Introducing Taylor to the Knowledge Economy

7/27/2019 Introducing Taylor to the Knowledge Economy

1/19

Introducing Taylor to theknowledge economy

Steve PatonDepartment of Management, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK

Abstract

Purpose The knowledge economy and the knowledge work that fuels it have created muchdebate in relation to the types of workers it requires and how they should be managed. The centralissue is that knowledge workers are only valuable while possessing a body of knowledge to utilisein the process of their work. The management of workers with knowledge runs counter to themore mainstream Taylorist systems based on the assimilation of knowledge into the organisation.The purpose of this paper is to theoretically analyse the usefulness of Scientific Management asa management system for controlling knowledge work.Design/methodology/approach Through a review of relevant literature this paper compares the

main principles of scientific management with the theory of knowledge work in an attempt tounderstand their relationship.Findings This paper finds that: despite the need for workers to retain knowledge the mainprinciples of scientific management can still be applied; and the application of Scientific Managementto knowledge work will result in an increasing division of knowledge, as opposed to division of task,which compliments the trend towards increasing occupational specialisation.Originality/value This article proposes that Scientific Management should be considered asa useful tool to manage knowledge work. This view runs counter to more mainstream accounts whereScientific Management and knowledge work are seen as incompatible. This paper partially fills thegap in understanding of how knowledge workers should be managed and is useful to academicsseeking to characterise knowledge work and practitioners seeking to manage in the knowledgeeconomy.

Keywords Scientific management, Knowledge economy, Knowledge work, Braverman, Deskilling,

Knowledge managementPaper type Conceptual paper

IntroductionThe phrase knowledge worker (Drucker, 1959; Miller, 1977) now seems to be firmlyembedded in the vocabulary of management literature. Although not new, this termhas seen increased significance recently due to the emergence in the 1990s of the newknowledge-driven economy (Stewart, 1997) now considered critical to nationalcompetiveness (Brinkley, 2010; European Communities (EC), 2004). In the UK aloneemployment in knowledge-intensive services went up by 93 per cent between 1979 and2010, in contrast, employment as a whole only went up by 13 per cent (BusinessEnterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR), 2009). In addition between 1995 and 2010

the contribution of high-technology manufacturing and knowledge-intensive servicesto UK gross value added has increased steadily to over 40 per cent (Brinkley, 2010).To support this growth and partly as a response to the capture of low skillwork (particularly in manufacturing) by low cost economies overseas it has becomea priority of the UK government to grow the knowledge and skills base of theworkforce to support the knowledge-based economy (Business, Innovation and Skills(BIS), 2011).

To deliver success within this new economy it has been asserted that companiesmust effectively capitalise on worker knowledge (Ichijo et al., 1998) while rewarding

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0142-5455.htm

Employee Relations

Vol. 35 No. 1, 2013

pp. 20-38

r Emerald Group Publishing Limited

0142-5455

DOI 10.1108/01425451311279393

20

ER35,1


2/19

and valuing it (Karoly and Panis, 2004). The defining features of these knowledgeworkers are their possession of a variety of types of knowledge such as embrainedand embodied and explicit and tacit (Blackler, 1993, 1995; Nonaka and Konno, 1998;Polanyi, 1958, 1967; Tywoniak, 2007) and their ability to apply this knowledge in the

process of work to identify and solve complex workplace problems (Blackler, 1993;Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995).

However this current trend towards knowledge retention in workers demanded bythe knowledge economy runs counter to more critical and longer-standing analyses ofthe workplace which argue that organisations in their search for greater control andefficiency endeavour to remove knowledge from their workers by the application ofscientific management (Taylor, 1911) and its derivatives (Braverman, 1974; Thompson,1989; Zimbalist, 1979).

As long ago as 1959, Drucker signalled the inadequacy of applying personnelmanagement theories developed for machine workers to managing tomorrowsemployees (Drucker, 1959, p. 122). So while scientific management has servedindustry well in the last century the issue raised by the contemporary knowledge

economy is whether it can be used effectively when the objective is not the extraction ofknowledge from the worker for assimilation into the organisation but the exploitationand leveraging of knowledge while it is retained within the worker.

This issue is of growing importance as the label knowledge work is being applied tomore occupations as the amount of skills needed to carry out work is increasing(Cortada, 1998). From its beginnings in professional work it has become attached toengineering and scientific work and more recently has become associated with everyaspect of the contemporary economy where knowledge is at the heart of the valueadd from high-tech manufacturing to the creative industries such as media andarchitecture (Kok, 2003).

The central tension is therefore how can management effectively control workerswho own the organisations knowledge assets? To address this issue the purpose of this

paper is to carry out a theoretical analysis of the usefulness of scientific managementin the management of contemporary knowledge work. The objectives of thistheoretical review are; first, unpack the debates around knowledge work andunderstand how these are related to the debates on labour process theory; and second,to revisit the principles of scientific management and apply these to knowledge work;and lastly to conclude on how these elements can be applied to knowledge-intensivework.

This paper will address current gaps in understanding of the management ofknowledge workers, and provide insights on the relationship between scientificmanagement and knowledge work. This work will contribute to our understanding ofwhether there is a distinct line which defines the limits of the use of scientificmanagement and so results in a privileged class of knowledge workers who are not

subject to its control.

Knowledge work: managing, class and BravermanDespite the relative recency of the debates on knowledge work the existence of worktypes that use specialist knowledge is not new as it has existed in rudimentary formssince the first human performed activities based on something other than instinct orreaction. However as technology has advanced and industry has become more complexand diverse the concept of knowledge in work has become increasingly relevant(Drucker, 1992). Early attempts to characterise knowledge work were initiated by the

2

IntroducinTaylo


3/19

post-war increase in the number of degree-educated workers and concurrent expansionof white collar occupations (Mills, 1951). This work spawned two debates (seeDarr and Warhurst, 2008), the initial debate, found in the sociological literature, wasconcerned with the social class of knowledge workers as professional and technical

workers (Ehrenreich and Ehrenreich, 1977a, b; Walker, 1978; Wuthnow and Shrum,1983). The second, more recent, debate found in the business literature, is concernedwith the management of these workers and how they can be made to work moreeffectively (Mandt, 1978; Drucker, 1993; Reich, 1993; Blackler, 1993; McKinlay, 2005;Teece, 2000). It is this second debate that this paper seeks to engage with but beforedoing this it is worth investigating briefly how these debates are related and the pivotalcontribution linking these debates is Bravermans Labour and Monopoly Capital(1974).Here Braverman proposed that the fundamental force shaping relations betweenmanagement and workers in organisations was the issue of class which overshadowedthe more neutral Taylorist imperatives of efficiency, technology and specialisation.The class issue dominated the managerial drive for control over the pace of work andthe methods by which labour was exerted and the separation of the conception of work

from the execution of work was seen as the key factor. Labour and Monopoly Capitalserved to focus the narrative and, with some help from the expansion of knowledge-based activity in the new post-industrial society (Bell, 1973), did succeed inreinvigorating interest in the over-arching trend of deskilling that began within themanual workshops of Taylor and seemed destined to continue within the neweremerging occupations. In addition Braverman succeeded in situating these debatesmore squarely in the historical context while relating the, up to then, somewhatseparate discussions around worker class, worker knowledge managerial control andprocess efficiency (Smith, 1994).

