TOWARDS AN UNDERSTANDING OF LEADING KNOWLEDGE
WORK AND THE KNOWLEDGE WORKER – WHAT THE
LITERATURE TELLS US
Maree Roche, Wintec
Abstract
This paper presents a summary of recent issues and research in the field of
knowledge work and leading knowledge workers. It defines the “knowledge
worker”, especially from Druckers (2003) humanistic view and issues around
knowledge management from a relational viewpoint. The paper then outlines
the status of research in terms of managing the environment for knowledge
workers particularly relevant leadership styles and theory. The paper then
discusses the use of team work and Self Managed Teams, the practicalities and
advantages of these and reviews current research on the these in knowledge
industries and research applications. The paper outlines emerging issues in
terms of leading knowledge workers for research, for Human Resource
professionals and managers. Finally the paper looks at the implications of
these findings for those of us teaching management, Human Resource
Management, and those of us who consider ourselves to be “knowledge
workers”.
Key Words: Knowledge Worker, Leadership, Human Resource Practices,
Future Workers.
Introduction
Lewis (2006),Whicker & Andrews (2004), Cobert (2005), Covery (2004),
Drucker 1998, 2003, 2005) all state that the fundamental nature of our economy
and the nature of work has shifted. Drucker (2003) first coined the term
“Knowledge Worker” (KW) over 50 years ago, and more recently argued that
the move towards the Knowledge Economy is well underway - he clearly states
“we have moved from the industrialised era to a knowledge economy where
70-80% of value added comes from the knowledge worker” page 42. This is in
contrast to only 15 years ago where knowledge work amounted to only 20-30%
(2003). Most argue that Knowledge Work and Knowledge Workers are indeed
the key to an organisations competitive advantage and future survival (Asllani
&Luthans 2003). Cobert (2005) further states that in the 21 Century semi and
unskilled jobs will disappear. They, as others above, further make an argument
for organisations “knowledge” and knowledge workers, becoming the greatest
strategic resource for that organisation and learning how to lead knowledge,
one of the greatest strategic skills .
Cobert (2005) and Whicker et al (2004) further argue that KW’s are not only
vital to the organisations growth, but for economic growth , and cite research
from the OECD in 2003, that found the management of ‘knowledge’ will have an
impact on the economic and social future of developed nations such as
Australia. Closer to home Cullen (2006) in report to media discussed to the
crucial role of tertiary education in developing a knowledge economy. This type
of finding is in sharp contrast to Wilson (2002) who argued that the ‘inescapable
conclusion is that the idea of knowledge management is in large part a
management fad…that will fade away like previous fads” pg 44. Jamrog (2004)
argues for expediency in understanding the management of KW’s as issues
such as aging workforce coupled with knowledge loss and the ‘rise and rise’ of
knowledge work (Ware & Grantham 2003), and knowledge based tight labour
market and global convergence (Horwitz, Teng Heng, Quazi (2003) all increase
pressure and urgency for understanding.
Background and Rationale
The problem for many (i.e. Lewis 2006, Covey 2004, Oltra 2005), is though we
now live in a knowledge age, many of our organisational practices are still
embedded in the historical principles of management – those developed in, and
for, the industrial era. Covery as cited in Lewis (2006 pg 72) states “the problem
is… we still think about and operate our organisations in a controlling industrialage model that suppresses the release of human potential”. Further, the
argument is made by those above that this “mindset” of the Industrial era and
control, is what gets passed on from one generation of management to another
as this thinking is built into the very structures and systems and management
processes of our organisations. To illustrate Covey as cited in Lewis (2006)
discusses how the main asset and primary drivers of economic prosperity in the
Industrial age were machines and capital things. “People were necessary, but
replaceable “therefore you reduce the person to a thing – and manage it as
such” pg7.. These practices, as argued above, also gave us the belief that you
have to ‘control’ people. What is also interestingly, according to Covey (cited in
Lewis 2006) is that it was at this time we were giving the current view of
accounting, “which makes people an expense, and machines and asset” (pg4).
Further, this world view also gave us our carrot- stick motivational philosophy in that what motivates is held out as a carrot in front (rewards) and drives from
behind with a stick is punishment. Further, the above also argue that because
many in positions of authority do not see the true worth of their people and do
not possess a complete understanding of human nature, they manage people
as they do things, which actually prevents managers from taping into the
highest form of motivations, talents and genius of people – and these people
are where the future of that organisation lie. The intention of this paper is to
address recent literature in relation to the above issues.
