R. Devarajan

THE definition of management — that it represents a role separate and disparate from that of the workers, that it is a system focused on functions such as planning, organising, monitoring, and controlling — was relevant in the era following the Industrial Revolution. Perhaps, it is anachronistic and out of place in the contemporary business context, wherein autonomous and self-managing teams of employees call the shots.

The earlier era of management was designed to deal with a totally different set of circumstances than what the modern managers encounter. Until the beginning of the last century, workers were operating only in the craft and cottage-based industries; they were not familiar with large organisations. Most of them did not have the benefit of education and external pressure and sometimes even threat were the only motivation for them to work. Skipping links in the chain of command was nothing short of sacrilege and rabble-rousing. The concept of bureaucracy as formulated by Max Weber, involving division of labour and a framework of rules, regulations, and regimen was hailed as a paramount virtue. Henry Ford articulated aptly and, also, in anguish the summum bonum of the management philosophy prevalent at that time: "What I want is a good pair of hands; unfortunately I must take them with a person attached."

Just as the proliferation of industrial workers in the old scheme warranted the need for a professional management cadre, so also the emergence of the knowledge workers has been a challenge to the management in the new dispensation.

Since knowledge is an invisible asset that is more metaphysical than physical or empirical, management can no longer be done or defined as a function of control and overview of employees. Further, because knowledge work can and is being done both by managers and workers, the line of distinction between the two has blurred, becoming almost extinct.

The advent and expansion of knowledge work was foreseen as far back as 1958, when American economist Fritz Machlup reckoned that the sector of knowledge work in the United States was growing twice as fast as the rest of the economy.

Today, knowledge workers are paid premium salaries, they add the maximum economic credibility, and they are the key determinants of the commercial value and worth of those organisations that employ them.

It is difficult to define or describe knowledge workers, as they are not all of a piece. Every worker employs some knowledge to perform his job. Perhaps, the proportion of time invested may be a differentiating factor.

One obvious distinction, however, may be between knowledge-creators, and knowledge-users. Knowledge-creators are those who innovate new ideas and avenues for application by other employees in the organisation. This category may consist of research and development personnel, product development engineers, process designers, systems analysts, and so on.

Knowledge-users are the people who apply and use such knowledge in their work. A chartered accountant, or a dentist, or a garden-variety engineer is an example of such a professional, who uses and applies knowledge created by others.

Another criterion to identify knowledge workers is based on the types of ideas they work with. Knowledge workers invariably deal with big ideas, which dramatically and radically change people and organisations — ideas for new products, new services, business models, and strategic course corrections — as opposed to small ideas associated with incremental benefits, quality, upgradation and continuous improvement. The conventional view had been that big ideas were the exclusive domain of a select few. Workers were branded as mere users of ideas; innovation was out of bounds for them. Catalysts and change agents belonged to the elite cadre of management.

There has been a radical shift from this mindset in the current commercial climate, wherein success belongs to those organisations that make it every employee's responsibility to propound new ideas.

Today, managers need to adapt their activities to the new dispensation of management, and the new scheme of things that they will encounter. Perhaps, a significant aspect characterising the future manager will be that he will have a lot more to do than merely "manage" in the conventional sense of that term. He must himself be a knowledge worker, a down-to-earth and hands-on executive, and not someone who sits in an ivory tower.

The working environment of knowledge workers does not offer them any scope for social interaction, and they seem to function as "autonomous free agents". In traditional organisations, however, there was plenty of room for recreation and fellowship. Hence, managers in the knowledge economy have a responsibility to make up for this lacuna — they ought to provide an opportunity and a community for social outlet, not just common rooms, but real face-to-face contact and communion with other people.

What with the constraint of longer working hours — thanks to the 24/7 doctrine — employees may suffer for want of social activity. Managers have a definite mandate to create a forum and fraternity for their employees to fulfil and satisfy this need for social communication.

A key component of management has always been the system of performance appraisal. In the old order of management, this was achieved by work study techniques, propounded by Frederick Taylor. But there has been an ongoing debate that the last trace of Taylorism was witnessed in the evolution of business process re-engineering. Performance was assessed through outputs or visible inputs such as hours of work, expenditure of effort, and so on. But in the domain of knowledge work, evaluating performance is not so simple. First, knowledge work activities are intellectual and therefore, not easily quantifiable, and this is what makes them difficult to evaluate.

Second, the gestation time for establishing the efficacy of an improvement process may be long and indefinite. Third, knowledge workers by nature and outlook are nonconformist and defiant: They may resent and resist any value judgement of their performance.

Another major task for the knowledge work manager is recruitment and retention of competent knowledge workers. Employment process may become a critical and continual programme for managers, especially because a long-term career is a low priority for knowledge workers. However, companies need to provide an enabling environment and work climate conducive to employee retention. Beyond a certain point, money will cease to motivate employees, particularly in a steep and sweeping fiscal economy.

Whereas opportunities to learn new skills will be incentive enough to compel knowledge workers to stay on in an organisation. In modern times, the skills required of a knowledge worker involve knowledge acquisition, analysis, and application. Managers must encourage employees to not only acquire relevant skills but also the teaching techniques to impart their knowledge to others. For instance, highly tacit knowledge is probably best transferred by long-term and face-to-face mentoring relationships, while explicit knowledge can be codified, written down and even electronically disseminated.

Knowledge work managers must build and construct such corporate cultures, which complement and correspond to the norms of the new age.

Knowledge workers are expected to keep pace with the rapidly-changing business environment. Nothing can be more frustrating to them than finding a slow response to a business demand, because of the administrative inertia in their organisation. Flexibility is another virtue that a knowledge worker deems essential — companies must have adequate in-built competence to confront changes, which are critical to their success.

If it is difficult to find a good knowledge worker, it is even more difficult to find a good knowledge work manager. The role of knowledge worker and knowledge manager requires each to balance creativity and autonomy on the one side, along with a semblance of control and system on the other side, and demands enormous tact, tactics, and tolerance.

Universities appear to have somewhat balanced this act. Presidents and deans in colleges take turns as faculty members, whenever they feel a burnout and buckle under strain of administrative work. Departmental Head positions are made rotational — each senior faculty member must serve (or suffer) in the administrative seat every once in a while.

Will companies be able to emulate and transplant this academic example? Or will it remain an "academic exercise", impractical and unsuitable in the commercial context?

(The author is a Chennai-based freelance writer.)

© Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu Business Line