Bravermans thinking resulted in a number of studies initially in occupations suchas engineering and IT (Greenbaum, 1976; Kraft, 1977; Zimbalist, 1979; more recentlysee Barrett, 2001; Beirne et al., 1998; Winch and Schneider, 1993) which gradually

spread into other forms of emerging activity such as service and public sector work(Bain et al., 2002; Baldry et al., 1998; Carey, 2009; Frenkel et al., 1998, 1999; Korczynski,2001) aimed at proving or disproving the deskilling thesis. Although conclusions wereoften mixed, overall these studies seemed to support the assertions of Braverman withmany seeing division of labour and increasing process control being applied withinheavily knowledge-intensive work such as software engineering. However when takenagainst a backdrop of an increasingly complex workplace it becomes apparent thatwhat was really happening was that as the knowledge bases expanded theyfragmented so creating narrower, but still knowledge-rich, specialisms more in linewith the professionalisation model (Crompton, 1990; Freidson, 2001). This thereforecreated knowledge specialists rather than Bravermans deskilled drones. Howeverscrutiny of Bravermans work reveals understanding of this possible effect where he

states that removal of knowledge from work is itself restrained in its application bythe nature of the various specific and determinate processes of production, moreoverits very application brings into being new crafts and skills and technical specialitieswhich at first are the province of labour rather than management (1974, p. 172). Thisreveals a more nuanced understanding of the complexities of the organisation of workin technically complex and changing environments with Braverman noting thatdeskilling would only occur where certain conditions allowed (Spencer, 2000).

While some analysed the work organisation of production and engineering othersanalysed service or front-line work in the mistaken assumption that this, due to its

22

ER35,1


4/19

customer-facing nature was automatically knowledge work. Then on discovering thatmuch of this work, such as that in call centres, resembled Taylorised manufacturingwork also erroneously used this as evidence in support of Bravermans deskillingthesis. So post-Labour and Monopoly Capital these shifts in understanding and the

expansion of work types that provided a more sophisticated and nuanced industrialarena resulted in an increasingly fuzzy picture with knowledge work emerging as oneof the main protagonists in the more complex labour process debates. In contrast toBravermans more bleak prediction of a sweeping trend of deskilling, the labourprocess landscape has become more diverse in terms of managerial control strategiesand worker skill levels with the current literature providing little more clarity on howknowledge workers should be managed than existed in the time of Braverman.

Smith (1994, p. 416) has gone further proposing that the work carried out sinceBraverman has avoided unpacking the separation of conception and execution in thismore complex time with academic activity characterised by a reluctance to draw ameaningful line between the two. It is proposed here that to begin to untangle theseissues and work towards an understanding of the best ways to manage knowledge

workers the key is in analysing the compatibility of scientific management andknowledge work.

Knowledge work: characteristics and confusionTo research the management of knowledge work it is important to understand whatknowledge workers are. Current thinking in relation to the knowledge economy arguesthat explicit knowledge is becoming more important, prioritising embrained andencoded knowledge acquired through formal study, and owned principally bygraduates of higher education (Blackler, 1995; Warhurst and Thompson, 1998). Indeedearly attempts to define knowledge work did rely heavily on the proxy of education.Warhurst and Thompson (2006) cite qualifications as possibly the most widely usedproxy for knowledge work. However although this is appealing in its simplicity there

are some issues.Alvesson (1993) argues that education is overrated and many workers are not

dependant on it because their knowledge base can be esoteric and hard to obtainthrough formal education while Hassan and Warhurst (1999) note that being bettereducated does not necessarily indicate a higher level of knowledge inherent in the job.This has led to what has been termed qualification inflation where, due to theavailability of an excess of graduates, jobs which were previously sub-degree havebeen relabelled as graduate jobs (Rodgers and Watters, 2001).

Kumer (1996) takes this further by proposing that education is increasingly leadingto a rise in credentialism rather than the practice of knowledge work. This positionis supported by Hudson (2006) who contends that in much contemporary workcredentialled workers are being matched with mundane jobs within what would seem

to be sexy industries. Further, Grugulis et al. (2004) have noted that the new skills ofthe emerging knowledge economy are difficult to accredit as qualifications. Scarselletta(1997) has neatly summarised this position stating that giving primacy to formalknowledge through qualification over other types of knowledge is misleading.

In recognition of this mismatch between educational attainment and job type,research has been done to identify jobs that require knowledge but are not knowledgeintensive. In relation to the financial services industry Ahantu (1998) argues that datatransfer occupations should not be thought of as knowledge work, a point supportedby Lyon (1988) who suggests data transfer activity should be defined as information

2

IntroducinTaylo


5/19

handling work. Therefore the requirement for qualifications and the inclusion of tasksthat involve manipulating information do not in themselves constitute knowledgework.

Another type of work is emerging that involves workers with high levels of

knowledge who work in complex but repeatable processes and do not necessarily needto think to apply their knowledge. Traditionally low task variety was associatedwith Taylorised low-skill production and more recently service work whereas insome contemporary work, process tasks are being associated with qualified workers.Quinn et al. (1996) proposes that this type of worker trades in repeatable perfectionwhere fundamentally routine work requires some knowledge to execute but involvesactivities that are carried out numerous times. Here the knowledge base that theworker masters during training and education far outweighs the knowledge that isdemonstrated within the execution of these routine tasks.

Thompson et al. (2001) have defined knowledge workers as workers with thinkingskills who, while solving problems, manipulate symbols and ideas. This suggests thepossession of knowledge and the skills to do non-routine activity may have some merit

as a defining factor in knowledge work.Expanding on the use of thinking skills Florida (2003) describes knowledge work

quite simply as creativity. However this general definition requires some furtherunpacking both in terms of what it is and where it can be applied. Milgram (1990)defines creativity as a process of problem solving where an original thought is theresult therefore creativity is defined for this purpose as the creation of new knowledgeadding to the knowledge base used in the execution of work. These points suggest thatknowledge can be used as a basis for creativity further supporting the position thatknowledge work is not restricted to those with theoretical knowledge or formalqualifications.

