role in HRM’s implicit contribution to human capital 
retention, another key mechanism is employee benefits, which fall under the broader category of 
compensation. For instance, Goldberg et al. (1989: 23) conducted a study on the effects of child care 
benefits on employee retention. Their findings indicated that HRM practices, such as those related to 
subsidies and near-site child care centers, significantly influenced employees’ decisions to either remain 
with their current employer or seek new opportunities elsewhere, often with companies offering more 
comprehensive benefits (Goldberg et al., 1989: 34-35). This conclusion was later reinforced by Grover 
and Crooker (1995: 283), whose study on family-responsive benefits observed a positive correlation 
between benefits and employees’ organizational commitment. More specifically, the authors observed that 
6 
employees demonstrated higher commitment to their workplaces and a reduced inclination to leave the 
organization when such compensation was made available, regardless of whether they were direct 
beneficiaries of it or not (Grover & Crooker, 1995: 283-284). 
 
It is important to note, however, that while some scholars (e.g., Gaertner & Nollen, 1989: 986; Grover & 
Crooker, 1995: 284; Meyer & Smith, 2000: 328) distinguish between different forms of commitment (e.g., 
affective, normative and continuance), this study does not seek to delve into its underlying psychological 
causes. Instead, it adopts a broader view, aligning with Lähteenmäki and Paalumäki (1993: 404), who 
treat commitment as a general indicator of employees’ intention to remain within the organization. 
Accordingly, no distinctions are made between its different forms. Rather, the concept is instead referred 
to in general terms, even when cited authors differentiate between them in their original work. 
 
Nevertheless, what emerges from these findings is a strong empirical foundation supporting the implicit 
relationship between HRM and employee retention, measured through both employee commitment and 
mobility intentions. However, as previously noted, a key caveat of HRM lies in its heavy reliance on 
employee retention as a proxy for retaining human capital. As a result, the preservation of organizational 
competencies becomes entirely contingent upon the continued employment of individuals. While this 
approach may serve as a temporary measure to human capital retention, it overlooks the substantial risk of 
losing such competencies when employees inevitably depart the organization. This reveals a critical 
limitation of HRM, in its existing form, with regard to its inability to contribute to long-term 
organizational human capital retention. 
 
 
 
 
 
7 
2.2 Organizational Memory as a Mechanism for Human Capital Retention  
While the HRM literature implicitly addresses human capital retention by illustrating its relationship with 
employee commitment and reduced mobility motivation, it falls short of explaining how such 
competencies can be kept beyond simply encouraging employees to stay. This is where the literature on 
organizational memory offers a valuable and complementary perspective, which helps explain how 
human capital, particularly knowledge, can be preserved over time, even in the face of employee turnover. 
 
Organizational memory refers to the process through which information can be stored within 
organizations, similar to that of actual individuals’ memory (Walsh & Ungson, 1991: 60). Although 
scholars have proposed different ways in which this can be achieved, such as through the use of routines 
or organizational structures (Argote, 2013: 106; Levitt & March, 1988: 326; Rao & Argote, 2006: 77), 
this study adopts the view of Argote (2013: 106) and Hodgson (2008: 25), who argue that routines 
function as key repositories of human capital, in the form of knowledge. This conceptualization positions 
routines not merely as patterns of repetitive behavior, but also as vessels through which individual 
knowledge can become structurally embedded in organizations. Argote (2013: 88-89) illustrates this 
process through two empirical examples, showing how tacit employee know-how can become embedded 
in organizational routines, allowing it to persist independently of its original source. In both cases, the 
discovery of improved working methods led to their codification into routines, which were subsequently 
disseminated across the organization and adopted by employees as the new standard way of working 
(Argote, 2013: 89). 
 
Not only do these cases illustrate how employee-generated knowledge can drive meaningful improvement 
and continuous renewal, both of which are essential for maintaining competitiveness, but they also 
underscore the importance of the codification process itself. As Argote (2013: 107) emphasizes, such 
codification is a critical step in converting knowledge into a routine, as it must be articulated in a way that 
makes it understandable, accessible, and transferable to others. This aligns with the concept of knowledge 
8 
externalization, in which tacit knowledge is transformed into an explicit format, thereby facilitating its 
dissemination throughout the organization (Cairó Battistutti & Bork, 2017: 464; Nonaka, 1994: 24). By 
codifying individual know-how into a more comprehensible and unambiguous format, organizations can 
ensure that such knowledge can be retained and utilized by others, even after individuals who originally 
possessed it have left the organization (Gherardi, 2000: 213). In this way, critical human capital can be 
preserved over extended periods of time, independent of its originator. In fact, this has been empirically 
shown to be an effective way to alleviate the risk of knowledge loss within organizations (Daghfous, 
2013: 655). 
 
Essentially, the literature on organizational memory challenges the dominant HRM logic that human 
capital retention depends solely on the continued employment of individuals. Instead, it argues that 
organizations can preserve valuable competencies by embedding them into organizational routines. This 
idea forms the foundation of the proposed conceptual framework, which posits that HRM can contribute 
to long-term organizational human capital retention by facilitating and supporting such routinization. 
 
2.3 Practical Enactment as a Mechanism for Human Capital Retention 
Whereas the concept of organizational memory demonstrates that knowledge can be structurally retained 
within organizations, it is important to recognize that the embedding of knowledge into routines does not 
necessarily guarantee its longevity over time. Succinctly put by Miner et al. (2008: 156), the mere 
existence of a routine does not automatically ensure its enactment in practice. Instead, for it to be 
sustained and perpetuated over time within an organization, it must be practically employed. This aligns 
with Feldman and Pentland’s (2003: 95) conceptualization of routines as comprising both a structural (i.e., 
ostensive) and practical (i.e., performative) dimension. Without both elements, routines lack both the 
structural framework needed to guide behavior and the performative action to bring them to life. As 
Gherardi (2000: 215, 218) argues, it is the performative dimension of routines that connects ‘knowing’ 
with ‘doing,’ which, in turn, enables knowledge to be preserved not only structurally over time, but also 
9 
practically. In other words, unless routines are enacted in practice, they fail to retain knowledge in any 
meaningful sense, reducing them to mere structures without relevance or application. 
 
Traditionally, HRM has supported the practical enactment of knowledge through training. Although the 
effectiveness of this approach has been widely debated (Grossman & Salas, 2011: 104; Renta-Davis et al., 
2014: 728-729), research suggests that it can yield positive outcomes when certain conditions are met. 
Specifically, scholars have found that the practical implementation of knowledge is more likely to occur 
when training content is perceived as relevant and applicable to employees’ actual workplace tasks 
(Burke & Hutchins, 2007: 274; Grossman & Salas, 2011: 112). Given HRM’s established role in 
facilitating such an application of knowledge in practice, this raises the question whether it could also 
serve as a potential enabler for the practical enactment of organizational routines. 
 
2.4 Conceptual Model 
To address the limitations of existing HRM approaches to human capital retention, and to examine the 
extent to which HRM can contribute to its long-term preservation, this study proposes a conceptual model 
that builds upon the aforementioned literature. Beyond synthesizing these literatures, the framework also 
draws upon a relatively under-researched function of HRM, namely, its potential contribution to the 
identification of employee knowledge. While HRM has been recognized as an instrument for knowledge 
identification, most notably through exit interviews, its use has primarily been reactive in nature, aimed at 
mitigating knowledge loss in anticipation of employee departures (Daghfous et al., 2013: 643; Serrat, 
2017: 1023-1024). This suggests that organizations are often more concerned with responding to 
knowledge loss than with proactively identifying and capturing knowledge in advance of such 
occurrences. To address this gap, the conceptual model seeks to explore whether HRM can also play a 
more proactive role in identifying and capturing valuable employee knowledge. 
 
 
10 
Figure 1 
Conceptual Model 
 
Note. Author’s own Illustration. 
 
As illustrated in Figure 1, the conceptual model primarily proposes that HRM can contribute to long-term 
organizational human capital retention by supporting (1) the proactive identification of employee 
knowledge, (2) the codification of employee knowledge into organizational routines and (3) the practical 
enactment of such routines. Specifically, the framework suggests that the routinization of knowledge 
facilitates its longevity within the organization by embedding it into a durable and easily transferable 
format, allowing it to persist independently of any individual. As a result, even when the employees who 
originally possessed that knowledge leave the organization, it remains accessible to others who may 
benefit from it. Additionally, the conceptual model recognizes that codification alone is not sufficient to 
ensure long-term organizational knowledge retention. Rather, routines must be actively implemented in 
practice to bring these structures to life. This reasoning is based on the understanding that actual retention 
depends on the active use of knowledge, and that practical enactment is what gives routines their 
relevance and sustained application over time. Without continued use, routines risk becoming hollow 
structures, present in form but absent in function, thereby failing to support meaningful retention. For that 
reason, support for the practical enactment of routines can be seen as a key facilitator of long-term 
knowledge retention. Likewise, the identification of knowledge serves a similar function, facilitating the 
11 
start of the process by laying its necessary foundation. Logically, knowledge can neither be routinized nor 
practically perpetuated if it has not first been identified. 
 
In summary, the conceptual model not only challenges the contemporary understanding of HRM, but also 
expands the concept by synthesizing insights from multiple, previously distinct literatures. In doing so, it 
explores the extent to which human capital, in the form of knowledge, can be retained within 
organizations over the long term and despite employee turnover, through the use of human resource 
management (HRM). 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
12 
3. Method 
3. 1 Research Approach 
Given the exploratory nature of the research question, a quantitative approach was deemed inadequate for 
gaining a nuanced understanding of the phenomenon The inquiry instead required rich descriptions from 
participants in order to adequately assess whether the practices proposed in the conceptual model could be 
supported in practice. A qualitative approach was therefore deemed the most appropriate of the two 
research methods, as it provided precisely that, descriptively rich accounts from participants that enabled 
a deeper understanding of the phenomena under investigation (Bryman & Bell et al., 2019: 29). In more 
detail, a multiple-case study research design was employed to facilitate cross-case comparisons across 
different organizational contexts (Bell et al., 2019: 67). This approach made it possible to examine 
whether respondents actually adhered to the practices proposed in the conceptual model, and to what 
extent these practices were prevalent across cases. In doing so, the study indirectly addressed the extent to 
which HRM could be expanded to include practices that support the long-term organizational retention of 
knowledge, beyond relying on individual employee tenure. From this perspective, the research was 
primarily guided by a deductive logic consistent with the structure illustrated in Figure 2. 
 
While a deductive approach is traditionally associated with quantitative research, there are exceptions 
where qualitative researchers draw on existing theoretical frameworks and concepts to guide data 
collection and analysis (Bell et al., 2019: 2019: 36). This was particularly the case in the present study, 
which sought to test the conceptual framework developed from the literature in order to answer the 
research question. As a result, although the study aligned with the broader goals of qualitative research, it 
was not primarily concerned with generating theory inductively. Instead, theory was used from the outset 
to guide the exploration of the phenomenon, rather than being constructed from the findings (Bell et al., 
2019: 360).  
 
13 
Figure 2 
Outline of a Deductive Research Approach 
 
Note. Adapted from Business Research Methods (5th ed., p. 21), by E. Bell, A. Bryman, and B. Harley, 
2019, Oxford University Press. Copyright 2019 by Oxford University Press. 
 
3. 2 Data Collection 
3.2.1 Sampling 
The sampling process was divided into three distinct stages. Specifically, the first two stages followed a 
purposive criterion sampling approach, whereby participants were included based on their alignment with 
the predetermined selection requirements (Bell et al., 2019: 390). For this study, these criteria included: 
(1) physical presence abroad, aligning with the definition of a MNC; and (2) operations in Sweden. Once 
a company met these a priori conditions, the sampled respondent was preferably (3) someone working in 
the HR department, or alternatively, (4) a person in a senior or managerial role. While the initial aim was 
to examine the phenomenon through the lens of HR, practical constraints during the second round 
required a broadening of the criteria to include participants in other relevant roles. Nonetheless, these 
individuals were still considered relevant for the study, as their positions were likely to be involved in, or 
14 
aware of, knowledge retention practices, even if they did not formally work within HR. However, because 
the final sample was contingent upon the identified candidates’ willingness to participate, the last stage of 
sampling relied on convenience sampling, based on the accessibility of participants at the time of 
selection (Bell et al., 2019: 197). As a result, individuals who did not respond to the request or declined to 
participate were effectively excluded from the final sample, even if they met all prior selection criteria. 
 
Figure 3 
Outline of the General Purposive Sampling Methodology 
  
Note. Author’s own Illustration. 
 
As demonstrated in Figure 3, the sampling of interviewee candidates followed a sequential process, 
where candidates were filtered out in each consecutive phase, leaving a selected few as the final sample. 
 
15 
3.2.1.1 The First Phase of Sampling 
Given the transboundary nature of this study, in terms of its aim to examine MNCs, the primary 
requirement was that participating companies have a physical presence in one or more foreign markets. 
As a result, companies who did not have any operations abroad or those whose international presence 
rested upon alternative operational models, such as through indirect exporting, were excluded from the 
study entirely. In practice, this was easily determined by reviewing company websites, where such 
information was typically available. In addition to this criterion, the scope of potential candidates was also 
nationally confined to companies operating in Sweden, whether Swedish-based or foreign-owned entities. 
This approach allowed the study to capture the essence of MNCs, while doing so in a more accessible and 
contextually manageable manner. 
 
The motivation behind this nationally confined sampling strategy stemmed from the belief that it would 
significantly reduce initial barriers to establishing contact with potential participants, compared to what 
sampling abroad might have otherwise entailed. By speaking the same language and sharing a common 
cultural understanding, it was hoped that this approach would ease any initial hesitation participants might 
have had about taking part in the study. This aligns with Dwyer and Buckle’s (2009: 58) research on 
insidership, which suggests that researchers who share a common identity, language, or set of experiences 
with participants often gain more immediate acceptance. By virtue of a perceived mutual understanding 
and belonging, a shared membership can naturally foster a greater trust and openness, which in turn may 
contribute to the generation of richer and more in-depth data. 
 
Beyond these core sampling requirements, other aspects were more loosely defined. For instance, no 
specific delimitations were imposed with regard to industry. This was a deliberate choice, as the focus of 
the study is not on the content of knowledge itself, but rather on the processes that contribute to its 
retention. As such, the types of products or services offered by the sampled companies were considered 
irrelevant to the study’s purpose, based on the assumption that all companies, regardless of industry, 
16 
possess some degree of employee knowledge that would benefit from being retained. As a result, there 
were no explicit delimitations imposed on this aspect. However, as several knowledge-intensive 
companies declined requests to participate in the study, citing concerns over security and confidentiality, 
the sampling process naturally shifted away from targeting additional companies within such industries. 
Consequently, a degree of sampling bias may have occurred unintentionally. 
 
3.2.1.2 The Second and Third Phase of Sampling 
As previously mentioned, the second phase of sampling required that participants either worked within 
the company’s HR department or held a senior or managerial position. The latter two criteria were added 
at a later stage to expand the sampling scope, following a persistently low response rate from HR 
personnel. As a result, some companies were contacted on multiple occasions and through various 
channels. In cases where no response was received, additional HR employees within the same 
organization were contacted, as well as individuals in other relevant roles. This part of the sampling 
process was carried out in a less structured manner, as follow-up contact was initiated based on the 
availability of contact information from potential participants. After key personnel had been identified 
and contacted, the third sampling phase came to a beginning. At this particular stage, most candidates 
were filtered out due to either a non-response or an unwillingness to partake in the research. 
Consequently, only those who were willing and interested in participating comprised the final sample. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
17 
Figure 4 
Sampling Methodology for Phase 2 and 3 
 
Note. Author’s own Illustration. 
 
To provide a more nuanced account of how the second and third sampling phases were practically carried 
out, the entire process is visually presented in Figure 4. Initially, potential participants were contacted via 
LinkedIn (5). However, when this approach proved unsuccessful, the sourcing of candidates shifted to 
calling and emailing corporate offices instead. If a company’s website listed a number for its corporate 
headquarters or a regional office in Sweden, an initial attempt was made to call its national corporate 
switchboard. This was done to increase the likelihood of being connected with a relevant individual. In 
most cases, this resulted in a referral to a specific person within the HR department via email (2), while in 
a few instances, the call was directly forwarded to a contact person (3). Occasionally, the switchboard was 
unable to provide information about employees and therefore referred inquiries to customer service via 
email, which then initiated a separate referral process to identify appropriate contact persons (1), thereby 
restarting the process from the beginning. In the vast majority of cases, however, both approaches 
ultimately lead the sampling process to a dead end (6). Yet, in a few rare instances, someone expressed 
interest in participating, which allowed the sampling to progress to the third phase, in which candidates 
18 
voluntarily chose to be part of the final sample (7). This meant that if a person accepted the request (10), 
they were included in the final sample, whereas those who declined (9) or did not respond (8) were 
excluded. These became the most common methods for reaching potential participants. However, 
exceptions occurred in cases where participants were contacted through personal connections, which 
allowed some of the earlier intermediary steps to be bypassed (4). 
 
3.2.2 Sample Size 
Despite having contacted 104 companies in total, all aligning with the sampling criteria, some on multiple 
occasions and through various channels, only seven participants ultimately comprised the final sample. As 
this ratio indicates, the response rate was proven to be one of the greatest challenges in the sampling 
process. While a low response-rate was anticipated to some extent, its magnitude was not fully expected. 
 
Table 1 
List of Interviewees 
Respondent Role Date Duration Type 
R1 Learning & Development 2025-03-13 30 min Microsoft Teams 
Manager 
R2 HR Manager 2025-03-17 25 min In-person 
R3 HR Executive 2025-03-19 20 min In-person 
 
R4 HR Administrator 2025-03-21 25 min In-person 
R5 HR Specialist 2025-03-25 35 min Microsoft Teams 
Learning & Development 
R6 Senior Market Analyst 2025-03-31 25 min Microsoft Teams 
R7 Production Manager 2025-04-01 25 min In-person 
19 
 
As shown in Table 1, the final sample consisted of a combination of various HR representatives, in 
addition to two other personnel in a senior and managerial role. 
 