Definitions – Knowledge Worker and Knowledge Management
What is a knowledge worker? Definitions and perspectives vary, for example
some argue that Knowledge Management(KM) and Information Technology
come about when people realised that information is a resource that can and
needs to be managed for the benefit of the organisations. Stenamrk (2001) for
example argues that this means technological systems and information systems
are applied to the management of knowledge workers and are a key
component to guiding knowledge management within an organisation, and
leave the ‘human side’ –also sometimes referred to as the ‘fuzzy’ side (McCune
1999) - as a passive ‘application’ of information systems Stenmark (2001). Zack
(1994) similarly argues that knowledge management involves the understanding
and commitment to information technology.
D:\219546342.doc
2
Alternatively a growing body of literature defines knowledge work, and the
management of this from a humanistic view point - where social relations are
paramount, and the significant of people in the process of influencing and
managing knowledge highlighted (Gloet, & Terziovski 2004). Drucker (2003) for
example argues “knowledge is not impersonal, like money. Knowledge does not
reside in a book, a database, or a software programme; these may contain
information. Knowledge is always embodied in a person; applied by a person;
taught and passed on by a person or used or misuse by a person; (pg 287).
Knowledge workers can be classified a number of ways – all of which relate to
the ‘human’ rather than informational or technological side of knowledge.
Davenport (1998) for example suggests knowledge workers are best defined as
having ‘information combined with experience, context, interpretation and
reflection” (Davenport 1998), Drucker (2003) defines it as “ information with
relevance and purpose” .
Moreover, some argue that a knowledge worker is ‘anyone who knows more
about their job than their boss”, - which indeed means every person could be a
KW, other’s argue that any professional person is a knowledge worker
(Peppper 2002) and use this term interchangeably.
For the purposes of this paper, and relevance to today’s conference, I will be
using the term and definition of Knowledge Worker developed by Davenport
(2005) (as cited in Gray (2006). He divides ‘knowledge activities’ and work into
five categories.





Finding existing knowledge (e.g. competitive intelligence analyst)
Creating new knowledge (eg pharmaceutical and other researchers)
Packaging knowledge (eg book or paper publisher)
Distributing knowledge (knowledge management professionals and
lecturers)
Applying knowledge (e.g. accountants)
Further, regardless of the definition, some commonalities exist in the literature
regarding the difficulties required to manage knowledge workers – they have
loyalty to their careers not organisations, own their own knowledge and
therefore means of production and competitive advantage, resent traditional
management styles, and like autonomy (Hammer, Leonard, Davenport 2004) .
The ability to manage this – termed knowledge management has enjoyed much
recent research. Newman (1996) defined “knowledge management” (KM) as
implying and needing continuous and ongoing organic renewal of organisational
processes and context to anticipate future opportunities and threats surrounding
the organisation. This includes aspects such as future requirements needed for
managers and leaders.
Mcgregor, Tweed, Pech (2004) argue that the
development of knowledge must take into account the greatest factor – that is
people, and argue for a transitional model which they believe requires new
thinking for management educators in particular. (Refer appendix one. For this
presentation the focus of that model is on context and greater autonomy of
individual and issues around Individual and team)
D:\219546342.doc
3
All of this making KM a complex issue - leading to the Economist (2004) to
suggest that managing KW’s is complex, difficult, requiring new skills,
structures, systems and abilities and that it is ‘notoriously like herding cats”
Knowledge Management – a beginner’s guide to cat herding!
Part A - The role of Team Based Design in KM
Maccoby, (1996) states hierarchical structures describe roles, relationships,
responsibilities and inevitably raises the sensitive issue of status and power. In
high knowledge work industries this type of design is not conducive to KM.
Further, Sabri (2005) argues a need for a fit between organisational structures,
cultures and knowledge management, and discusses how organic and
participative structures create environment conducive to KM. The following two
sections overview literature specially aimed at the changed “leadership” function
of KM and the role of participative styles. However, it is crucial to recognise
appropriate leadership ability is embedded in appropriate organisational design
and culture (Muthusamy et al 2004, Salbri 2005), and the issue of leading
these is overviewed in the final paragraph.
