Ben Compton wrote on 28 Jul 1998:
>What is the relationship between a knowledge worker and his/her
>employer? How is it different than an industrial worker?
>Both relationships are contractual, with each person bringing
>certain values to the table to be traded through the process of
>work. The terms of the contract are negotiated during the hiring
>process. These terms set the expectations for both people involved
>in the relationship.
This is not true. The relationship between a knowledge worker and an
employer evolves at the same speed that the knowledge environment changes
- which is considerable faster than the situation faced by the so-called
industrial worker.
Simple example: A few years ago a programmer that learned HTML altered the
value relationship with the employer. A year ago the same was true for
Java. Even if the current employer had no need for those skills - the
programmer had options to work elsewhere that hadn't existed previously.
Many such types are self-taught, motivated by curiosity and a drive to
learn - so the value change is not necessarily instigated by the employer.
The negative side is equally at work - when knowledge becomes obsolete
(valueless) so does the unidimensional knowledge worker to that particular
employer. The knowledge worker is in an increasingly volatile environment.
>Since the relationship is contractual, there is no need for a
>"power struggle" between the two. The worker knows what he/she
>must do to get the valuables the employer is willing to give in
>exchange for work. Indeed the only time I've seen "power plays"
>at work have been when someone was trying to use another person to
>achieve a result that was never made clear and not part of the
>contractual relationship between employee and employer.
For true knowledge workers this "contractual" relationship does not exist
except in its generally unwritten form: "As long as we have a mutually
beneficial relationship we'll work with each other".
Excellent perspectives were given in two recent articles, both in Fortune
magazine, March 16, 1998 issue:
1) The New organization Man, pages 63-74
2) Gray Flannel Suit?, pages 76-82
The people entering the workforce have their expectations molded by the
stories of family and neighbors who were downsizing victims. They expect
no loyalty from an employer. Loyalties for knowledge workers are cemented
in the knowledge community to which they belong - not to corporate
entities.
Among other things I write a column for Automotive Manufacturing and
Production magazine. The June essay discussed Knowledge Workers and is
on-line at:
http://www.parshift.com/Essays/essay042.htm
>Why do we think a knowledge worker should be treated any differently
>than an industrial worker?
Supply and demand. The industrial worker is a commodity. The knowledge
worker is sufficiently unique. Good knowledge workers are pursued
willingly and constantly by good employers - and that pursuit doesn't end
when joining the company.
Knowledge explosion is the driver today. Those people that can deal with
it are in critical demand. Most of them have an uncontrollable need to
exercise their abilities. They gravitate to the organizations that permit
and encourage this. They won't work (long) for an organization that
doesn't - because they no longer have to - a new organization type has
emerged that attracts these people.
Rick Dove, dove@parshift.com, http://www.parshift.com/
Chairman, Paradigm Shift International
Director, National Learning Foundation
Sr Fellow, Agility Forum
505-586-1536
--Rick Dove <dove@parshift.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>