Week 6 Presentation & DQ/Cutting through the confusion of contemporary workk
Cutting through the confusion of contemporary work
Steve Paton
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to discuss the nature of contemporary work. There is much
discussion surrounding the meaning of the term knowledge worker and the value these workers
generate for the organisation. This paper agrees that the value to organisations of workers who possess
knowledge is increasing but argues that the nature of the knowledge worker is unclear within current
literature. It acknowledges that there is a high level of knowledge in contemporary work and that many
workers can claim to be knowledgeable, however these workers while necessary to the firm do not
provide it with competitive advantage.
Design/methodology/approach – This paper argues that there are four tensions running through the
literature on the nature of the knowledge worker and proposes that the elements that comprise
knowledge work fall into three groups that are knowledge possession, knowledge activity and
knowledge context. First, the nature of contemporary work and its relationship to traditional
categorisations of work is discussed; second, worker types that have been proposed in the literature
are discussed; third, the factors within work types that are relevant to knowledge are discussed; and a
summary of the main points of contention and a proposal for the research direction that should be taken
to progress this debate are presented.
Findings – This paper proposes that knowledge work should not be automatically associated with
service work or new forms of work; the nature of knowledge work cannot be defined by one specific
attribute; the elements that comprise knowledge work fall into three groups, knowledge possession,
knowledge activity and knowledge context.
Practical implications – Based on these findings organisations must rethink their approach to
identifying the characteristics that define the valuable activity that is knowledge work within their industry
sector.
Research limitations/implications – Further study must be carried out into the nature of the worker, not
only in their embodiment of skill and knowledge but also into how they use it, what their work context is
and the support they should be given while engaging in their activities.
Originality/value – The value of the knowledge worker lies in combining these elements in a specific
way and applying this formula to further our understanding of the nature of the knowledge worker.
Keywords Knowledge management, Manual workers, Skills
Paper type Conceptual paper
Introduction
Future prosperity is likely to hinge on the use of scientific and technical knowledge (Barley, 1996,
p. xvii).
The effective management of human and intellectual capital to facilitate the creation and
dissemination of scientific discoveries and techniques within the firm is perhaps the ultimate
determinant of effective product development and competitive advantage (Cardinal et al., 2001,
p. 201).
The opening quote by Barley is echoed by many others including Frenkel et al., 1999;
Nonaka, 1991, 1994; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; and typifies present day thinking on the
position and worth of knowledge in contemporary work. The second quote by Cardinal et al.
PAGE 88 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 13 NO. 1 2009, pp. 88-97, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1367-3270 DOI 10.1108/13673270910931189
Steve Paton is based at
Strathclyde University,
Glasgow, UK.
Received: 23 August 2007 Accepted: 18 January 2008
shifts the emphasis from knowledge itself to its embodiment in workers and their effective
management. Despite this increased focus within the literature on the value of worker
knowledge it is still unclear what constitutes the knowledge-rich human resource at the heart
of this debate.
From the historical position where it has been argued that knowledge had been removed
from work (Braverman, 1974) there seems to have been a shift to a proposal that all work
requires knowledge (Warhurst and Thompson, 1998). This shift has been supplemented by
further debates on the changing nature of the knowledge and skill that inhabits the gap
between the extremes represented by these positions (Gallie, 1991).
The phrase ‘‘knowledge worker’’ (Zuboff, 1988) up to now has been coined as something of
a catchall term to describe this supposedly valuable type of worker but more recently
Blackler (1995) has noted that this term is being applied more generally to represent many
emerging types of work.
There are a number of sometimes conflicting views in the literature on the nature of the
knowledge worker. The concern of this paper is to untangle the various threads within this
confusion and create a clear picture of the elements that are relevant. This will reveal the real
tensions that are present in the current thinking and generate recommendations for research
directions to progress this debate to a useful conclusion that will define the nature of the
knowledge worker.