As stated Maccoby (2006) and others ague there is a recognition amongst
researchers that KW and especially the more qualified, resent top down
bureaucratic systems. In contrast to Chennai (2006) who stated KW’s dislike
team work, Maccoby (2006) further argued they want to have a communal
culture. This is consistent with McGregor’s et al (2004) argument that team
based designs are likely to have increasing importance in the future of work. In
support Sears’ (2005) states that “Effective knowledge management requires
team building and team work skills” pg 2.
Pearce (2004) found that knowledge work is increasingly becoming team based
and cites many reasons for this; - it is ever more difficult for any one person to
have all the knowledge and skilled required for the wide variety of contexts of
knowledge work; a highly educated workforce has greater knowledge to offer
the organisation, and today’s employees desire more form work than just a pay
check – they want to make a meaningful difference – which according to Pearce
(2004) is increasingly being made though team based knowledge work. He
argues for a greater recognition of ‘shared leadership’ pg 7, where it has been
proven that team based leadership has been successful in a wide range of
organisational contexts. Further he asserts that team based design is relevant
in all knowledge industries – management, research and development,
professional organisations - all benefit, but are of even greater relevance in
Knowledge organisations that have a degree of interdependence, creativity and
complexity. He uses the example of research publications – something that we
as management teachers and researchers know a lot about! In one study of
Scientific publications, the 195 articles published only 3% were by Individuals,
77% shared by three or more co authors and a number published by 100 co
authors, suggesting that team based design and the concept of ‘shared
leadership’ in the team is an important component in cutting edge scientific
discovery.
D:\219546342.doc
4
Another team based approach that is gaining momentum is that of “Self
Managed Teams”. Self Managed Teams as a concept is not new– they are
basically those that operate with a degree of autonomy, and have responsibility
for the entire task (Muthusamy et al (2005). Though some have criticised the
use of teams – in particular Self Managed Teams as being over rated
(Wageman 1997) , many firms such as Ford, Proctor and Gamble, and Levi
Strauss do use self managed teams successfully (Tata & Prasad 2004). Much
literature has discussed the advantages of teams – including aspects of
increased performance, improved quality and increased levels of innovation,
(Muthusamy, Wheeler, Simmonds 2005)).
Further, Muthusamy et al (2005 pg 10) point to the fact that “Increasingly
organisations are moving towards SMTS” for a number of reasons - which
includes those issues above - the impact of effectiveness such as innovation,
but also because they fit the framework required to better manage KWs workers who know more about their work than managers, are self motivated,
highly educated and require autonomy and are self controlled. The above
researchers argue SMTs allow for freer communication of ideas, dissent to test
ideas, and synergy to grow innovation. Part of their analysis argues that SMTs
reduce the need for close supervision of individuals while advancing and not
sacrificing organisational effectiveness and goals. The advanced form of SMTs
results in diminishing of distinctions between the role definitions of higher level
managers and teams in a leadership sense – hence they are conducive to
intuitive learning, encourage dialogue, support cognitive freedom and
knowledge sharing and as such enhances organisational effectiveness.
Because of this (Muthusamy et acl 2005) argue that SMTS help to build
competencies on Knowledge.
Finally, they argue that the context of knowledge work is fast changing and rise
of SMTs “is one of the major contributions to this landscape” – that of
knowledge management pg 9. They further argue that the widespread
application of SMT is one of the “bigger developments to hit business since the
industrial revolution” (pg 7). Others (Lawler 2001, Manz & Sims 1993, Sears
2005) agree that the value of SMTS is a huge development in relation to KW.
Musthusamy et al (2005) further call for research to look at SMT and state they
hope that a number of studies on the effectiveness of autonomous work teams,
especially those that are self led, will experience significantly greater attention.
However, Pearce (2004) doesn’t see the end of vertical leadership through
team based designs; rather he believes vertical leadership and theories can be
used in different situations to enhance shared leadership values in teams
(Pearce 2004). The issue of “leadership” is discussed in the next section.
Part B - Leadership Issues in KM
McGregor et al (2004) argue that relations are the key and glue in the new
economy. Further Ware & Grantham (2003) argue to rise of ‘social capital’ in
knowledge work – relations between employees and employers and work
groups, are vital in KM. As outlined above, self management is one issue for
organisations that mean they will be more likely to enable and interact rather
than control.
