Ben said
> Why do we think a knowledge worker should be treated any differently than
> an industrial worker?
In an earlier note, Ben commented that both knowledge workers and other
workers should all be treated good, and I agree.
In the present wording of the statement, though, the statement could be
taken as meaning "why shouldn't knowledge workers be treated as industrial
workers HAVE been treated?"
(me not offering an answer :)
The attraction of learning organizations for me was the sense of the
importance of knowledge, research and technical advancement at work.
While working on a team defining a mission statement, it seemed to me that
one way that the mission statement could be "spiced up" was to use the
main processes reflexively or in combination. I work at a University
library. Words like acquisition, management, and another word (like
distribution) appear in the present statement. I thought that I'd like
the statement more if it said that we manage the process of management, we
acquire new management skills, we distribute the process of acquisition
and other things like that.
For the industrial worker - and possibly Dr. Deming's theory about
industrial work prompted the reflexive nature of "checking the system
again" - the same kind of joy could be having the opportunity to make
quality improvements in work, interaction, production, and so forth.
Have a nice day
John Paul Fullerton
jpf@myriad.net
--"John Paul Fullerton" <jpf@myriad.net>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>