Embed Doc
Copy Link
Readcast
Collections

CommentGo Back

#ffiffi

Knowlede-intensivei rmsandknowledgeorkers

Introduction

Aswas discussedn Chapter1, many commentatorsandwriters charactedzeontemporarysocietyas being aknowledge society,withtheimpoltanceof knowledgetowork andeconomicactivityhavinggrown enormouslyin the lastquarter of thetwentieth century.Thegrowing importance ofknowledge to theworld ofwork is alsoargued ohave trans-formed boththe characterof thework activitiespeople undertake,aswell as henature oforganizations.Key to these transformationshas been thegrowingimportanceof knowl-edgeworkers andknowledge-intensiveirms. In fact,ifcontemporarysocietys aknowl-edgesociety,hen almostby definitionknowledge-intensiveirmsand knowledgeworkersrepresentconstituentelementsof it(Neef1999).Thischapter examinesthedlmamics andcharacteristicsof theknowledgeprocesseswithinknowledge-intensivefirms,which, as will be seen,alemany andvaried.What isregardedas, arguably,he key characteristicof bothknowledgeworkersandknowledge-intensivefirmsistheirdistinctiveness.Thus,knowledge-intensivefirms areregarded asqualitativelyandfundamentally differentfromothert)?es oforganization.Therefore,the characterand d;.rramicsofknowledgeprocessesn thisorganizationalcontextareconsequentlyalso arguedo be distinctive.For example,he importanceoftheknowledgepossessed yknowledgeworkers is typicallyargued tomake theissue ofretentionandorganizationalloyalty ofgreater mportance thanit is for othertypesofworker.However,aswill be seenas he chapterprogresses,he topicsof knowledgeworkersandknowledge-intensivefirms aresubjects thathave been andcontinueto beextensivelydebated.Thus,forexample,debaterages overdefinitionsof knowledgeworkers andknowledge-intensivefirms, the extenttowhich there has beenanincrease nthe knowl-edgentensivenessofwork, andwhetherknowledgeworkers are distinctiveandrequireto bemanageddifferentlyfrom other typesof worker.Thechapter beginsby lookingat howwriting on knowledgeworkers andknowledge-intensivefirmsis typically embeddedn the knowledgesocietyhetoric.Followingthis, anextendedsectionexamines hedebateoverdefinitions ofknowledgework and knowledge-intensivefirms.The third sectionthenconsiders he characterof knowledgeprocesseswithinknowledge-intensivefirms. The fourthsection of thechapterexaminesthetopicofwhatfacilitatesand inhibitsknowledgeworkers toparticipate in organizational

ORGANZATIONALONTEXTSknowledgeprocesses.s will be seen,an interesting conclusionthat emergesrom muchof the researchon knowledge workers, is how willing they appearo be toworkand usetheir knowledge. Sections5 and 6 then conclude the chapter byconsidering theissuesofretention, which isargued to bequite particularto knowledgewotkets, and how tomanage and supportknowledge work.

The riseof theknowledgeworker

In the lastquarterof the twentieth century, as discussedn Chapter1,the characterofworkchangedenormously.The dominantperspectiven the analysisof thesechangessuggestshat they have increased he knowledge ntensityof work through creatingagreaterneed or intellectualskills,and the manipulation of abstractymbols.Thus,hesechangesare argued tohaveproducedan enormous expansioninthenumber of knowl-edge workers andknowledge-intensive firms.Suchanalyses ypicallyutilize thepost-industrial/knowledge society rhetoric and argue thatnot only has thenumber ofknowledge workers increased,and theknowledge intensity ofworkgoneup, but thatknowledge is nowthemostsignificant sourceof competitiveadvantage,and that abstractand theoretical knowledgehasaken on aheightened level of importance.However, suchanalysesave notgoneunchallenged.Onewriter who was among the first topopularizesuchanalyseswas Robert Reich(Blackler995;Ritkin 2000).Reich'snalysiswas ocused argelyon the USA,but his argu-ment was elevanto all of themost ndustrializedeconomiesReich119).He argued hatthe shift towardshigh value-added,knowledge-intensiveproducts and servicesn theseeconomiesaveise o what he termed'$.'rnbolicanalysts'.heseareworkerswho, firstly'solve,identify and brokerproblemsbymanipulating symbols'778),and secondlyneedto make frequent useof established odiesof codifiedknowledge182).Thus, typical ofsymbolic analytical occupations areresearchandproduct design(problemsolving),marketing and consultancy(problemidentification), andfinance/banking(problembrokering).According he Reich'sanalysis,by the late1980s his categoryofwork hadgrownto account for 20percent of employmentintheUSA, and was oneof the USAsthree key occupationalcategories. tatistical nalysisrom the UK suggestshat thepro-portionofprofessional/knowledge-intensiveorkers nBritain wasalso20 percentn theearly 1990sEliasnd Gregory1994).Finally,even hosewho arecriticalof theknowledgework/society hetoric acknowledge he trajectoryofincreasing nowledgentensiveness.Thus, Knights et al.(1993)suggesthat knowledgework'isless iable asan occupationalclassificationhan asa catch-phraseorsignalingcontemporarychangesn the organiza-tion ofwork inthe direction ofknowledge ntensiveness'975).