D:\219546342.doc
5
Of further relevance, according to McGregor et al (2004), is that the knowledge
skills and attributes of managers needs to move away from current
management practices and existing education and courses in management.
They argue for a move from traditional organisational behaviour type courses,
towards an understanding more of the individual – or individual psychology.
This argument includes the recognition that managers who have far superior
‘soft skills’ in dealing with people (i.e. able to develop interpersonal
relationships) may pay dividens to a company. They site the Australian Report
of the Industry Task Force on Leadership and Management Skills Survey
(Enterprising Nation, 1995, cited in McGregor et al (2004)) which found that
nearly half of all Australian managers had difficulty in dealing with people (pg
161). – managers today may well struggle managing – or leading, workers of
tomorrow – KW require very different types of leadership.
For example Sears (2005) argued that ‘sensitivity training’ may be crucial for
managing knowledge workers –along with the ability to ‘tune in’ to individuals at
a close and intuitive level, and that openness, facilitative leadership, trust,
transparency and consensus building (Maccoby 2006, Maccoby 1996) are all
required for leaders of knowledge workers . Further Pepper (2003) and Drucker
(1998), argue that organisations need a special form of leadership that
recognizes the intellectual capital as an invaluable asset. They argue the age of
managerial and leadership respect for people and their creative potential in
organisations is paramount. Chennai (2006) supports this view by stating that
since knowledge workers are concept orientated and tend to be self reliant the
leader has no need to lead in the traditional way and that the relationship
between leaders and knowledge workers is best based on trust and integrity
(Chennai 2006).
Leadership theory has developed and changed significantly in recent times
(Covey 2004). There has been a move away from traditional based theory –
such as behaviour based, situational based, and context based, towards the
‘person’ at the heart of leadership. Cammock (2004), Collins (2001), Cowan &
Todorovic (2000), Goleman (1998), Greenleaf (1996) to name a few, focus on
the person as a leader – how the leaders integrity, trust, honesty and self
awareness are building blocks of successful Leadership. Simultaneously, much
research on Knowledge Workers has pointed to the issue that regulation and
control, hierarchal structures with their power orientations and bureaucratic
designs are needed to be broken down in order to develop knowledge creating
in organisations (Salbri 2005). Recent leadership theory would seem to work
well with the principles of managing KWs. This is supported by Ribiere &Sitar
(2003) who suggest that theory on leadership and KW characterise leaders as
stewards, instructors, coaches, mentors and vision builders. Though they
suggest that transformational leadership is strongly supportive of KM. However,
alternatively Pepper (2003) outlines two others relevant leadership theories.
These will be described in the next section.
Pepper (2003) combines two aspects of recent leadership theory to create a
framework for forward momentum when managing knowledge workers. The
first, as summarised in table two below is based on Greenleaf’s (1996) Servant
based leadership theory.
D:\219546342.doc
6
TABLE 1 - TEN CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SERVANT-LEADER
(as summarised by Pepper, 2003)
1.
Listening
Servant-leaders make a deep commitment to listening to
the views of others. They also listen to their own ‘inner
voice’, seeking to understand the messages that their own
bodies, minds and spirits are telling them. They spend time
reflecting.
2.
Empathy
Striving to understand others; not rejecting them as people
while not accepting their behaviour or performance.
3.
Healing
In the sense of helping people cope with emotional issues.
4.
Awareness
Sensitivity to what is going on, including self-awareness.
5.
Persuasion
Seeking to convince others of the rightness of a course of
action rather than achieving compliance through coercion.
6.
Conceptualisation
The ability to think in conceptual terms, to stretch the mind
beyond day-to-day considerations.
7.
Foresight
The ability to understand the lessons from the past, the
realities of the present and the likely future consequences
of decisions.
8.
Stewardship
Seeing one’s role in terms of holding in trust the wealth and
resources of the organisation for the benefit of society.
9.
Commitment to the
growth of people
Valuing people beyond their contributions as employees
and showing concern for their personal, professional and
spiritual growth.
10.
Building
community
Creating a true sense of community among those who work
in an organisation.