While the work detailed so far provides an insight into what knowledge workersare, little is new here as each factor can be seen to exist within most work activity.

However while Reed (1996) agrees that what characterises knowledge workersis an esoteric and intangible knowledge base he argues that todays knowledgeworkers combine this with a power strategy of marketisation that is acquiringspecialist skills with market appeal in particular sectors and domains (1996, p. 586).Therefore this knowledge must be storable, controllable, indeterminable andprotectable (Boreham, 1983) to allow those in possession of it to add the value thatknowledge-intensive firms need.

So in summary while knowledge work is a broad church there is some consensusthat its non-routine and must be performed by workers who have mastered a bodyof knowledge either tacit or formal which they are able to control, protect and applyto their process of work so creating value for the company. This therefore distinguishesit as work form that should not be compatible with scientific management.

Knowledge work: output, efficiency and TaylorIndeed at first glance review of the literatures surrounding scientific management andknowledge work gives the impression that the scientific management of knowledgeworkers is a contradiction. Wearing the blue collar is Taylorism embedded in the past,based in manufacturing and applied to manual work where separation of conceptionand execution, division of labour and repetitive process leads to efficiency andeconomic success. Wearing the white collar is knowledge work carried out byCalifornian-style, freewheeling cyber-workers with high skills, high incomes and high

24

ER35,1


6/19

job satisfaction (Grugulis et al., 2004, p. 1) demanding a new style of managementmore suited to their needs.

Does this apparent distance mean there was no need for knowledge and intellectin the world of Taylor; or equally is there no need for process and system in

the knowledge work of today? Of course neither of these extremes is correct withF.W. Taylor himself the first illustration of this contradiction. As part of a thennew breed of systems analysts Taylor could be considered the embodiment of theknowledge worker using intellect and information to study activities and devise newwork systems.

Taylors The Principles of Scientific Managementwas first published in 1911 and atthe time of publication it was intended to serve three purposes. First, to illustrate thelosses which were being suffered by the USA as a whole through inefficiency; second,that the remedy for this inefficiency lay in the systematic management of men ratherthan in the work of extraordinary men; and third that the best management isa true science based on defined laws and principles that are applicable to all humanactivities from the most rudimentary to the most elaborate (Taylor, 1911). In addition

to these goals The Principles of Scientific Management formalised many aspects ofmanagement thinking that were growing at that time, stimulated widespread debatesin all areas of management and established F.W. Taylor as its principle pioneer.

The characteristics of scientific management, as generally understood by mostmanagers and students of management are, at a rudimentary level, the study ofall activities within a manual work environment; the division of labour, the separationof conception and execution, the distillation of best practice; the removal of uncertaintyand the sequencing for most efficient completion of task. This understanding ishowever only part of the story. The Principles of Scientific Management have beenquantified in a number of ways and by a number of authors.

Taylors original system of scientific management called of management to assumeresponsibilities grouped in categories under four headings: first, develop a science for

each element of a mans (sic) work which replaces the old rules of thumb; second, select,train, teach and develop the workman; third, ensure complete co-operation between themanagers and workmen to enforce adherence to the principles of the science which hasbeen developed; and fourth, ensure equal division of work and responsibility betweenmanagers and workmen (Taylor, 1911, p. 14).

Interestingly however not long after Taylors work was published in 1911 it fell intodisrepute as [y] instead of utilising his whole system as a philosophy of managementmany later followers used time study as a means to exploit and speed up work (Fry,1976) leading to concentration on process management and the separation ofconception and execution most famously adopted by Henry Ford as the dominantexpression of what came to be known as Taylorism. This sub-set of Taylors ideaseventually formed the foundation of much industrial practice and eventually becoming

the basis of Bravermans critique. While critics have maligned the ideas of Taylor theyhave been remarkably persistent as more recently it has been observed by Ritzer (1993,1997), that Taylorism is alive and well today evidenced by activities in many currentorganisations. While Ritzer may be correct in his assertion more recent workinvestigating the nature of scientific management has nudged debates full circlereducing the long-standing preoccupation with the separation of conception andexecution and the consequent power relations between worker and managerand refocused on other aspects mainly relating to Adlers (2004, 2007) concept of thesocialisation of work.

2

IntroducinTaylo


7/19

This contingency perspective (rather flippantly termed the Paleo-Marxist view)offers a more complex interpretation of the effects of scientific management on labourthan the mainstream deskilling propositions. Adler proposes that competitive forcesstimulate progress which provides simultaneously deskilling and upskilling effects.

He also places increased emphasis on the positive effect that planning has within theorganisation as opposed to the negative effects that are emphasised by moremainstream accounts. Adler proposes that this assimilation creates a body of socialisedknowledge that all workers can refer to so distributing the knowledge. Adler furtherproposes that the collective worker is broadened by more differentiated and integrateddivisions of labour. He proposes the horizons of the worker will become wider as theobject of the work becomes broader and more co-ordination among workers and workgroups is required. This again is in opposition to the narrowing of work scope andincreased detail in division of labour that is commonly associated with scientificmanagement.

Adlers contingency view is founded in the study of lean production and as such isinfluenced by much of the factors that lean production brings to manufacturing such

as the impact of technology and progressive human resource practices. This viewtherefore represents a more modern interpretation of the effect that scientificmanagement has upon the labour process. Adler further proposes that scientificmanagement will have further positive effects on the efficiency of the organisation withhigher productivity facilitating increased wages, fewer random accidents and thedistribution of authority more evenly throughout the organisation. Adler also howeveragrees to some extent with Bravermans view by conceding that these gains can beoffset by losses such as reduction of autonomy in workers, creation of some repetitivetasks and a disruption of the traditional craft system.

Other studies have also sought to bridge that gap between traditional Taylorismand more flexible work systems (as an example see Pruijt, 2003) where neo-Taylorismin the form of team working is used in an attempt to counter deskilling by reducing

division of labour and reintroducing more flexibility into the control of work.Therefore while interpretations of scientific management based upon the widely

held, but clearly narrow, interpretations of Bravermans work suggest issues with theapplication of scientific management to knowledge-intensive work. Recent broaderinterpretations suggest there may be some commonality. Therefore these pointssuggest that the issue is therefore not the continued existence of scientific managementbut its degree of utility as a management schema for use with this new breed ofknowledge workers.

