Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 37, No. 4, pp.

365377, 2008
2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
www.elsevier.com/locate/orgdyn

ISSN 0090-2616/$ see frontmatter

doi:10.1016/j.orgdyn.2008.07.005

On Being a Knowledge
Worker
MICHAEL B. ARTHUR
ROBERT J. DEFILLIPPI
VALERIE J. LINDSAY

a landmark 1945 essay on The Use of

Knowledge in Society, Frederick Hayek
spoke about the time we spend in on-the-job
learning, and about the unique knowledge of
people, of local conditions, and of special circumstances we each accumulate through our
work. Hayeks words anticipated the importance of being a knowledge worker today.
However, todays special circumstances
involve working over the World Wide Web,
the local conditions include virtual connections to geographically distant collaborators, and knowledge of people indicates a
diversity of occupations or cultures. In
these circumstances, how can we usefully
contribute the knowledge we have to offer?
Where do we look for knowledge that is
complementary to our own? And how can
we effectively interact with other knowledge
workers?
Peter Drucker coined the term knowledge work in 1959 to refer to a growing set
of work roles requiring education, qualifications, and the ability to acquire and to apply
theoretical and analytical knowledge. More
recently, Tom Davenport has described
knowledge workers as those for whom
the primary purpose of their jobs involves
the creation, distribution or application of
knowledge. The proportion of knowledge
workers has risen, to more than 30% in many
countries, and even more people perform
knowledge work some of the timefrequently over the World Wide Web. The
World Bank describes a knowledge economy

as one that provides incentives for efficient

generation and utilization of knowledge
and an infrastructure for effective communication. What is the individuals role in
the generation, utilization and communication of knowledge? How can we engage
with the persistent process of knowledge
creation and transfer that the World Banks
description implies? How can we each
better contribute to the unfolding knowledge
economy?
We pursue these questions by introducing a recent example of knowledge work in
action, the film adaptation of JRR Tolkiens
book trilogy The Lord of the Rings. We use
the case of director Peter Jackson to illustrate
a simple framework, based on three ways of
knowing, through which people make knowledge work investments. We also use the
Lord of the Rings example to introduce the
knowledge diamond, a framework for understanding knowledge-based collaborations
among individuals, communities, organizations and host industries. We describe how
each of these parties can contribute to and
prospectively benefit from successive
knowledge work projects. We further
describe and illustrate processes of interpersonal bonding and bridging, the formation
of knowledge worker communities, the
emergence of open innovation and other
arrangements for knowledge transfer and
generation. Finally, we offer a set of recommendations directed toward the individual
knowledge worker.

365

Let us turn to Tolkiens trilogy.