D:\219546342.doc
7
The principle of this theory is that leaders can only achieve and sustain their
position by having followers and relying on the support of followers, and as such
a leaders first duty is to followers. In order to do this the leader has
responsibilities to ensure that each person is able to reach their potential, be
supported as well see vision and overall strategy. Pepper (2003) argues that
Greenleaf’s theory is based in the notion that power and authority cannot create
trust and respect and therefore cannot be used for influence. Power and
authority rather weaken the leaders mana and create resistance. Developing
others, encouraging people to become all they can be is also consistent with
McGregors et al (2004) model which includes intellectual stimulation and cross
boundary growth, and most importantly focuses on the individual.
Interestingly Pepper (2003) also use a ‘way of working’ model for managers and
leaders of KWs. This is based on Badaracco’s (2002) work. Badaracco lectures
in human ethics and gives a set of tools for ethical leadership however these
are firmly grounded in the reality of management – gained from extensive
research and consulting. Pepper (2003) argues can be used by those
‘managing’ KWs. They provide a set of skills, as opposed to philosophies for
managing KW.
D:\219546342.doc
8
TABLE 2 - JOSEPH BADARACCO’S PRINCIPLES OF QUIET LEADERSHIP
‘Don’t kid
yourself’
Quiet leaders are realists. They move carefully, put together
contingency plans, are aware of the limits and subtleties of power.
They do not forget that trust is fragile. They recognise that they do not
know everything, that at times they will be surprised, that they must
keep their eyes on the insiders. Quiet leaders are not cynics, but they
give trust carefully and do not use it like loose change.
Trust mixed
motives
Or perhaps it would be better put as ‘accept mixed motives’. Everyday
situations are murky and shifting. If your motives were not sometimes
mixed, if you only acted out of altruism and self-sacrifice, then you
would act less often and less effectively. Everybody needs a basis for
their actions, but it is wise not to get bogged down in a morass of
motives.
Buy a little
time
Time lets things settle and clarify; it allows answers to emerge. in life,
as in war, the shortest route is often mined. Think before you shoot:
the principle is ‘ready, aim, fire’ not ‘fire, ready, aim’. Sometimes you
have to pull your punches, a tactic which does not fit the model of
heroic leadership, but you have to know on which issue to take a stand.
Invest wisely
Everyone has a certain amount of political capital – a combination of a
person’s reputation and relationships at work. It is this that should be
invested wisely. Think about the risks and rewards when making these
investments. Some heroic leaders have sacrificed their lives for noble
purposes but, in reality, the world would have been a better place if
they had lived and worked longer.
Drill down
Moral commitment and high principles are no substitute for immersion
in the complexities and details of a particular situation. Rudolph
Giuliani calls it ‘sweat”the small stuff’ (Giuliani, 2002). The world is a
complex place. The knack of simplifying problems to their essentials is
a great skill; over-simplifying complex problems is a great failing.
Bend the rules
Perhaps better put as ‘test the rules’. Rules are generally manmade.
Sometimes rules conflict with each other or with some higher virtue.
Quiet leaders are reluctant to break the rules; they take rules very
seriously. But they do not obey them automatically, which sometimes
causes harm. Their aim is not to avoid responsibilities, but to find a
practical, workable way of meeting all their obligations.
Nudge, test
and escalate
gradually
This is closely related to other principles, particularly ‘buy a little time’,
‘drill down’ and ‘bend the rules’. Quiet leaders test, probe and
experiment. By doing so they avoid obvious pitfalls and gradually gain
a sense of the flow of events.
Craft a
compromise
Compromises trouble some people. The ethical problem with a
compromise is that it seems to be basically a matter of splitting the
difference. Averaging out may also lead to the lowest common
denominator. All parties may be left dissatisfied. This is not what
Badaracco has in mind. His use of the word ‘craft’ is the key. Quiet
leaders examine all points of view, identify what really matters and what
is less important, then seek to fashion an elegant solution which
maximises the good for all involved, a ‘win-win’ in the language of twoperson game theory.
D:\219546342.doc
9
In short, Badaraccos virtues outline the battles that leaders still have, but the
strength to work to, and humility to work with, in this case knowledge workers,
and these skills many recognise, are required for herding cats.
Recognising changes in leadership theory and application, it has been argued
are required for future knowledge workers – theories such as servant based
leadership aid trust, respect and understanding, which can be further integrated
with McGregor’s et al (2004) call for greater understanding of relational and
individual factors.