Challenges of managing knowledge workersDespres and Hiltrop (1995) summarise the challenges in managing knowledge workersas; identifying, developing and evaluating knowledge workers and the outputs they

produce; then motivating and rewarding knowledge workers to maximisetheir productivity and the quality of their outputs; while structuring theorganisation to obtain the desired output from an increasingly knowledgeableworkforce. To add to this Nonaka and Teece (2001) propose that the management ofknowledge workers is an exercise in leveraging their competences. They suggest thekey to managing the knowledge worker is to identify and understand what enhancesand inhibits the creative process because only then can it be managed effectively.

These challenges in managing labour are not new, with all types of worker it isimportant to identify, develop, evaluate, motivate and reward, this was something

26

ER35,1


8/19

recognised by Taylor and forms the basis of scientific management. However thedifferentiator is that knowledge workers possess higher levels of both explicit and tacitknowledge engaging in more complex, less routine tasks involving greater levels oforiginal work, creativity and problem solving. It could therefore be concluded that the

increased challenge involved in managing the knowledge worker must be one ofcomplexity because the more complex the worker the more complex will be the taskof identification, development and evaluation and consequently the more intricate themotivation and reward needs will be.

However the degree of complexity cannot be the only factor at work here. If it were,then similar types of management strategies to those used on other worker groupscould be recalibrated and utilised. The third challenge identified by Despres andHiltrop however provides a clue to the radical nature of the change in managementphilosophy required suggesting that at a fundamental level the organisation must bedesigned specifically for the management of knowledge workers. Drucker (1993)provides another clue to the puzzle by proposing that knowledge workers cannot besupervised effectively because unless they know more about their speciality than

anybody else in the organisation they are basically useless. This point suggests thatthe organisation cannot be designed around process, direct supervision andauthoritarian control and cannot be managed around assimilated and centrallystored organisational knowledge as is advocated by scientific management. The keyinsight here is that the knowledge of use to the organisation is embodied in theindividual and not embedded in the organisation. Bertels and Savage (1998, p. 15)recognise this stating: When knowledge becomes the dominant resource we must facethe fact that the worker is the owner of the resource.

These points suggest that the management of knowledge workers must begin at thefundamental level and organisation must therefore be designed with the objective ofmaking best use of embodied knowledge within the individual and not with theobjective of extraction of this knowledge for assimilation into the organisation. This

view is echoed by Frenkel et al. (1999) who describe four categories of managementcontrol where the correct type of control is identified through analysis on two axes. Thefirst axis is management knowledge of the labour process and the second axis is theability of management to measure the output of the worker. With knowledge workersboth management knowledge of the labour process and its ability to measure outputare low suggesting that the most suitable control strategy for knowledge workers isself-control.

This indicates the organisation must not only be designed to accept the knowledgeof the worker but, more radically, be designed with the worker as the considerationaround which the rest of the organisation must fit. The criticality of the fit betweenorganisational design and knowledge worker is best summarised by Despres andHiltrop (1995) who propose that knowledge generating positions need to be designed

around people and their talents because the individual involved will uniquely definethe contour of the work, therefore the individual who carries the knowledge must beconsidered the key factor in the organisations design. If organisations are to bedesigned with the knowledge worker as the prime consideration the traditionalmachine organisations that have been in use for many years must be rejected andreplaced by another type. This is echoed by Bertels and Savage (1998, p. 16) who state,We are constantly challenged to create organisations based on cultures of trust whichsupport the dynamic teaming of ever-changing constellations of capable individuals.Quinn et al. (1996) support this idea suggesting an inversion of the traditional

2

IntroducinTaylo


9/19

hierarchy to create a structure with knowledge workers at the peak and managementlayers existing beneath to supply and support them.

It has further been suggested that the network is the most appropriateorganisational type (Frenkel et al., 1999; Castells, 1996). Warhurst and Thompson

(1998) concur proposing that hierarchies will be replaced by networks and verticaldivision of labour replaced by horizontal co-ordination based on collaboration betweentechnical and professional groups who retain authority over their own work.Some authors have proposed variations and refinements on these themes includingBlackler (1995) who suggests that organisations can be further structured aroundtypes of knowledge and more controversially Applegate (1996) suggests that hybridorganisations combining characteristic of both networks and bureaucracies aredesirable.

Lastly Frenkel et al. (1998, p. 958) proposes the term Mass Customised Bureaucracyto describe an organisational type that is becoming more common in contemporaryorganisations. This type of organisation combines the process of bureaucracy with theother more flexible ideals needed to manage more knowledgeable workers. It also places

the emphasis more on the worker and their skills and behaviours. Zuboff (1988) neatlysummarises this position proposing that command and control structures should bereplaced with the correct fit between knowledge and responsibility.

These arguments can be distilled to three areas. First, the organisation must bedesigned with the knowledge worker as the key consideration with all stakeholdersand systems working in support. Second, the operation of the organisation must focuson communication and co-ordination rather than command and control because directsupervision of knowledge workers is difficult so implementing an organisationaldesign that relies upon a vertical hierarchy is impractical. Therefore a hierarchicalstructure must be replaced by a flat structure that is enabled (not controlled) by highlevels of communication. Third, the work of the organisation must satisfy the increasedintrinsic needs of the knowledge worker to a greater extent than with other worker

groups.Recognising these challenges Levitt and Guenov (2000) propose that a management

system for knowledge workers should be based on two foundations. First, knowledgeworkers should be managed as vessels for carrying knowledge and second as thephysiological person. Therefore if knowledge workers themselves are the basis uponwhich the organisation should be designed their characteristics must be understood inmore detail.

Characteristics of the knowledge workerRoot-Bernstein (1989) proposes that knowledge workers dislike bureaucracies, resentadministration and work most creatively when satisfying curiosity. In additionRosenbaum (1991) cites the characteristics of knowledge workers as autonomy,

significant drives for achievement, stronger affiliation with a profession than acompany and sense of self-direction. Despres and Hiltrop (1995) conclude thatknowledge workers will resist the authoritarian impositions of rules and structuresand thrive upon empowerment and self-management and accept a more collegialleadership style. Inglehart and Abramson (1995) in their post-materialism thesissuggest knowledge workers are interested in the intrinsic achievement challengerather than extrinsic reward or remuneration.

These points indicate authoritarian methods of management are unlikely to beeffective when applied to this group. This is true for two reasons; first, authoritarian

28

ER35,1


10/19

methods would apply rules and structures that would be resented by the group; andsecond, direct supervision is impossible as knowledge workers, to maintain their value,must always know more about their task than any other group. This suggestsautonomy and independence feature strongly therefore tight control would not only

have a negative effect on the motivation of the worker but would also stifle creativity.Because much of what makes the knowledge worker valuable is their creativity theobjective of the organisation must be to encourage and not stifle these attributes.

