In this zone, we critically evaluate the concept of the ‘knowledge worker’ and examine the ways in which they can be motivated to create, share and apply their specialist knowledge and expertise, both in and outside the organisation.
In 1999, Peter Drucker52 predicted that ‘the most valuable asset of a 21stcentury institution (whether business or nonbusiness)
will be its knowledge workers and their productivity’ (p. 79). Twenty years later, his prediction has become a reality. With the advent of the knowledge economy, not only has the volume of knowledge work in organisations intensified, the number of knowledge workers has increased, leading to an emphasis and reliance on the utilisation of theoretical, specialised knowledge that is hard to imitate by competitors.53, 54 Unlike manual ‘blue collar’ workers, knowledge ‘gold collar’ workers ‘own the means of production’52 (p.
87). Their work can be classed as primarily creative, intellectual and nonroutine in nature. Importantly, the work also involves the creation and utilisation of theoretical/abstract knowledge,53 which Dewhurst et al.54 suggest is strategically significant to the organisation.
Knowledge work encompasses a wide sphere of occupations, including engineering, medicine, teaching, consulting and law. Drucker55 and Davenport56 advocate that a major distinguishing feature of this work is the level of complexity or ‘complicatedness’
involved in doing the job. On this note, Reich57 related knowledge workers to ‘symbolic analysts’, who identify, solve and negotiate/broker problems through the manipulation of symbols and utilisation of codified bodies of knowledge, such as reports, blueprints and other explicit documents. One could argue that such depictions of knowledge work and knowledge workers exclude a significant part of the workforce, who, in varying degrees, use tacit knowledge and knowing to do their jobs. Polanyi58 posited that all knowledge has tacit/personal components, so in this respect, we could contend that all work is knowledge work, as we all use some type of knowledge to perform work tasks, whether it is highly intellectual, theoretical/abstract or contextual/practical.53 Due to the nature of knowledge work and the intangible, tacitness of knowledge (see ChapterŒ5: Critical Thinking Zone: Reflections on Knowledge Management59, 60), managing and motivating knowledge workers can be inherently problematic.61 According to Bigliardi et al.62 and Cetindamar et al.63 they prefer to work in an environment that enables them to freely collaborate, both functionally and crossfunctionally, with other experts, inside and outside the organisation. Part of this collaboration involves creating, sharing and applying specialist knowledge, which requires an element of colocation, trust, openness and collegiality.64 Knowledge workers are perceived to be experts in their field and possess a stock of knowledge that is a rare, valuable, inimitable and nonsubstitutable strategic asset.65, 66 As such, they possess a degree of ‘expert power’ and thus prefer to work autonomously, without close supervision or direct control.64 Newell et al.67 profess that this is a vitally important aspect of knowledge work. They suggest that problemsolving and creativity demand autonomy and knowledge workers should be motivated and encouraged to make the decisions on how they establish, plan, organise, coordinate and control their work.
Importantly, Newell et al. caveat that the organisation is not in a position to deny knowledge workers their autonomy because, in line with Drucker’s advocacy, they own the means of production and, ostensibly, have the power to share or hoard their specialist knowledge.68 Newell et al. and Bigliardi et al. argue that management’s primary role therefore is to provide an enabling context and culture that is conducive to knowledge work in all its forms.

Thite69 (p. 29) contends that organisations can attract and retain top knowledge worker talent by forming a psychological contract with them that ‘motivate them to generate and share knowledge in return for nurturing and nourishing their professional skills.’ Given that managers cannot, as espoused, control how they work, entering into a relational psychological contract70 may generate mutual loyalty, trust and stability and encourage reciprocity in terms of both parties’ commitment to each other and the knowledge worker’s emotional and attitudinal commitment to the organisation (see ChapterŒ1: Critical Thinking Zone: Reflections on the Psychological Contract). Carleton71 notes that the knowledgeŒworker– managerial relationship is crucial, insofar as it is the organisation’s responsibility to provide a supportive culture and environment that encourages knowledge workers to thrive and flourish, given the strategic significance of their stock of specialist knowledge to the organisation. Carleton counsels that a breach or violation of the psychological contract is viewed as ‘injustice’ and may harbour negative knowledge worker behaviours and attitudes, leading to withdrawal, knowledge hoarding and a reduction in motivation and productivity.
To conclude, knowledge workers are a strategic asset to organisations, by virtue of their rare, valuable, inimitable and nonsubstitutable stock of specialist knowledge and knowhow.
Although literature espouses that they cannot be managed and controlled in a traditional sense, the onus appears to be on the organisation to foster an environment and, arguably, a reciprocal, relational psychological contract that motivates knowledge workers to create, share (rather than hoard) and apply their specialist knowledge and expertise with internal and external stakeholders. In its quest to motivate knowledge workers, Drucker52 (p. 88) posits that ‘management’s job is to preserve the assets of the institution in its care.’ He asserts that they must satisfy the needs of knowledge workers, who are ‘owners of the human capital that gives the organisation its wealthproducing power.’

1.It could be argued that ‘all work is knowledge work’, which classifies everyone in the organisation as a ‘knowledge worker.’ Justify this argument, with reference to appropriate literature.

2.Motivating knowledge workers appears to be the remit of the organisation. To what extent is it the knowledge worker’s responsibility to motivate themselves?

3.Knowledge workers are perceived to have expert power. Consider the potential problems that this may yield to

a) organisational behaviour in the workplace, and

b) the organisation’s members who are not classed as knowledge workers.