The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0142-5455.

htm

ER 35,1

Introducing Taylor to the knowledge economy

Steve Paton
Department of Management, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK
Abstract
Purpose The knowledge economy and the knowledge work that fuels it have created much debate in relation to the types of workers it requires and how they should be managed. The central issue is that knowledge workers are only valuable while possessing a body of knowledge to utilise in the process of their work. The management of workers with knowledge runs counter to the more 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 as a 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 to understand their relationship. Findings This paper finds that: despite the need for workers to retain knowledge the main principles of scientific management can still be applied; and the application of Scientific Management to 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 as a useful tool to manage knowledge work. This view runs counter to more mainstream accounts where Scientific Management and knowledge work are seen as incompatible. This paper partially fills the gap in understanding of how knowledge workers should be managed and is useful to academics seeking to characterise knowledge work and practitioners seeking to manage in the knowledge economy. Keywords Scientific management, Knowledge economy, Knowledge work, Braverman, Deskilling, Knowledge management Paper type Conceptual paper

20

Employee Relations Vol. 35 No. 1, 2013 pp. 20-38 r Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0142-5455 DOI 10.1108/01425451311279393

Introduction The phrase knowledge worker (Drucker, 1959; Miller, 1977) now seems to be firmly embedded in the vocabulary of management literature. Although not new, this term has seen increased significance recently due to the emergence in the 1990s of the new knowledge-driven economy (Stewart, 1997) now considered critical to national competiveness (Brinkley, 2010; European Communities (EC), 2004). In the UK alone employment in knowledge-intensive services went up by 93 per cent between 1979 and 2010, in contrast, employment as a whole only went up by 13 per cent (Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR), 2009). In addition between 1995 and 2010 the contribution of high-technology manufacturing and knowledge-intensive services to 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 skill work (particularly in manufacturing) by low cost economies overseas it has become a priority of the UK government to grow the knowledge and skills base of the workforce to support the knowledge-based economy (Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS), 2011). To deliver success within this new economy it has been asserted that companies must effectively capitalise on worker knowledge (Ichijo et al., 1998) while rewarding

and valuing it (Karoly and Panis, 2004). The defining features of these knowledge workers are their possession of a variety of types of knowledge such as embrained and 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 by the knowledge economy runs counter to more critical and longer-standing analyses of the workplace which argue that organisations in their search for greater control and efficiency endeavour to remove knowledge from their workers by the application of scientific management (Taylor, 1911) and its derivatives (Braverman, 1974; Thompson, 1989; Zimbalist, 1979). As long ago as 1959, Drucker signalled the inadequacy of applying personnel management theories developed for machine workers to managing tomorrows employees (Drucker, 1959, p. 122). So while scientific management has served industry 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 of knowledge from the worker for assimilation into the organisation but the exploitation and leveraging of knowledge while it is retained within the worker. This issue is of growing importance as the label knowledge work is being applied to more 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 to engineering and scientific work and more recently has become associated with every aspect of the contemporary economy where knowledge is at the heart of the value add from high-tech manufacturing to the creative industries such as media and architecture (Kok, 2003). The central tension is therefore how can management effectively control workers who 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 management in the management of contemporary knowledge work. The objectives of this theoretical review are; first, unpack the debates around knowledge work and understand 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-intensive work. This paper will address current gaps in understanding of the management of knowledge workers, and provide insights on the relationship between scientific management and knowledge work. This work will contribute to our understanding of whether there is a distinct line which defines the limits of the use of scientific management and so results in a privileged class of knowledge workers who are not subject to its control. Knowledge work: managing, class and Braverman Despite the relative recency of the debates on knowledge work the existence of work types that use specialist knowledge is not new as it has existed in rudimentary forms since the first human performed activities based on something other than instinct or reaction. However as technology has advanced and industry has become more complex and diverse the concept of knowledge in work has become increasingly relevant (Drucker, 1992). Early attempts to characterise knowledge work were initiated by the