THE LORD OF THE RINGS

The third of the Lord of the Rings movie trilogy, The Return of the King received a remarkable
eleven Academy Awards in early 2004. By that time, the trilogy had grossed a record-breaking $3
billion in box-office sales. The first two films, The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers, also
won Oscars, and all three films made it into the top ten revenue-generating movies of all time.
The dream of a young New Zealand movie maker, Peter Jackson, The Lord of the Rings
trilogy was a milestone for the movie industry. Jackson had learned his craft, and built a modest
professional reputation, making a series of low budget but critically acclaimed films. By age 33
he was completing his first Hollywood-backed film, The Frighteners, starring Michael J Fox.
Jackson turned his attention to Tolkiens trilogy after learning that the rights for a more modest
idea to film the same authors earlier book, The Hobbit were already taken.
Jackson developed his career as a member of a lively Wellington, New-Zealand-based filmmaking milieu. Its members included long-time friend and Oscar-winning co-director of Shrek,
Andrew Adamson; special effects experts Richard Taylor and Tania Rodger, who would
become key players in filming the Tolkien trilogy; and Jacksons wife, screenwriter Fran Walsh.
Jackson was also a member of a worldwide community of Tolkien fans reaching as far as a
Frodo Society in northern Borneo to which he looked for inspiration.
The Lord of the Rings was made under contract between Jacksons New Zealand company,
Wingnut Productions, and the Hollywood production company New Line Cinema. New Line
Cinema had never attempted anything on the scale of a seven-year trilogy at a budget of $264
million. Industry insiders predicted that failure would have sent Jacksons career into a tailspin,
and toppled a major studio. A digital and special effects company called Weta, led by Richard
Taylor and Tania Rodger, was formed. Weta developed technology to give life to digital
characters, so that each could act on its own and also react to the environment.
The New Zealand film-making industry had cut its teeth on a series of earlier films that gained
international attention. Among them were Jane Campions The Piano (with young Oscar-winning
Anna Paquin), Once Were Warriors, and Jacksons earlier film Heavenly Creatures (starring a
then unknown Kate Winslet). Television series such as Hercules: The Legendary Journeys, and
Xena: Warrior Princess helped build expertise for filming in New Zealands natural environment
with mountains, glaciers and dense rainforests all in close proximity. The national industry was
better prepared for Jacksons trilogy than many might have imagined.
Everything came together. One commentator noted that The sheer logistical
achievement. . .is prize-worthy: seven years in the making; 15 months of principal photography;
nine camera units operating simultaneously; re-shoots every year to enhance and refine; the
creation of [Jacksons] own studio and special effects house in New Zealand, far away from the
Hollywood establishment. Near the end of the project, soundtrack composer Howard Shore
commented Its really bittersweet because weve worked on it for so long and so hard, with
great collaboration and true friendship. The Lord of the Rings is also our story.
Many of the principals in the making of the trilogy moved on to other projects with their
reputations greatly enhanced. The profiles of the main cast such as Elijah Wood, Orlando
Bloom, Viggo Mortensen and Liv Tyler, originally chosen for their enthusiasm for the Tolkien
project skyrocketed. Peter Jackson accepted an invitation from Hollywood to direct the
remake of the block-buster movie, King Kong. That and various other movies would soon reuse
the talents of many of the original Lord of the Rings cast and crew.

366 ORGANIZATIONAL DYNAMICS

The example of The Lord of the Rings is

interesting for several reasons. It captures the
dreams of one individual, it emphasizes
camaraderie and fellowship, it reflects collaboration between new, innovative companies and a traditional film distributor, and
it occurred largely outside the glitter of Hollywood. It involves a large number of
players, all working in a shared endeavor,
apparently seamlessly, until the project was
finished. It also shows that the advantages of
knowledge work collaborations can be temporary, since Jackson and New Line Cinema
were soon in litigation over profit-sharing.
The example also points to a distinction
between the use of existing knowledge and
the generation of new knowledge, which we
can reflect using complementary action
verbs. The first of these is knowing, used here
in a particular sense to mean the application
of the knowledge we possess, such as the
knowledge crew members first brought to
the film project. The second verb is learning,
used here to mean the acquisition of new
knowledge, such as the knowledge crew
members gained as the film project unfolded.
Both knowing and learning were important
to the success of The Lord of the Rings. Both
are important to every knowledge worker.

THREE WAYS OF KNOWING

Knowing and learning stem from our individual knowledge work investments. Ideally,
we invest the stock of knowledge we hold and
gain new learning as a result. Then we add
that new learning to our stock of knowledge
and seek out further learning. The process
through which we invest in knowing and
learning can be interpreted through three
ways of knowing, called knowing-why,
knowing-how, and knowing-whom. We can
see these three ways of knowing in the work of
Peter Jackson, and of other contributors to The
Lord of The Rings project, as follows.

Knowing-why
Knowing-why reflects our individual
responses to the question: Why do we work?

Knowing-why investments draw on our

underlying motivation to work, and the
related interests, values, sense of identity,
and lifestyle or family concerns that we
bring. Peter Jacksons knowing-why investments can be traced to his early passion
for film, and his enthusiasm for a filmmaking career. As he gained experience,
he learned more about directing, and
became more confident in his abilities.
Incremental successes and feedback from
earlier film-making activities fed both the
drive and self-confidence to embark on
something as ambitious as The Lord of
the Rings.