This paper broadly supports the position that there is a high level of knowledge present in
many forms of contemporary work and that many types of workers can claim to be
knowledgeable however these workers, while necessary to the organisation, do not
provide the valuable competitive advantage that is sought by the firm. This paper will
argue that there are four tensions running through the literature on the nature of
knowledge worker. These can be summarised in the following assertions drawn from the
current literature:
B The term knowledge worker should be automatically associated with those in service or
customer-facing work.
B Those workers that possess knowledge in the form of qualification to practice a body of
knowledge should be considered knowledge workers.
B The use of knowledge in completion of the activities of work is enough to warrant
association of the term knowledge worker.
B The methods of management used to control the worker determine whether the individual
can be called a knowledge worker.
This paper will argue that these assertions while representing certain aspects of the nature of
the knowledge worker are not in themselves determining factors in identifying the valuable
knowledge worker sought by organisations. It will propose that the elements that comprise
knowledge work fall into three groups that are knowledge possession, knowledge activity
and knowledge context. However the value of the knowledge worker lies in combining the
elements within these groups in a specific way while allowing the potential for knowledge
generating activities to take place.
This paper will proceed by: first, discussing the nature of contemporary work and its
relationship to traditional categorisations of work; second, analysing worker types that have
been proposed in the literature; third, discussing the factors within work types that are
relevant to knowledge; and lastly, concluding with a summary of the main points of
‘‘ There are a number of sometimes conflicting views in the literature on the nature of the knowledge worker. ’’
VOL. 13 NO. 1 2009 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTj PAGE 89
contention and a proposal for the research direction that should be taken to progress this
debate.
Knowledge types
While much has been written about the management of data, information and knowledge
(Bohn, 1994; Fowler and Pryke, 2003; Boisot and Canals, 2004) from the perspective of IT
and organisational systems (Myers, 1996; Carayannis, 1999; McAdam and McCreedy,
1999; Hendricks and Vriens, 1999) and more generally knowledge management as an
organisational concept (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Alvesson and Karreman, 2001;
Tsoukas and Vladimorou, 2001; Wilson, 2002; Wilcox King and Zeithaml, 2003), this literature
deals mainly with organisational knowledge or, to describe it in labour process terms,
knowledge that has been assimilated from the worker into the organisation by methods
employed in the pursuit of the scientific management of work (Taylor, 1911; Braverman,
1974).
However in addition to this ‘‘codifiable’’ knowledge there are other types of knowledge
including tacit knowledge (Polanyi, 1958, 1967; Berry and Broadbent, 1984; Nonaka, 1994;
Sparrow, 1998) and embodied/embrained knowledge (Ryle, 1949; Blackler, 1995) that
cannot be extracted from the worker for incorporation within an organisational knowledge
management system. If it is accepted that knowledge exists that cannot be extracted from
the worker but is critical to the operation of the organisation then it can be proposed that the
key element in the effective management of the human knowledge resources of the firm will
be the understanding of the type of worker that embodies this knowledge.
While there have been attempts to define the characteristics of knowledge workers these
attempts have resulted in confusion with many contradictory views and much conflation of
terminology. A sample of these views includes Drucker’s (1989) definition of knowledge work
as professional, managerial and technical while Kochen (1984) defines it as knowledge
generating, information handling, and knowledge intensive. From another perspective
Starbuck (1992) defines a knowledge worker as someone with formal education and
experience equivalent to a doctoral degree. These varied definitions, although including
some relevant points, approach the subject from differing perspectives and do little to further
our understanding of the nature of knowledge work to the point where it can be used to more
effectively manage our knowledge resources.
The historical context
As a starting point it is useful to consider why knowledge in work has reached its present
level of importance. Drucker (1992) suggests that as technology advances, industry
diversifies and society becomes increasingly complex the concept of knowledge in work has
become more relevant. In support of this position Scharmer (2001, p. 68) states that:
‘‘Throughout the twentieth century, industry in the so-called developed economies was
transformed from one that largely processed raw materials and conducted manufacturing to
one that largely processes information and knowledge.’’ Scharmer then goes on to suggest
that industrial evolution can be divided into periods defined not only by technology or
industrial type but also by knowledge management philosophy.