Introducing Taylor

21

ER 35,1

22

post-war increase in the number of degree-educated workers and concurrent expansion of white collar occupations (Mills, 1951). This work spawned two debates (see Darr and Warhurst, 2008), the initial debate, found in the sociological literature, was concerned 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 concerned with the management of these workers and how they can be made to work more effectively (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 before doing this it is worth investigating briefly how these debates are related and the pivotal contribution linking these debates is Bravermans Labour and Monopoly Capital (1974). Here Braverman proposed that the fundamental force shaping relations between management and workers in organisations was the issue of class which overshadowed the more neutral Taylorist imperatives of efficiency, technology and specialisation. The class issue dominated the managerial drive for control over the pace of work and the 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 Capital served to focus the narrative and, with some help from the expansion of knowledgebased activity in the new post-industrial society (Bell, 1973), did succeed in reinvigorating interest in the over-arching trend of deskilling that began within the manual workshops of Taylor and seemed destined to continue within the newer emerging occupations. In addition Braverman succeeded in situating these debates more squarely in the historical context while relating the, up to then, somewhat separate discussions around worker class, worker knowledge managerial control and process efficiency (Smith, 1994). Bravermans thinking resulted in a number of studies initially in occupations such as engineering and IT (Greenbaum, 1976; Kraft, 1977; Zimbalist, 1979; more recently see 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 were often mixed, overall these studies seemed to support the assertions of Braverman with many seeing division of labour and increasing process control being applied within heavily knowledge-intensive work such as software engineering. However when taken against a backdrop of an increasingly complex workplace it becomes apparent that what was really happening was that as the knowledge bases expanded they fragmented so creating narrower, but still knowledge-rich, specialisms more in line with the professionalisation model (Crompton, 1990; Freidson, 2001). This therefore created knowledge specialists rather than Bravermans deskilled drones. However scrutiny of Bravermans work reveals understanding of this possible effect where he states that removal of knowledge from work is itself restrained in its application by the nature of the various specific and determinate processes of production, moreover its very application brings into being new crafts and skills and technical specialities which at first are the province of labour rather than management (1974, p. 172). This reveals a more nuanced understanding of the complexities of the organisation of work in technically complex and changing environments with Braverman noting that deskilling would only occur where certain conditions allowed (Spencer, 2000). While some analysed the work organisation of production and engineering others analysed service or front-line work in the mistaken assumption that this, due to its

customer-facing nature was automatically knowledge work. Then on discovering that much of this work, such as that in call centres, resembled Taylorised manufacturing work also erroneously used this as evidence in support of Bravermans deskilling thesis. So post-Labour and Monopoly Capital these shifts in understanding and the expansion of work types that provided a more sophisticated and nuanced industrial arena resulted in an increasingly fuzzy picture with knowledge work emerging as one of the main protagonists in the more complex labour process debates. In contrast to Bravermans more bleak prediction of a sweeping trend of deskilling, the labour process landscape has become more diverse in terms of managerial control strategies and worker skill levels with the current literature providing little more clarity on how knowledge workers should be managed than existed in the time of Braverman. Smith (1994, p. 416) has gone further proposing that the work carried out since Braverman has avoided unpacking the separation of conception and execution in this more complex time with academic activity characterised by a reluctance to draw a meaningful line between the two. It is proposed here that to begin to untangle these issues and work towards an understanding of the best ways to manage knowledge workers the key is in analysing the compatibility of scientific management and knowledge work. Knowledge work: characteristics and confusion To research the management of knowledge work it is important to understand what knowledge workers are. Current thinking in relation to the knowledge economy argues that explicit knowledge is becoming more important, prioritising embrained and encoded knowledge acquired through formal study, and owned principally by graduates of higher education (Blackler, 1995; Warhurst and Thompson, 1998). Indeed early attempts to define knowledge work did rely heavily on the proxy of education. Warhurst and Thompson (2006) cite qualifications as possibly the most widely used proxy 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 obtain through formal education while Hassan and Warhurst (1999) note that being better educated 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 the availability of an excess of graduates, jobs which were previously sub-degree have been relabelled as graduate jobs (Rodgers and Watters, 2001). Kumer (1996) takes this further by proposing that education is increasingly leading to a rise in credentialism rather than the practice of knowledge work. This position is supported by Hudson (2006) who contends that in much contemporary work credentialled 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 of the emerging knowledge economy are difficult to accredit as qualifications. Scarselletta (1997) has neatly summarised this position stating that giving primacy to formal knowledge 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 knowledge intensive. In relation to the financial services industry Ahantu (1998) argues that data transfer occupations should not be thought of as knowledge work, a point supported by Lyon (1988) who suggests data transfer activity should be defined as information