Knowing-how
Knowing-how reflects our individual
responses to the question: How do we work?
Knowing-how investments apply the skills
and expertise (or know-how) that we have
to offer in performing our work. Peter Jacksons knowing-how investments reflected his
accumulated film-making and related interpersonal skills. As his career progressed, he
used his existing skills to open up the opportunity to learn new skills: in film production,
direction, and use of animation. As his successes accrued, Jackson also learned how to
better collaborate with other crew members,
trading and generating new knowledge to
make more informed decisions as his career
developed.

Knowing-whom
Knowing-whom involves our responses
to the question: With whom do we work?
Knowing-whom investments reflect the relationships we build around our work, and the
reputation, trust and access to information
embedded in those relationships. In Peter
Jacksons case, his early knowing-whom
connections with others in his local film
industry not least with his special effects
collaborators contributed to his future
success. He accumulated new friends, and
new sources of further learning, as people
got to recognize his talents and potential.
367

FIGURE 1 THE INDIVIDUALS THREE WAYS OF KNOWING

By the time of The Lord of the Rings, his

connections had grown to include a
limited but influential community of film
producers.
The three ways of knowing, represented in
Fig. 1, are persistently interdependent. In
Jacksons case, for example, his early passion
for film-making (knowing-why) led to the
exposure he gained and the skills he developed (knowing-how) through his successive
film-making endeavors. In turn, the development of those skills placed him in direct
contact with other film-making contributors
(knowing-whom) that both supported and
complemented his individual efforts. The
reputation he earned and encouragement
he received from other contributors reinforced his self-belief as a director and caused
him to seek more challenging projects (knowing-why). The same framework can be
used to interpret the knowledge work investments of other members of the Lord of
the Rings crew, and of knowledge workers
generally.
368 ORGANIZATIONAL DYNAMICS

FOUR KINDS OF
COLLABORATION
Knowledge work unfolds through collaborative efforts, and management scholars frequently highlight one particular facet of
knowledge work collaboration. It is popular,
for example, to write about collaboration
within a single organization or within one
or more communities of practice. However, a fuller picture can be painted to reflect
four different kinds of collaboration: with
individuals, communities, organizations
and industries respectively.

Individuals
The film-making example illustrates how
we each collaborate with other individuals.
Members of the cast and crew contribute to a
film-making endeavor through separate but
overlapping knowledge work investments.
Typically, they each bring knowledge to
and seek new knowledge from the work they

do together, and thereby seek to remain current or assume greater leadership in their
field. The same can be said for interpersonal
collaborations in other knowledge work
endeavors.

Communities
The film-making example also illustrates
how a range of occupational communities
in this case of communities of actors, technicians, animators, computer programmers,
screenwriters and so on contribute to the
work being done. Each of these communities
brings a different occupational tradition, and
each both applies its existing knowledge
(knowing) and seeks out new knowledge
(learning) for example about particular
filming or special effect techniques and
how to include them in future film-making
efforts.

ferent regions in the same industry (e.g., filmmaking or biotechnology) or between

different industries (e.g., information technology and financial services) are increasingly
common.
As the above discussion suggests, the
knowledge worker is likely to be in simultaneous collaboration with all four of other
individuals, communities, organizations
and host industries. This applies not only
to the film industry, but to other industries.
Think about the dispersed collaborations
among skilled individuals, occupational
communities, manufacturing organizations
and industry players that go into the design
and manufacture of automobiles, or about
the different specializations and connections underlying unfolding cycles of new
drug development. The pattern appears
almost universal, within and across industries and nations, as people collaborate
across all four of the parties identified
above.

Organizations
Collaboration can also involve working
with several organizations at any one
time. In the Lord of the Rings example
Wingnut Productions, Weta and New Line
Cinema were all key players. As is common
in film-making, the film itself was completed by a temporary organization, while
the principal financial investment was
made by a major studio. Similar mixtures
of specialized, temporary and permanent
organizational forms are fundamental to
what has come to be called flexible specialization, that is to more adaptive work
arrangements.