There is still a further call for empirical studies to take place on managing, or
more precisely leadership in the future. As Maccoby (2006) states “leadership
can be carried out by an individual or a team, but it always implies a
relationship” This aspect requires much more research and understanding, and
this is supported by McGregor et al (2004) who discuss the relational side of
KM.
Part C- Does Shared Leadership, Self Managed Teams, and Servant Based
Leadership mean the end of control?
A worry for some, is the ‘lack of control’ there seems to be in the above
leadership and team work paradigms. However, findings from recent research
suggest that work meaning, and intellectual commitment are the primary drivers
of attitude and behaviour. Take for example research done by Johnson,
Katschner, Forrester (unpublished paper) on New Zealand scientists. They
found that issues such as ‘making a difference, contribution to the community,
scientific reputation and peer esteem were driving motivators at work’. Salary
for example was not a good measure of a reason a person would embark on a
scientific career. They found that scientists were motivated to “perform by
developing their career” through knowledge processes, hence focus falls to ‘self
control’.
Covey (2004) simply says that truly established conditions outlined above allow
for KM, and control is simply transformed into ‘self control’. He further argues
that a managers role is to shift from controller to enabler – but that is quiet a
shift for some! All of this also fits with Nord & Fox (1996) who argued that
contextual factors and the interplay between context and the individual should
be taken into account in terms of satisfaction and motivation. They argue that
autonomy (as opposed to control) is crucial for motivation. Wright & Cordery
(1999) concluded that affective wellbeing declines with traditional job designs,
particularly where there is product uncertainty as in knowledge work. Production
uncertainty is of course where work is uncertain and unpredictable –arguably
that of knowledge workers - autonomy and correct design can increase
motivation and wellbeing in the workplace. Whicker et al (2004) further state
that KW self motivation to learn suggests that the control over the design of
professional activities are best given to the KW themselves – they argue KW
are self motivated, curious and passionate about learning – both inside and
outside their primary knowledge discipline – they further argue the key is to
move from “performance managed to performance support” for managers.
D:\219546342.doc
10
It is worth noting that these issues are developed within the organisation context
and culture. Drucker (2004) states leaders further should have strong abilities
and skills as they also create a “knowledge culture” in that the adjustment of
structure and thinking to fit with knowledge management needs to be led by
these leaders. Raibiere & Sitar (2003) agree and state that leaders create and
evolve culture and that different leadership styles and attributes are required for
KM. In short leaders not only lead the KWs, by using different skills than in the
past – those based on the character of the leader, but these leaders also lead
the change in culture within the organisations which enhances KM.
Part D -Knowledge Work and the future for HRM – a brief review of the
interactions.
Sears (2005) makes an interesting point in relation to the above statements by
Raibiere et al (2003). He argues that leaders provide direction and support, but
that it is HRM that will need to take on the role of shaping the contextual
dimensions within organisations in order to create environments right for KM. In
support Karl 2003 suggest the role of HR is key – HRM he argues is key to
viewing knowledge work as a leading and growing concern. Further Oltra
(2005) argues that the role of HRM is in the way in which KM initiatives are
designed and implemented. He argued that this can make a big difference in its
success…..”increasingly aware of the importance of the fit between KM
initiatives and cultural and people related issues, such an integration is not
always as successful in business practice as it would be desirable” pg 12. In
other words although managers are usually keen to recognise the relevance of
human and social issues for KM initiatives to succeed, a number of structural,
organisation-embedded elements - ie cultural traditions and KM unfriendly
polices, routines, communication create obstacles to the KM effort, Oltra (2005)
argues these embedded elements are difficult to overcome.
How does this happen then? How do structures, culture and systems change
for future growth? Raich (2002) argues that there needs to be a shift in human
resource management from a "service provider" to a "business partner" within
their roles in Organisations. He argues the HR function in the future will be very
different from that in the past. He argues this move is vital to fit with KM.
Further Whicker et al (2004), and Thite (2004) argue that HRM needs to be in a
pivotal and strategic position to build knowledge capabilities – far greater than
just a name change – these include the ability to build, acquire and retain
organisational capabilities – doing this by viewing HRM through a knowledge
lens and repositioning their functions into knowledge capabilities. That includes
how to manage knowledge worker’s, building value from knowledge and
assessing the knowledge risk – these are are the additional requirements of
HRM in the knowledge economy. The above propose that HRM must respond
to the key challenges presented by the knowledge economy and “command a
central position in realising value from knowledge workers as a strategic role
for HRM”. Finally, researchers argue that companies that do not see this and
do not act accordingly will have a serious problem with the core “assets” of the
new economy - that of knowledge workers.