Introducing Taylor

23

ER 35,1

24

handling work. Therefore the requirement for qualifications and the inclusion of tasks that involve manipulating information do not in themselves constitute knowledge work. 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 need to think to apply their knowledge. Traditionally low task variety was associated with Taylorised low-skill production and more recently service work whereas in some contemporary work, process tasks are being associated with qualified workers. Quinn et al. (1996) proposes that this type of worker trades in repeatable perfection where fundamentally routine work requires some knowledge to execute but involves activities that are carried out numerous times. Here the knowledge base that the worker masters during training and education far outweighs the knowledge that is demonstrated within the execution of these routine tasks. Thompson et al. (2001) have defined knowledge workers as workers with thinking skills who, while solving problems, manipulate symbols and ideas. This suggests the possession 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 further unpacking 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 the result therefore creativity is defined for this purpose as the creation of new knowledge adding to the knowledge base used in the execution of work. These points suggest that knowledge can be used as a basis for creativity further supporting the position that knowledge work is not restricted to those with theoretical knowledge or formal qualifications. While the work detailed so far provides an insight into what knowledge workers are, 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 workers is an esoteric and intangible knowledge base he argues that todays knowledge workers combine this with a power strategy of marketisation that is acquiring specialist skills with market appeal in particular sectors and domains (1996, p. 586). Therefore this knowledge must be storable, controllable, indeterminable and protectable (Boreham, 1983) to allow those in possession of it to add the value that knowledge-intensive firms need. So in summary while knowledge work is a broad church there is some consensus that its non-routine and must be performed by workers who have mastered a body of knowledge either tacit or formal which they are able to control, protect and apply to their process of work so creating value for the company. This therefore distinguishes it as work form that should not be compatible with scientific management. Knowledge work: output, efficiency and Taylor Indeed at first glance review of the literatures surrounding scientific management and knowledge work gives the impression that the scientific management of knowledge workers is a contradiction. Wearing the blue collar is Taylorism embedded in the past, based in manufacturing and applied to manual work where separation of conception and execution, division of labour and repetitive process leads to efficiency and economic success. Wearing the white collar is knowledge work carried out by Californian-style, freewheeling cyber-workers with high skills, high incomes and high

job satisfaction (Grugulis et al., 2004, p. 1) demanding a new style of management more suited to their needs. Does this apparent distance mean there was no need for knowledge and intellect in 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 with F.W. Taylor himself the first illustration of this contradiction. As part of a then new breed of systems analysts Taylor could be considered the embodiment of the knowledge worker using intellect and information to study activities and devise new work systems. Taylors The Principles of Scientific Management was first published in 1911 and at the time of publication it was intended to serve three purposes. First, to illustrate the losses 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 rather than in the work of extraordinary men; and third that the best management is a true science based on defined laws and principles that are applicable to all human activities from the most rudimentary to the most elaborate (Taylor, 1911). In addition to these goals The Principles of Scientific Management formalised many aspects of management thinking that were growing at that time, stimulated widespread debates in all areas of management and established F.W. Taylor as its principle pioneer. The characteristics of scientific management, as generally understood by most managers and students of management are, at a rudimentary level, the study of all activities within a manual work environment; the division of labour, the separation of conception and execution, the distillation of best practice; the removal of uncertainty and the sequencing for most efficient completion of task. This understanding is however only part of the story. The Principles of Scientific Management have been quantified in a number of ways and by a number of authors. Taylors original system of scientific management called of management to assume responsibilities 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 the managers and workmen to enforce adherence to the principles of the science which has been developed; and fourth, ensure equal division of work and responsibility between managers and workmen (Taylor, 1911, p. 14). Interestingly however not long after Taylors work was published in 1911 it fell into disrepute as [y] instead of utilising his whole system as a philosophy of management many 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 of conception and execution most famously adopted by Henry Ford as the dominant expression of what came to be known as Taylorism. This sub-set of Taylors ideas eventually formed the foundation of much industrial practice and eventually becoming the basis of Bravermans critique. While critics have maligned the ideas of Taylor they have 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 current organisations. While Ritzer may be correct in his assertion more recent work investigating the nature of scientific management has nudged debates full circle reducing the long-standing preoccupation with the separation of conception and execution and the consequent power relations between worker and manager and refocused on other aspects mainly relating to Adlers (2004, 2007) concept of the socialisation of work.