The Industry (or Industries)

The individuals, communities and organizations involved in film-making frequently
spring from particular geographic regions
in the Lord of the Rings case mainly Wellington, New Zealand and Hollywood, California with a tradition for hosting filmmaking or other industrial activities. In the
global economy, collaborations between dif-

THE KNOWLEDGE DIAMOND

We can further think of individuals, communities, organizations and industries as interdependent participants in knowledge work
activities. Individuals participate through
the pursuit of their own career interests: to
apply what they know, to learn something
new, or to satisfy personal aspirations. Communities participate through members identification with a shared agenda: to develop
greater occupational expertise, to become better users of a particular product or service, or
to promote a valued cause. Organizations
participate on behalf of their separate missions: to deliver successful products or services, to meet stakeholders expectations, or to
succeed in the knowledge economy. Industries participate as promoters of regional or
national interests: to provide more employment, to maintain industry leadership, or to
contribute to further innovation.
The interdependencies among the four
knowledge work participants can be represented as a knowledge diamond (Fig. 2), with
369

FIGURE 2 THE KNOWLEDGE DIAMOND

participants at each corner linked by connections between the corners. (For simplification,
links between similar participants, such as
individuals with other individuals, are not
shown.) The model invites us to look at all
four types of participant simultaneously,
rather than viewing any one type of participant independently from the others. It
extends related ideas about organizational
learning (focused on a single set of employees)
or about strategic alliances (focused on collaboration between two organizations) into a
wider picture of knowledge work collaborations. The model emphasizes the personal
attachments and affiliations that bind the
film-making industry and other industries
together.
Two further points are relevant here. First,
the knowledge diamond is not a solitary diamond, but rather a diamond among diamonds. There is no single set of
relationships among an individual, a community, an organization and an industry. Rather,
there are patterns of links as knowledge workers represent themselves, their occupational
communities, their organizations and their
industries to one another as collaborations
unfold. Second, the knowledge diamond
370 ORGANIZATIONAL DYNAMICS

offers a dynamic rather than a static view of

how knowledge work occurs. The sparkle
of the diamond, so to speak, comes from its
corners and edges highlighting the ever-shifting relationships among the four participants,
as fresh challenges are faced and new knowledge flows occur.

PROJECT-BASED
ORGANIZING
To extend the metaphor, much of the sparkle
can be observed as projects unfold. Projects
are fundamental to film-making, advertising, construction, law, medical research,
new product development, and so on, and
provide all manner of special moments
when knowledge is exchanged, new ideas
are generated, and alternative approaches
are tested. We each join projects for our
own reasons, based on our particular motivation and identity (knowing-why), skills
and expertise (knowing-how) and relationships and reputation (knowing-whom). Projects provide us opportunities to apply our
existing knowledge (knowing) and gain new
knowledge (learning). As populist author

FIGURE 3

A MODEL OF PROJECT-BASED ORGANIZING

Tom Peters has observed In the new economy, all work is project work, and you are
your projects.
As projects proceed from formation to
development to completion, project teams
provide a meeting-ground for the variety of
individual, community, organizational and
industry interests and learning agendas that
the team members represent. Think, for example, of the variety of specializations and
attachments among architects, engineers, surveyors, inspectors, client representatives and
the various building trades involved at a typical construction site. In the contemporary
economy team members frequently connect
in virtual space, so that construction site interactions are often complemented by inputs
from remote experts. Virtual communications
can also provide the means for gathering
customer data, as occurred when a design
team for the Finnish mobile phone manufacturer Nokia went global to understand the
needs of trend-setting users in East Asia
and elsewhere. A schematic model of project-based organizing is illustrated in Fig. 3.
This view of project-based organizing
highlights a fundamental distinction between
knowledge and physical assets such as
money. When people share money, they can
each have only part of the original amount.
However, when people share knowledge,
they can each have it all. There is also a multiplier effect if people go on to share that knowledge again, to the further potential benefit of
themselves, or of the communities, organizations or industries that the people represent.