Therefore three characteristics that should be considered when managingknowledge workers can be identified. First, the level of process control must be lowas the worker would object to high levels of control and management would be unableto impose it. Second, the level of worker empowerment must be high, defined here asbeing given decision-making control over all things within the work process thatdirectly affects the way in which knowledge workers discharge their responsibilities.Third, organisational infrastructure must enable a high degree of autonomy because togain the most from the knowledge worker they must be given the freedom to work asthey see fit.

These points seem to oppose traditional Taylorist methods of management because;the needs of the knowledge worker are prioritised over the needs of the organisation;flexibility of process is dominant over control of process; the need for variety andcreativity are dominant over the needs for repetition and uniformity. This is neatlysummarised by Starbuck (1992, p. 727) in his statement that highly educated expertsdislike bureaucracy most experts want autonomy, recognition of individuality andtheir firms to have egalitarian structures.

However on the subject of bureaucracy there is something of a historical analogy asClegg (1994) has noted that the ideas underpinning the implementation of bureaucracywere borne of early attempts to make organisations more flexible. This point illustratesthat bureaucracy was an early recognition of the need for process implementation tooptimise the output of the worker.

Therefore it is argued that despite the peculiarities of knowledge work the basiccharacteristics of a management system for knowledge workers are similar to those ofmanagement systems for all types of worker. First, managing workers to make themost of their output; second, taking care of their physiological needs; and third,utilising the most efficient division of labour. This point to some extent brings thediscussion full circle where it seems knowledge workers, despite their nature, shouldbe managed in the most efficient way possible using the same principles proposed byTaylor.

Further proposals have been presented that attempt to combine the needs of theknowledge worker with the requirement for an efficient management system. Zuboff(1988) in describing the management of, in his terminology, the informatedorganisation proposes; first, the organisation must learn and engender learning in

others; second, the management must act with not act upon; and lastly,relationships within the organisation must be dynamic and intricate.

Frenkel et al. (1995, p. 774) coin the phrase info-normative control which isbased around creative, information and people-focused activity involvingintellective and social skills rather than routine activity. Management cedesmore control over the work processes to the worker and requires strategies toensure reciprocated trust. This translates to increased discretion over taskallocation and execution but still limits worker influence over organisation strategyand structure.

2

IntroducinTaylo


11/19

These ideas have been embodied in phrases such as flexible specialisation (Hyman,1988) which emphasises increased flexibility within the process and acknowledges(in the term specialisation) that some form of division of labour is required; andresponsible autonomy (Friedman, 1977) which endorses the use of a less controlling

management system and indicates that autonomy requires a degree of additionalresponsibility to be borne by the worker group with additional power reciprocated bya higher level of responsibility for the outcome.

Taylorism and knowledge workFrom this discussion four factors emerge that should be taken into consideration inmanaging knowledge workers. These are; first, a division of labour must be utilised tomake best use of the capabilities of the worker; second, a low level of process controlmust be imposed to allow the necessary flexibility to enable the worker to perform;third, a high degree of worker empowerment must be incorporated; and four, a highlevel of autonomy must be granted to the knowledge worker in the execution of his/heractivities. Therefore the key to understanding the relationship between scientific

management and knowledge work is in analysing each of these factors.

Division of labourPossibly the main factor contributing to the shape of the labour process is increasingfragmentation of task resulting in repetitious work. This was first described in the pin-making example of Adam Smith (1982), then embodied most famously in the massproduction techniques of Fordism and more recently found in service activities labelledas Macdonaldisation by Ritzer (1993, 1997). This fragmentation of task was madedesirable as it allowed organisations to achieve greater efficiency by increasing taskrepetition. It has been observed that the main effect on the worker of this type ofactivity restriction has been deskilling caused by; first, the lack of opportunity for theworker to gain experience in a variety of tasks wide enough to develop a body of skill

or knowledge; and second, tasks that are still complex enough to require skill toexecute have become less abundant. Although no direct equivalent of the skilledworker exists in more recent service jobs the deskilling effect is still in evidence wherethe service worker is prevented from becoming accomplished in more than a fewsimple tasks. Therefore, in general, whether the basis of work activity is manual ornon-manual deskilling occurs.

Within knowledge work, division of labour is also apparent. Here, similar toother work, it leads to increasing specialisation. However in this arena the deskillingeffect is not the result. This is because the strength of the knowledge worker remainsand is amplified in the depth of knowledge within a narrower area rather thanbreadth of knowledge across a wider area. This is evidenced in the increasing valueplaced on workers knowledgeable in particular areas of specialisation. Indeed this

effect is coined by the term specialist applied in, for example, medicine to denotesomeone who has reached the pinnacle of their profession through restricting theirfield to a specific knowledge area. In effect as more is discovered in each field ofendeavour areas of expertise become increasingly differentiated so redrawingthe boundaries of what constitutes an area of expertise. Toffler (1970) notes thistrend and adds that in addition to the creation of new occupations based upondifferent specialisations this trend will also tend to shorten the lifecycle of manyoccupations as advances make occupations that are based upon technologies orsocial trends obsolete.

30

ER35,1


12/19

Comparing the effects of specialisation within non-knowledge work and the effectsof specialisation within knowledge work it is proposed that the reason forspecialisation within each arena is similar as the common objective is the mostefficient completion of tasks. In relation to knowledge work however there is an

additional reason for increasing specialisation in the shape of bounded rationality(Simon, 1991) where, a workers cognitive abilities begin to limit their knowledgecarrying capability. This leads to further fragmentation of the body of knowledge socreating further specialisms.

Therefore the drive for efficiency leads to specialisation and division of labour. Thisdrive is similar within both knowledge work and non-knowledge work however theeffect of the division of labour on the individual worker is quite different withdeskilling and repetition the result in non-knowledge work but increased depth ofknowledge and retained task variety the result in knowledge work.

The ideal result to be reached is the equilibrium point at which the division ofactivity within a particular pursuit is such that the overall task is most efficientlycarried out without creating inefficiency through either first, bounded rationality, or

second, overly dividing the task leading to increased reliance on unnecessary andwasteful co-ordination between workers.

ProcessThe second factor present in organisations since the introduction of scientificmanagement has been the removal of knowledge from the worker and its assimilationinto the organisation. This was initially due to the need of organisations to remove thecraft knowledge from skilled workers and build it into processes in manufacturing. Whilemore recently this osmosis of knowledge has not always been as evident with manygenerations of workers existing in environments where the organisation has alwaysowned the knowledge and distributed it sparingly to individuals on an as-required basis.