Introducing Taylor

25

ER 35,1

26

This contingency perspective (rather flippantly termed the Paleo-Marxist view) offers a more complex interpretation of the effects of scientific management on labour than the mainstream deskilling propositions. Adler proposes that competitive forces stimulate progress which provides simultaneously deskilling and upskilling effects. He also places increased emphasis on the positive effect that planning has within the organisation as opposed to the negative effects that are emphasised by more mainstream accounts. Adler proposes that this assimilation creates a body of socialised knowledge that all workers can refer to so distributing the knowledge. Adler further proposes that the collective worker is broadened by more differentiated and integrated divisions of labour. He proposes the horizons of the worker will become wider as the object of the work becomes broader and more co-ordination among workers and work groups is required. This again is in opposition to the narrowing of work scope and increased detail in division of labour that is commonly associated with scientific management. Adlers contingency view is founded in the study of lean production and as such is influenced by much of the factors that lean production brings to manufacturing such as the impact of technology and progressive human resource practices. This view therefore represents a more modern interpretation of the effect that scientific management has upon the labour process. Adler further proposes that scientific management will have further positive effects on the efficiency of the organisation with higher productivity facilitating increased wages, fewer random accidents and the distribution of authority more evenly throughout the organisation. Adler also however agrees to some extent with Bravermans view by conceding that these gains can be offset by losses such as reduction of autonomy in workers, creation of some repetitive tasks and a disruption of the traditional craft system. Other studies have also sought to bridge that gap between traditional Taylorism and more flexible work systems (as an example see Pruijt, 2003) where neo-Taylorism in 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 the application of scientific management to knowledge-intensive work. Recent broader interpretations suggest there may be some commonality. Therefore these points suggest that the issue is therefore not the continued existence of scientific management but its degree of utility as a management schema for use with this new breed of knowledge workers. Challenges of managing knowledge workers Despres and Hiltrop (1995) summarise the challenges in managing knowledge workers as; identifying, developing and evaluating knowledge workers and the outputs they produce; then motivating and rewarding knowledge workers to maximise their productivity and the quality of their outputs; while structuring the organisation to obtain the desired output from an increasingly knowledgeable workforce. To add to this Nonaka and Teece (2001) propose that the management of knowledge workers is an exercise in leveraging their competences. They suggest the key to managing the knowledge worker is to identify and understand what enhances and 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 is important to identify, develop, evaluate, motivate and reward, this was something