(The successful online encyclopedia Wikipedia illustrates how far and how fast this
knowledge sharing can go.) The knowledge
worker is by necessity a knowledge trader,
persistently making choices about what
knowledge to share with whom, and for what
benefit.

INTERPERSONAL BONDING
AND BRIDGING
The way we go about trading knowledge
depends on the nature of our relationships
with other individuals, and these interpersonal relationships involve two alternative
approaches to collaboration. One approach,
emphasized by Harvard Universitys David
Putnam, is bonding that is, developing
strong ties with another person based on
similar experiences and shared understanding. Another approach, emphasized by the
University of Chicagos Ronald Burt, is bridging that is, making or sustaining a tie with
another person across what would otherwise
be a hole in the social structure.
In bonding, two peoples responses to
the questions why, how and with whom they
work are likely to be similar, as they exhibit
related identities, practice overlapping skill
sets and socialize regularly with one another.
Bonding is reflected in the camaraderie that
commonly occurs between members of the
same specialist occupationin film-making
between two actors, or two camera operators.
In bridging, however, peoples responses to
371

the questions why, how and with whom we

work are likely to be different. To continue
the film-making example, an actor and a
camera operator will have different identities
and skill sets, and will be unlikely to socialize
with one another except to get the job done.
Bonding and bridging are both important
to the overall success of knowledge work
activities. In film-making, construction, high
technology, medical research and many more
endeavors, both bonding between people in
the same occupation and bridging between
people in different occupations are necessary
to get the work done. Acers development of
its successful Aspire personal computer series
illustrates both bonding and bridging inside a
global organization. Facing a situation where
new product development had traditionally
occurred in the Taiwan headquarters, a Divisional CEO in the US pulled together a group
of designers. The designers bonded through
their shared technical expertise and enthusiasm to develop a new computer. Meanwhile, the US CEO also carried out a critical
bridging function, with corporate HQ and the
global marketing team, to have the Aspire
accepted and integrated into the global product mix. To put it another way, both bonding
and bridging are important to achieve parallel
cohesion (between project members practicing the same specialization), and coordination (between members representing different
specializations).
Knowledge workers are continually faced
with the tradeoff between bonding and bridging activities. Clarica, a division of Sun Life
Financial, realized that its independent agents
were largely successful in bridging across to
their separate clients, but typically failed to
communicate with one another about relevant
client experiences. The company invested in
specialized software in order to encourage
these agents to communicate about shared
concerns, leading to greater bonding and in
turn new knowledge sharing activities. Like
the Clarica agents, the typical knowledge
worker is faced with persistent choices
between bridging and bonding activities, for
example between whether to attend the next
professional society meeting or to catch up on
372 ORGANIZATIONAL DYNAMICS

the company to-do list. The choices we make

shape the kind of knowledge workers we
become.

KNOWLEDGE WORKER
COMMUNITIES
Learning occurs among some workers better
than others. In the film-making example, it
may be quite possible for actors, camera
operators and screenwriters to learn from
one another. However learning is more likely
to occur within the same knowledge worker
communitydefined here as a group of people who bond closely with one another
around their work. Drawing on our earlier
discussion, we can expect this kind of community to have similar identities and motivation (knowing-why), overlapping skills and
expertise (knowing-how) and to interact frequently with one another (knowing-whom).
Moreover, community-building has now
gone global.
Leading the way in the globalization process are the open-source software communities, of which the Linux community is
illustrative. This global volunteer community
grew from one persons efforts to build a
better operating system. The members
pooled enthusiasm (knowing-why), programming talents (knowing-how) and readiness to work together (knowing-whom)
created an annual market of $11 billion for
the Linux product. Founder Linus Torvalds
was subsequently hired by the Oregon-based
Open Source Development Labs set up by
IBM, Intel and others to accelerate Linux
adoption while various aces behind Linux
moved to key jobs with other user organizations. Further open-source software communities, supporting for example the Apache
web server or Sendmail messaging systems,
give their members a shared opportunity to
identify with, and develop knowledge
around, a particular occupational specialization.
The Web has also been the catalyst for the
emergence of other community forms. Professional associations are increasingly spon-

soring virtual communities to cover specialized topics or areas of practice. Professions