Exploring this further, historically there existed two main types of worker. The more common
manual worker employed in industries such as agriculture andmanufacturing using physical
effort to complete activities, and the less common non-manual worker employed in activities
such as clerical and administration work. The introduction of Scientific Management (Taylor,
1911) and the accompanying effects of deskilling and assimilation of knowledge into the
organisation (Braverman, 1974) that occurred in the late ninteenth and early twentieth
centuries together with the growth of mass production led to the association of
manufacturing work with task repetition, detail division of labour and the perception of the
manual worker as knowledge-less and process-driven. More recently (Barley, 1996)
proposed that a ‘‘new world of work’’ has emerged characterised by the decline of
manufacturing and the growth of service, professional and knowledge intensive jobs
(Friedman, 2000). Here we see the term knowledge intensive used in association with the
PAGE 90 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTj VOL. 13 NO. 1 2009
growth of the new industries. Due to this shift new types of non-manufacturing worker have
emerged who carry out more complex tasks and, it is perceived, require greater knowledge.
Kumer (1978) proposes this change occurred initially in the 1950’s in the USA with the other
Western societies following closely behind.
Tension 1 – manual versus service work
This increase in number of work types that are linked neither to manual nor manufacturing
activity coupled with the emergence of more complex types of work has, due to timing, been
linked with the appearance of knowledge work. This coincidence has resulted in conflation of
the term knowledge work with the terms non-manual and non-manufacturing work, or more
directly with the terms service and front-line work. As an example Frenkel et al. (1999)
propose service or front-line workers as the embodiment of the knowledge worker, citing the
non-routine nature of the work and interaction with the customer as evidence of the
knowledge element. Indeed the growth in some types of occupation has been directly linked
with the growth in knowledge work (Barley, 1996; Frenkel et al., 1995, 1999) – again defining
the nature of knowledge work at a very broad level and erroneously linking it with newer
forms of work.
It is proposed that this historical sequence has resulted in the misconception that the term
‘‘manual’’ describes the worker that carries no knowledge and non-manual describes the
knowledge worker. This position is not supportable from the perspectives of both
manufacturing and service work. First, from a manufacturing perspective this position relies
on the assumption that all manual work has been deskilled to the point of removal of all
knowledge. Smith (1987) has challenged this assumption with his suggestion that manual
work and mental work are not mutually exclusive. Second, in relation to service work,
Menzies (1996) has proposed that one form of work that is increasingly being taken as the
archetype of service work, but that demonstrates much in common with scientifically
managed manufacturing work, is call centre work. Here, although interaction with customers
is present, the work has been systematised to a point where the activities are bound by
procedures that increase routine and decrease discretion.
Call centre work has been termed the electronic sweatshop (Menzies, 1996) and has been
described by Kumer (1978) as deskilled and monotonous, sharing many of the
characteristics of repetitive manufacturing work. This position is echoed by Bain et al.
(2002) in their study of the management of call centres where it was concluded that
management that tended towards Taylorism was clearly evident. These comments on call
centre work have been expanded to other parts of the service sectors by Ritzer (1993, 1997)
in his proposal that Taylorism is alive and well today in many forms including customer facing
work that is increasingly organised at the lowest common denominator. Baldry et al. (1998)
adds that much of the infrastructure and standardisation associated with mass production
and scientific management is now increasingly evident in the work of service employees.
To add further confusion to this situation it is also argued that owing to advances in
technology and societal sophistication, a more complex world of work has emerged with a
number of types of workers claiming the title knowledge workers (Applebaum and Batt,
1994; Mathews, 1994). However Fleming et al. (2004) in their study of the growth of new work
types take the view that it is misleading to apply the term knowledge work to occupations
purely based on emerging general occupational trends.