recognised by Taylor and forms the basis of scientific management. However the differentiator is that knowledge workers possess higher levels of both explicit and tacit knowledge engaging in more complex, less routine tasks involving greater levels of original work, creativity and problem solving. It could therefore be concluded that the increased challenge involved in managing the knowledge worker must be one of complexity because the more complex the worker the more complex will be the task of identification, development and evaluation and consequently the more intricate the motivation 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 groups could be recalibrated and utilised. The third challenge identified by Despres and Hiltrop however provides a clue to the radical nature of the change in management philosophy required suggesting that at a fundamental level the organisation must be designed specifically for the management of knowledge workers. Drucker (1993) provides another clue to the puzzle by proposing that knowledge workers cannot be supervised effectively because unless they know more about their speciality than anybody else in the organisation they are basically useless. This point suggests that the organisation cannot be designed around process, direct supervision and authoritarian control and cannot be managed around assimilated and centrally stored organisational knowledge as is advocated by scientific management. The key insight here is that the knowledge of use to the organisation is embodied in the individual and not embedded in the organisation. Bertels and Savage (1998, p. 15) recognise this stating: When knowledge becomes the dominant resource we must face the fact that the worker is the owner of the resource. These points suggest that the management of knowledge workers must begin at the fundamental level and organisation must therefore be designed with the objective of making best use of embodied knowledge within the individual and not with the objective of extraction of this knowledge for assimilation into the organisation. This view is echoed by Frenkel et al. (1999) who describe four categories of management control where the correct type of control is identified through analysis on two axes. The first axis is management knowledge of the labour process and the second axis is the ability of management to measure the output of the worker. With knowledge workers both management knowledge of the labour process and its ability to measure output are low suggesting that the most suitable control strategy for knowledge workers is self-control. This indicates the organisation must not only be designed to accept the knowledge of the worker but, more radically, be designed with the worker as the consideration around which the rest of the organisation must fit. The criticality of the fit between organisational design and knowledge worker is best summarised by Despres and Hiltrop (1995) who propose that knowledge generating positions need to be designed around people and their talents because the individual involved will uniquely define the contour of the work, therefore the individual who carries the knowledge must be considered the key factor in the organisations design. If organisations are to be designed with the knowledge worker as the prime consideration the traditional machine organisations that have been in use for many years must be rejected and replaced 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 which support the dynamic teaming of ever-changing constellations of capable individuals. Quinn et al. (1996) support this idea suggesting an inversion of the traditional

Introducing Taylor

27

ER 35,1

28

hierarchy to create a structure with knowledge workers at the peak and management layers existing beneath to supply and support them. It has further been suggested that the network is the most appropriate organisational type (Frenkel et al., 1999; Castells, 1996). Warhurst and Thompson (1998) concur proposing that hierarchies will be replaced by networks and vertical division of labour replaced by horizontal co-ordination based on collaboration between technical and professional groups who retain authority over their own work. Some authors have proposed variations and refinements on these themes including Blackler (1995) who suggests that organisations can be further structured around types of knowledge and more controversially Applegate (1996) suggests that hybrid organisations combining characteristic of both networks and bureaucracies are desirable. Lastly Frenkel et al. (1998, p. 958) proposes the term Mass Customised Bureaucracy to describe an organisational type that is becoming more common in contemporary organisations. This type of organisation combines the process of bureaucracy with the other 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) neatly summarises this position proposing that command and control structures should be replaced with the correct fit between knowledge and responsibility. These arguments can be distilled to three areas. First, the organisation must be designed with the knowledge worker as the key consideration with all stakeholders and systems working in support. Second, the operation of the organisation must focus on communication and co-ordination rather than command and control because direct supervision of knowledge workers is difficult so implementing an organisational design that relies upon a vertical hierarchy is impractical. Therefore a hierarchical structure must be replaced by a flat structure that is enabled (not controlled) by high levels of communication. Third, the work of the organisation must satisfy the increased intrinsic 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, knowledge workers should be managed as vessels for carrying knowledge and second as the physiological person. Therefore if knowledge workers themselves are the basis upon which the organisation should be designed their characteristics must be understood in more detail. Characteristics of the knowledge worker Root-Bernstein (1989) proposes that knowledge workers dislike bureaucracies, resent administration and work most creatively when satisfying curiosity. In addition Rosenbaum (1991) cites the characteristics of knowledge workers as autonomy, significant drives for achievement, stronger affiliation with a profession than a company and sense of self-direction. Despres and Hiltrop (1995) conclude that knowledge workers will resist the authoritarian impositions of rules and structures and thrive upon empowerment and self-management and accept a more collegial leadership style. Inglehart and Abramson (1995) in their post-materialism thesis suggest knowledge workers are interested in the intrinsic achievement challenge rather than extrinsic reward or remuneration. These points indicate authoritarian methods of management are unlikely to be effective when applied to this group. This is true for two reasons; first, authoritarian