The main result of organisationally owned knowledge is the ability of the

organisation to create a process that is executed by individuals who have noknowledge of either the process or product. However within knowledge work theknowledge can only be deployed effectively by the knowledge carrier because if it isremoved from the worker it is reduced from the state of knowledge to the less-valuablestates of information or data (Bohn, 1994; Boiset and Canals, 2004).

Figure 1 summarises the similarities and differences that are found when a commonstimulus, the drive for increased efficiency, is applied in both knowledge work and

Fragmentationof knowledge

Fragmentationof task

Retention ofknowledge

by worker

Division ofknowledge

Labour process effectson knowledge workers

Increased depthDepth of knowledge

Retainedvariety of work

Increasedworker value toorganisation

Further limitingof knowledge

Reducedvariety of work

Decreasedworker value toorganisation

Division oflabour

Assimilation ofknowledge intothe organisation

Drive forincreasedefficiency

Increasedspecialisation

Separation ofconception

and execution

Processcontrol

Labour process effectson non-knowledge workers

Co-ordinativecontrol

Figure Labour process effe

3

IntroducinTaylo


13/19

non-knowledge work. With the application of this stimulus to knowledge work(aided by the effect of bounded rationality) the knowledge base will fragment creatinga division of labour based in specialisation in retained knowledge held by the worker.The overall effect of this is increased worker knowledge within a more specialised area.

This allows retention of higher levels of task variety within the work as the activity setis not restricted by separation of conception and execution or creation of a division oflabour based on fragmentation of task. This worker will be more empowered andshould be managed through co-ordination. This overall result serves to enhance thevalue of the worker to the organisation.

However in contrast in the case of non-knowledge work there is no embodiedknowledge base to protect the individual worker. Any small amount of retainedknowledge will be assimilated into the organisation. This allows the evolution ofa division of labour based upon the creation of a process that can be executed byless-skilled workers (or ultimately machines) as the knowledge base that allowed theconception of the process is now held by the organisation. This effect then leads toa further decrease in knowledge held by the non-knowledge worker, further limitation

of task variety and increased task repetition. Finally these effects make thenon-knowledge worker less valuable to the organisation.

Therefore in conclusion division of labour can be found in both non-knowledgework and knowledge work however the outcome for the worker is different.

Autonomy and empowermentWithin knowledge work autonomy becomes endemic to the activities of theworker as they are the owners of the knowledge base and so cannot be directlysupervised. In addition, as the owners of knowledge, these workers are themost appropriate workers to make decisions about the work so empowermentis crucial.

In contrast to this in non-knowledge work the worker is constrained by process

and can be directly supervised so there is little scope to work autonomously evenif autonomy was granted by the organisation. In addition the worker has neitherthe knowledge nor the need to be empowered. Therefore to make the best use of theknowledge worker, autonomy and empowerment must become part of the knowledgeworkers job as this worker can operate in no way other than autonomously and isthe most practical choice to be empowered to take certain decisions. With thenon-knowledge worker the worker has neither the capability to work autonomouslynor the knowledge to take decisions. Therefore autonomous working cannot be carriedout or empowerment awarded.

The diagram in Figure 1 can therefore be extended to that shown in Figure 2.This indicates that from the single stimulus of drive for increased efficiencydifferent results are reached in terms of autonomy and empowerment. It therefore

proposes that there continues to be a single labour process trend in all activities andthis is still towards division of labour, however the effects are different. With simplertasks the drive is efficiency gained by dexterity through repetition so leading toa point where all variety is replaced with uniformity. While in more complexknowledge work the drive for efficiency leads to narrow and deep specialisms thatenhance the value of the knowledge worker to the organisation and prohibit theassimilation of this knowledge into the organisation. The difference betweenthe process of knowledge work and that of non-knowledge work again rests on thedifferent treatment of knowledge.

32

ER35,1


14/19

ConclusionsThe aim of this paper is to analyse the usefulness of scientific management in themanagement of contemporary knowledge work where the central tension existsaround the ownership of knowledge either by the organisation or by the worker.

The key to the effectiveness of scientific management, as identified by Braverman,is the assimilation of worker knowledge into the organisational process resulting in theworker becoming subordinate to the process. Conversely it is clear that for theknowledge worker to be valuable they must own and indeed protect (Boreham, 1983)their knowledge assets. While in general the effect of scientific management is thedeskilling of work and increased division of labour this analysis suggests that, undercertain conditions mainly in knowledge-intensive work, the effect is more complex.Division of labour as an outcome of the application of scientific management is presentin both knowledge work and non-knowledge work. In knowledge work it results ina specialist with a deeper command of a narrower domain of knowledge whileconversely in non-knowledge work it results in a deskilled job dominated by repetition.

Likewise process control is required in both knowledge work and non-knowledge

work process must be implemented for knowledge workers to follow however itshould be employed as a co-ordinative rather than control mechanism. Knowledgeworkers must be empowered to use the knowledge that they possess and be able to actautonomously or the value of their knowledge will never be unlocked. Withoutempowered and autonomous working the knowledge worker is essentially worthless.

Therefore this synthesis concludes that scientific management and knowledge workare compatible. The application of scientific management to knowledge-intensive workin pursuit of efficiency results in broadly the same effect as its application to othertypes of work. The difference is in the outcome for the worker where knowledgeretention in the form of specialism and more autonomy enabled by flexible processresults. This suggests that scientific management is compatible with knowledge workbut not in its purest form. Some customisation must take place depending upon the

work context.The key implication for industry is that organisations engaging in

knowledge-intensive work should be designed with the objective of getting the bestfrom the worker as a knowledge carrier rather than extraction of this knowledge forassimilation into the process.

Therefore it is proposed here that scientific management should not be thrown outto make way for a fundamentally different management control system to underpin theorganisation of work in the knowledge economy. Its principles apply as much withincontemporary knowledge work as they did within early manual work. The central

FragmentationOf knowledge

Fragmentationof task

Retention of

knowledgeby worker

Division ofknowledge

Labour process effectson knowledge workers

Increased depthDepth of knowledge

Retainedvariety of work

Increased

worker value toorganisation

Further limiting

of knowledge

Reducedvariety of work

Decreasedworker value toorganisation

Division of

labour

Assimilation of

knowledge intothe organisation

Drive forincreasedefficiency

Increasedspecialisation

Separation ofconception and

execution

Processcontrol

Labour process effectson non-knowledge workers

Co-ordinativecontrol

Increased

empowerment andautonomy

Decreased

empowerment andautonomy

Figure Labour process effe

extend

3

IntroducinTaylo


15/19

issue is in the customisation of the scientific management system around theworker rather than the customisation of the worker around the system of scientificmanagement.