3.2.3 Interview Guide 
3.2.3.1 Central Themes of Interview Guide 
While the exact structure of each interview could vary slightly as a natural part of conversing with 
different individuals, an interview guide was employed throughout the data collection process to ensure a 
relatively high level of coherence and consistency across all interviews (Bell et al., 2019: 436). It was 
centered around five main themes: (1) knowledge accumulation, (2) knowledge retention, (3) knowledge 
retention through routines, (4) international embeddedness and (5) challenges and improvements, all of 
which are illustrated in Figure 5. The questions varied in depth and specificity, reflecting the diverse 
types of questions that can be used in qualitative interviewing, as outlined by Bell et al. (2019: 441-442). 
While some inquiries were more direct, others tended to be more open-ended, each serving specific 
purposes in seeking to understand the participants’ perspectives. For instance, each theme was 
deliberately introduced with a relatively open-ended question to encourage broader reflection on different 
aspects of the research topic. This was followed by a series of more specific or closed-ended follow-up 
questions aimed at clarifying or elaborating on what had already been said (see Appendix 1). 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
20 
 
Figure 5 
Themes of the Interview Guide 
 
Note. Author’s own Illustration. 
 
The first theme, that was, knowledge accumulation, sought to explore how companies internally identify 
employee knowledge. This raised the question whether there were specific strategies in place to ensure 
that such knowledge was proactively captured in earlier stages, as well as who within the organization 
held responsibility for this process. These questions naturally led the conversation into the second theme 
of the interview guide, which was knowledge retention. At this stage, the inquiries remain relatively 
general, allowing interviewees to describe their approach to retaining knowledge, without necessarily 
delving into the specificities of routines. As a result, it was not until the next theme, knowledge retention 
through routines, that routines began to permeate the questions more explicitly. At that point, the guide 
enabled a deeper exploration of the role that routines played in knowledge retention. This allowed 
interviewees to more directly reflect on their use, or non-use, of routines, while also providing an 
21 
additional opportunity to share any alternative approaches to achieving knowledge retention. Additionally, 
this theme also encompassed questions about the support for the practical enactment of routines. 
 
The fourth theme, international embeddedness, brought the interview questions closer to the core of the 
research question, which focused on how knowledge is scaled across the organizational boundaries. This 
theme was particularly relevant given the study’s transboundary nature. It explored how routines may be 
used to disseminate knowledge across the organization, as well as alternative mechanisms for doing so. In 
other words, it addressed how knowledge could be transferred from employees in local units to personnel 
abroad. Including this aspect in the interview guide was essential in determining whether the international 
dimension of the conceptual framework could be empirically supported, that is, whether knowledge, in 
the form of routines, facilitates its dissemination across the organization.  
 
Ultimately, the interview guide concluded by prompting interviewees to reflect on potential challenges in 
their current approach and whether any improvements could be made. These questions provided a final 
opportunity for participants to offer concluding remarks regarding future approaches to address ongoing 
challenges with knowledge retention, potentially also shedding light on possible changes related to the 
themes discussed. For instance, even if companies were not currently making use of routines, it could be 
something that they deemed important to implement in the future, thereby offering additional valuable 
insights related to the study’s core themes. 
 
3.2.3.2 Operationalization of the Interview Questions 
In addition to structuring the interview guide around the aforementioned themes, the questions were also 
curated in a way to ensure that they were free from any ambiguity, to not obscure participants’ 
understanding of what was being asked. As a result, any potential terminology which could be perceived 
as confusing or complex to the interviewees were deliberately replaced. For example, instead of asking 
about knowledge accumulation or knowledge retention, such phrases were intentionally substituted with 
22 
more easily-understood conceptualizations of the same thing. This included asking interviewees about 
how they ‘captured’, or ‘preserved’ knowledge. 
 
By articulating the questions in a clear and accessible way, the intention was to help participants more 
easily understand the underlying intent behind the question. This reflects Bearman’s (2019: 7) emphasis 
on the importance of phrasing phenomena in ways that resonate with those being studied. For instance, by 
saying that something is ‘captured’ or ‘preserved’, most people would likely associate it with someone 
figuratively taking something into possession or storing something for a long time. Thus, it was 
considered fundamentally important to use universally understandable representations of key concepts in 
order to more effectively communicate the intended meaning of the questions. Another example of this 
included the concept of international embeddedness, which referred to the ways in which knowledge can 
be disseminated and standardized throughout the organization. To express this colloquially, participants 
were simply asked how knowledge from one location could be made into a standard throughout the 
organization. This approach allowed the questions to more effectively convey the underlying purpose of 
each theme, while avoiding confusion that might arise from the use of complex or technical jargon (Bell 
et al., 2019: 261). 
 
3.2.4 Semi-structured Interviews 
For the data collection phase, a semi-structured interview design was employed. The rationale behind this 
choice stemmed from the desire to provide participants with sufficient flexibility to express themselves 
unencumbered, while still keeping a structure to the conversation. Compared to a more structured 
interview format, which risks aligning more closely with a quantitative research design, unstructured 
interviews allow for more open conversations that better capture the perspectives of those being studied 
(Bell et al., 2019: 369). As a result, while semi-structured interviews share some structural characteristics 
traditionally associated with quantitative interviewing, they remain grounded in quantitative research, as 
they still allow participants to fully express their world views freely (Bell et al., 2019: 436). By not 
23 
straying too far from the predetermined interview guide, which reflected the main themes of the study, the 
semi-structured interview design ensured that the data collected would be sufficient to adequately answer 
the research question at a later stage. 
3.2.4.1 The Actual Interviews 
Interviews were conducted either in-person, frequently at the participants’ corporate offices, or online via 
Microsoft Teams. The respective choice of format was primarily based on the preferences of each 
interviewee. However, exceptions to this were made when it was geographically impractical to conduct 
in-person interviews. All interviews were also audio-recorded with the participants’ permissions. Consent 
for this was requested both during the email correspondence prior to the interview, and once again 
immediately before the session began. In this way, interviewees were rendered an additional opportunity 
to reconsider their decision in case they no longer felt comfortable being recorded. While this did not pose 
an issue to the present study, as all participants were very accommodating, it is important to acknowledge 
that concerns about being recorded are a common reason why some participants will decline such a 
request (Bell et al., 2019: 445). The interviews also followed the same outline put forward by the 
predetermined interview guide, which provided a sense of direction throughout the conversations. While 
it was important to allow data to emerge organically (Bell et al., 2019: 445), the use of an interview guide 
proved useful in redirecting the discussion back to the main themes whenever necessary. As a result, the 
interview sessions still allowed for considerable flexibility to diverge from the set questions when 
participants introduced relevant subtopics or when it was appropriate to ask follow-up questions that were 
not included in the guide. 
 
Moreover, the interviews were conducted in Swedish, the native-language of all participants. This 
decision was driven by both practical and strategic considerations, as it enabled participants to express 
themselves fully and freely, without any linguistic impediments, potentially contributing to deeper 
reflections. This aligns with the findings of Welch and Piekkari (2006: 425, 428) who reported that many 
researchers perceived the use of interviewees’ native languages as facilitating trust and enabling richer, 
24 
more nuanced descriptions during interviews. Similarly, contextualization was frequently also used to 
elicit richer descriptions. For example, when a question appeared ambiguous or unclear for participants, it 
was contextualized by either offering a fictitious example or referencing a situation that they had 
previously described. This approach helped interviewees better understand the nature of the inquiry. 
 
Finally, the interview sessions formally ended once the recording had ceased. However, a brief 
post-interview discussion, in the form of a debrief, would invariably follow. This off-record conversation 
gave participants the opportunity to share any concluding reflections or inquiries regarding the themes 
that were discussed. During this stage, interviewees were also informed about the next-coming steps in 
the research process, such how the material will be processed, and their inherent rights as participants. In 
general, the interviews lasted approximately 25-35 minutes, excluding the debriefing. While this may be 
perceived as relatively short, it is important to note that none of the respondents were able to answer 
questions related to the use of routines. As illustrated in Appendix 1, several questions were dedicated to 
this theme, indicating that the limited responses were not a result of a lack of inquiry. Although 
participants’ answers became less nuanced, or altogether absent, when the discussion shifted toward the 
later themes, they were diligent in responding to those addressed earlier. This reinforces Bell et al.’s 
(2019: 448) argument that the length of an interview should not be assumed to determine its quality. 
 
Although it may be met with criticism that greater efforts were not made to address the lack of responses 
on certain themes, it was evident that pressing further would have offered little added value. Continued 
persistence in probing, particularly regarding topics such as routines, would likely have resulted in overly 
leading questions. This, in turn, could have negatively affected the study’s credibility, as such questions 
would risk steering interviewees toward directions they were not naturally inclined to explore on their 
own (Bell et al., 2019, p. 260). As a result, this approach would potentially undermine the core aim of 
qualitative research by distorting participants’ real perspectives (Bell et al., 2019: 366). Consequently, no 
follow-up correspondence was initiated regarding any theme. Rather than viewing this as a limitation, the 
25 
absence of responses may, in fact, offer a more revealing indication of the gap between theory and 
practice in knowledge retention. 
3.2.4.2 In-person vs Digital Interviews 
As previously mentioned, the interviews were either held in-person or online via Microsoft Teams, 
depending on interviewees’ own preferences and the geographical feasibility of a face-to-face meeting. 
One apparent advantage of the latter, which Bell et al. (2019: 453) also notes, is the significant time and 
cost savings incurred from not having to travel to geographically distant participants. In fact, it was very 
convenient to use Microsoft Teams, as the interviewees were already familiar with the software through 
their workplaces. While the platform offers a video recording function, it was deemed unnecessary to 
include visual representations of the interview, as this could have made some participants uncomfortable. 
Instead, all interviews were audio-recorded using external recording equipment. 
 
Although there is limited empirical evidence suggesting that online interviews pose any significant 
disadvantages compared to in-person meetings (Bryman & Bell, 2019: 259), an issue that did arise was 
the tendency to accidentally interrupt interviewees too hastily, particularly when a natural pause in their 
speech was misinterpreted as the end of a response. Unlike in-person interviews, it was more difficult to 
identify social cues, such as body language or verbal signals, that might otherwise indicate when an 
interviewee intends to continue speaking after a moment of reflection. However, this appears to be a 
common issue with online interviews, as both interviewers and interviewees often find it difficult to 
recognize visual or auditory cues of the other person (Bryman & Bell, 2019: 259). One strategy used to 
address this issue was to respond cautiously, allowing a brief pause before replying to ensure that 
interviewees had fully completed their thoughts. This approach helped avoid unintentionally speaking 
over participants who may have needed a moment of reflection before continuing. While it was not a 
perfect solution, it was considered better to adopt a mindset of speaking too little rather than too much, in 
order to give participants the space to share deeper insights. 
 
26 
3.2.5 Critical Reflection of the Methods used for Data Collection 
While the chosen methods enabled a nuanced understanding of participants’ perspectives, consistent with 
the objective of qualitative research, they were not without limitations. A classic critique of qualitative 
research is that its findings are considered too limited in its application beyond the unique contexts of the 
selected samples. More specifically, critics often question the generalizability of the findings due to the 
typically smaller sample sizes used (Bell et al., 2019: 374). Although this is a valid concern, it arguably 
misunderstands the intent of qualitative research, which is not to produce empirically generalizable 
results, but rather to generate theoretical generalizations (Bell et al., 2019: 375). In fact, empirical 
generalizability is not guaranteed even in quantitative research, despite the use of traditional probability 
sampling methods (Bell et al., 2019: 201). As succinctly put by Bell et al. (2019: 201), regardless of the 
chosen research approach, whether it may be qualitative or quantitative, the empirical findings can never 
be assumed to be applicable beyond the sampled population. In other words, while this is indeed a 
limitation, it is not necessarily inherent to the chosen research approach alone. 
 
While it may be easy to justify certain methodological limitations, it is equally important to be fully 
candid about what could have been improved, in order to critically evaluate the methodological choices in 
a genuinely reflective manner. For that reason, it is worthwhile to consider the potential limitations of a 
deductively oriented research approach and the use of semi-structured interviews. Starting with the 
former, as previously discussed in section 3.1, qualitative research can certainly adopt a more deductive 
orientation (Bell et al., 2019: 36). However, a notable caveat of this, especially combined with the chosen 
interview method, is the risk of losing part of what constitutes the core essence of qualitative research. 
Succinctly put by Bell et al. (2019: 437-438), 
 
If it is important to the researcher to gain a genuine understanding of the world views of members 
of a social setting or people sharing common attributes, an unstructured interviewing approach 
may be preferable. With a more unstructured approach, the researcher is less likely to come at 
27 
participants’ world views with presuppositions or expectations and is more likely to see things as 
the participants see them. 
 
While both methodological choices were appropriate for the specific purpose of the present study, a 
notable constraint lies in the degree of structure imposed. By having established a research agenda early 
on, consistent with the deductive approach, and employing a relatively structured interview format for 
data collection, there was an inherent risk of limiting the depth of understanding of participants’ social 
worlds. This raises the question whether the methods fully succeeded in capturing participants’ 
worldviews in their entirety. That said, efforts were made to mitigate this limitation. For instance, by 
including various open-ended questions in the interview guide, participants were given the opportunity to 
elaborate freely and provide rich, in-depth answers. To counterbalance these limitations, it is worth noting 
that, although the semi-structured interview format has certain shortcomings, it also serves as a significant 
strength. In fact, according to Bell et al. (2019: 438), 
 
If the researcher is beginning the investigation with a fairly clear focus, rather than a very general 
notion of wanting to do research on a topic, it is likely that the interviews will be semi-structured 
ones, so that the more specific issues can be addressed. 
 
Since the study began with a well-established idea of what it sought to investigate, rather than allowing 
the data to entirely dictate the direction of the research, the semi-structured interview format was well 
aligned with the study’s purpose and objective. Another strength inherent in the methodological choices 
was the use of a purposive sampling approach. While probability sampling is indubitably valued for its 
use of random participant selection (Bell et al., 2019: 193), the sampling approach used in this study 
allowed for the strategic selection of individuals that were deemed relevant to the research aim. However, 
a trade-off of this choice was that the identification of relevant cases was largely contingent on companies 
that were already known, either for their public visibility or their geographical proximity. This 
28 
demonstrates that there are both strengths and limitations inherent in all methods, regardless of which 
methodological strategies are employed. Ultimately, what matters the most is that the chosen methods are 
well-aligned with the nature and objectives of the research. This is where their true strength lies. 
 
3.2.6 Transcriptions 
After the interviews were conducted, the recorded material was transcribed into written form. Each audio 
file was initially processed via Microsoft Word, through its automatic transcription function, which 
generated a rough draft of a verbatim account of the interview. Although this provided a useful starting 
point, in the form of a semi-finished transcript, it still required extensive manual refinement through 
repeated comparison between the audio recordings and its written form. As with any transcription 
process, this was a rather time-intensive phase of the research (Bell et al., 2019: 446). However, to work 
more time-efficiently, any irrelevant parts of the interview were deliberately omitted from being further 
transcribed in more detail, per the recommendation of Bell et al. (2019: 448). This included any 
redundancies, in the form of long tangents, filler words, false starts or instances of unfinished sentences 
made during the interview. Indubitably, this significantly improved the readability and clarity of the 
transcripts, while still preserving the original intentions of the participants’ responses. In fact, this is a 
common practice aimed at ensuring both conciseness and comprehensibility (Bell et al., 2019: 447). 
 
Once the transcriptions were completed, the material was sent to the interviewees for review, along with 
the audio recording. If any follow-up questions arose during the transcription process, typically to clarify 
some parts of the interview, they were also included in the correspondence. Participants were then given 
the opportunity to review the edited interview transcripts and approve of their content. If any 
incongruence was identified between what was stated during the interview and what written in the 
transcripts, revisions were made accordingly. This was a crucial step to ensure that any potential quotation 
would succeed in accurately capturing the insights of the participants. Following this approval, relevant 
29 
excerpts from the transcripts were then translated into English for use in the results section. All 
translations were the author’s own. 
 
In general, participants were contacted again approximately two weeks after their respective interviews, 
although this varied depending on when the interview was conducted. Naturally, the first interviews had 
longer processing times, as other interviews were conducted concomitantly. Similarly, the time required 
for transcription varied depending on differences in interview duration, redundancy, and clarity, all of 
which influenced the extent of manual refinements needed. 
 
3.2.7 Ethical Considerations in the Data Collection 
As researchers, there is a great responsibility toward those who entrust them with their insights. It is 
therefore of paramount importance to ensure that this trust is not taken advantage of in any way. This 
holds true regardless of what research method may be employed. Indeed, it would be incorrect to assume 
that certain methods would be more immune to ethical concerns than others (Bell et al., 2019: 111). While 
ethical research principles are most prominently applied during the data collection stage, this study has 
consistently adhered to ethical standards throughout all phases of the research process. Specifically, 
participants were always given agency to decide upon their own conditions of participation, from the 
initial point of contact to the final phase of their involvement. 
 
3.2.7.1 Pre-interviews 
Upon initial contact with potential interview candidates, they were provided with a general introduction to 
the researcher, the overarching purpose of the study and key information regarding the conditions of 
participation. To avoid overwhelming them at this early stage, the focus was primarily on communicating 
the general scope of the research and informing them about their right to anonymity. Ensuring the 
confidentiality of the research participants was a central ethical consideration, aimed at protecting both 
their identities and their respective workplaces (Bryman & Bell, 2019: 57). It also served as an indirect 
30 
means of enhancing the overall quality of the research. By guaranteeing anonymity, participants were 
given the opportunity to speak more freely, without fear that sensitive information could be traced back to 
them by external actors. This reflects a commonly applied ethical practice in qualitative research, as 
illustrated by Bell et al. (2019: 116), where participant anonymity is seen as essential to creating an 
environment free from the fear of identification that might otherwise lead to self-censorship. 
 
To also ensure that all candidates received the same core information, a standardized template was 
employed to maintain consistency. However, slight alterations were made depending on the context of 
each interaction. For instance, when contacting someone for the first time, the template was used 
extensively, whereas it was followed more modestly in cases where a prior conversation had already taken 
place. This ensured a consistent standard of communication across all candidates. In other words, no 
participant received an alternative version of the information that could have influenced their 
understanding of the study or their decision to participate. 
 