methods would apply rules and structures that would be resented by the group; and second, direct supervision is impossible as knowledge workers, to maintain their value, must always know more about their task than any other group. This suggests autonomy 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 the objective of the organisation must be to encourage and not stifle these attributes. Therefore three characteristics that should be considered when managing knowledge workers can be identified. First, the level of process control must be low as the worker would object to high levels of control and management would be unable to impose it. Second, the level of worker empowerment must be high, defined here as being given decision-making control over all things within the work process that directly affects the way in which knowledge workers discharge their responsibilities. Third, organisational infrastructure must enable a high degree of autonomy because to gain the most from the knowledge worker they must be given the freedom to work as they 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 and creativity are dominant over the needs for repetition and uniformity. This is neatly summarised by Starbuck (1992, p. 727) in his statement that highly educated experts dislike bureaucracy most experts want autonomy, recognition of individuality and their firms to have egalitarian structures. However on the subject of bureaucracy there is something of a historical analogy as Clegg (1994) has noted that the ideas underpinning the implementation of bureaucracy were borne of early attempts to make organisations more flexible. This point illustrates that bureaucracy was an early recognition of the need for process implementation to optimise the output of the worker. Therefore it is argued that despite the peculiarities of knowledge work the basic characteristics of a management system for knowledge workers are similar to those of management systems for all types of worker. First, managing workers to make the most 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 the discussion full circle where it seems knowledge workers, despite their nature, should be managed in the most efficient way possible using the same principles proposed by Taylor. Further proposals have been presented that attempt to combine the needs of the knowledge worker with the requirement for an efficient management system. Zuboff (1988) in describing the management of, in his terminology, the informated organisation 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 is based around creative, information and people-focused activity involving intellective and social skills rather than routine activity. Management cedes more control over the work processes to the worker and requires strategies to ensure reciprocated trust. This translates to increased discretion over task allocation and execution but still limits worker influence over organisation strategy and structure.

Introducing Taylor

29

ER 35,1

30

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; and responsible autonomy (Friedman, 1977) which endorses the use of a less controlling management system and indicates that autonomy requires a degree of additional responsibility to be borne by the worker group with additional power reciprocated by a higher level of responsibility for the outcome. Taylorism and knowledge work From this discussion four factors emerge that should be taken into consideration in managing knowledge workers. These are; first, a division of labour must be utilised to make best use of the capabilities of the worker; second, a low level of process control must 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 high level of autonomy must be granted to the knowledge worker in the execution of his/her activities. Therefore the key to understanding the relationship between scientific management and knowledge work is in analysing each of these factors. Division of labour Possibly the main factor contributing to the shape of the labour process is increasing fragmentation of task resulting in repetitious work. This was first described in the pinmaking example of Adam Smith (1982), then embodied most famously in the mass production techniques of Fordism and more recently found in service activities labelled as Macdonaldisation by Ritzer (1993, 1997). This fragmentation of task was made desirable as it allowed organisations to achieve greater efficiency by increasing task repetition. It has been observed that the main effect on the worker of this type of activity restriction has been deskilling caused by; first, the lack of opportunity for the worker 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 to execute have become less abundant. Although no direct equivalent of the skilled worker exists in more recent service jobs the deskilling effect is still in evidence where the service worker is prevented from becoming accomplished in more than a few simple tasks. Therefore, in general, whether the basis of work activity is manual or non-manual deskilling occurs. Within knowledge work, division of labour is also apparent. Here, similar to other work, it leads to increasing specialisation. However in this arena the deskilling effect is not the result. This is because the strength of the knowledge worker remains and is amplified in the depth of knowledge within a narrower area rather than breadth of knowledge across a wider area. This is evidenced in the increasing value placed on workers knowledgeable in particular areas of specialisation. Indeed this effect is coined by the term specialist applied in, for example, medicine to denote someone who has reached the pinnacle of their profession through restricting their field to a specific knowledge area. In effect as more is discovered in each field of endeavour areas of expertise become increasingly differentiated so redrawing the boundaries of what constitutes an area of expertise. Toffler (1970) notes this trend and adds that in addition to the creation of new occupations based upon different specialisations this trend will also tend to shorten the lifecycle of many occupations as advances make occupations that are based upon technologies or social trends obsolete.