Australia has taken this a step further, promoting collaboration across different professional associations with overlapping areas of
interest. User communities provide for members to share experiences around a particular
product or service, or to contribute to new
product developmentas in Legos recent
development of its Mindstorms video
game. Other communities reflect shared political, religious, environmental or humanitarian convictions and provide opportunities
for members to sharpen their skills and
receive personal support, both of which
can influence future positions in the unfolding knowledge economy.

OPEN INNOVATION
While the above suggests that todays
knowledge worker need not be short of community attachments, recent evidence also
suggests an availability of fresh projects.
One source for these stem from growth in
the popularity of open innovation. In this
case, the initiative comes from organizations, often large organizations, which have
seen new possibilities in trading their own
competencies for complementary competencies available outside.
This time we can consider Proctor and
Gamble (P&G) as illustrating broader trends.
After struggling with stagnant rates of innovation, P&G set out to collaborate with individuals and organizations around the world
to complement its own customer and product
knowledge. A global group of seventy technology entrepreneurs, led P&G in a successful seven-year effort to source 50% of new
innovations from outside the organization.
Insiders expressed pride in the way they
had learned to tap into external networks,
take leadership over intellectual property
issues, and adapt to their collaborators needs
as projects developed. In describing their
companys success, P&G spokespeople celebrated employees who were comfortable
with collaboration and entrepreneurial in

their naturethat is, people who could

add sparkle to the knowledge diamond on
P&Gs behalf.
Others have told similar stories of open
innovation success. Don Tapscott and
Anthony Willams book Wikinomics
reports Toronto-based mining company
Goldcorps experience in posting geological
data over the Web. The company found eight
million ounces of new gold and cut more than
two years off the exploration time, in part
because of the number of non-geologists
consultants, mathematicians, military officers, graduate students and more that
brought their separate expertise to the task.
Governments are getting into the open innovation act by posting their problems and
reaching out to knowledge workers to find
solutions. So, too, are voluntary organizations
concerned with particular causes like the
availability of public information (Wikipedia), or the more effective treatment of
neglected third world diseases. Open innovation, it seems, is open to everyone.

A SELF-ORGANIZING WORLD
A central lesson from all of the previous
examples is that we live in a self-organizing
world. Some of this self-organizing occurs
through physical connections, as so-called
new Argonauts travel between countries,
trading knowledge and exploring new business collaborations. However, much of selforganizing comes from virtual connections, as
the opportunity to share knowledge with
others by e-mail, voice and video is a common
good requiring only a personal computer and
an internet connection. Projects mediated over
the Web can create enduring rather than temporary learning opportunities, as people carry
forward new interpersonal relationships, or
new community attachments, after the project
is completed. The opportunities to contribute
to this global, self-organizing world are
broadly distributed.
We have come this far without referring
to conflict or competition, except in a note
about the legal proceedings between Peter
373

Jackson and New Line Cinema. However,

competition is fundamental to contemporary
economic activity. The self-organizing picture is further complicated by intellectual
property law, and also by non-disclosure
and non-compete clauses in some employment contracts. The complications are evident in recent upheavals in the music and
DVD industries, where some customers celebrate but industry giants disdain the work of
pirates who make copying software freely
available over the Web. Despite such complications, we typically have to trade knowledge in order to gain knowledge. And
knowledge workers who are skillful in trading knowledge (and in negotiating their way

around any legal obstacles) are likely to gain

greater benefits in returnfor themselves,
and for the communities, organizations and
industries that the workers represent.
The insert below suggests some key
pointers about how to participate in the selforganizing world. The pointers can help the
knowledge worker make better sense of,
and take more informed action in, the contemporary economy. We add the caveat that
knowledge brings change, and that the
pointers will need to be tailored to peoples
individual circumstances and unfolding
experiences. Being a knowledge worker
involves different practices for different
people.