Whenever interviewees progressed to the second stage of the email correspondence, they were provided 
with more detailed information regarding their participation along with the interview guide. This included 
information about their right to withdraw from the study at any time and their ability to amend, elaborate 
on and retract statements made during the interview. They were also informed about how the collected 
material would be handled and asked if they consented to the interview being audio recorded. As 
aforementioned, the interview guide was also attached to the email at this point in time, offering a 
transparent overview of the questions they could expect. In doing so, the participants were rendered 
adequate information to make an informed decision regarding their involvement. As Bryman and Bell 
(2019: 52-53) emphasize, this is a fundamental component of respecting the rights of research 
participants.  
 
31 
Although there was a clear personal interest in securing interviews, considerable efforts were made to 
avoid projecting any expectations onto potential participants. At no point was it the intention to make 
them feel pressured to accept the request. On the contrary, it was consistently emphasized that their 
decision, regardless of outcome, would be fully respected and understood. There was also a conscious 
choice to always respond to all candidates, even in cases where they declined participation after the initial 
contact. This was done to ensure that their decision was acknowledged and not invalidated through 
silence. In this sense, participation in the study was always on the interviewees’ own terms. Additionally, 
no further contact was made with individuals who had not responded after the initial attempt of 
communication. Having said this, a follow-up message was only sent to those who had previously 
expressed an interest in scheduling an interview, serving as a friendly reminder rather than a form of 
pressure. 
 
3.2.7.2 During Interview Sessions 
During the interview sessions, whether this would be on-site or online, the interviewees would once again 
be asked to confirm their consent to the recording of the conversation. If this was allowed by the 
participants, the interview would proceed to get audio recorded. Upon completion of all questions, each 
session would be concluded by reiterating some of the key information they already had been informed of 
on previous occasions, as a part of the debriefing. This included their rights to amend, elaborate on, or 
entirely withdraw any statements made during the interview. 
 
3.2.7.3 Post-Interviews 
After the interviews had been transcribed, each interviewee would receive the transcription of their 
respective session via email. Along with the message, they were once again informed of their rights to 
amend, elaborate on, or withdraw statements. At this stage, participants were given the opportunity to 
correct any inconsistencies in the interpretation of their statements. This ensured that the material did not 
unintentionally misrepresent what the interviewees had conveyed during the interviews, rather than being 
32 
true to the nature of their accounts. However, if there were any feedback pertaining to the transcription, 
appropriate revisions would be made accordingly. It was not until participants had approved the 
transcriptions that it proceeded to be used in the research. 
 
Moreover, the interviewees were granted full confidentiality, as promised in advance. In alignment with 
the ethical guidelines outlined by Bryman and Bell (2019: 57), each participant was assigned a unique 
code name to protect their anonymity throughout the research process. Only their professional titles were 
included, solely to provide transparency regarding the types of individuals who were interviewed. As a 
final ethical consideration, the completed thesis was shared with all participants. Providing them with this 
opportunity enabled participants to see the outcomes of their contributions and, potentially, benefit from 
the insights generated. This was regarded as a meaningful gesture of respect and appreciation for their 
involvement. In conjunction with this, participant data, such as audio recordings, were also deleted, with 
the exception of anonymized transcripts, which were retained to enhance the dependability of the research 
and to allow for potential audit, if deemed necessary. 
 
In conclusion, participants were given multiple opportunities to provide their ongoing consent throughout 
the entire research process. As a researcher, it is crucial to not risk treating ethical considerations as a 
one-time obligation, but rather as a continuous responsibility. This approach aligns with the perspective of 
Bell et al. (2019: 112), who has called into question the more lax positioning to ethical research. Guided 
by this view, ethical reflection was present at every stage involving the participants. This ensured that 
ethics remained embedded throughout the research process, rather than being neglected along the way. 
Participants were also transparently informed about the study’s purpose, how the collected material would 
be handled and their rights as participants. By being sincere and transparent about these aspects from the 
outset, participants were able to make well-informed decisions regarding their involvement (Bell et al., 
2019: 118). Taking all this into account, the research can be considered to have adhered to high ethical 
33 
standards, in the sense that it was grounded in informed, voluntary and continuous consent from the 
participants throughout the entire process. 
 
3.3. Data Analysis 
3.3.1 Thematic Analysis 
Once the empirical data had been collected, it was analyzed using a thematic approach. The rationale for 
this methodological choice was based on its aptness in regard to the research aim. As the purpose of the 
study was not to inductively develop a new theory, but to examine whether the empirical findings could 
support the proposed extension of HRM theory, this method for data analysis was deemed the most 
appropriate. While thematic analysis is broad in terms of how themes can emerge from the empirical data, 
this study employed a theory-driven approach, wherein themes derived directly from the conceptual 
framework (Bell & Bryman, 2019: 519). Accordingly, the analysis was guided by these predetermined 
conceptual themes, which were explicitly drawn from the framework and its underlying literature. Unlike 
more common approaches to thematic analysis, such as identifying themes based on repetition across 
cases, this theory-driven approach ensured that the analysis remained focused and anchored in the 
research objective (Bell & Bryman, 2019: 519). Consequently, only the most relevant empirical findings 
were analyzed through the conceptual themes, rather than extending the scope to include arbitrary or 
thematically irrelevant data that merely occurred frequently across the cases. In this way, the analysis 
remained consistently aligned with the research purpose. 
 
In practice, the analysis began by identifying themes that corresponded to the conceptual model and its 
underlying theoretical concepts. For each body of literature synthesized in the conceptual framework, a 
corresponding theme was developed. Given the study’s clearly defined focus from the outset, in line with 
its deductive orientation, this process was largely intuitive. As a result, the final themes, which included 
knowledge identification, routinization of knowledge, and support for the practical enactment of routines, 
34 
emerged organically and were well-aligned with the purpose of the study. In more detail, the data analysis 
was inspired by Endenich et al. (2022: 573-574), who employed a structured and sequential method for 
analyzing interview data. Their process followed a multi-level approach, characterized by the progressive 
refinement of raw data, from concrete respondent quotes to increasingly abstract and conceptually 
sophisticated interpretations at each stage of the coding process. While this approach served as a valuable 
source of inspiration to guide the data analysis, it was not followed rigidly. Instead, it was adapted to 
better suit the specific aims and empirical context of the present study. Consequently, two notable 
differences emerged between the two approaches. 
 
First, unlike  Endenich et al.’s (2022: 573-574) inductive approach to data analysis, this study adopted a 
more deductive process. While codes were still generated inductively from the empirical material, this 
was done in relation to the predetermined themes developed from the conceptual model. As such, the 
analytical interpretations of the material were in turn generated deductively. Second, the analytical 
process was not as elaborate as that of Endenich et al. (2022: 573-574), who triangulated primary and 
secondary data in order to expand or substantiate the inductively developed codes. This was primarily 
because the study did not rely on secondary data as part of its data collection strategy, and thus could not 
engage in triangulation in the same way. As a result, the analysis concluded once the first-order codes had 
been interpreted through the lens of the conceptual themes. In this sense, the approach represents a 
simplified adaptation of the method employed by Endenich et al. (2022: 573-574). 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
35 
Figure 6 
Outline of the Systematic Approach to Data Analysis 
 
Note. Figure inspired by “Wait-and-see-ism as partial adoption of management practices: The rise and 
stall of integrated reporting,” by C. Endenich, R. Hahn, D. Reimsbach, and C. Wickert, 2023, Strategic 
Organization, 21(3), pp. 566-595. 
 
As visually illustrated in Figure 6, the first step in the data analysis involved developing first-order codes 
inductively from the empirical material (1). As previously noted, these codes were not generated through 
open coding in a strict sense, but were guided by their relevance to the study’s predetermined conceptual 
themes. Following this step, the first-order codes were filtered through the predefined themes (2), which 
in turn formed the foundation for the final thematic analysis of the findings (3). While this represents the 
36 
final outcome of the analysis, it is important to acknowledge that the verbatim quotes, which form the 
basis for the first-order codes, serve as an essential antecedent, illustrating the empirical grounding of the 
findings.  
 
Table 2 
Outline of Table Supporting First-order Codes 
First-order Code Verbatim Quote 
1st Inductively Generated Code Verbatim Quote Supporting the  
from Empirical Data Generated First-order Code 
  
2nd Inductively Generated Code Verbatim Quote Supporting the 
from Empirical Data Generated First-order Code 
  
3rd Inductively Generated Code Verbatim Quote Supporting the 
from Empirical Data Generated First-order Code 
 
Note. Adapted from Business Research Methods (5th ed., p. 155), by E. Bell, A. Bryman, and B. Harley, 
2019, Oxford University Press. Copyright 2019 by Oxford University Press. 
 
As shown in Table 2, the first-order codes were developed based on representative quotes from the 
participants. This process began with a manual review of the empirical material, particularly the results 
section. Since the empirical results were already organized thematically, based on inductively generated 
themes, it was only natural to begin the coding process there. This step was relatively straightforward, as 
the results were already rich in participant quotations and structured according to thematic relevance. 
However, to identify additional supporting quotes that were not included in the results section, the 
37 
original transcripts were revisited to identify additional relevant excerpts. Despite the fact that Endenich 
et al. (2022: 574) employed a more elaborate table to illustrate the progressive refinement of the empirical 
data through multiple coding layers, the nature of the study’s analysis was considerably simpler. For this 
reason, the format proposed by Bell et al. (2019: 155) was more suitable, as it better aligned with the level 
of analytical complexity in this study, in contrast to the multi-layered explanation used by Endenich et al. 
 
3.4 Quality Criteria 
Traditionally, reliability and validity have served as the primary benchmarks for assessing research 
quality. However, as many qualitative researchers have questioned the applicability of these criteria to 
their work, alternative approaches for evaluation have consequently emerged (Bryman & Bell, 2019: 
204). One of such alternatives is the concept of trustworthiness, which comprises four key elements, 
namely, credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability (Bell et al., 2019: 363). 
 
3.4.1 Credibility 
Credibility refers to the extent to which research accurately reflects the experiences and perspectives of 
participants (Bell et al., 2019: 363). Given that phenomena can be experienced and interpreted in various 
ways, the understanding of the social world is intrinsically subjective. Researchers must therefore strive to 
provide a truthful and faithful representation of the individuals involved in the study (Bryman & Bell, 
2019: 204-205). A common practice to enhance the credibility is to seek confirmation from participants 
regarding the researcher’s interpretation of their statements. If the researcher has failed to properly 
capture their perspectives, participants are given the opportunity to voice those inaccuracies (Bryman & 
Bell, 2019: 205). This process, commonly referred to as respondent validation or member validation, 
enables the researcher to make necessary revisions to the material, thereby helping to ensure that the final 
account remains consistent with the participants’ understanding of the phenomenon under investigation 
(Bell et al., 2019: 363). In practice, credibility was strengthened by applying this very approach. 
38 
 
By allowing participants to review their interview transcripts before the material was used in the study, it 
was possible to ensure that their perspectives were accurately represented. This gave them the opportunity 
to clarify, elaborate on or retract any statements made during the interview. If the participants perceived 
the transcriptions as inadequate in capturing their intended meaning, appropriate revisions were made 
accordingly. This feedback loop ensured that the research findings were grounded in an accurate 
interpretation of the participants’ perspectives. However, a potential limitation of the chosen methods was 
that the transcripts were edited into a clean verbatim format. While this enhanced the clarity and 
coherence of the material by removing a lot of redundancies, it may have unintentionally altered the 
nuances of participants’ expressions, thereby risking distorting aspects of the original content. Another 
factor that may have affected the authenticity of the respondents’ accounts was the translation of certain 
quotations into English. Since all interviews were conducted in Swedish, the native-language of 
participants, certain nuances may have been lost in translation, particularly in cases where no direct 
equivalents existed for specific terms or expressions. 
 
3.4.2 Transferability 
Transferability refers to the extent to which research findings can be applied to other cases beyond the 
original study. For such transfers to be possible, researchers must provide so-called thick descriptions of 
participants’ contextual backgrounds, allowing others to decide for themselves if the findings are relevant 
to their specific circumstances (Bell et al., 2019: 365). As Lincoln and Guba (1985: 316) point out, the 
extent to which findings may be applicable in other contextual settings is largely dependent on the degree 
of similarity between the original case and those who seek to apply the findings anew. 
 
Although thick descriptions are fundamental to enhancing transferability, this conflicted with the ethical 
commitments of the study. Because the research was guided by a deliberate decision to maintain a high 
level of confidentiality for all participants from the outset, the study refrained from providing any 
39 
contextual information that could risk revealing identifying characteristics. This ethical stance was 
important to honor, as all participants had agreed to take part in the research under the assurance that their 
anonymity would be protected throughout the process. The overall aim was to ensure that nothing in the 
data could be traced back to individual participants or their respective workplaces. In retrospect, this 
ethical consideration may have limited the ability for others to assess whether, and to what extent, the 
findings are applicable to their own contexts. Nonetheless, this was considered a necessary trade-off to 
maintain a high standard of ethical integrity. 
 
3.4.3 Dependability and Confirmability 
Dependability is closely linked to the overall trustworthiness of qualitative research and can be 
strengthened by making all documentation related to the research process available for external scrutiny 
(Bell et al., 2019, p. 365). This is often facilitated by a use of a so-called inquiry auditor, who examines 
the researcher’s procedures and assesses whether the findings, interpretations, and recommendations are 
supported by the underlying data (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 318). While a formal audit was not 
conducted as a precautionary measure, all phases of the research process were nonetheless extensively 
documented in case such a review should ever be deemed necessary.  
 
Confirmability, on the other hand, refers to the researcher’s objectivity. While complete objectivity is 
unattainable (Bell et al., 2019: 37), regardless of research approach, researchers are nonetheless expected 
to act in good faith and minimize any personal biases that may influence the research (Bell et al., 2019: 
365). As Bell et al. (2019: 38-39) succinctly explain, it is natural to carry a range of subconscious values 
and biases shaped by one’s life experiences, which likely influence not only how we see things, but also 
what we see in the first place. As a result, it can often be difficult to detect when such biases may arise. 
One measure that was actively followed throughout the research process, however, was the consistent 
reflection on the choices and interpretations that were made. By becoming more aware of the reasoning 
behind these decisions, greater confidence could be placed in the belief that they, to a large extent, were 
40 
not shaped by any personal bias. While it is not possible to entirely eliminate subjectivity, this practice 
indubitably contributed to enhancing the overall confirmability of the research. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
41 
4. Results 
4.1 Identification of Employee Knowledge 
4.1.1 HR Systems 
One way in which the organizations identified employee knowledge was through the use of HR systems. 
For both R3 and R5, such software served as an effective tool for locating relevant expertise across the 
organization for various projects and vacancies. In this sense, HR systems functioned as repositories of 
employee competencies, making it easy to search for specific knowledge when needed. 
 
Once we manage to enter […] [the information] into the HR system, it will be there[,] and we will 
be able to search in many different ways. For example, if I need someone who speaks … [a 
certain] language[,] I can search on language. Then we can find the person who can help us with 
translation[,] or if we need someone skilled in project management to start a new project[,] […] 
we have someone internally we can utilize. (R3) 
 
Such a capability was also highlighted as particularly important for R5 in identifying employee 
knowledge within the organization’s international workforce. By having an accessible system, 
knowledgeable employees could be distinguished from the broader employee pool and selected for 
positions where their expertise would be especially valuable. 
 
We have a lot of ongoing projects, both locally and globally[,] that people are involved in[.] [By 
using the HR system] […] it becomes easier for everyone to search for specific competencies. [...] 
The ambition is to be able to retrieve that kind of information across different areas. We have 
started, for example, with some leadership programs. We register participants there, which means 
that when we have international positions to fill, we can see what strengths we can draw from this 
42 
pool. This way, you can be more spot-on in selecting who you would like to interview or 
headhunt. (R5) 
 
Notably, this approach to identifying knowledge was relatively new to both respondents, as they had only 
been using their HR systems for about two years. While the system was a recent addition for both, R3 
noted that they had used a different system prior to implementing the current one. R3 also emphasized 
that their “HR system [...] is relatively new [...] so it is continuously being developed ”. This sentiment was 
echoed by R5, who similarly disclosed that they were still in the process of becoming accustomed to the 
system. 
 
Our HR system has been in use for almost two years now, which means it still feels somewhat 
new and complicated[,] [people] are not yet fully accustomed to it, so we need to teach the 
organization that this is the platform they should be using. [...] So we are also facing a small 
change journey. [...] In the long run, I believe we will use it more effectively and that it will 
become established as a natural part of our work. (R5) 
 
Similar to R5, R3 was still in the early stages of utilizing the HR system. The novelty of the system was 
evident, as R3 repeatedly indicated that they had not yet fully explored how it could be used to identify 
knowledge across the organization. For example, when asked what types of knowledge were registered in 
the system, R3 admitted that they had not yet decided what information to enter. As R3 summarized, they 
“were not there right now”. While R5 had come a bit further in their implementation process, they still 
faced challenges with the system: “I would also say that [our] systems are […] a bit rigid and clunky, 
which means they [have not] […] become as dynamic as we would like them to be”. While the 
respondents resembled one another in some respects, their approaches to the HR systems differed in terms 
of accessibility and responsibility. Within R5’s organization, employees could independently add their 
43 
competencies into the system, making them visible to others and directly searchable. In this way, the 
responsibility was delegated to the employees themselves.  
 
[W]e have a HR system where you actually can add the skills and competencies you possess. It is 
absolutely not a demand, rather you can if you want to. [...] It is based upon voluntary initiative 
and willingness to share from employees. [...] It is up to the individual to make that decision[.] 
It’s not something we force, but some people engage more and think it is really exciting. Others 
might be more reserved. It could also be competencies that you have but simply do not want to 
work with, which means that you choose to not showcase them there. (R5) 
 
In contrast, R3 reported that competencies, including knowledge, were instead added by the HR 
department, based on information accumulated from employees’ performance reviews with managers. 
 