This historical primacy of manual work and more recent emergence of service work has
therefore led to the first major tension within the literature that is represented by the views
‘‘ The nature of knowledge work does not lie in any of the distinctions between manual and non-manual work. ’’
VOL. 13 NO. 1 2009 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTj PAGE 91
that; first, manual work is the antithesis of knowledge work due to its emphasis on physical
rather than mental work and its links with the labour process effects of deskilling and
assimilation of worker knowledge into the organisation; and secondly, new types of work,
mainly due to their association with the service sector and its customer facing aspects, can
all be considered knowledge work.
It is argued here that the term knowledge worker cannot be automatically associated with
either service or emerging work types or automatically divorced from manufacturing or
traditional work types. In support of this Thompson et al. (2001) observed that the worker
with knowledge is not just a post-industrial phenomenon but rather as Jacques (1996) notes
an integral part of the development of industrial capitalism.
Tension 2 – knowledge possession
Recognising the problems that arise in attempting to define knowledge work by historical
sequence or general classification of work types some writers have tried to create definitions
based upon the internal characteristics or qualities of the worker. Augier et al. (2001)
suggests the making of the knowledge worker is the undertaking of education and training
leading to a qualification and the associated possession of knowledge. Starbuck (1992)
goes further defining the formal educational level required to be a knowledge worker as
equivalent to a PhD.
While this reliance upon education and attainment of knowledge seems a simple and logical
criterion, Alvesson (1993) argues that formal education is overestimated andmany knowledge
workers are not dependant on it because the skill a worker has can be esoteric and difficult to
obtain through formal education. Expanding on this point he claims that the esoteric
knowledge that must be possessed by a knowledge worker can only be obtained out with the
realms of education by practicing the occupation and engaging in experiential learning.
In addition on this point, Ahantu (1998) observes that a graduate may not work in a
profession that requires him to use his knowledge and thinking skills. This is echoed by
Hassan and Warhurst (1999) in the observation that being more highly educated does not
necessarily indicate a higher level of knowledge inherent in the jobs in which people are
employed.
Kumer (1996) proposes a different view on this subject in his argument that the attainment of
formal qualifications is increasingly leading to a rise in credentialism rather than the practice
of knowledge work. This position has been updated by Hudson (2006) who contends that in
much contemporary work credentialed workers are being matched with mundane jobs
within what, at first glance, would seem to be ‘‘sexy’’ and creative industries.
In summary these points oppose the possession of formal qualifications as a criterion for
claiming the label knowledge worker because first, formal education is insufficient to create
the valuable worker required, second, the educated worker may not work within the area of
his expertise and, lastly, even simple jobs are difficult to get without possession of some form
of credential represented by an educational qualification.
This debate can be partially resolved by acknowledging that education and formal
qualifications are important for attainment of knowledge but the possession of knowledge
results merely in workers who are ‘‘knowledgeable’’. It has been observed that all workers
are knowledgeable about their work therefore the possession of qualifications as evidence
for knowledge alone cannot be the type of valuable worker that companies seek.
This leads to the second tension within the literature as it must be deduced that possession
of knowledge is not in itself the defining feature of the knowledge worker. The introduction of
the term ‘‘knowledgeable’’ worker both simplifies and complicates this position. It makes
possible the inclusion of many types of work requiring workers who possess knowledge but
also suggests that to provide the true advantage that companies seek the knowledge worker
must be rarer and more sophisticated than purely the knowledge carrier or information
handler we have discussed so far. This would suggest there are some other traits in addition
to the possession of knowledge that define the knowledge worker.
PAGE 92 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTj VOL. 13 NO. 1 2009
Tension 3 – work activity
Another suggested avenue of investigation is in the use rather than the possession of
knowledge. Thompson et al. (2001) have defined knowledge workers as workers with
‘‘thinking skills’’ who while identifying and solving problems manipulate symbols and ideas.
This definition is complemented by their model of the traditional knowledge worker who has
access to, learns and is qualified to practice, a body of knowledge that is formal, complex
and abstract. Thompson et al. further add that the body of knowledge is not a collection of
abstract theories and facts, but resides partly in the body (embrained) and partly in the
literature.