ON BECOMING A MORE EFFECTIVE

KNOWLEDGE WORKER
Ask why, how and with whom do you work?
What are your own underlying motivation and professional identity (knowing-why), skills and
expertise (knowing-how) and relationships and reputation (knowing-whom) that you invest as a
knowledge worker? What connections do you see across the three ways of knowing, and what
learning investments are you presently making and how? Spending some personal time
reflecting on Fig. 1 can help you work through these questions and in turn make better future
investments. You may also benefit from working with a career coach, or a mentor or peer group,
to help you better understand your situation and examine how particular challenges might be
resolved.
Keep seeing the diamond
If the sparkle in the diamond comes from the ever-shifting relationships across its corners
(knowledge work participants) and edges (connections between those participants), where is
that sparkle in your own knowledge work? Do you clearly see all of the four knowledge diamond
participants shown in Fig. 2not only your individual contacts, but also the communities,
organizations and industries that your contacts represent? How can you better represent
yourself to them, for example as a member of the same professional community, as an
ambassador of your organization, or as a collaborator in maintaining the underlying health of
your industry? Also, what can you do for them?
Contribute to project learning
A principal outcome of the Lord of the Rings trilogy and other projects described here was
the generation and subsequent diffusion of knowledge among participants. Similarly, your
own opportunities to contribute to the knowledge economy will frequently stem from
the projects that you join. What projects are you presently involved in, or can you join or
initiate, to make your own contributions? What parallel opportunities do those projects provide
for you to gain fresh learning in return? How can you contribute to the knowledge economys
persistent thirst for new knowledge, to satisfy both yourself and other knowledge work
participants?
374 ORGANIZATIONAL DYNAMICS

Blend physical and virtual attachments

It used to be that relationships and community attachments formed in physical space, but the
Web has changed all that. There are widespread opportunities to develop both local and virtual
connections with other contributors to the global knowledge economy. There are also
opportunities to practice both bonding and bridging, depending on whether the other person
works in a similar or a complementary field to your own. How do you make interpersonal,
community, organizational or industry attachments? What is the potential of your attachments
for the future generation and transfer of knowledge? How can you contribute to emerging global
collaborations?
Recognize and celebrate communities
The communities in which you participate can provide access to cutting-edge knowledge in
your field. They can add to your individual value as a knowledge worker and offer useful
information to your organization. They offer meeting-grounds to exchange experiences,
undertake problem-solving, and to contribute to open innovation. Professional societies
increasingly provide the infrastructure for members to develop community affiliations around
similar interests. Where are the knowledge worker communities in your life? How can you make
better use of them in your own knowledge work? How can you join in with wider communitydriven initiatives?
Share the Wealth!
It is worth reinforcing that when you share knowledge with someone both of you can have that
knowledge, and when you share the knowledge again more people can have it, and so on. The
examples used in this article point to benefits of contributing to knowledge worker communities
and open innovation, although the ground is complicated by issues of trust, intellectual property
and employment law. The potential advantages of knowledge sharing push us to find a way
around those obstacles, or else to lose ground to others. What knowledge can you share, and
what can you get back, in your own situation? How can you address any obstacles to your own
and other peoples advantage?

CONCLUSION
This article has addressed the special circumstances that confront the contemporary
knowledge worker in the unfolding knowledge economy. As individuals, we invest in
that economy through three ways of knowing, and join other interested participants
further individuals, communities, organizations and industries in what may be seen
as a knowledge diamond of interdependent
activities. Much of this work takes place in
projects, though which both existing and
new knowledge become distributed. Interpersonal bonding and bridging can involve
both local and distant collaborators, while
knowledge worker communities and open
innovation are re-shaping the knowledge

work landscape. The knowledge economy

is in large part a self-organizing economy.
These circumstances suggest a new set of
pointers toward becoming a more effective
knowledge worker.
There is no getting away from the interdependence between the individual knowledge worker and the other participants that
the knowledge diamond represents. However, that interdependence may be seen as a
virtue, as we seek to contribute to and learn
from the knowledge economy in collaboration
with one another. Let us do well in both kinds
of activity.