HR has now access to the employee performance reviews, so the first step is probably to read the 
final question from […] [them], which specifically concerns what knowledge we have. I think 
that is where we can capture knowledge. (R3) 
 
A commonality between both respondents was their use of HR systems to locate employee knowledge 
within the organizations, primarily for identifying suitable individuals for specific projects and positions. 
What distinguished the two, however, was the way knowledge was entered into the systems, and 
consequently, who held the responsibility for ensuring that this process was carried out. Both respondents 
were also in the early stages of their implementation process, which presented distinct challenges related 
to the novelty of the systems. 
 
44 
4.1.2 In-person Knowledge Identification 
Another way of identifying knowledge, beyond the use of HR systems, was through various in-person 
forums. When asked whether there were specific occasions for capturing employee knowledge, R3 
responded that they did so through physical meetings. 
 
All departments also have weekly meetings. We always start the week on Monday with a meeting 
where we discuss various things that are happening. We talk about what is coming up that week[,] 
and it is an excellent opportunity to reflect on questions [on how to improve][.] [...] We engage in 
a lot of discussions[,] often through in-person meetings. Our management and different levels of 
leadership also have external meetings. They spend several days together in workshops 
specifically to plan how we should move forward or which processes we need to change. [...] 
From experience[,] such matters tend to emerge during meetings. (R3) 
 
Physical meetings were not unique to R3, but were also identified as a primary approach by R7. They 
disclosed that meetings served as their main method for identifying employee knowledge. While these 
meetings provided an opportunity for employees to share their expertise with others, the approach relied 
heavily on employees’ own initiative to actively do so. 
 
We always have a sheet hanging in the production area for questions to bring up at the next group 
meeting[.] [Employees] [...] write down their [suggestions] [...] there, and then we raise the 
questions when everyone is gathered[.] In production[,] everything is about timing. It is often 
small details [stemming from such suggestions] [...] that can make a big difference for the final 
product. [...] [Otherwise] [...] we do not have a good system for capturing things that come up 
from [those that are working]. (R7) 
 
45 
In contrast to the others, R1 explained that employee knowledge was captured within departments on a 
country-by-country basis through district representatives. Within each district, employees could share 
their knowledge within so-called reference groups, and each representative would then relay this 
information with the broader group of representatives through meetings. In this way, knowledge could be 
identified and shared across the organization within each respective department. 
 
[We] have various [...] reference groups across the entire country and across the company. For 
example[,] within reception there is a reference group for [all] receptionists [in Sweden] [which 
comprises] [...] four districts each [...] having one representative. [The representatives] meet 
regularly, [...] but they also meet within their districts. These meetings are [...] opportunities to 
capture new knowledge and new ideas[.] (R1) 
 
Additionally, respondents also captured knowledge through employee performance reviews. Rather than 
relying on initiative-based sharing, employees were directly encouraged to make their knowledge known. 
For R3, this process took place annually, where targeted questions during the review helped uncover 
important knowledge that employees had not yet shared. 
 
We capture knowledge within our organization through employee performance reviews. We have 
a set of questions that are asked every year[,] and one of them specifically addresses what 
additional skills or knowledge an employee has beyond their current role. [This helps us identify] 
[...] if someone might be interested in doing something else or has particular expertise in another 
area. (R3) 
 
By combining initiative-based knowledge sharing with a direct prompting approach, R4 employed a mix 
of the strategies described by previous respondents. Specifically, R4 relies on mandatory employee 
46 
performance reviews, where employees are directly asked about their expertise, as well as on more 
informal conversations where such knowledge may emerge naturally. 
 
[W]e also have annual employee performance reviews[,] which are mandatory. But I know that 
most managers also have more continuous conversations[,] [which constitute] [...] forums for 
capturing knowledge as well. In the appraisal templates, there are also questions [regarding] [...] 
what we can improve[.] So that is another forum where knowledge can be captured[.] [There are 
also] [...] staff meetings with different focus areas. So there are forums in place. Employees do 
not necessarily have to actively approach their manager, there are established meetings where 
they can raise such matters. (R4) 
 
Based on respondents’ answers, it was evident that physical forms of knowledge identification, primarily 
through various types of meetings, were commonly used. Although these in-person meetings served the 
same purpose, namely capturing employee knowledge, their design and structure varied. While some 
organizations had implemented scheduled meetings specifically for this purpose, in others, knowledge 
capture occurred more spontaneously, as the need naturally emerged. 
 
4.1.3 Knowledge Identification through Line Management 
A common denominator across the majority of cases was that various forms of line management were 
reported to play a role in the identification of knowledge. The role of line managers was stated, both 
directly and indirectly, as an essential part of enabling the capture of employee knowledge. While the 
extent of this involvement varied across cases, R4 reported that the responsibility was explicitly placed on 
managers. 
 
We have almost 3,000 employees, and it is hard to capture everyone’s knowledge[,] so the 
responsibility has to be placed on the managers. [W]hen it comes to the employees[,] our role [as 
47 
HR] is more about providing the managers with the right tools on how to build a learning 
organization, or how to work to capture knowledge and identify competent individuals. 
[However] [t]hey are the ones working closely with their teams. (R4) 
 
Similarly, R2 highlighted the role and responsibility of managers in identifying knowledge within the 
organization. In their case, managers were regarded as essential for unveiling tacit employee knowledge 
as such knowledge risked being lost without their active efforts to capture it. 
 
[K]nowledge that comes from experience, from having worked for a long time, it is harder to 
identify and extract I think[,] unless the manager actively identifies it and then works to 
encourage that person to share their knowledge [with others]. (R2) 
 
Instead of actively seeking to capture employee knowledge, R7 emphasized the importance of creating an 
appropriate work environment where employees feel free and motivated to share what they know. In 
contrast to the more hands-on approach, this method relies on creating a workplace that is conducive to 
knowledge sharing. In this way, the respondent was able to indirectly contribute to the same outcome. 
 
[Y]ou also have to actively encourage that kind of culture, it is my job to make sure that everyone 
dares to say what they are thinking and what they are reflecting on. There are no bad suggestions. 
It is about creating a culture where people feel free to throw out any ideas[,] and it’s my 
responsibility to ensure that this culture exists. [...] I frequently encourage employees to express 
what they would like to do, and then we can see what we can do about it. (R7) 
 
On the other hand, some respondents indicated that the responsibility for knowledge identification was 
shared across multiple departments, extending beyond just line management. For R5, much of the 
employees’ knowledge was naturally identified by recruiters through their first-hand experience with 
48 
them. By way of recalling employees’ competencies from memory, knowledgeable individuals could be 
selected when needed. 
 
There is also a lot of knowledge [about employees] held by the recruiters who have reviewed 
[their] CVs, meaning much of it remains stored in their muscle memory. For example, they might 
remember that a particular person possesses certain [competencies][.] [...] Then there are also the 
managers[,] who are a great asset if you need [to identify] something specific. (R5) 
 
In another case, for R3, it was ambiguous whether the responsibility currently fell on both HR and line 
managers, or whether this was merely an aspiration for the future. The respondent was unsure how the 
division of responsibility might develop going forward. 
 
The HR system has just launched a new feature called ‘skills’. It is specifically about how we 
should collect [knowledge][.] [W]e have discussed whether HR should manage it or whether the 
immediate manager should handle it. [...] That’s where we are at the moment, figuring out how to 
start. I believe it should be a shared responsibility between HR and the managers. (R3) 
 
Meanwhile, R1 reported that the responsibility for capturing knowledge also rested at higher 
organizational levels, specifically with country-level heads of departments, beyond line management. 
Although, the respondent did not explicitly say that it is further delegated to managers, it was implicitly 
suggested. When asked if the responsibility to identify knowledge was placed on each respective 
employee, R1 explained:  
 
[T]he main responsibility always lies with the person who owns the delivery[.] [F]or example [we 
have a] […] a dedicated person who is responsible for Food and Beverage in Sweden[,] and there 
is someone in a similar position in each country where we operate[,] but then it is broken down at 
49 
the departmental level. [.] It is their ultimate responsibility to ensure that what is posted in the 
community is relevant information and knowledge. So it is their responsibility [to capture 
employee knowledge]. (R1) 
 
Beyond the different structures of responsibility, the respondents also varied in the degree of structure 
surrounding the forums for knowledge capture. Some followed a more routine-based approach, with 
scheduled opportunities for sharing, while others allowed it to occur more spontaneously, whenever 
employees felt they had knowledge worth sharing. In the case of R5, knowledge sharing took place 
through routine-based instances, once again with an emphasis on the role of line managers in facilitating 
the process. 
 
We have a team that runs Educational Thursdays[,] every other Thursday[,] where the team 
members take turns sharing what they know and what they are good at with the rest of the team[.] 
This helps [identify] [and] spread knowledge throughout the team and makes it less vulnerable. It 
is a fantastic way of working, but it is more of an initiative-driven approach within that particular 
group, that team, and with the manager. (R5) 
 
As a production manager, R7 described organizing multiple, regularly scheduled opportunities for 
knowledge sharing, tailored to the varying schedules of shift-based employees. 
 
I have the entire group, with all shifts included, every other week. Then[,] once a month[,] I meet 
only with those who work shifts, and once a month I meet only with those who work regular 
weekdays. We have one shift that only works daytime[,] and another shift that rotates between 
day and evening hours[,] so there are slightly different group constellations. (R7) 
 
50 
This routine-based approach was also applied by R6’s organization, where daily morning meetings 
created a structured time and space in which knowledge could be identified by the responsible manager. 
For them, these occasions enabled managers to recognize and capture operational insights as part of 
everyday practice. 
 
Let us say someone works with cranes, specifically in crane production, [and they uncover that] 
[...] it is very inconvenient [...] to turn counterclockwise instead of clockwise [with the crane], 
because it takes three minutes longer to go counterclockwise. They [can then] raise that issue 
during their morning meeting, and then the responsible manager takes that point with them and 
checks whether they have the mandate to change that working situation, or whether it needs to be 
escalated further up in the organization. (R6) 
 
Although respondents recognized the role of line managers to varying degrees, the structure was not 
without its challenges, particularly in terms of limited time and resource constraints. In the case of R2, 
knowledge identification was framed as a question of leadership potential that remained unrealized due to 
managers’ lack of time to actively lead. 
 
When it comes to capturing knowledge[,] it is a matter of leadership and it requires that leaders 
have the time to actually lead in their daily work[,] which I believe we often lose sight of. There 
needs to be a clear focus on knowledge capture. However, the current focus has largely been on 
simply getting through the day. Providing managers with greater opportunities to truly exercise 
leadership throughout the year, [...] is a crucial [aspect] [...] that we hope to achieve if we manage 
to bring more stability to our operations. (R2) 
 
On the other hand, R4 highlighted the large number of employees as a major organizational challenge, 
noting that the organization currently lacked the capacity to keep up. It was implied that there was an 
51 
insufficient number of managers available to adequately address the organization’s need for capturing 
knowledge. These insights also collectively pointed to a broader issue of both time and resource 
constraints. 
 
I believe that our biggest challenge is that we have so many employees[,] and that we don’t have 
the [...] capacity to keep up. A lot of the responsibility falls on the managers[,]and they are very 
capable[,] but a great deal is placed on them, which is of course a challenge. (R4) 
 
A remedy proposed by R2 was to give line managers more time to invest in employees’ knowledge. By 
relieving them of certain burdens, they could be given sufficient time to actively capture employee 
know-how. This emerged as a potential solution to the question of whether it would be beneficial to 
facilitate a greater presence of line managers on the floor. 
 
Absolutely I really do believe that [...] certain tasks should be removed from them so that they 
have time to do this. I also think it is important to take stock of what the leaders actually do, 
because a lot of time is spent on administrative tasks and all these systems that are supposed to 
work. (R2) 
 
The findings show that line managers were often involved in the identification of employee knowledge. 
While some respondents relied primarily on managers to perform this function, others described 
arrangements in which additional organizational actors were involved to support this procedure. However, 
the process was not without complications, as some respondents noted time and resource constraints that 
limited managers’ ability to actively identify employee know-how. 
 
52 
4.1.4 Organizational Coherence in Knowledge Identification 
When asked whether respondents’ approaches to knowledge identification were coherently applied across 
the organization, responses were mixed. R5 did not believe that one of their practices was implemented 
consistently, citing the novelty of the approach as a major contributor to this, and explaining that the main 
ambition was simply to get things started. Likewise, R7 described the current practices as more intuitive 
than formalized, explaining: “I think it is just a way we do things. I probably brought a lot of that with me 
from my previous workplace”. This sentiment was also shared by R2, who disclosed that their location did 
not apply the exact same approaches as other parts of the organization. 
 
Some also work with competency mapping, we do not do that here yet, but many stores do[,] and 
it is probably something we will start with as well. [The idea is to] [...] try to identify the skills 
and competencies each employee has[,] in order to determine where additional competence is 
needed or who could share their expertise with others. We do not do it here yet, but there is such a 
tool [available]. (R2) 
 
By contrast, other respondents described a more consistent and structured approach to knowledge 
identification. For example, both R3 and R6 indicated that standardized procedures were followed across 
the organization. 
 
I would say so[,] because our operations are a bit like a franchise, like McDonald’s,  it should be 
the same all over the world. Whether you visit a unit in Aarhus, Denmark, or go to Barcelona[,] it 
should be the same. It is a concept that is meant to work consistently across the entire 
organization. (R6) 
 
The responses indicate that there was not always organizational coherence in the approaches applied 
across different units for knowledge identification. Rather, those who reflected on this aspect largely 
53 
agreed that discrepancies existed between their own unit and other parts of the organization. This was the 
most commonly described pattern among respondents, although some, such as R3 and R6, provided 
accounts that suggested otherwise. 
 
4.2 Retention of Knowledge 
4.2.1 In-person Knowledge Sharing 
In terms of knowledge retention, R2 describes it as something that frequently occurs from person to 
person. One example is the use of assigned buddies, where new employees learn the ropes by spending 
time with more experienced colleagues. While this form of local, small-scale knowledge transfer is part of 
the onboarding process, it also takes place continuously at the departmental level through everyday 
collaboration. R2 emphasizes that it is natural to learn from colleagues who have been with the 
organization longer, and that this approach also helps prevent situations where a single individual 
becomes solely responsible for knowing about certain areas. Such in-person knowledge sharing is also 
something that R5 sees potential in, although, in contrast to R2, the respondent does not currently work in 
this way. 
 
In the system there is, for example, the option to offer your services such as sharing your 
expertise[,] acting as a mentor[,] or simply being someone others can turn to. [However][,] we 
have not worked with that at all yet, because we are not at that stage. (R5) 
 
Another form of small-scale knowledge dissemination is a broader version of the one-to-one interactions 
described by R2, involving the transfer of knowledge to a larger group. R5 notes that this kind of 
dissemination occurs when knowledgeable employees are invited to various meetings to present the 
knowledge they possess. For R6, a similar process takes place, albeit more informally, throughout the 
work shift rather than through a formal meeting. Akin to R5, R6 emphasizes a more collective approach 
to in-person knowledge sharing. 
54 
 
[I]t is important that all teams work in the same way[.] So it becomes the responsibility of[,] for 
example[,] the shift manager to bring this forward and ensure that all day shifts adopt the new 
process, and that those working night shifts and evening shifts also receive the same information. 
It is about making sure everyone is informed. (R6) 
 
Some forms of in-person knowledge dissemination also appeared to reach a regional and national level. 
For example, R1 described how knowledge was shared through reference groups, where representatives 
would transfer insights from the regional to the national level and vice versa. Similarly, R2 notes that it 
was not unusual to contact other units for advice or suggestions on how to solve specific issues. However, 
these exchanges also seemed to take place within the national context rather than across borders. This 
form of national in-person dissemination is also something that R4 made use of. 
 
I believe they work a lot within their regions, they have meetings either monthly or quarterly 
where they discuss things[,] and I think they collaborate quite closely. Knowledge can be shared 
in that way[.] [...] The regional managers also have close cooperation[,] so I believe a lot of 
knowledge flows through those channels. So if someone has come up with a really great idea that 
has been successful, I think those are the forums where it gets spread. (R4) 
 
What becomes clear from the respondents is that the majority of them apply various in-person channels to 
share knowledge, whether through one-to-one interactions or from an individual to a collective. One of 
the most common approaches was to hold different types of meetings where knowledge could be 
exchanged in person. Although this form of knowledge sharing did not extend beyond national boundaries 
into an international, cross-organizational context. 
 
 
55 
4.2.2 Knowledge Transfers through Digital Platforms 
While other respondents, such as R2 and R4, mentioned having access to an intranet, only R1 used it as a 
primary means of knowledge retention. By using this platform, employees were able to share 
department-specific knowledge with others in similar roles across the organization. 
 
[W]e have an intranet where knowledge sharing takes place to a large extent. [...] Depending on 
what you work with[,] you can be part of different communities. [W]e have communities for 
Sweden, but also general ones for the whole firm, where we encourage knowledge sharing. For 
example[,] [...] everyone working in the restaurant operations [...] has their own community. So 
when someone comes up with a smart idea, such as reusing the oatmeal from the morning, which 
is a typical idea, [by] [f]or example making oat cookies or by making granola[,] [...] [i]t gets 
shared there through videos, pictures, or text. This is one way for us to facilitate the sharing of 
good ideas[,] which at its core is knowledge. (R1) 
 
R1 emphasized their intranet’s user-friendliness as a key advantage. Its intuitive design made it accessible 
to most employees, as it required no prior technical skills. The threshold for usage was therefore low, 
requiring nothing more than a phone. R1 even compared it to Facebook, explaining that sharing 
knowledge was just as simple as posting an update. 
 
[I]t is a good and simple platform, because it is so easy to use. If I[,]for example[,] have refined 
something related to making oatmeal porridge[,] I can just take my phone, film it, upload a 
recipe[,] and publish it. It is like Facebook, it is that simple because it is user-friendly. So that is a 
positive thing[.] [...] When our colleagues share on the intranet[,] it does not have to be important 
knowledge[,] rather it can be something fun or a creative idea, for example[,] this is how I did it. 
It is much more about inspiration, but that in itself also builds knowledge. (R1) 
 
56 
Similarly, R2 also made use of digital tools, however, primarily through Microsoft Teams. This allowed 
colleagues to stay in contact in real time and share knowledge effectively. However, this form of 
communication appeared to take place mostly at the regional or national level, rather than beyond national 
borders. It involved not only employees within departments but also managers across units. This platform 
thus provided an informal channel for small-scale knowledge sharing. 
 