Expanding on this idea of thinking skill, Frenkel et al. (1999) suggest characteristics such as
flexibility and creativity as the defining traits of knowledge workers while Reich (1993) adds
that problem solving and analytical abilities are important. Zuboff (1988) expands this to
include all skill both manual and intellectual as required by knowledge workers and Starbuck
(1992), adds experience as a knowledge source in addition to education and training.
Scharmer (2001), states that importance should be placed on thought process rather than
information so shifting the emphasis from the possession of knowledge itself to the use of
knowledge by utilisation of the intellective skill of the worker.
To address the utilisation of knowledge using thinking skills, Garrick and Clegg (2000) have
proposed a shift to performance-based ways of defining a knowledge worker, again
emphasising the point that to participate in knowledge work the worker has to be practising a
body of knowledge within an occupation and doing so in a specific way. Blackler (1993))
support this position by proposing knowledge workers should not be defined in terms of
what they know but what they do. While this seems a reasonable way to progress this debate
Quinn et al. (1996) suggests a form of work he terms ‘‘repeatable perfection’’ where
knowledge must be present and used to perform sophisticated activities but in a process
driven way. This is a type of work activity most exemplified by surgeons and airline pilots.
Another example of this is suggested by Lyon (1988) who proposes the term
information-handling workers as those workers that are engaged in the transfer or
manipulation of data or information – accountancy is typical of this type of work.
Tension 3 is therefore illustrated by the existence of work types that could, through the
criteria of possession and use of knowledge, claim to be knowledge work but for the fact that
those workers engaged in them carry out tasks that can be likened to the repetition of a
production line. These workers it is proposed do no therefore bring competitive advantage.
Tension 4 – method of management
Shifting the focus of the discussion from the worker to the working environment, it has also
been suggested that knowledge work should be defined by contextual factors such as the
way workers are managed. Root-Bernstein (1989) proposes that characteristics of
knowledge workers are dislike for bureaucracies and resentment for administration and
suggest they work most creatively when satisfying curiosity. Rosenbaum (1991) proposes
knowledge workers like to work autonomously and have a stronger affiliation with a
profession than a company. Despres and Hiltrop (1995) conclude that knowledge workers
will resist the authoritarian impositions of rules and structures and thrive upon empowerment
and self-management and accept a more collegial leadership style.
The theme of empowerment and freedom from constraint is strong here and is best
summarised by Freidman (1977) in the term ‘‘responsible autonomy’’ where the worker is
allowed to work under his own supervision and is empowered to complete the work the way
s/he sees fit.
However it is argued here that definition of a worker type by the way they seek to be
managed is flawed. Methods such as autonomy and empowerment are a consequence of
the type of work and are a way of managing a type of worker rather than features of the work
or of the worker.
VOL. 13 NO. 1 2009 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTj PAGE 93
This represents the fourth tension in the literature as it is proposed here that a worker should
not be defined as a knowledge worker based upon the way in which s/he is managed.
Summary and proposals for research
The nature of knowledge work does not lie in any of the distinctions between manual and
non-manual work. Service work or front-line work is not automatically knowledge work. New
forms of work cannot immediately be called knowledge work.
Education and training may only lead to knowledgeable workers who may not work within
their area of knowledge or who, in the course of their work, may engage purely in
data-handling or manipulation. Workers that do engage in calculation or more sophisticated
tasks may only be carrying out symbolic analysis or work that requires repeatable perfection.
It is proposed that workers with these characteristics are not the knowledge workers that are
the sources of competitive advantage that organisations seek.
Methods used in managing the job, such as autonomy and empowered, are irrelevant as
these are management practices and not features of worker or task. In addition these
practices can be applied to a number of work types and industries.
As a starting point in solving this problem and by combining elements of the previous
discussion it is proposed that workers possessing knowledge and intellective skill,
employed within a work type that allows the practice of the body of knowledge, engaged in
pursuit of knowledge generating objectives may be part of the solution to defining the nature
of the knowledge worker.