To end it is worth revisiting two of the main principles of scientific management as

proposed by F.W. Taylor which are most pertinent to knowledge work. First, Taylorencouraged the scientific selection and development of men, in the knowledge economythe vital knowledge-rich asset that is the knowledge worker must be foundand nurtured to ensure best performance. Second, Taylor called for the intimateco-operation of management and workers. Within knowledge work this resonatesmost strongly as the drawing of the correct line between the separation of conceptionand execution is the key factor representing a far more delicate balance than thatrequired in the management of other types of work. Therefore this suggests that,even at this empirical level, scientific management has some relationship withknowledge work.

References

Adler, P. (2004), Skill trends under capitalism and the socialisation of production, in Grugulis, I.,Warhurst, C. and Keep, E. (Eds), The Skills that Matter, Palgrave, London, pp. 242-60.

Adler, P.S. (2007), The future of critical management studies: a Paleo-Marxist critique of labourprocess theory, Organisation Studies, Vol. 28 No. 9, pp. 1313-45.

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 withambiguity, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 997-1016.

Applegate, L. (1996), In search of the new organizational model: lessons from the field, inDesanctis, G. and Fulk, J. (Eds), Communication Technology and Organizational Forms,Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 33-70.

Bain, P., Watson, A., Mulvey, G., Taylor, P. and Gall, G. (2002), Taylorism, targets and the pursuitof 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 teamtaylorism, in Warhurst, C. and Thompson, P. (Eds), Workplaces of the Future, MacmillanPress, Basingstoke, pp. 163-83.

Barrett, R. (2001), Labouring under an illusion? The labour process of software developmentin the Australian information industry, New Technology, Work and Employment, Vol. 16No. 1, pp. 18-34.

Beirne, M., Ramsey, H. and Panteli, A. (1998), Developments in computing work: control andcontradiction in the software labour process, in Warhurst, C. and Thompson, P. (Eds),Workplaces of the Future, Macmillan Press, Basingstoke, pp. 142-62.

Bell, D. (1973), The Coming of Post Industrial Society: A Venture in Social Forecasting, BasicBooks, New York, NY.

Bertels, T. and Savage, C.M. (1998), Tough questions on knowledge management, inVon Krogh, G., Roos, J. and Kleine, D. (Eds), Knowing in Firms, Sage, London, pp. 7-5.

Blackler, F. (1993), Knowledge and the theory of organizations: organizations as activitysystems and the reframing of management, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 30 No. 6,pp. 863-84.

Blackler, F. (1995), Knowledge, knowledge work and organizations: an overview andinterpretation, Organization Studies, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 1021-46.

34

ER35,1


16/19

Boiset, 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.

Bohn, R.E. (1994), Measuring and managing technical knowledge, Sloan Management Review,Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 61-72.

Boreham, P. (1983), Indetermination: professional knowledge, organization and control,Sociological Review, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 693-718.

Braverman, H. (1974), Labour and Monopoly Capital, Monthly Review Press, New York, NY.

Brinkley, I. (2010), Knowledge Economy Strategy 2020: The Work Foundation Submission to theComprehensive Spending Review, The Work Foundation, London.

Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) (2009), New Industry New Jobs,HM Government, London.

Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) (2011), The Plan for Growth, HM Treasury, London.

Carey, M. (2009), Its a bit like being a robot or working in a factory: does Braverman helpexplain the experiences of state social workers in Britain since 1971, Organization, Vol. 16No. 4, pp. 505-27.

Castells, M. (1996), The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture Volume 1, Blackwell,Oxford.

Clegg, S. (1994), Social theory for the study of organizations, Organization, Vol. 1 No. 1,pp. 149-78.

Cortada, J.W. (1998), Where did knowledge workers come from?, in Cortada, J. (Ed.), Rise of theKnowledge Worker, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, pp. 3-21.

Crompton, R. (1990), Professions in the current context, Work, Employment and Society, Vol. 4No. 5, pp. 147-66.

Darr, A. and Warhurst, S. (2008), Assumptions and the need for evidence: debugging debatesabout knowledge workers, Current Sociology, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 25-45.

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. (1959), Landmarks of Tomorrow, Harper and Brothers, New York, NY.

Drucker, P. (1992), The new society of organizations, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 70 No. 5,pp. 95-104.

Drucker, P. (1993), Post Capitalist Society, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.

Ehrenreich, B. and Ehrenreich, J. (1977a), The professional-managerial class, Radical America,Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 7-33.

Ehrenreich, B. and Ehrenreich, J. (1977b), The professional-managerial class part B, RadicalAmerica, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 7-25.

European Communities (EC) (2004), Facing the Challenge, Office for Official Publications of the

European Communities, Luxembourg.Florida, R. (2003), The Rise of the Creative Class, Pluto Press, North Melbourne.

Freidson, E. (2001), Professionalism: The Third Logic, Polity, Cambridge.

Frenkel, S., Korzynski, M., Donoghue, L. and Shire, K. (1995), Reconstituting work: trendstowards knowledge work and info-normative control, Work, Employment & Society, Vol. 9No. 4, pp. 773-96.

Frenkel, S., Korczynski, M., Shire, K. and Tam, M. (1998), Beyond bureaucracy? Workorganization in call centres,International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 6No. 6, pp. 957-79.

3

IntroducinTaylo


17/19

Frenkel, S., Korczynski, M., Shire, K. and Tam, M. (1999), On the Front Line: Organization ofWork in the Information Age, Cornel University Press, New York, NY.

Friedman, A. (1977), Industry and Labour, Macmillan, London.

Fry, L.W. (1976), The maligned F.W. Taylor: a reply to his many critics, Academy of

Management Reviews, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 124-9.Greenbaum, L. (1976), Division of labour in the computer field, Monthly Review, Vol. 28 No. 3,

pp. 40-55.

Grugulis, I., Warhurst, C. and Keep, E. (2004), Whats happening to skill?, in Warhurst, C.,Grugulis, I. and Keep, E. (Eds), The Skills that Matter, Palgrave, London, pp. 1-18.

Hassan, G. and Warhurst, C. (1999), A Different Future: The Modernisers Guide to Scotland,Centre For Scottish Public Policy, Edinburgh.

Hyman, R. (1988), Flexible specialisation: miracle or myth, in Hymen, R. and Streek, W. (Eds),Trade Unions Technology and Industrial Democracy, Basil-Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 48-60.

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.

Ichijo, K., von Krogh, G. and Nonaka, I. (1998), Knowledge enablers, in Von.Inglehart, R. and Abramson, P.R. (1995), Value Change in Global Perspective, University of

Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI.