On the other hand[,] we also have Teams forums for many different topics. For example, those 
working with product quality have a Teams forum that includes everyone in Sweden working 
with that area[,] and [t]here is a lot of activity there. All department managers also have a Teams 
chat with others in similar roles[,] so I think we constantly share with each other informally. (R2) 
 
Out of all the respondents, only R1 and R2 reported actively using digital tools, such as a corporate 
intranet and Microsoft Teams, as means of sharing knowledge. While other respondents, including R2 and 
R4, mentioned having access to an intranet, R1 was the only one who relied on it as a primary channel for 
relaying knowledge. 
 
4.2.3 Challenges in Small-scale Knowledge Transfers 
Irrespective of the respondents’ approach to knowledge dissemination, whether this would occur on a 
smaller scale, either locally, regionally, or even nationally, this was not without its own set of challenges 
and impediments. These obstacles were often as subjective as the respondents themselves. For example, 
when asked how others within the organization could access the identified knowledge, specifically via the 
HR system, R3 admitted to not knowing, as they had not yet familiarized themselves with the system. For 
R1, the issue was different. Once knowledge was shared on the intranet, there was no control over what 
happened to it, nor any organized process to ensure it was put to good use. As R1 noted, they ultimately 
“do not know where [they] end up”. In this sense, the knowledge shared by employees into the 
organization is without any guarantee that those insights or expertise will be retained or applied 
57 
meaningfully. Alternatively, R5 pointed to a lack of time for knowledge sharing among colleagues as a 
major barrier to its realization by explaining that: 
 
The problem is that everyone who holds this kind of competency has daily operational work to 
attend to, which means we cannot expect them to constantly go out and inform[,] or train [others]. 
So[,] it becomes a matter of demand versus how much time this person actually has[,] and from 
there[,] you just have to try to manage it as best you can. (R5) 
 
R5 also disclosed another challenge inherent to the matter which was the willingness and motivation of 
employees, but also the time-consuming and exhausting nature of knowledge sharing. There was also a 
pedagogical aspect involved that further seemed to affect the process of knowledge dissemination.  
 
It is really about finding the right balance between obligation and willingness. Sharing one’s 
expertise can also become very exhausting if I am expected to do it all the time. There needs to be 
a sense of motivation and willingness involved, and there also needs to be some level of 
pedagogical approach to how it is done. (R5) 
 
Another challenge highlighted by R1, is that the voluntary nature of sharing is equally important as the 
reciprocity involved. In this sense, knowledge sharing is a reciprocal process between both the sender and 
the recipient. Since the respondent’s organization had not made the implementation of shared knowledge 
mandatory, participation remained voluntary on both ends. 
 
[W]e cannot ensure that everyone actually does it[,] and I can say with certainty that not everyone 
does. It is also about taking the time to do it[,] and about feeling comfortable being on camera. 
There are many barriers. But our intranet is one way for us to share the knowledge that emerges. 
However[,] nothing is mandatory, we cannot guarantee that it will happen[,] [a]nd we also cannot 
58 
guarantee that people will go in and look at it. [...] But it is also not something that we[,] as an 
organization and company[,] have made a formal requirement. We have not required that people 
must take this inspiration or knowledge and make it their own. (R1) 
 
In a similar vein to R1, R2 also disclosed that the implementation of shared knowledge was contingent 
upon the recipient. However, they also note that, in certain cases, implementation became mandatory 
when decisions were made at higher organizational levels. In such instances, the shared knowledge is 
required to be adopted by all organizational units. 
 
[U]sually, when I share something like, this is how we did it, it is up to each store to decide for 
themselves [if they want to implement it]. Unless it is something that gets picked up by the 
Service Office[,] who feel that this was a great idea and decide that everyone should do it[,] and 
they send it out  through that channel. But most of the time[,] it is voluntary[,] or it is up to each 
unit to decide whether it is useful or not. (R2) 
 
Although small-scale knowledge transfers entailed various challenges, they were still considered 
extremely important for the retention of knowledge. This particularly pertained to employees with many 
years of experience within the company and tremendous organizational knowledge. R5 shared that their 
organization would face significant knowledge loss if a select few employees were to leave. It was 
therefore crucial to attempt to share that knowledge with others. 
 
We have an example where there is someone here who holds an enormous amount of knowledge, 
if that person were to leave[,] it would be very difficult for us. But since we are aware of this[,] 
that person needs to share their knowledge with others in the team. [...] We have people [...] with 
enormous experience and knowledge[,] accumulated over many years. That in itself is a unique 
competence[,] that all of that knowledge is stored is one person[.] [N]ot many people are capable 
59 
of that[,] which is why we see the need to distribute that knowledge across maybe five 
individuals[,] so that each of them takes on a part[.] [B]ut these are quite special situations. We 
have some [individuals] [...] that if they were to leave[,] we would be in real trouble. It will be 
business-crucial [...] to preserve that knowledge, but by distributing it among different 
individuals. (R5) 
 
R2 also recognized this issue as a selected few within the organization carried a great amount of 
knowledge independently. The organization attempted to address this organizational risk by broadening 
the knowledge of such individuals by ensuring that it was carried by many instead of by a few. 
 
If the responsibility [of knowing] always rests on the one person who knows the most[,] and that 
person is gone[,] then everything falls apart. So I think we could become much better at 
broadening knowledge[.] [W]e should not rely on a few people who know a lot[,] instead[,] we 
should have many people who know a fair amount about a wide range of things. (R2) 
 
Regardless of the channels through which respondents chose to retain their knowledge, whether digital 
tools or in-person methods, there were nonetheless impediments to its realization. Despite these 
challenges, the respondents emphasized the importance of sharing knowledge to prevent it from 
remaining confined to a limited group of employees, which could pose a considerable risk of knowledge 
loss if those individuals were to leave the organization. 
 
4.2.4 Transboundary Scaling of Knowledge 
When asked how local knowledge was scaled across the organization to other units beyond the national 
context, R2 explained that such knowledge transfer occurs only occasionally. For them, one approach was 
to share locally developed solutions, based on employee know-how, through their organizational matrix, 
60 
enabling the dissemination of these insights to other parts of the organization globally. To illustrate how 
this materialized, R2 provided an example of such a success story: 
 
[A]n employee who has worked here for many years, [...] came up with the idea[,] some years 
ago[,] that it is smarter to lift a product above the picking location rather than lifting it to another 
aisle and then going to retrieve it. [...] [H]e is also very technical[,] so he calculated it and realized 
that he could work within the system to ensure that a pallet was always lifted much closer [to its 
picking location]. That made the handling faster[.] [...] And then[,] via the matrix in Sweden[,] it 
became a working method that all the warehouses around the world now use. (R2) 
 
R2 also disclosed that the organization utilized both an internal magazine and a dedicated section of its 
corporate website to support internal knowledge sharing. The former, was a previously used method that 
had recently been reinvigorated, which served as a platform where various units could share information 
about their operations globally. The same applied to the latter, with the distinction that it enabled online 
sharing. 
 
It was a magazine that existed before, which was sent out either once a month or four times a 
year. It featured reports from different stores around the world that had undertaken various 
initiatives[,] where they described the initiative and the solution. It has just recently come back, 
and our store is featured in a report where we shared information about our operations. They send 
it out worldwide[,] so in that way[,] knowledge is shared globally[.] [A]dditionally[,] there is a 
function on the internal website where good ideas are shared. For example[,] if I wanted to do 
something related to reducing waste [...] I could go onto the website and see if there are any good 
ideas[.] [M]aybe there are three different ideas available, [...] and [I] think [...] one is smart. They 
have done [a certain solution] [...] in Zagreb, and [if] there is a contact person listed for who came 
61 
up with the idea, you can email him or her. So, that is how we share ideas. I believe that at our 
store, we also have a few things uploaded on the internal website. (R2) 
 
Conversely, according to R6, when a new method of working was identified at the local level, the 
knowledge was typically managed by the respective department’s unit at headquarters, which then 
facilitated its dissemination and scaling across the organization to relevant recipients. 
 
It is often via email that success stories are shared. [I]t is usually sent to the headquarters[,] 
and then the headquarters distributes it to other [units]. […] Some initiatives become 
mandatory, while others are [...] [voluntary] to implement if you want to. [...] So, it is a 
mix of both. [The process] [...] is highly segmented. For example[,] if it is something 
related to Commercial, it gets sent to their part of the headquarters, whereas if it is [related 
to] HR, it goes to theirs. (R6) 
 
Similar to R6, knowledge dissemination within R4’s organization was largely delegated to higher levels. 
However, unlike R6, the HR department played a more active role by supporting the scaling of knowledge 
toward what is presumed to be the headquarters, rather than escalating it directly. 
 
Sometimes it does happen, but it is up to the managers, or the employees themselves if they 
choose to reach out to us. If they do, then of course we take it further. [...] [B]ut if they do not[,] it 
might not be captured from HR’s side, except perhaps through employee surveys or similar 
channels. (R4) 
 
In contrast to the other respondents, R7 described a more hands-on approach to knowledge transfer 
beyond national borders. This was achieved through short-term assignments, in which an employee was 
deployed to another location to implement a newly developed working method. 
62 
 
The production that I am responsible for exists only in Sweden at our company, but we have two 
other departments that have production abroad. [...] A few years ago[,] the production manager 
traveled abroad to implement the working method we had developed in Sweden in order to 
increase efficiency. [...] They first tested it here, worked it in[,] and then transferred the working 
method to the other locations. (R7) 
 
Among the cases that reported scaling knowledge across borders, a common pattern was that knowledge 
was more likely to be scaled from the local level when it had greater magnitude and broader applicability 
across the organization. Admittedly, for R2, such scaling did not occur frequently, but it was more likely 
to transpire when the knowledge concerned initiatives of significant magnitude or organizational 
importance. 
 
I think when it is a larger or more innovative initiative[,] people usually share it through the 
matrix. I work a lot with certain other HR departments within the company[,] where we 
constantly share good examples on a smaller scale. For instance[,] we did something in a certain 
way, and then they took that idea and did exactly the same thing. It depends on the magnitude of 
the initiative. [i]f someone comes up with a smart idea related to how we work with the checklist 
on a daily basis[,] [...] that probably does not go any further, possibly just to a nearby warehouse. 
(R2) 
 
Conversely, R6 and R7 attributed the scaling of employee knowledge to its perceived relevance and 
applicability to other parts of the organization. For R7, transboundary knowledge transfers were targeted 
toward those parts of the organization where the knowledge was deemed applicable. Similarly, when 
employee know-how was considered too context-specific, R6 noted that its potential for broader 
application was perceived as limited. Consequently, this type of knowledge was often regarded as too 
63 
narrowly applicable and was therefore frequently overlooked or deprioritized in efforts to disseminate it 
more widely across the organization. 
 
I think things that are very locally adapted are usually not shared as often [across the 
organization]. [This includes] [t]hings that are highly specific to the local context. On the other 
hand, initiatives that are scalable, that is, where you can use them elsewhere[,] are more 
commonly shared. [...] It is rare that something developed locally is scalable, unfortunately, so it 
does not happen very often[,] [p]erhaps only a few times per year. (R6) 
 
Beyond nationally confined, small-scale knowledge sharing, some respondents also managed to scale 
knowledge to other units in more remote locations. This was achieved through various means. However, 
the realization of such international scaling was not always as straightforward as it might seem. Rather, 
the transfer of knowledge across borders was often conditional on the perceived magnitude of the 
initiative and its relevance to other units. As a result, international scaling did not always occur whenever 
knowledge had been identified. 
 
4.2.5 Challenges to Transboundary Scaling of Knowledge 
Similar to small-scale knowledge transfers, large-scale knowledge dissemination was not without 
challenges. In fact, responses regarding impediments to transboundary knowledge scaling reflected a 
diverse range of experiences and obstacles. For instance, R1 identified language barriers as a key obstacle 
to effective cross-border knowledge dissemination. 
 
We have the intranet in all countries. We started in 2017[,] and at that time there was an ambition, 
[that departments] [...] across the entire organization would share with one another. But we said 
that it would not happen[,] because then we would have to share in English[,] and not everyone is 
64 
comfortable with that[,] so we have these country-specific forums and country-specific 
communities on the intranet. (R1) 
 
Alternatively, R6 highlighted the absence of a clearly defined organizational actor, responsible for 
disseminating knowledge across the organization, as an impediment. Accordingly, no individual or 
function was explicitly tasked with ensuring that this occurs. In addition, the respondent also pointed to 
organizational politics and the resulting lack of trust within the organization as further impediments to the 
successful implementation of scaled knowledge. 
 
[T]here is often a certain level of mistrust[.] [S]ometimes someone has a very specific agenda. In 
large companies[,] there is often a lot of politics[,] so it might be that someone has personal 
interests at stake[.] So unfortunately[,] it is always quite difficult to apply it. It is not entirely easy. 
(R6) 
 
According to R7, the organization is relatively fragmented and operates with a high degree of autonomy. 
This structural separation was identified as a key reason why knowledge is not consistently shared across 
units. Consequently, the various parts of the organization tend to function more as independent entities 
than as components of an integrated whole. 
 
If there is something to say about the two different companies, it is that within our operations 
each production unit is much more closed off within its own area. Even though we are located 
together and all report to the same manager, there is not the same focus on improvements as there 
used to be. Instead, it is more that everyone works on their own tasks individually. (R7) 
 
For R2, an impediment to scaling knowledge was the inconspicuous nature of the tool intended to 
facilitate such dissemination. Time constraints and the absence of established routines for sharing further 
65 
contributed to its infrequent use. Since knowledge sharing across the organization was neither widely 
known nor commonly remembered as part of regular work practices, it was often overlooked. 
 
[T]he problem is that we could probably upload a lot more there, which we do not really have the 
time or remember to do. It is a great tool[,] but the question is how many people actually use it[.] 
[Y]ou also need to get the word out that it exists so that everyone knows about it. (R2) 
 
Despite the various impediments and challenges inherent to knowledge transfers across 
organizations, respondents still acknowledged the importance of sharing experiences and 
knowledge with one another. According to R1, fostering an organizational unity was essential not 
only for delivering a quality service to customers but also to more effectively leverage existing 
in-house knowledge and avoid the repeated reinvention of solutions. 
 
It is about being effective, to ensure that we deliver the right experience to the customer[,] that is 
our core delivery[,] but also about becoming more efficient, to not reinvent the wheel over and 
over again. If we have a good way of doing something in for example Denmark[,] we need to 
adopt that across all countries[.] [...] A unified organization is what we have been working with 
for almost a year now. It is [...] not about each country individually, but involving everyone. It is 
highly relevant for us. (R1) 
 
R2 also recognized this issue, noting that a select few individuals within the organization carried an 
immense amount of knowledge. To address this, the respondent described efforts to broaden the 
distribution of that knowledge by ensuring it is shared among many, rather than being concentrated in 
only a few individuals. 
 
66 
It can be a matter of identifying a need, realizing that we have a specific requirement and asking 
whether there is something available centrally or in other countries that we could benefit from[.] 
It can also involve drawing on experiences from previous workplaces. Because currently 
operations are highly localized and everyone is essentially running their own race[.] However[,] 
we also need to establish some degree of streamlining, ensuring that we offer the same resources 
and support across all roles. (R5) 
 
Although sharing knowledge with other organizational members on a larger scale was clearly relevant and 
important to the organizations, a variety of diverse and context-specific factors made this difficult to 
achieve. The findings indicate that several counterforces hinder the transboundary dissemination of 
knowledge within organizations, stemming either from structural impediments or from situational 
circumstances. 
 
4.3 Support for the Practical Implementation of Knowledge  
To better support employees in the practical enactment of knowledge, R2 noted that an area for 
improvement in their organization would be to more actively place employees in situations where their 
knowledge can be applied. This would create greater opportunities for them to actively use their expertise 
in relevant contexts and unlock their full potential. 
 
I think there is much more that could be done [...] to unleash more potential in people who may 
not have the opportunity to use their knowledge because they are not placed in a context where 
that knowledge can be applied. So I definitely believe more can be done there [in terms of] [...] 
working with areas of responsibility [...] to help people feel that they can contribute more. [...] For 
example[,] if we are planning a rebuild, and you know that certain employees have experience 
with that, bring them in, because then they can contribute their knowledge in the best possible 
way. (R2) 
67 
 
Alternatively, R4 took a different approach to supporting the practical application of knowledge by being 
actively involved in the post-training phase. Through surveys administered after training sessions, the HR 
department could assess whether the knowledge acquired was being applied in practice. If knowledge 
gaps were identified, HR took active measures to allocate resources and close those gaps. 
 
The actual competence development initiative is the training itself[,] and then we will follow up 
on it [...] by sending out surveys asking how they have worked after the training[.] [T]hat way[,] 
we can capture whether they have changed the way they work[.] [...] [W]e will also follow up 
using statistics [...] to see whether this learning, this knowledge[,] has resulted in any measurable 
outcomes. [...] [For example][,] [d]o people know this or not? And if they do not, then action 
needs to be taken. (R4) 
 
R4 also expanded on this by explaining that they supported the practical implementation of employee 
knowledge by adapting and updating their training content based on employee feedback. In this way, new 
knowledge related to the training could be incorporated and applied in practice whenever relevant input 
was provided. 
 
If we were to make a major change, like if there was a factual error or something similar, then we 
would probably send out an email about it. But if it is something minor, like something that could 
be clearer[,] or improved[,] or something we think you should spend more time on[,] [t]hen we 
just update and change it. [A]nd the next time we run the training[,] since we do them regularly[,] 
we include the change then. (R4) 
 
On the other hand, R2 emphasized the importance of planning and dedicating time for training, 
describing how mandatory sessions are now scheduled to ensure they are carried out and not 
68 
deprioritized. Although the respondent did not explicitly address whether or how the training 
supports the practical application of knowledge within the organization, such efforts may be seen as 
an initial step toward connecting knowing with doing. 
 