375

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
The 2006 book by Robert J. DeFillippi,
Michael B. Arthur, and Valerie J. Lindsay,
Knowledge at Work: Creative Collaboration in the
Global Economy, published by Blackwell,
expands on the ideas here. It also provides
sources for the Lord of the Rings example,
the Linux example, and various examples on
open innovation.
Our ideas have been inspired by a rich
literature on knowledge and learning and
knowledge work. Key references include John
Seely Brown and Paul Duguid (2002) The
Social Life of Information, published by Harvard Business School Press; and Thomas H.
Davenports (2005) book Thinking for a Living,
published by Harvard Business School Press.
Kerr Inkson and Michael B. Arthurs
(2001) How to be a successful career capitalist, Organizational Dynamics, 2001, 30(1): 48
61, provides an earlier account of the three
ways of knowing. See also Arthur, DeFillipi
and Lindsay (2001) Careers, communities,
and industry evolution: links to complexity
theory. International Journal of Innovation
Management, 2001, 5(2): 239255.
Robert Putnams and Ronald Burts
ideas are drawn from Putnams (2000) Bowling

Alone, published by Simon and Schuster, and

Burts (2005) Brokerage and Closure. An Introduction to Social Capital, published by Oxford
University Press, which is also the source of
the definition of social capital.
Donald Tapscott and Anthony Williams
(2006) book Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything, published by
Portfolio/Penguin, offers a range of examples on open software development and also
includes the Goldcorp story. For more on
Proctor and Gamble see Larry Huston and
Nabil Sakkabs (March, 2006) Harvard Business Review article Inside Proctor and
Gambles new model for innovation as well
as the interview with the authors in the
MarchApril (2007) issue of Research Technology Management.
The growth in open innovation is
chronicled in two books by Henry Chesborough Open Innovation (2003) and Open
Business Models (2006) both published
by Harvard Business School Press. Eric
Von Hippells (2005) Democratizing Innovation, published by MIT Press have also
informed our papers discussion of this
topic.

Michael Arthur is a Professor at the Sawyer School of Business, Suffolk

University, Boston, USA. His research links contemporary or boundaryless careers to the knowledge economy. He received the Academy of
Managements 2006 Everett Hughes Award for scholarship in career
studies. He is a developer of the intelligent career card sort1 (ICCS1)
career exploration tool (Sawyer Business School, Suffolk University, 8
Ashburton Place, Boston, MA 02108, USA. Tel.: +1 617 573 8357; fax: +1
617 994 6840; e-mail: marthur@suffolk.edu).
Robert DeFillippi is Professor and Director, Center for Innovation and
Change Leadership, Suffolk University, Boston, USA. His scholarly
writing focuses on project-based innovation and knowledge manage376 ORGANIZATIONAL DYNAMICS

ment and his empirical research spans many high technology, entertainment and business service industries. He is associate editor of the
International Journal of Management Reviews (Sawyer Business School,
Suffolk University, 8 Ashburton Place, Boston, MA 02108, USA. Tel.: +1
617 573 8243; fax: +1 617 994 6840; e-mail: rdefilli@suffolk.edu).
Val Lindsay is Associate Professor in International Business and Head of
School of Marketing and International Business at Victoria University of
Wellington, New Zealand. Her research work focuses on the international
strategies of firms, the knowledge-based dynamics of networks and
clusters in relation to international performance, and services internationalization (School of Marketing and International Business, Victoria
University of Wellington, PO Box 600, Wellington 6001, New Zealand.
Tel.: +64 4 463 6915; fax: +64 4 463 5231; e-mail: val.lindsay@vuw.ac.nz).

377