One further aspect of this debate that may lead to a more satisfactory solution is found in
Kochen’s (1984) definition of knowledge work as knowledge generating, knowledge based,
and knowledge intensive. This is supported by the definition of knowledge work as
‘‘creativity’’. Creativity is defined as the creation of new knowledge through a process of
innovation or as proposed by Milgram (1990) a process of problem solving where an original
thought is the result. There seems to be merit in this idea as a defining feature of knowledge
work as it requires all previously discussed elements to be present and in addition
introduces an aspect that would increase the value of the knowledge worker to the
organisation.
To further our understanding it is proposed that possible discriminators that may help in
defining the nature of knowledge work and therefore should be part of the ongoing research
agenda can be grouped into the following categories.
First, in terms of knowledge possession, more needs to be understood about the
contribution that the embodied and embrained knowledge that the worker carries makes to
the process of work and ultimately to the competitive advantage of the organisation. This
includes research into what type of knowledge is possessed and how this knowledge was it
gained.
Second, in relation to knowledge activity, more needs to be understood about how
knowledge is used in work. What is the difference between a job that involves purely
information handling or symbolic analysis activities done by workers who are knowledgeable
and the truly value creating activities that are carried out by knowledge workers? If the key
factor is creativity then what combination of knowledge possession and activity-set will lead
to the creative practice that companies ultimately desire?
‘‘ The one distinguishing feature that should be considered as one definitive criterion is the ability to add value to the organization. ’’
PAGE 94 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTj VOL. 13 NO. 1 2009
Finally, knowledge context, what are the attributes that are inherent in the job that allows the
practice of the worker to generate value for the company? Are the opportunities for continual
learning and knowledge generating activity the key factors? Does the system used to control
work enable or suppress the ability of the worker to engage in creative activity?
The nature of the knowledge worker is not clear but it is proposed here that it is not defined
by any single element. It may be defined by a combination of characteristics that are internal
to the worker and contextual factors that are external to the worker. It is further proposed that
based upon the previous analysis the one distinguishing feature that should be considered
as one definitive criterion is the ability of the worker to add value to the organisation.
References
Ahantu, N.D. (1998), ‘‘Empowerment and production workers: a knowledge based perspective’’,
Empowerment in Organisations, Vol. 6 No. 7, pp. 177-86.
Alvesson, M. (1993), ‘‘Organisation as rhetoric: knowledge intensive firms and the struggle with
ambiguity’’, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 997-1016.
Alvesson, M. and Karreman, D. (2001), ‘‘Odd couple: making sense of the curious concept of
knowledge management’’, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 38 No. 7, pp. 996-1018.
Applebaum, E. and Batt, R. (1994), The New American Workplace, ILR Press, New York, NY.
Augier, M., Shariq, S.Z. and Vendelo, M.T. (2001), ‘‘Understanding context: its emergence,
transformation and role in tacit knowledge sharing’’, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 5 No. 2,
pp. 125-37.
Bain, P., Watson, A., Mulvey, G., Taylor, P. and Gall, G. (2002), ‘‘Taylorism, targets and the pursuit of
quantity and quality by call centre management’’, New Technology, Work and Employment, Vol. 17 No. 3,
pp. 170-85.
Baldry, C., Bain, P. and Taylor, P. (1998), ‘‘Bright satanic offices: intensification, control and team
Taylorism’’, in Warhurst, C. and Thompson, P. (Eds), Workplaces of the Future, MacMillan, London.
Barley, S. (1996), The New World of Work, Pamphlet, British-North American Committee, London.
Berry, D.C. and Broadbent, D.E. (1984), ‘‘On the relationship between task performance and associated
verbalisable knowledge’’, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 209-31.
Blackler, F. (1993), ‘‘Knowledge and the theory of organisations: organisations as activity systems and
the reframing of management’’, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 863-85.
Blackler, F. (1995), ‘‘Knowledge, knowledge work and organisations: an overview and interpretation’’,
Organisation Studies, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 1021-46.