In recent years[,] we have started linking more to training by scheduling it in advance to ensure it 
actually happens. Otherwise, what often happens is that after a few months[,] there are no hours 
left[,] and the training gets dropped. So now we have certain mandatory sessions that are always 
scheduled[,] to make sure they are carried out and not deprioritized. (R2) 
 
While only a minority of respondents explicitly mentioned mechanisms supporting the practical 
enactment of knowledge, such enactment occurred to varying degrees and through different means. 
Although R2 and R4 approached this differently, both demonstrated a hands-on orientation. R2 focused 
on manually matching employee competencies to specific tasks or situations, whereas R4 supported 
knowledge enactment by allocating resources wherever gaps were identified. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
69 
5. Analysis 
5.1 Knowledge Identification 
The empirical findings demonstrate that all participating organizations employ proactive measures to 
identify and capture employee knowledge. However, the frequency and combination of practices suggest 
that some constitute more central channels for knowledge identification, while others play a more 
peripheral role. While several key practices were shared across cases, it was clear that some were more 
consistently used than others. For all respondents, the involvement of line management was identified as a 
primary mechanism for facilitating proactive knowledge identification within organizations. Other 
practices, such as in-person meetings, HR systems and the involvement of higher organizational levels 
were also mentioned, but these were invariably used in tandem with line management, not as standalone 
practices. Specifically, less than half of the respondents mentioned using HR systems or higher 
organizational levels in combination with line management, and only one organization reported 
employing all identified practices. 
 
These findings provide two key insights. First, they challenge the traditional view of HRM as primarily 
reactive by demonstrating that HRM practices can also play a proactive role in knowledge identification. 
Second, they suggest that not all practices are equally central, as some were less prevalent and played a 
more supporting role. However, while line management was the most frequently cited mechanism for 
identifying knowledge, some respondents highlighted challenges related to time and resource constraints. 
This demonstrates that while line management plays a central role in knowledge identification, the 
effectiveness of this approach depends on the active engagement of managers, which in turn is contingent 
upon the time and resources they have available. Without these conditions, HRM’s potential to 
proactively identify knowledge remains limited. 
 
 
70 
Focusing more closely on specific practices, the data reveal that knowledge identification is a 
multifaceted process, varying not only in the type of practices used but also in their nature and scope. For 
example, in-person meetings took on multiple formats, ranging from one-on-one sessions to group 
constellations, through which knowledge could be surfaced and identified. These also varied in nature as 
some were more structured, in terms of being scheduled in advance, whereas others occurred 
spontaneously in the course of day-to-day interactions. Furthermore, some relied on initiative, where 
employees would share their knowledge, while others involved a more explicit encouragement to do so. A 
similar nuance was observed for line management, where knowledge identification either involved the 
active efforts of managers to seek out knowledge or their support in encouraging employees to make their 
knowledge known. Furthermore, the findings demonstrate that knowledge identification is distributed 
across different organizational levels, as it also occurs in a top-down manner. This shows that the 
identification of employee knowledge is not as fixed or one-dimensional as proposed in the conceptual 
framework. Rather, it emerges as a multifaceted phenomenon, taking place across organizational levels 
and varying in both scope and nature. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
71 
Figure 7 
Thematic Analysis of the Theme ‘Knowledge Identification’ 
 
Note. Based on data from Appendix 2. 
 
While the empirical findings pointed to an overall positive support for the notion of proactive knowledge 
identification by organizations, it is important to note that there was one instance where a practice 
appeared proactive but, upon closer scrutiny, did not function as such. As illustrated in Figure 7, although 
HR systems were referenced by a minority of respondents as useful tools for identifying knowledge, they 
did not fulfill this role in practice. Rather, the systems were instead used as databases for retrieving 
information about employee competencies. While they allowed users to identify specific competencies, 
such as language proficiency or leadership experience, this was only possible once that information had 
72 
already been entered into the system. As a result, this process was reliant on prior data input and therefore 
does not constitute knowledge identification in a proactive sense. For this reason, HR systems were not 
classified as mechanisms of proactive knowledge identification, despite being mentioned by some 
respondents. 
 
In summary, the empirical findings confirm that HRM can play a proactive role in knowledge 
identification. Unlike more widely acknowledged HRM approaches, such as exit interviews, that primarily 
rely on reactive strategies to mitigate knowledge loss (Daghfous et al., 2013: 643; Serrat, 2017: 
1023-1024), the organizations in this study were found to employ several practices aimed at identifying 
employee knowledge at earlier stages. These include the use of in-person meetings, and the involvement 
of both line management and higher organizational levels, each serving as key channels through which 
knowledge could be identified. Collectively, these findings demonstrate that organizations are not only 
concerned with responding to knowledge loss when it is at risk of occurring, but also actively engaged in 
proactively identifying and capturing knowledge before such risk materializes. In doing so, they challenge 
the prevailing assumption that HRM engages in knowledge identification primarily in tandem with 
employee exit, thereby substantiating the conceptual model’s proposition that HRM can assume a more 
proactive role in organizational knowledge identification. Furthermore, the findings add nuance to the 
conceptual framework by showing that practices vary not only in scope and character but also in their 
prevalence. 
 
5.2 Routinization of Knowledge  
Contrary to the conceptual model, most participating organizations did not employ routinization as a 
means for retaining knowledge. In fact, it was only one respondent who described a process similar to the 
externalization of tacit knowledge as outlined by the literature (Cairó Battistutti and Bork, 2017: 464; 
Nonaka, 1994: 24), in which knowledge is converted into a more easily comprehensible format. More 
specifically, in that particular case, the employee-generated knowledge was embedded into the specific 
73 
unit’s organizational matrix, which then served as a structural template that could be disseminated 
globally across the organization. While a matrix does not, in itself, constitute a routine in the strict sense, 
its role in guiding repeated actions and facilitating the transfer of knowledge suggests that it may function 
as a routine-like mechanism within the organization. 
 
However, even if this case lends some support to the notion of routines as repositories of knowledge 
(Argote, 2013: 106; Hodgson, 2008: 25), the dissemination of the matrix did not appear to be the result of 
deliberate intent, but rather emerged from arbitrary circumstances. This, in turn, may reflect a lack of 
strategic maturity or organizational awareness in relation to knowledge management, thereby calling into 
question the extent to which the conceptual proposition can be fully substantiated. Indeed, rather than 
aligning with what the literature on organizational memory suggests, namely, that employee knowledge is 
retained and disseminated through its codification into routines (Argote, 2013: 88-89), most of the 
respondents described entirely different ways of retaining knowledge within their organizations. As a 
result, this approach seems to be an exception rather than the norm among the cases. This finding implies 
a theoretical implication for the proposed conceptual framework, as this proposition received only partial 
empirical support. 
 
Instead, when asked how knowledge was retained within their organizations, respondents described 
alternative approaches that did not involve codification into routines. Locally, these included one-on-one 
formats such as onboarding buddy systems and mentorship opportunities, where expertise from more 
experienced employees could be transferred to colleagues. Such informal knowledge transfers also 
occurred as a natural part of everyday collaboration within departments. However, each of these practices 
was mentioned only once, and mentorship had not yet been fully implemented, according to the 
respondent who described it. This suggests that such practices may not always be deliberately 
implemented as structured retention mechanisms, but are often taken for granted to occur naturally within 
teams, which may explain why so few respondents explicitly mentioned them. In contrast, the findings 
74 
revealed that in-person knowledge transfer in the form of person-to-group formats was often more 
structured and deliberately designed. One example of such collective knowledge dissemination was 
locally conducted meetings. These took both formal and informal forms, ranging from structured sessions 
where knowledgeable employees were given a platform to share their expertise, with small groups of 
colleagues, to more spontaneous exchanges embedded in daily workplace interactions. 
 
While many of these in-person knowledge transfers remained at the local level, some efforts transcended 
such micro-level dissemination by taking place at a regional and even national scale. For example, in one 
case, knowledge initially shared at the local level was scaled regionally through district-level units and 
then disseminated nationally via district representatives. Other forms of knowledge transfers occurred 
through various communication channels, including personal voice calls and digital platforms such as 
organizational intranets, and software systems like Microsoft Teams. In all cases, knowledge was 
transferred between organizational units and among employees working in similar roles across the 
country. However, when it came to transboundary knowledge dissemination, this was primarily facilitated 
by higher organizational levels in a top-down manner. As illustrated in Figure 8, this occurred through 
the involvement of the HR department and specific units at corporate headquarters, to coordinate the 
transfer of knowledge across organizational boundaries. In a more unconventional case, this also included 
the use of an internal magazine and corporate website that enabled organizational units to share their 
practices and insights with each other globally. Additionally, one respondent also described a case in 
which local knowledge was transferred to a foreign organizational unit abroad through the physical 
deployment of an employee. 
 
 
 
 
 
75 
Figure 8 
Thematic Analysis of the Theme ‘Routinization of Knowledge’ 
 
Note. Based on data from Appendix 3. 
 
Although knowledge was occasionally scaled beyond national borders, it was not described as a common 
practice. On the contrary, it occurred rather rarely and typically only in special cases when the knowledge 
was considered universally relevant to the organization. This suggests that the current approaches to 
knowledge retention, as described by respondents, may be insufficient in supporting the needs of MNCs. 
Moreover, the findings indicate that knowledge transfer within these organizations is distance-dependent, 
occurring more frequently between employees in proximity. This limits the extent to which knowledge 
can be shared across geographically dispersed units. In turn, this suggests that although routinization was 
76 
not reported as a common practice, it could serve as an effective mechanism for disseminating knowledge 
to more distant parts of the organization. In this way, the findings point to a potential gap between current 
practices and what may be required to support knowledge flows in structurally multinational 
organizations. 
 
Additionally, routines may help mitigate several of the organizational challenges related to knowledge 
dissemination that were mentioned by respondents in Figure 8. While not all challenges can be addressed 
through the use of routines, some are likely to be alleviated in this way. For instance, by embedding 
employee knowledge into routines, time constraints that limit active knowledge sharing could be 
alleviated by decoupling knowledge from the individual. In this way, knowledge could be transferred 
independently of the person. Similarly, routinization may help address the limited capacity of recipients to 
absorb extensive knowledge from highly experienced colleagues, as well as language barriers commonly 
encountered in transboundary knowledge transfers, by codifying tacit knowledge into a more accessible 
and standardized format. As a result, recipients become less reliant on their own absorptive capacity and 
language proficiency when acquiring knowledge, as the codified format is designed to be more easily 
understood. 
 
In conclusion, the empirical findings do not fully align with the proposition outlined in the conceptual 
framework, as most respondents did not follow the intermediary step of codifying identified employee 
knowledge into routines. Instead, knowledge was often transferred directly between individuals, without 
being embedded into a more accessible and durable format, a step that, according to Argote (2013: 107), 
is crucial for ensuring long-term knowledge retention. However, this does not mean that routines should 
be ruled out entirely. In fact, the findings also suggest that the current practices used for retaining 
knowledge within organizations may be insufficient to support the transboundary knowledge flows 
required by the multinational structures. As such, MNCs may indeed benefit from the routinization of 
knowledge to enable more consistent knowledge transfers across organizational units. This not only 
77 
implies that knowledge is not structurally stored within organizations (Walsh & Ungson, 1991: 60), but 
also suggests that long-term knowledge retention may be difficult to achieve, as it remains dependent on 
individual employees as the primary carriers of knowledge, and thus conditional on their continued 
tenure. Consequently, the absence of routines raises important questions about whether individual 
know-how can truly persist beyond the tenure of those who possess it, and whether organizations can 
effectively mitigate knowledge loss without the structural mechanisms to sustain it. These findings 
underscore the need for MNCs to consider routinization as a strategy for long-term organizational 
knowledge retention. 
 
5.3 Support for the Practical Enactment of Routines 
As shown in Figure 9, although some sort of support for practical knowledge enactment within 
organizations was suggested by the empirical evidence, this support was not explicitly linked to the use of 
routines as postulated in the conceptual model. This is unsurprising, as respondents did not describe 
routines as a means for retaining knowledge, but instead relied on alternative approaches. For instance, 
one respondent described a process in which follow-up surveys were administered after training sessions 
to evaluate the extent to which the acquired knowledge had been implemented in practice. If the responses 
indicated insufficient implementation, the organization would respond by providing what seemed to be 
additional resources. This approach appeared to focus primarily on general knowledge, such as mandatory 
organizational training, rather than on insights captured from individual employees. In contrast, another 
respondent described an alternative approach in which individuals were manually placed in situations 
where their competence could be applied. However, as in the previous case, the connection to routines 
was not made explicit. 
 
The empirical findings clearly point to a gap between the conceptual model, and the way knowledge 
implementation was supported in practice within organizations. They also offer some indication that it 
may not be a strategically or deliberately pursued process, but rather something that transpires as a 
78 
by-product of other activities. However, because knowledge carried by individuals is inherently 
vulnerable to loss through employee turnover, its practical application becomes particularly critical. In the 
absence of such practical support, especially in cases where approaches to knowledge retention are 
already weak, organizations risk struggling to retain knowledge even during employees’ tenure. Together, 
these findings suggest that organizations face fundamental challenges in sustaining knowledge, not only 
over the long term, but also in the short term, even while employees remain within the organization. 
 
Figure 9 
Thematic Analysis of the Theme ‘Practical Enactment of Routines’ 
 
Note. Based on data from Appendix 4. 
 
79 
5.4 Revised Conceptual Model 
Based on the empirical findings, the conceptual model has been revised to incorporate three key changes. 
The first revision concerns the proactive identification of knowledge, which is conceptualized as a 
facilitating precursor to routinization. This element has been refined to reflect a more multi-dimensional 
understanding of how knowledge identification occurs in practice. Rather than viewing it as an abstract 
process, the revised model incorporates concrete mechanisms through which identification takes place, 
such as various forms of in-person meetings and the involvement of both line management and higher 
organizational levels. Secondly, the support for the practical enactment of routines and the routinization 
of knowledge have been removed from the conceptual model, as they were not sufficiently supported by 
the empirical data. This decision was primarily based on the partial support for routinization and the lack 
of evidence for the organizational support of practical enactment of routines. Consequently, the revised 
model more accurately reflects how knowledge is retained within MNCs in practice. As a result, the 
assumed longevity of knowledge retention was adjusted from the sustained, long-term knowledge 
retention originally envisioned to a more conditional and short-term view. This shift was largely attributed 
to the fact that knowledge remained tied to the individuals who possessed it, making it difficult for 
organizations to retain knowledge over time. Accordingly, the conceptual model in Figure 10 reflects a 
revised understanding of both the assumed longevity of knowledge retention, but also the practices that 
support it. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
80 
Figure 10 
Revised Conceptual Framework 
 
Note. Author’s own Illustration. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
81 
6. Conclusions 
6.1 Conclusion 
This study set out to examine the extent to which HRM can contribute to long-term organizational 
retention of human capital, in the form of employee knowledge, in MNCs. In doing so, it addressed two 
key research gaps within the existing HRM literature. First, it reframes continued employment as a 
mechanism for retaining human capital, rather than viewing it purely through the lens of staffing. Second, 
it extends the contemporary understanding of HRM by proposing that it can support long-term 
organizational human capital retention through the integration of previously distinct bodies of literature. 
This includes the incorporation of new conceptual elements such as the routinization of knowledge and 
the practical enactment of routines, alongside the relatively underexplored notion of proactive knowledge 
identification. 
 
While the conceptual model provided an ambitious theoretical foundation for addressing the research 
question, the empirical findings revealed an entirely different reality. In many respects, the findings 
diverged from what was originally envisioned. First, they nuanced the understanding of knowledge 
identification by demonstrating that it occurred proactively within organizations. The findings also 
revealed that these practices varied in scope and nature, particularly in terms of their structure, format, 
importance, and the organizational levels at which they occurred. Together, these insights not only nuance 
the conceptual model but also expand the existing HRM framework by demonstrating that knowledge 
identification is not limited to reactive methods, but also involves proactive practices. 
 
Second, there was limited evidence of organizational efforts to routinize knowledge. As a result, 
knowledge retention remains dependent on the continued presence of employees, who serve as the 
primary carriers of knowledge, rather than being structurally embedded into routines that would allow it 
to persist independently within organizations. In turn, this suggests that long-term organizational 
82 
knowledge retention may be difficult for organizations to achieve, particularly since employee knowledge 
was primarily transferred to colleagues in close physical proximity. This indicates that current 
organizational approaches to knowledge retention may be insufficient for supporting the transboundary 
structure of MNCs, and that routines may represent a more effective approach to transferring knowledge 
within geographically dispersed organizations. Therefore, while routines were not widely used as a 
knowledge retention mechanism, the findings suggest that organizations may nonetheless benefit from 
using them to codify knowledge into a more transferable format. 
 
Third, the empirical findings diverged from the conceptual model by demonstrating that support for the 
practical enactment of routines was lacking. While there was some evidence of supporting practices for 
knowledge application, these were not explicitly linked to routines. Overall, this suggests that the 
assumed role of practical support in knowledge retention may not be as strategically important or 
deliberately pursued by organizations as initially envisioned. Consequently, given their current practices, 
organizations risk losing knowledge not only after employee departure but also during employee tenure, 
as organizational support for practical implementation was generally limited, not only in terms of 
routines, but also more broadly. 
 