D:\219546342.doc
11
Conclusion
Managing and leading workers in the future requires a whole new mind set issues such as autonomy, job motivation, leadership, team work and the role of
SMTs seem to be growing issues. Further, many state that clearly there are
ways to avoid trying to manage knowledge workers – and that leaders, HR
practitioners’ managers and academics need to understand the issues around
this when embarking on KM.
Our traditional models of teaching and thinking require a challenge and change
to better fit with KM. These models – called soft and fuzzy by some, and
sensible and enabling by others have been outlined in order to summarise
theory and aid some understanding and research so far. In summary, KW’s
because they have little loyalty to the organisation, own their own information,
and have loyalty to their own career and work meaning- all require changes to
teaching of management and the management of KWs. Some of the issues
presented include reviewing structures of hierarchy towards team design, re
thinking traditional leadership to shared and servant based, re working the role
of HR, and understanding better what ‘motivates the knowledge– work meaning
and autonomy appear be the motivators of the future – which also serve as a
move from “performance management” to “performance support” or “control to
self control”.
Finally a number of researchers through out this paper have called for greater
studies as Oltra (2005) argues there is certainly a need for studies that help
advance the shedding of light on how to turn managerial concern into effective
knowledge managerial ability.
One issue dominates however,
as Sears (2005 pg45) states “when
knowledge is the key resource, and knowledge workers, in effect, ‘own’ the
means of production, there has never been time when understanding KW and
management have been more important”!
D:\219546342.doc
12
References
Asllani, A. Luthans, F. (2003) What knowledge managers really do: an empirical and
comparative analysis. Journal of Knowledge management Vol7; Iss3, pg 53.
Cobert, R.A. (2005) 21st Century Jobs, Economic Development Journal Washington,
Vol .4, Iss 4; pg 34.
Covey, S.R (2004) The 8th habit – From Effectiveness to Greatness, Free Press, New
York
Cullen M. ( 2006) Report to Tertiary Institutions on Funding Changes. Govt
Announcement
Davenport, T, Prusak, L (1998) Working Knowledge, Harvard University Press, Boston,
MA
Drucker, P (1998) The coming of the new organisation, Harvard Business Review on
Knowledge Management. Special Edition.
Drucker, P.F (2003) The essential Drucker. New York. Harper Press
Drucker (2005) Thought Leadership. New Zealand Management, March
Gloet, M. Terziovski (2004) Exploring the relationship between knowledge
management practices and innovative performance. Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management Vol 15, Issue 5, Pg 402.
Gray, P (2006) Little is new under the sun but… Information Systems Journal, Vol 23,
Iss 2 pg 89-94.
Hammer, M, Leonard, D, Davenport, T., (2004) Why Don’t we know more about
Knowledge? MIT Sloan Management Review Summer, Vol.45. No.4
Horwitz, F. Teng Heng, C. Quazi,H,(2003) Finders, keepers? Attracting, motivating
and retaining knowledge workers Human Resource Management Journal, Vol
13., Iss4; pg 23-39
Jamrog, J. (2004) The Perfect Storm: The Future of Retention and Engagement
Human Resource Planning Vol 27 Issue 3 pg 26-33
Johnson, M. Katschner, I, Forrester, G.J (Unpublished paper) Just how differently
should we manage careers of scientists? Developing a model for career
progression of scientist. Landcare research, New Zealand.
Lawler,E.E. (2001) Organising for high performance. San Francisco: Jossey_Bass.
Lewis, N. (2006) Creating a New-Age Leader, Training Vol 43, Iss1 pg 48.
Maccoby, M (1996) Knowledge Workers need new structures Research Technology
Management Vol 39, Iss 1 pg 56-59.
Maccoby, M.,(2006) Is there a best way to lead Scientists and Engineers? Research
Technology Management Vol 49, Iss 1 pg 60-63.
Manz, C.C. & Sims, H.P.Jr. (1993) Business without Bosses. New York: John Wiley &
Sons.