Bohn, R.E. (1994), ‘‘Measuring and managing technical knowledge’’, Sloan Management Review, Fall,
pp. 61-72.
Boisot, M. and Canals, A. (2004), ‘‘Data, information and knowledge: have we got it right’’, Journal of
Evolutionary Economics, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 43-67.
Braverman, H. (1974), Labour and Monopoly Capital, Monthly Review Press, New York, NY.
Carayannis, E.G. (1999), ‘‘Fostering synergies between information technology and managerial and
organisational cognition: the role of knowledge management’’, Technovation, Vol. 19, pp. 219-31.
Cardinal, L.B., Allessandri, T.M. and Turner, S.F. (2001), ‘‘Knowledge codifiability, resources and science
based innovation’’, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 195-204.
Despres, C. and Hiltrop, J.M. (1995), ‘‘Human resource management in the knowledge age: current
practices and perspectives on the future’’, Employee Relations, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 9-23.
Drucker, P. (1989), The New Realities, Harper and Row, New York, NY.
Drucker, P. (1992), ‘‘The new society of organisations’’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 70 No. 5,
pp. 95-104.
Fleming, P., Harley, B. and Sewell, G. (2004), ‘‘A little knowledge is a dangerous thing: getting below the
surface of the growth of ‘knowledge work’ in Australia’’, Work, Employment and Society, Vol. 18 No. 4,
pp. 725-47.
VOL. 13 NO. 1 2009 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTj PAGE 95
Fowler, A. and Pryke, J. (2003), ‘‘Knowledge management in public service provision: the child support
agency’’, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 254-83.
Freidman, A. (1977), Industry and Labour, Macmillan, London.
Friedman, T. (2000), The Lexus and the Olive Tree, HarperCollins, London.
Frenkel, S., Korzynski, M., Donoghue, L. and Shire, K. (1995), ‘‘Reconstituting work: trends towards
knowledge work and info-normative control’’, Work, Employment & Society, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 773-96.
Frenkel, S., Korczynski, M., Shire, K. and Tam, M. (1999), On the Front Line: Organisation of Work in the
Information Age, Cornel University Press, New York, NY.
Gallie, D. (1991), ‘‘Patterns of skill change: upskilling, deskilling or the polarisation of skills’’,
Employment and Society, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 319-51.
Garrick, R. and Clegg, S. (2000), ‘‘Knowledge work and the new demands of learning’’, Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 279-86.
Hassan, G. and Warhurst, C. (1999), A Different Future: A Moderniser’s Guide to Scotland, Centre For
Scottish Public Policy, Edinburgh.
Hendricks, P.H.J. and Vriens, D.J. (1999), ‘‘Knowledge based systems and knowledge management:
friends or foes?’’, Information and Management, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 113-25.
Hudson, A. (2006), ‘‘Twenty years of schooling and you end up on the day shift’’, Work, Employment and
Society, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 433-9.
Jacques, R. (1996), Manufcaturing the Employee, Sage, London.
Kochen, M. (1984), ‘‘A new concept of information society’’, in El-Hadidy, B. and Horne, E.E. (Eds), The
Infrastructure of an Informational Society, Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Kumer, K. (1978), Prophecy and Progress, Penguin, London.
Kumer, K. (1996), From Post-Modern to Post Industrial Society, Blackwell, Oxford.
Lyon, D. (1988), The Information Society, Blackwell, Cambridge.
McAdam, R. and McCreedy, S. (1999), ‘‘The process of knowledge management within organisations: a
critical assessment of both theory and practice’’, Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 6 No. 2,
pp. 101-13.
Mathews, J. (1994), Catching the Wave: Workplace Reform in Australia, ILR Press, New York, NY.
Menzies, H. (1996), Whose Brave New World? The Information Superhighway and the New Economy,
Between the Lines, Toronto.