In direct response to the research question, the empirical findings suggest that HRM can contribute to the 
long-term organizational retention of human capital, in the form of employee knowledge, in MNCs, but 
only to a limited extent. While the proactive identification of knowledge was supported by the findings, 
there was little to no empirical evidence for the routinization of knowledge or for organizational support 
of the practical enactment of routines. As a result, knowledge retention remains highly dependent on 
individual employees as carriers of knowledge, making it conditional and short-term, particularly since 
organizations also lacked support for its practical application. Therefore, although HRM holds potential 
for supporting long-term organizational human capital retention, in the form of employee knowledge, the 
current empirical findings provide only limited support for the conceptual model. 
83 
6.2 Theoretical Implications 
As evidenced by the empirical findings, the conceptual model received only partial support, as not all of 
its propositions could be empirically validated. Specifically, the routinization of knowledge was only 
partially employed as a mechanism for knowledge retention, as there was only one mentioned practice 
that resembled a routine. While it fulfilled many of the functions typically associated with a routine, such 
as making knowledge independent of its original bearer by codifying it into a more accessible and 
transferable format (Argote, 2013: 107; Gherardi, 2000: 213), it was not a routine in the strict sense. This 
limited the extent to which this aspect of the conceptual framework could be confidently affirmed. While 
this aspect was at least partially reflected in practice, the support for practical enactment of routines was 
more directly challenged by the empirical findings, as none of the respondents described practices aligned 
with that proposition. Given that routines were not extensively employed for the purpose of human capital 
retention, it was perhaps unsurprising that practices concerning their practical implementation were 
largely absent in the data. 
 
On the other hand, the findings provided a more nuanced understanding of HRM’s role in the 
identification of knowledge by illustrating how this function was proactively achieved through various 
channels and across multiple organizational levels. While this was accounted for in the conceptual model, 
the multifaceted ways in which this process unfolds in practice were not. In this regard, respondents’ 
insights contributed to a more detailed and layered understanding of how knowledge identification occurs 
within organizations, beyond the use of reactive methods such as exit interviews (Daghfous et al., 2013: 
643; Serrat, 2017: 1023-1024). By doing so, it expands the conceptualization of HRM to include the 
proactive identification of knowledge through practices such as in-person meetings and line management 
and higher organizational levels.  
 
Collectively, these findings suggest that while the proposed framework holds conceptual ambition, its 
assumptions about how knowledge is retained and practically supported require further empirical testing 
84 
to determine their practical application. More specifically, it remains uncertain whether the distinct 
literatures integrated in the conceptual model can be fully synthesized in a way that reflects the practical 
realities of how organizations actually approach knowledge management. As such, the framework 
provides a valuable starting point for future theoretical development that may more accurately capture the 
complexity of knowledge retention in organizations. 
 
6.3 Practical Implications 
A direct practical implication of the study’s findings is the risk of knowledge loss within organizations. 
Since the respondents generally did not employ routinization as a deliberate strategy for retaining 
employee knowledge, many organizations may not yet be at a stage of development where such practices 
are systematically implemented. This indirectly creates several challenges for their ability to preserve 
human capital over the long run. In the absence of routines, knowledge remains tied to the continued 
presence of employees within organizations, making it contingent upon their ongoing tenure. Although all 
forms of knowledge must be utilized to be sustained, the inability to decouple knowledge from the 
individuals who possess it prevents that knowledge from persisting independently when those employees 
either change roles or leave the organization. As a result, organizations are likely to achieve only 
short-term solutions to organizational human capital retention, as the underlying issue remains 
unresolved. This highlights the inherent relevance of routines as a mechanism for mitigating knowledge 
loss by embedding knowledge long-term within organizations.  
 
While routines are not entirely immune to degradation (Daghfous et al., 2013: 641), their key advantage 
lies in their ability to exist independently of the individual, thereby increasing the likelihood that 
knowledge can persist over time without relying on employees’ continued tenure. T his means that when 
individuals who possess valuable knowledge leave the organization, that knowledge can still be 
transferred to others who may benefit from it. In this way, knowledge is retained not only structurally, but 
also practically through its continued enactment by employees. Although the approaches described by 
85 
respondents may help prolong knowledge retention, sustaining such knowledge remains difficult, both in 
the long term and even while the employees who carry it remain, due to the limited support for its 
practical enactment. This suggests that although routines and the mechanisms to support their practical 
enactment are currently lacking in organizations, they may nonetheless hold strategic value for achieving 
long-term knowledge retention. 
 
Ultimately, the risk of knowledge loss raises questions about organizations’ ability to leverage human 
capital that may form the foundation to their competitive advantage. This issue is particularly relevant in 
today’s increasingly competitive global environment in which MNCs operate, where knowledge remains a 
decisive factor in their ability to survive and thrive long-term (Jessop, 1999: 1). It is therefore strategically 
crucial for all organizations to consider the routinization of knowledge, along with the support for its 
practical enactment, as a deliberate strategy for sustaining organizational performance and long-term 
success. 
 
6.4 Future Research 
While the revised conceptual model more accurately reflects the findings of this study, the original 
framework remains of interest for future testing, particularly as additional insights may yield stronger 
empirical support for its theoretical propositions. As a result, future research may proceed in several 
directions. Given that this study employed a qualitative, theory-driven approach, a logical next step for 
future research could be to adopt a more theory-testing orientation in order to evaluate the original 
conceptual model across a broader range of organizational contexts. This may involve sampling 
organizations with greater variation in industry, organizational maturity, and levels of strategic awareness. 
While the current findings offer partial support for the proposed framework, a larger-scale, quantitative 
research design could also provide a more robust assessment of its theoretical generalizability and the 
strength of the relationships between long-term organizational knowledge retention and the extended 
HRM practices. 
86 
 
Two distinct research directions may emerge, depending on whether future empirical findings validate the 
remaining parts of the conceptual model, namely, the routinization of knowledge and the organizational 
support for its practical enactment. If the original conceptual model continues to receive empirical 
validation, future research could explore the organizational conditions that facilitate the emergence of 
routinization and its practical implementation. Such investigation would offer valuable insights into how 
these conditions can be fostered within organizations. This line of inquiry may also benefit from a 
longitudinal research design to examine whether routines actually remain stable and effective over time, 
as is often assumed in theory.  
 
Alternatively, if the proposed model is not substantiated by future findings, scholars may instead explore 
alternative theoretical extensions of HRM that support human capital retention beyond individual 
employee tenure. This could involve investigating whether other organizational practices, such as those 
highlighted by respondents in this study, can sustain critical knowledge over extended periods of time, 
despite theoretical assumptions that such person-dependent approaches are insufficient for long-term 
retention. These alternatives may include in-person knowledge transfer, digital platforms, or top-down 
dissemination facilitated by higher organizational levels. Collectively, these research directions offer 
promising avenues for advancing both theoretical and practical understanding of the complex and 
strategically important phenomenon of long-term organizational knowledge retention. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
87 
References 
Agarwal, R., & Helfat, C. E. (2009). Strategic Renewal of Organizations. Organization Science, 20(2), 
281-293. 
 
Aguinis, H., & Kraiger, K. (2009). Benefits of training and development for individuals and teams, 
organizations, and society. Annual Review of Psychology, 60(1), 451-474. 
 
Argote, L. (2013). Organizational Learning: Creating, Retaining and Transferring Knowledge (2nd ed.). 
Springer. 
 
Barney, J. (1991). Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 
99-120. 
 
Barney, J. B., & Wright, P. M. (1998). On becoming a strategic partner: The role of human resources in 
gaining competitive advantage. Human Resource Management, 37(1), 31-46. 
 
Bearman, M. (2019). Focus on Methodology: Eliciting rich data: A practical approach to writing 
semi-structured interview schedules. Focus on Health Professional Education: A 
Multi-Professional Journal, 20(3), 1-11. 
 
Bell, E., Bryman, A., & Harley, B. (2019). Business research methods (5th ed.). Oxford University Press. 
 
Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2019). Social research methods (5th Canadian ed.). Oxford University Press. 
 
88 
Burke, L. A., & Hutchins, H. M. (2007). Training Transfer: An Integrative Literature Review. Human 
Resource Development Review, 6(3), 263-296. 
 
Cairó Battistutti, O., & Bork, D. (2017). Tacit to explicit knowledge conversion. Cognitive Processing, 
18(4), 461-477. 
 
Daghfous, A., Belkhodja, O., & C. Angell, L. (2013). Understanding and managing knowledge loss. 
Journal of Knowledge Management, 17(5), 639-660. 
 
Dwyer, S. C., & Buckle, J. L. (2009). The Space Between: On Being an Insider-Outsider in Qualitative 
Research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(1), 54-63. 
 
Endenich, C., Hahn, R., Reimsbach, D., & Wickert, C. (2023). Wait-and-see-ism as partial adoption of 
management practices: The rise and stall of integrated reporting. Strategic Organization, 21(3), 
566-595. 
 
Feldman, M. S., & Pentland, B. T. (2003). Reconceptualizing Organizational Routines as a Source of 
Flexibility and Change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(1), 94-118. 
 
Gaertner, K. N., & Nollen, S. D. (1989). Career Experiences, Perceptions of Employment Practices, and 
Psychological Commitment to the Organization. Human Relations, 42(11), 975-991. 
 
Gherardi, S. (2000). Practice-Based Theorizing on Learning and Knowing in Organizations. 
Organization, 7(2), 211-223. 
 
89 
Goldberg, W. A., Greenberger, E., Koch-Jones, J., O’Neil, R., & Hamill, S. (1989). Attractiveness of child 
care and related employer-supported benefits and policies to married and single parents. Child & 
Youth Care Quarterly, 18(1), 23-37. 
 
Grossman, R., & Salas, E. (2011). The transfer of training: what really matters. International Journal of 
Training and Development, 15(2), 103-120. 
 
Grover, S. L., & Crooker, K. J. (1995). WHO APPRECIATES FAMILY-RESPONSIVE HUMAN 
RESOURCE POLICIES: THE IMPACT OF FAMILY-FRIENDLY POLICIES ON THE 
ORGANIZATIONAL ATTACHMENT OF PARENTS AND NON-PARENTS. Personnel 
Psychology, 48(2), 271-288. 
 
Hodgson, G. M. (2008). The Concept of a Routine. In M. C. Becker (Ed.), Handbook of Organizational 
Routines (pp. 15-28). Edward Elgar Publishing. 
 
Jessop, B. (1999). The State and the Contradictions of the Knowledge-Driven Economy. Institut for 
Historie, Internationale Studier og Samfundsforhold, Aalborg Universitet. 
https://vbn.aau.dk/en/publications/the-state-and-the-contradictions-of-the-knowledge-driven-econ
omy  
 
Laroche, M., Mérette, M., & Ruggeri, G. C. (1999). On the Concept and Dimensions of Human Capital in 
a Knowledge-Based Economy Context. Canadian Public Policy, 25(1), 87-100. 
 
Levitt, B., & March, J. G. (1988). Organizational Learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14(1), 319-340. 
 
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage. 
90 
 
Lähteenmäki, S., & Paalumäki, A. (1993). The retraining and mobility motivations of key personnel: 
dependencies in the Finnish business environment. International Journal of Human Resource 
Management, 4(2), 377-406. 
 
Mariano, S. (2023). Mitigating the disruptive consequences of knowledge loss in organizational settings: 
Knowledge loss clusters and potential organizational interventions. Proceedings of the 24th 
European Conference on Knowledge Management, 24(1), 871-880. 
 
McCormick, J. (2018). Global Studies. Red Globe Press. 
 
Meyer, J. P., & Smith, C. A. (2000). HRM Practices and Organizational Commitment: Test of a Mediation 
Model. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 17(4), 319-331. 
 
Miner, A. S., Ciuchta, M. P., & Gong, Y. (2008). Organizational routines and organizational learning. In 
M. C. Becker (Ed.), Handbook of Organizational Routines (pp. 152-186). Edward Elgar 
Publishing. 
 
Morley, M. J., Gunnigle, P., O’Sullivan, M., & Collings, D. G. (2006). New directions in the roles and 
responsibilities of the HRM function. Personnel Review, 35(6), 609-617. 
 
Nonaka, I. (1994). A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation. Organization Science, 
5(1), 14-37. 
 
Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage: creating and sustaining superior performance. Free Press. 
 
91 
Rao, R. D., & Argote, L. (2006). Organizational learning and forgetting: The effects of turnover and 
structure. European Management Review, 3(2), 77-85. 
 
Reiche, B. S., Lee, Y., & Allen, D. G. (2019). Actors, Structure, and Processes: A Review and 
Conceptualization of Global Work Integrating IB and HRM Research. Journal of Management, 
45(2), 359-383. 
 
Renta-Davids, A. I., Jiménez-González, J. M., Fandos-Garrido, M., & González-Soto, Á. P. (2014). 
Transfer of learning: motivation, training design and learning-conducive work effects. European 
Journal of Training and Development, 38(8), 728-744. 
 
Schuler, R. S., & MacMillan, I. C. (1984). Gaining competitive advantage through human resource 
management practices. Human Resource Management, 23(3), 241-255. 
 
Serrat, O. (2017). Knowledge solutions: Tools, methods, and approaches to drive organizational 
performance. Springer 
 
Storey, J. (1992). Developments in the Management of Human Resources: An Analytical Review. 
Blackwell Business. 
 
Walsh, J. P., & Ungson, G. R. (1991). Organizational Memory. The Academy of Management Review, 
16(1), 57-91. 
 
Welch, C., & Piekkari, R. (2006). Crossing Language Boundaries: Qualitative Interviewing in 
International Business. Management International Review, 46(4), 417-437. 
 
92 
Wright, P. M., McMahan, G. C., & McWilliams, A. (1994). Human resources and sustained competitive 
advantage: a resource-based perspective. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 
5(2), 301-326. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
93 
Appendix 
 
Appendix 1 
Interview Guide 
Theme Questions 
Introduction Do I have your permission to record this interview? 
Knowledge Accumulation 2. How does the organization currently capture 
employee knowledge? 
- What is the process like? 
 3. Has this process changed over time? 
- If so, how? 
- If not, why do you think it has remained 
unchanged? 
 4. Is this process applied consistently across the 
organization, or does it vary by location? 
 5. Who is responsible for capturing employee 
knowledge? 
- Is it mainly the HR department? Are other 
departments involved? 
- If so, how do they contribute? 
 6. Do you perceive the existing methods for 
capturing knowledge as sufficient? 
- If so, in what ways? 
- If not, what limitations exist? 
 7. Are there areas where the organization could 
improve its approach to capturing employee 
94 
knowledge? 
- If so, what improvements would you suggest? 
Knowledge Retention 8. Once knowledge has been captured, how is it 
maintained within the organization? 
- Are there specific processes or mechanisms 
in place? 
9. Is this process applied consistently across the 
organization, or does it vary by location? 
 10. How does the company measure whether the 
knowledge is actually being used? 
- If there is no measurement, how does the 
company ensure the knowledge does not 
become forgotten? 
 11. Does this process help preserve knowledge 
within the company after employees depart? 
 12. Who is responsible for maintaining employee 
knowledge? 
- Is it primarily HR’s responsibility, or are 
there other departments involved? 
 13. Can you share an example where employee 
knowledge was successfully maintained 
within the company? 
- What factors contributed to its success? 
Maintaining Knowledge through Routines 14. Does the company use routines to maintain 
employee knowledge? 
- If so, what does this process look like? 
95 
If the company does not use Routines 15. If routines are not used, how is employee knowledge 
maintained instead? 
 16. Are routines never used at all, or are they used only 
in certain cases? 
 17. Is this knowledge retention process applied 
consistently across the organization, or does it 
vary by location? 
If the company uses Routines 18. How does the company ensure that employees follow 
newly standardized routines over time? 
- Are there specific strategies in place to support 
this? 
- Or is it assumed that employees will naturally 
adopt the new routines? 
19. Would you say that routines are the primary method 
for maintaining knowledge within the organization? 
 20. Can you share an example of when a routine was 
successfully implemented to preserve employee 
knowledge? 
- What factors contributed to its success? 
- Was this applied only in one location or across 
the organization? 
96 
International Embeddedness 21. How does the organization ensure that new routines 
are shared across different locations, including 
international operations? 
- Are there specific processes used to ensure 
consistency? 
 22. Does the organization always share new routines 
across different locations? 
- When is it shared and when is it not shared? 
 23. How does the organization ensure that shared 
routines are actually followed after their 
implementation? 
 24. Is this responsibility handled by the HR department, 
or do other departments play a role? 
 25. What challenges arise when sharing routines 
globally? 
- Can you provide an example of such a 
challenge? 
Challenges and Improvements 26. In your experience, what are the biggest challenges 
in preserving employee knowledge 
within the organization? 
 27. If you could improve the way the company preserves 
employee knowledge, what changes would you suggest? 
 