McGregor, J, Tweed, D, Perch, R (2004) Human capital in the new economy; devils
bargain? Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol:5:Iss 1
McCune, J.C. (1999) Thirst for Knowledge, Management Review, April Iss2.
Muthusamy, S.K. Wheeler, J, V. Simmins, B, L., (2005) Self Managing Work Teams:
Enhancing Organisational Innovativeness Organisation Development Journal
Vol 23, Iss3 pgs53-67
Newman ,B.D. (1996)Knowledge management vs. Management reengineering. New
York, Harper Press
Nord, W. Fox, S. (1996) The individual in organisational studies: the great disappearing
act? In Handbook of Organisational Studies, pp 148-174. Thousand Oaks, CA
Sage.
Oltra, V. (2005) Knowledge management effectiveness factors: the role of HRM
Journal of Knowledge management Vol9, No v pp 70-86.
Pearce, C.L.(2004) The future of leadership: Combining vertical and shared leadership
to transform knowledge work. The Academy of Management Executive Issue
18, Vol 1 pg 47.
D:\219546342.doc
13
Pepper, A. (2003) Leading Professionals: A science: a philosophy and a way of
working. Journal of Change management, Vol(3) (4) pg 349-360
Raich, M. (2002), HRM in the knowledge-based economy: Is there an afterlife? Journal
of European Industrial Training, Vol26, Iss6. pg 269
Ribiere, V,M,. Sitar,A,S. (2003) Critical role of leadership in nurturing a knowledge
supporting culture Knowledge Management Research & Practice Voll1; Iss1 pg
39
Sabri, H. (2005) Knowledge Management in its context: Adapting structures to a
knowledge creating culture, International Journal of Commerce and
Management, Vol 15, Issue 2, pg 113.
Sears, W. (2005 Managing the knowledge culture: A Guide for Human Resource
Professionals and Managers on the 21st Century Workplace. European
Business Review Vol 17, Iss 4 pgs 367-369.
Stenmark, D. (2001) Leverage tacit organisational knowledge. Journal of management
Information Systems, 17(1):9-24.
Tata, J. Prasad, S. (2004) Team Self management, Organisational Structures and
Judgements of Team Effectiveness, Journal of Managerial Issues Vol 16, Iss 2,
pg 248.
Thite, M, (2004) Strategic positioning of HRM in knowledge-based organisations The
learning Organisation. Vol 11, Iss 1 pg 28
Wageman, R. (1997) Critical Success Factors for Creating Superb Self Managing
Teams” Organisational Dynamics 43, 1, pg 49-60
Ware, J. Grantham, C.(2003)The future of work; changing patters of workforce
management and their impact n the workforce. Journal of Facilities
Management Vol2, 2 pg 142.
Whicker. L.M & Andrews, K.M. (2004) HRM in the knowledge economy: Realising the
potential Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources Vol 42(2)
Wilson, T.D.,(2002) The nonsense of ‘knowledge management’ Information Research
Vol8,
No1, ,pg 54.
Wright, B., Cordery,L. (1999) Production uncertainty as a contextual moderator of
employee reactions to job design Journal of Applied Psychology 84:456-463.
Zack, T. (1994) Managing codified knowledge. Sloan Management Review, 40 (4) pg
45-58.
D:\219546342.doc
14
APPENDIX ONE TRANSITIONAL MODEL OF HUMAN CAPITAL IN THE NEW ECONOMY
Drivers/Influence
Attachment
factors
Motivation factors
Work practice
factors
Reward factors
Development
factors
Cultural factors
“Old” economy
“New” economy
Long tenure- the career
employee
Short term involvement –
contract, self employment,
shareholder
Dependence/dependability
Adaptation/adaptability
Psychological “contract” of a
job for life – security of job
Intellectual commitment –
stimulation of job
Regular salary
Lure of increased monetary
rewards
Regular, continuing functions
and processes
Consecutive or sequential
projects
Stable reward structure
Volatile reward structure
Internal, vertical promotion
Cross-boundary
advancement
Training
Education
Career related training to
further self in company and
improve company capacity
Self actualisation through
professional development
within and without company
Company specific skills
Transferable knowledge
More control of individuals
Greater autonomy of
individual
Organisationally driven
Individual and team driven
Organisational
factors
Single employer certainty
Multiple
employers/ambiguity
McGregor et al (2004).
D:\219546342.doc
15