Karoly, L.A. and Panis, C.W.A. (2004), The 21st Century at Work, Rand, Santa Monica, CA.

Kok, W. (2003), Enlarging the European Union: Achievements and Challenges, EuropeanUniversity Institute, Italy.

Korczynski, M. (2001), The contradictions of service work: call centre as customer orientedbureaucracy, in Sturdy, A., Grugulis, I. and Wilmott, H. (Eds), Service Work, Palgrave,Basingstoke, pp. 79-101.

Kraft, P. (1977), Programmers and Managers. The Routinization of Computer Programming inthe United States, Springer-Verlag, New York, NY.

Kumer, K. (1996), From Post-Modern to Post-Industrial Society, Blackwell, Oxford.

Levitt, G.P. and Guenov, M.D. (2000), A methodology for knowledge managementimplementation, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 258-70.

Lyon, D. (1988), The Information Society, Blackwell, Cambridge.

McKinlay, A. (2005), Knowledge management, in Ackroyd, S., Batt, R., Thompson, P. andTolbert, P.S. (Eds), The Oxford Handbook of Work and Organization, Oxford UniversityPress, New York, NY, pp. 242-61.

Mandt, E. (1978), Managing the knowledge worker of the future, Personnel Journal, Vol. 57No. 3, pp. 138-41.

Milgram, R.M. (1990), Creativity: an idea whose time has come and gone?, in Runco, M.A. andAlbert, R.S. (Eds), Theories of Creativity, Sage, California, pp. 215-33.

Miller, D.B. (1977), How to improve the performance and productivity of the knowledge worker,

Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 62-80.Mills, C.W. (1951), White Collar, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Nonaka, I. and Konno, N. (1998), The concept of Ba: building a foundation for knowledgecreation, California Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 40-54.

Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge Creating Company, Oxford University Press,New York, NY.

Nonaka, I. and Teece, D. (2001), Managing Industrial Knowledge: Creation, Transfer and Utilisation,Sage, London.

Polanyi, M. (1958), Personal Knowledge, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.

36

ER35,1


18/19

Polanyi, M. (1967), The Tacit Dimension, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.

Pruijt, H. (2003), Teams between neo-taylorism and anti-taylorism, Economic and IndustrialDemocracy, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 78-101.

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 BusinessSchool Press, Boston, MA, pp. 181-206.

Reed, M.I. (1996), Expert power and control in late modernity: an empirical review andtheoretical synthesis, Organisation Studies, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 573-97.

Reich, R. (1993), The Work of Nations, Simon and Schuster, London.

Ritzer, G. (1993), The MacDonaldisation of Society, Pine Forge Press, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Ritzer, G. (1997), The Macdonaldisation Thesis, Sage, London.

Rodgers, R. and Waters, R. (2001), The Skills Dynamics of Business and Public Service AssociateProfessionals, Research Report RR302, DfES/HMSO, Norwich.

Root-Bernstein, R. (1989), Strategies of research (part 2), Research Technology Management,Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 36-41.

Rosenbaum, B. (1991), Leading todays professional, Research Technology Management, Vol. 34No. 2, pp. 30-5.

Scarselletta, M. (1997), The infamous lab error: education, skill, and quality in medicaltechnicians work, in Barley, S.R. and Orr, J.E. (Eds), Between Craft and Science, CornellUniversity Press, New York, NY, pp. 187-249.

Simon, H. (1991), Bounded rationality and organizational learning, Organization Science, Vol. 2No. 1, pp. 125-34.

Smith, A. (1982), The Wealth of Nations, Penguin, Harmondsworth.

Smith, V. (1994), Bravermans legacy: the labour process tradition at 20, Work and Occupations,Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 403-21.

Spencer, D.A. (2000), Braverman and the contribution of labour process analysis to the critique

of capitalist production twenty five years on, Work, Employment and Society, Vol. 14No. 2, pp. 223-43.

Starbuck, W. (1992), Learning by knowledge intensive firms, Journal of Management Studies,Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 713-40.

Stewart, T.A. (1997), Intellectual Capital: The New Wealth of Nations, Nicholas Brealey, London.

Taylor, F.W. (1911), Scientific Management, Harper Row, New York, NY.

Teece, D.J. (2000), Managing Intellectual Capital: Organizational, Strategic, and PolicyDimensions, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Thompson, P. (1989), The Nature of Work, an Introduction to Debates on the Labour Process,Macmillan Press, Basingstoke.

Thompson, P., Warhurst, C. and Callaghan, G. (2001), Ignorant theory and knowledgeable

workers: interrogating for connections between knowledge, skills and services, Journal ofManagement Studies, Vol. 38 No. 7, pp. 923-42.

Toffler, A. (1970), Futureshock, Pan Books Ltd, Great Britain, New York, NY.

Tywoniak, S.A. (2007), Knowledge in four deformation dimensions, Organization, Vol. 14 No. 1,pp. 53-76.

Walker, P. (1978), Between Labour and Capital, South End Press, Boston, MA.

Warhurst, C. and Thompson, P. (1998), Hands, hearts and minds: changing work and workers atthe end of the century, in Thompson, P. and Warhurst, C. (Eds), Workplaces of the Future,Macmillan Press, Basingstoke, pp. 1-24.

3

IntroducinTaylo


19/19

Warhurst, C. and Thompson, P. (2006), Mapping knowledge in work: proxies or practices, WorkEmployment and Society, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 787-800.

Winch, G. and Schneider, E. (1993), Managing the knowledge based organization: the case ofarchitectural practice, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 923-37.

Wuthnow, R. and Shrum, W. (1983), Knowledge workers as a new class, Work andOccupations, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 471-87.

Zimbalist, A. (1979), Case Studies in the Labour Process, Monthly Review Press, London.

Zuboff, S. (1988), In the Age of the Smart Machine: The Future of Work and Power, Basic Books,New York, NY.

Further reading

Blackler, F., Reed, M. and Whitaker, A. (1993), Knowledge workers and contemporaryorganizations, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 851-62.

Brinkley, I. (2008), The Knowledge Economy: How Knowledge is Reshaping the Economic Life ofNations, The Work Foundation, London.

About the author

Steve Paton is a Lecturer in the Department of Management. He began his career as an engineer

in the aerospace industry and in the course of a 20 year career occupied a number of increasingly

senior roles including manufacturing, operations and projects management. He carried out

research as part of his PhD in the area of knowledge work and knowledge management.

Current areas of interest include the management of contemporary workers within creative

organizations and employee motivation. He currently teaches Operations Management and

Project Management.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

38

ER35,1

Introducing Taylor to the Knowledge Economy

Documents

Transcript of Introducing Taylor to the Knowledge Economy