lf knowledge orkers onstitute pproximately0percentofthe workersnhemostndustrializednations, oes hissuggest hat heirmportanceo theseeconomiesasbeenexaggerated,r s heircontributiono knowledge reation ndwealthgenerationisproportionalotheirnumbers?

KNOWLEDGE-INTENSIVEIRMSWhileChapter1presented a critiqueof theknowledgesocietyrhetoric,theoitiqueisrevisitedand extendedhere. Threeelementsto thecritiquearepresentedhere,all ofwhichquestion theway the riseof theknowledgeworkerhas beenconceptualized.Firstly,while therehas beenagrowth in knowledge-intensiveoccupations,therehassimultaneouslybeenagrowth inrelativelylow-skilled androutinework(EliasandGregory1994;NSTF2000;Thompsonet al. 2001).Thus, suggestionshatthe expansionofknowledge-intensiveworkis the onlyor mainaspectn the contemporaryrestructur-ingof occupationsare over-simplistic.Secondly,he suggestedink betweenknowledgework andeconomicperformancehas alsobeenquestioned asbeingunproved.Thus,amajorrepoltby the OECDntotheknowledge-basedeconomysuggestedhat,'therela-tionbetweenknowledgecreationandeconomicperformancesstillvirtuallyunmapped'(1996,29),andin theflnalparagraphofits introductionconcludeshat'ourunderstand-ing ofwhatis happeningin theknowledge-basedeconomyis constrainedby theextentandquality of theavailableknowledge-relatedndicators'1996,8,emphasisn original).Finatly,anothercritiqueoftheknowledgework/errhetoric,drawingonFoucault'sconceptofpower/knowledge(seeChapter7) suggestshatthisrhetoricrequirestobeunderstoodasess of an obiective/scientificstatement,and moreof atruthclaimwhichattemptsto legitimatecontemporarysocialchangeaspositive andemancipatory(Knightseta1.1993).

Definingandcharacterizingnowledgeworkersandknowledge-intensiveirms

Whilethegrowing importanceof knowledgeworkers andknowledge-intensivefirmshasbeenwidelyarticulated,andhas to alarge extentbecomea taken-for-grantedtruth,pro-vidingaprecise defi.nitionofa knowledgeworkeror aknowledge-intensivefirm,anddescribingtheirgeneral characteristicshasprovedmuch moredifficult.Further,a lot ofinkhas beenspilledin the debatehathas developedn this area.Thissectionbeginsbypresentingthemainstreamdefinitionofthese terms,beforeintroducingthe critiqueofthisperspective,which leads oanotherdefinitionof the termknowledgeworker'Someonehoseorksprimarilyntellectual,reative.nd on-routinennature,ndwhichnvolvesbothheutilizationnd reationfknowledge.Fundamentally,themainstreamperspectiveconceptualizesknowledgeworkersasconstitutinganelite andquitedistinctiveelementof theworkforcein contemporaryeconomies,who arerequiredto behighlycreativeand makeextensiveuseofknowledge(particularlyabstlacttheoreticalknowledge)in their day-to-daywork' Thus,Reich'sdefinitionof symbolicanalystsfitswith such a conceptualization.Rifkin's(2OO0,1'74)definitionofknowledgeworkers as the,'creators,manipulatorsandpurveyorsof the