Milgram, R.M. (1990), ‘‘Creativity: an idea whose time has come and gone?’’, in Runco, M.A. and Albert,
R.S. (Eds), Theories of Creativity, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Myers, P.S. (1996), Knowledge Management and Organisational Design, Butterworth-Heinemann,
Boston, MA.
Nonaka, I. (1991), ‘ ‘The knowledge creating company’’, Harvard Business Review,
November-December, pp. 96-104.
Nonaka, I. (1994), ‘‘The dynamic theory of organisational knowledge creation’’, Organisation Science,
Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 14-37.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge Creating Company, Oxford University Press,
New York, NY.
Polayni, M. (1958), Personal Knowledge, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.
Polanyi, M. (1967), The Tacit Dimension, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.
Quinn, J.B., Anderson, P. and Finkelstien, S. (1996), ‘‘Managing professional intellect: making the most
of the best’’, Harvard Business Review on Knowledge Management, Harvard Business School Press,
Boston, MA.
Reich, R. (1993), The Work of Nations, Simon and Schuster, London.
Ritzer, G. (1993), The MacDonaldisation of Society, Pine Forge Press, Thousand Oaks, CA.
PAGE 96 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTj VOL. 13 NO. 1 2009
Ritzer, G. (1997), The Macdonaldisation Thesis, Sage, London.
Root-Bernstein, R. (1989), ‘‘Strategies of research (Part 2)’’, Research Technology Management, Vol. 32
No. 3, pp. 36-41.
Rosenbaum, B. (1991), ‘‘Leading today’s professional’’, Research Technology Management, Vol. 34 2,
March/April, pp. 30-5.
Ryle, G. (1949), The Concept of Mind, Hutchinson, London.
Scharmer, C.O. (2001), ‘‘Self-transcending knowledge: organising around emerging realities’’, in
Nonaka, I. and Teece, D. (Eds), Managing Industrial Knowledge: Creation, Transfer and Utilisation,
Sage, London.
Smith, C. (1987), Technical Workers: Class, Labour and Trade Unionism, MacMillan, Hong Kong.
Sparrow, J. (1998), Knowledge in Organisations: Access to thinking at Work, Sage, London.
Starbuck, W. (1992), ‘‘Learning by knowledge intensive firms’’, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 29
No. 6, pp. 713-40.
Taylor, F.W. (1911), Scientific Management, Harper-Row, New York, NY.
Thompson, P., Warhurst, C. and Callaghan, G. (2001), ‘‘Ignorant theory and knowledgeable workers:
interrogating for connections between knowledge, skills and services’’, Journal of Management Studies,
Vol. 38 No. 7, pp. 923-42.
Tsoukas, H. and Vladimorou, E. (2001), ‘‘What is organisational knowledge’’, Journal of Management
Studies, Vol. 38 No. 7, pp. 973-93.
Warhurst, C. and Thompson, P. (1998), ‘‘Hands, hearts and minds: changing work and workers at the
end of the century’’, in Thompson, P. and Warhurst, C. (Eds), Workplaces of the Future, MacMillan,
London.
Wilcox King, A. and Zeithaml, C.P. (2003), ‘‘Measuring organisational knowledge: a conceptual and
methodological framework’’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 24 No. 8, pp. 763-72.
Wilson, T.D. (2002), ‘‘The nonsense of knowledge management’’, Information Research, Vol. 8 No. 1,
paper no. 144.
Zuboff, S. (1988), In the Age of the Smart Machine: The Future of Work and Power, Basic Books,
New York, NY.
Further reading
Knights, D., Willmot, H. and Collinson, D. (1985), Job Redesign, Aldershot, Gower.
About the author
Steve Paton began his career as an engineer before progressing through various management roles until reaching executive level within the aerospace industry. On gaining his PhD in the area of knowledge in work he entered academia and now works in the Strathclyde University Department of Management where he teaches and researches in the areas of operations management and human resource management. Steve Paton can be contacted at: steve.paton@gsb.strath.ac.uk
VOL. 13 NO. 1 2009 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTj PAGE 97
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