97 
Appendix 2 
Data Supporting the Theme ‘Identification of Knowledge’ 
First-order Code Verbatim Quote 
HR Systems Once we manage to enter […] [the information] into the 
HR system, it will be there[,] and we will be able to 
search in many different ways. For example, if I need 
someone who speaks … [a certain] language[,] I can 
search on language. Then we can find the person who 
can help us with translation[,] or if we need someone 
skilled in project management to start a new project[,] 
[…] we have someone internally we can utilize. (R3) 
 We have a lot of ongoing projects, both locally and 
globally[,] that people are involved in[.] [By using the 
HR system] […] it becomes easier for everyone to 
search for specific competencies. [...] The ambition is to 
be able to retrieve that kind of information [from the 
system] across different areas. We have started, for 
example, with some leadership programs. We register 
participants there, which means that when we have 
international positions to fill, we can see what strengths 
we can draw from this pool. This way, you can be more 
spot-on in selecting who you would like to interview or 
headhunt. (R5) 
98 
In-person Knowledge Identification All departments also have weekly meetings. We always 
start the week on Monday with a meeting where we 
discuss various things that are happening. We talk about 
what is coming up that week[,] and it is an excellent 
opportunity to reflect on questions [on how to 
improve][.] [...] We engage in a lot of discussions[,] 
often through in-person meetings. Our management and 
different levels of leadership also have external 
meetings. They spend several days together in 
workshops specifically to plan how we should move 
forward or which processes we need to change. [...] 
From experience[,] such matters tend to emerge during 
meetings.  (R3) 
 We always have a sheet hanging in the production area 
for questions to bring up at the next group meeting[.] 
[Employees] [...] write down their [suggestions] [...] 
there, and then we raise the questions when everyone is 
gathered[.] In production[,] everything is about timing. 
It is often small details [stemming from such 
suggestions] [...] that can make a big difference for the 
final product. [...] [Otherwise] [...] we do not have a 
good system for capturing things that come up from 
[those that are working]. (R7) 
99 
 [We] have various [...] reference groups across the 
entire country and across the company. For example[,] 
within reception there is a reference group for [all] 
receptionists [in Sweden] [which comprises] [...] four 
districts each [...] having one representative. [The 
representatives] meet regularly, [...] but they also meet 
within their districts. These meetings are [...] 
opportunities to capture new knowledge and new 
ideas[.] So, physical forums do exist and have always 
existed. (R1) 
 We capture knowledge within our organization through 
employee performance reviews. We have a set of 
questions that are asked every year[,] and one of them 
specifically addresses what additional skills or 
knowledge an employee has beyond their current role. 
[This helps us identify] [...] if someone might be 
interested in doing something else or has particular 
expertise in another area. (R3) 
 [W]e also have annual employee performance 
reviews[,] which are mandatory. But I know that most 
managers also have more continuous conversations[,] 
[which constitute] [...] forums for capturing knowledge 
as well. In the appraisal templates, there are also 
questions [regarding] [...] what we can improve[.] So 
100 
that is another forum where knowledge can be 
captured[.] [There are also] [...] staff meetings with 
different focus areas. So there are forums in place. 
Employees do not necessarily have to actively approach 
their manager, there are established meetings where 
they can raise such matters. (R4) 
Line Management We have almost 3,000 employees, and it is hard to 
capture everyone’s knowledge[,] so the responsibility 
has to be placed on the managers. [W]hen it comes to 
the employees[,] our role [as HR] is more about 
providing the managers with the right tools on how to 
build a learning organization, or how to work to capture 
knowledge and identify competent individuals. 
[However] [t]hey are the ones working closely with 
their teams. (R4) 
  [K]nowledge that comes from experience, from having 
worked for a long time, it is harder to identify and 
extract I think[,] unless the manager actively identifies it 
and then works to encourage that person to share their 
knowledge [with others]. (R2) 
 [Y]ou also have to actively encourage that kind of 
culture, it is my job to make sure that everyone dares to 
say what they are thinking and what they are reflecting 
101 
on. There are no bad suggestions. It is about creating a 
culture where people feel free to throw out any ideas[,] 
and it’s my responsibility to ensure that this culture 
exists. [...] I frequently encourage employees to express 
what they would like to do, and then we can see what 
we can do about it. (R7) 
 There is also a lot of knowledge [about employees] held 
by the recruiters who have reviewed [their] CVs, 
meaning much of it remains stored in their muscle 
memory. For example, they might remember that a 
particular person possesses certain [competencies][.] 
[...] Then there are also the managers[,] who are a great 
asset if you need [to identify] something specific. (R5) 
 The HR system has just launched a new feature called 
‘skills’. It is specifically about how we should collect 
[knowledge][.] [W]e have discussed whether HR should 
manage it or whether the immediate manager should 
handle it. [...] That’s where we are at the moment, 
figuring out how to start. I believe it should be a shared 
responsibility between HR and the managers. (R3) 
 [T]he main responsibility always lies with the person 
who owns the delivery[.] [F]or example [we have a] 
[…] a dedicated person who is responsible for Food and 
102 
Beverage in Sweden[,] and there is someone in a similar 
position in each country where we operate[,] but then it 
is broken down at the departmental level. [.] (R1) 
 We have a team that runs Educational Thursdays[,] 
every other Thursday[,] where the team members take 
turns sharing what they know and what they are good at 
with the rest of the team[.] This helps [identify] [and] 
spread knowledge throughout the team and makes it less 
vulnerable. It is a fantastic way of working, but it is 
more of an initiative-driven approach within that 
particular group, that team, and with the manager. (R5) 
 I have the entire group, with all shifts included, every 
other week. Then[,] once a month[,] I meet only with 
those who work shifts, and once a month I meet only 
with those who work regular weekdays. We have one 
shift that only works daytime[,] and another shift that 
rotates between day and evening hours[,] so there are 
slightly different group constellations. (R7) 
 Let us say someone works with cranes, specifically in 
crane production, [and they uncover that] [...] it is very 
inconvenient [...] to turn counterclockwise instead of 
clockwise [with the crane], because it takes three 
minutes longer to go counterclockwise. They [can then] 
103 
raise that issue during their morning meeting, and then 
the responsible manager takes that point with them and 
checks whether they have the mandate to change that 
working situation, or whether it needs to be escalated 
further up in the organization. (R6) 
 
Top-down Knowledge Identification There is also a lot of knowledge [about employees] held 
by the recruiters who have reviewed [their] CVs, 
meaning much of it remains stored in their muscle 
memory. For example, they might remember that a 
particular person possesses certain [competencies][.] 
(R5) 
 The HR system has just launched a new feature called 
‘skills’. It is specifically about how we should collect 
[knowledge][.] [W]e have discussed whether HR should 
manage it or whether the immediate manager should 
handle it. [...] That’s where we are at the moment, 
figuring out how to start. I believe it should be a shared 
responsibility between HR and the managers. (R3) 
 [T]he main responsibility always lies with the person 
who owns the delivery[.] [F]or example [we have a] 
[…] a dedicated person who is responsible for Food and 
Beverage in Sweden[,] and there is someone in a similar 
104 
position in each country where we operate[,] but then it 
is broken down at the departmental level. [.] It is their 
ultimate responsibility to ensure that what is posted in 
the community is relevant information and knowledge. 
So it is their responsibility [to capture employee 
knowledge]. (R1) 
Challenges to Knowledge Identification When it comes to capturing knowledge[,] it is a matter 
of leadership and it requires that leaders have the time 
to actually lead in their daily work[,] which I believe we 
often lose sight of. There needs to be a clear focus on 
knowledge capture. However, the current focus has 
largely been on simply getting through the day. 
Providing managers with greater opportunities to truly 
exercise leadership throughout the year, [...] is a crucial 
[aspect] [...] that we hope to achieve if we manage to 
bring more stability to our operations. (R2) 
 I believe that our biggest challenge is that we have so 
many employees[,] and that we don’t have the [...] 
capacity to keep up. A lot of the responsibility falls on 
the managers[,]and they are very capable[,] but a great 
deal is placed on them, which is of course a challenge. 
(R4) 
105 
 I think it is just a way we do things. I probably brought 
a lot of that with me from my previous workplace. (R7) 
 Our HR system has been in use for almost two years 
now, which means it still feels somewhat new and 
complicated[,] [people] are not yet fully accustomed to 
it, so we need to teach the organization that this is the 
platform they should be using. [...] So we are also 
facing a small change journey. [...]. In the long run, I 
believe we will use it more effectively and that it will 
become established as a natural part of our work. (R5) 
 I would also say that [our] systems are […] a bit rigid 
and clunky, which means they [have not] […] become 
as dynamic as we would like them to be. (R5) 
 I do not know. We have not come far enough to know 
what we are going to import into the system. We are not 
at that stage right now. (R3) 
 Some also work with competency mapping, we do not 
do that here yet, but many stores do[,] and it is probably 
something we will start with as well. [The idea is to] 
[...] try to identify the skills and competencies each 
employee has[,] in order to determine where additional 
competence is needed or who could share their expertise 
with others. We do not do it here yet, but there is such a 
tool [available]. (R2) 
106 
Appendix 3 
Data Supporting the Theme ‘Routinization of Knowledge’ 
First-order Code Verbatim Quote 
In-person Knowledge Dissemination Something I just thought of is that we work with 
buddies, that is a way of sharing knowledge. When 
someone is new[,] they get a buddy to hang out with 
and learn from. (R2) 
 [W]hen you are working together with someone, like in 
my department, there are lots of things a colleague 
knows just because they have worked here much longer. 
Of course[,] they try to teach those things so that we can 
do them too. In that way[,] she does not have to do it 
every time. It is also about self-interest in wanting to 
teach others [...] so you are not alone in that. (R2) 
 In the system there is, for example, the option to offer 
your services such as sharing your expertise[,] acting as 
a mentor[,] or simply being someone others can turn to. 
[However][,] we have not worked with that at all yet, 
because we are not at that stage. (R5) 
 Currently[,] it is largely based on prior knowledge that 
this person is really good at something[,] and then they 
are often invited to various team meetings[,] or 
107 
whatever the setting may be where they share that 
knowledge. (R5) 
 [I]t is important that all teams work in the same way[.] 
So it becomes the responsibility of[,] for example[,] the 
shift manager to bring this forward and ensure that all 
day shifts adopt the new process, and that those working 
night shifts and evening shifts also receive the same 
information. It is about making sure everyone is 
informed. (R6) 
 [W]e have various [...] physical forums, reference 
groups across the entire country and the whole 
company. If we take[,] for example[,] the reception, 
there is a reference group for receptionists[,] and we 
have four districts in Sweden[,] each with its own 
representative. They meet regularly within Sweden, and 
also within their districts. These meetings are also used 
to capture new knowledge and ideas[,] and then 
decisions are made about what to do with them. For 
example[,] ‘That was a good idea,’ or ‘We have 
identified this need in the reception now that we are 
changing the check-in system, how can we solve it?’ 
That feedback is then passed back into the organization, 
through discussions in groups and then down to the 
108 
local units. So[,] physical forums exist too, and have 
always existed. (R1) 
 That is how we work[,] because we want to get quick 
solutions from each other. People are happy to ask, call 
and ask, ‘Do you have a good solution for this?’ and so 
on. (R2) 
 I believe they work a lot within their regions, they have 
meetings either monthly or quarterly where they discuss 
things[,] and I think they collaborate quite closely. 
Knowledge can be shared in that way[.] [...] The 
regional managers also have close cooperation[,] so I 
believe a lot of knowledge flows through those 
channels. So if someone has come up with a really great 
idea that has been successful, I think those are the 
forums where it gets spread. (R4) 
 The production that I am responsible for exists only in 
Sweden at our company, but we have two other 
departments that have production abroad. [...] A few 
years ago[,] the production manager traveled abroad to 
implement the working method we had developed in 
Sweden in order to increase efficiency. [...] They first 
tested it here, worked it in[,] and then transferred the 
working method to the other locations. (R7) 
109 
Digital Knowledge Dissemination [W]e have an intranet where knowledge sharing takes 
place to a large extent. [...] Depending on what you 
work with[,] you can be part of different communities. 
[w]e have communities for Sweden, but also general 
ones for the whole firm, where we encourage 
knowledge sharing. For example[,] [...] everyone 
working in the restaurant operations [...] has their own 
community. So when someone comes up with a smart 
idea, such as reusing the oatmeal from the morning, 
which is a typical idea, [by] [f]or example making oat 
cookies or by making granola[,] [...] [i]t gets shared 
there through videos, pictures, or text. This is one way 
for us to facilitate the sharing of good ideas[,] which at 
its core is knowledge. (R1) 
 On the other hand[,] we also have Teams forums for 
many different topics. For example, those working with 
product quality have a Teams forum that includes 
everyone in Sweden working with that area[,] and 
[t]here is a lot of activity there. All department 
managers also have a Teams chat with others in similar 
roles[,] so I think we constantly share with each other 
informally. (R2) 
 [A]dditionally[,] there is a function on the internal 
website where good ideas are shared. For example[,] if I 
110 
wanted to do something related to reducing waste [...] I 
could go onto the website and see if there are any good 
ideas[.] [M]aybe there are three different ideas 
available, [...] and [I] think [...] one is smart. They have 
done [a certain solution] [...] in Zagreb, and [if] there is 
a contact person listed for who came up with the idea, 
you can email him or her. So, that is how we share 
ideas. I believe that at our store, we also have a few 
things uploaded on the internal website. (R2) 
Structural Knowledge Dissemination [A]n employee who has worked here for many years, 
[...] came up with the idea[,] some years ago[,] that it is 
smarter to lift a product above the picking location 
rather than lifting it to another aisle and then going to 
retrieve it. [...] [H]e is also very technical[,] so he 
calculated it and realized that he could work within the 
system to ensure that a pallet was always lifted much 
closer [to its picking location]. That made the handling 
faster[.] [...] And then[,] via the matrix in Sweden[,] it 
became a working method that all the warehouses 
around the world now use. (R2) 
Top-down Knowledge Dissemination It was a magazine that existed before, which was sent 
out either once a month or four times a year. It featured 
reports from different stores around the world that had 
undertaken various initiatives[,] where they described 
111 
the initiative and the solution. It has just recently come 
back, and our store is featured in a report where we 
shared information about our operations. They send it 
out worldwide[,] so in that way[,] knowledge is shared 
globally[.] (R2) 
 It is often via email that success stories are 
shared. [I]t is usually sent to the headquarters[,] 
and then the headquarters distributes it to other 
[units]. […] Some initiatives become mandatory, 
while others are [...] [voluntary] to implement if 
you want to. [...] So, it is a mix of both. [The 
process] [...] is highly segmented. For example[,] 
if it is something related to Commercial, it gets 
sent to their part of the headquarters, whereas if it 
is [related to] HR, it goes to theirs. (R6) 
 Sometimes it does happen, but it is up to the managers, 
or the employees themselves if they choose to reach out 
to us. If they do, then of course we take it further. [...] 
[B]ut if they do not[,] it might not be captured from 
HR’s side, except perhaps through employee surveys or 
similar channels. (R4) 
112 
Challenges to Knowledge Dissemination [T]hat is a good question. And I do not know how to 
answer it because I have not familiarized myself with 
the system enough yet. 
 At each unit[,] a lot of smart things happen that we do 
not know where they end up. 
 The problem is that everyone who holds this kind of 
competency has daily operational work to attend to, 
which means we cannot expect them to constantly go 
out and inform[,] or train [others]. So[,] it becomes a 
matter of demand versus how much time this person 
actually has[,] and from there[,] you just have to try to 
manage it as best you can. (R5) 
 It is really about finding the right balance between 
obligation and willingness. Sharing one’s expertise can 
also become very exhausting if I am expected to do it all 
the time. There needs to be a sense of motivation and 
willingness involved, and there also needs to be some 
level of pedagogical approach to how it is done. (R5) 
 [W]e cannot ensure that everyone actually does it[,] and 
I can say with certainty that not everyone does. It is also 
about taking the time to do it[,] and about feeling 
comfortable being on camera. There are many barriers. 
But our intranet is one way for us to share the 
113 
knowledge that emerges. However[,] nothing is 
mandatory, we cannot guarantee that it will happen[,] 
[a]nd we also cannot guarantee that people will go in 
and look at it. [...] But it is also not something that we[,] 
as an organization and company[,] have made a formal 
requirement. We have not required that people must 
take this inspiration or knowledge and make it their 
own. (R1) 
 [U]sually, when I share something like, this is how we 
did it, it is up to each store to decide for themselves [if 
they want to implement it]. Unless it is something that 
gets picked up by the Service Office[,] who feel that this 
was a great idea and decide that everyone should do it[,] 
and they send it out  through that channel. But most of 
the time[,] it is voluntary[,] or it is up to each unit to 
decide whether it is useful or not. (R2) 
We have an example where there is someone here who 
holds an enormous amount of knowledge, if that person 
were to leave[,] it would be very difficult for us. But 
since we are aware of this[,] that person needs to share 
their knowledge with others in the team. [...] We have 
people [...] with enormous experience and knowledge[,] 
accumulated over many years. That in itself is a unique 
competence[,] that all of that knowledge is stored is one 
114 
person[.] [N]ot many people are capable of that[,] which 
is why we see the need to distribute that knowledge 
across maybe five individuals[,] so that each of them 
takes on a part[.] [B]ut these are quite special situations. 
We have some [individuals] [...] that if they were to 
leave[,] we would be in real trouble. It will be 
business-crucial [...] to preserve that knowledge, but by 
distributing it among different individuals. (R5) 
 We have the intranet in all countries. We started in 
2017[,] and at that time there was an ambition, [that 
departments] [...] across the entire organization would 
share with one another. But we said that it would not 
happen[,] because then we would have to share in 
English[,] and not everyone is comfortable with that[,] 
so we have these country-specific forums and 
country-specific communities on the intranet. (R1) 
 [T]here is often a certain level of mistrust[.] 
[S]ometimes someone has a very specific agenda. In 
large companies[,] there is often a lot of politics[,] so it 
might be that someone has personal interests at stake[.] 
So unfortunately[,] it is always quite difficult to apply it. 
It is not entirely easy. (R6) 
115 
 If there is something to say about the two different 
companies, it is that within our operations each 
production unit is much more closed off within its own 
area. Even though we are located together and all report 
to the same manager, there is not the same focus on 
improvements as there used to be. Instead, it is more 
that everyone works on their own tasks individually. 
(R7) 
 [T]he problem is that we could probably upload a lot 
more there, which we do not really have the time or 
remember to do. It is a great tool[,] but the question is 
how many people actually use it[.] [Y]ou also need to 
get the word out that it exists so that everyone knows 
about it. (R2) 
 
 
Appendix 4 
Data Supporting the Theme ‘Identification of Knowledge’ 
First-order Code Verbatim Quote 
Managerial Knowledge Activation I think there is much more that could be done [...] to 
unleash more potential in people who may not have the 
opportunity to use their knowledge because they are not 
placed in a context where that knowledge can be 
applied. So I definitely believe more can be done there 
116 
[in terms of] [...] working with areas of responsibility 
[...] to help people feel that they can contribute more. 
[...] For example[,] if we are planning a rebuild, and you 
know that certain employees have experience with that, 
bring them in, because then they can contribute their 
knowledge in the best possible way. (R2) 
Monitoring of Practical Enactment The actual competence development initiative is the 
training itself[,] and then we will follow up on it [...] by 
sending out surveys asking how they have worked after 
the training[.] [T]hat way[,] we can capture whether 
they have changed the way they work[.] [...] [W]e will 
also follow up using statistics [...] to see whether this 
learning, this knowledge[,] has resulted in any 
measurable outcomes. [...] [For example][,] [d]o people 
know this or not? And if they do not, then action needs 
to be taken. (R4) 
Scheduled Learning Sessions In recent years[,] we have started linking more to 
training by scheduling it in advance to ensure it actually 
happens. Otherwise, what often happens is that after a 
few months[,] there are no hours left[,] and the training 
gets dropped. So now we have certain mandatory 
sessions that are always scheduled[,] to make sure they 
are carried out and not deprioritized. (R2) 
 
 
117