Comparing the effects of specialisation within non-knowledge work and the effects of specialisation within knowledge work it is proposed that the reason for specialisation within each arena is similar as the common objective is the most efficient 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 knowledge carrying capability. This leads to further fragmentation of the body of knowledge so creating further specialisms. Therefore the drive for efficiency leads to specialisation and division of labour. This drive is similar within both knowledge work and non-knowledge work however the effect of the division of labour on the individual worker is quite different with deskilling and repetition the result in non-knowledge work but increased depth of knowledge and retained task variety the result in knowledge work. The ideal result to be reached is the equilibrium point at which the division of activity within a particular pursuit is such that the overall task is most efficiently carried out without creating inefficiency through either first, bounded rationality, or second, overly dividing the task leading to increased reliance on unnecessary and wasteful co-ordination between workers. Process The second factor present in organisations since the introduction of scientific management has been the removal of knowledge from the worker and its assimilation into the organisation. This was initially due to the need of organisations to remove the craft knowledge from skilled workers and build it into processes in manufacturing. While more recently this osmosis of knowledge has not always been as evident with many generations of workers existing in environments where the organisation has always owned 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 no knowledge of either the process or product. However within knowledge work the knowledge can only be deployed effectively by the knowledge carrier because if it is removed from the worker it is reduced from the state of knowledge to the less-valuable states of information or data (Bohn, 1994; Boiset and Canals, 2004). Figure 1 summarises the similarities and differences that are found when a common stimulus, the drive for increased efficiency, is applied in both knowledge work and
Labour process effects on knowledge workers Fragmentation of knowledge Retention of knowledge by worker Increased specialisation Division of knowledge Co-ordinative control Separation of conception and execution Fragmentation of task Labour process effects on non-knowledge workers Assimilation of knowledge into the organisation Division of labour Process control Retained variety of work Increased depth Depth of knowledge Increased worker value to organisation Reduced variety of work Further limiting of knowledge Decreased worker value to organisation

Introducing Taylor

31

Drive for increased efficiency

Figure 1. Labour process effects

ER 35,1

32

non-knowledge work. With the application of this stimulus to knowledge work (aided by the effect of bounded rationality) the knowledge base will fragment creating a 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 set is not restricted by separation of conception and execution or creation of a division of labour based on fragmentation of task. This worker will be more empowered and should be managed through co-ordination. This overall result serves to enhance the value of the worker to the organisation. However in contrast in the case of non-knowledge work there is no embodied knowledge base to protect the individual worker. Any small amount of retained knowledge will be assimilated into the organisation. This allows the evolution of a division of labour based upon the creation of a process that can be executed by less-skilled workers (or ultimately machines) as the knowledge base that allowed the conception of the process is now held by the organisation. This effect then leads to a further decrease in knowledge held by the non-knowledge worker, further limitation of task variety and increased task repetition. Finally these effects make the non-knowledge worker less valuable to the organisation. Therefore in conclusion division of labour can be found in both non-knowledge work and knowledge work however the outcome for the worker is different. Autonomy and empowerment Within knowledge work autonomy becomes endemic to the activities of the worker as they are the owners of the knowledge base and so cannot be directly supervised. In addition, as the owners of knowledge, these workers are the most appropriate workers to make decisions about the work so empowerment is 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 even if autonomy was granted by the organisation. In addition the worker has neither the knowledge nor the need to be empowered. Therefore to make the best use of the knowledge worker, autonomy and empowerment must become part of the knowledge workers job as this worker can operate in no way other than autonomously and is the most practical choice to be empowered to take certain decisions. With the non-knowledge worker the worker has neither the capability to work autonomously nor the knowledge to take decisions. Therefore autonomous working cannot be carried out 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 efficiency different 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 and this is still towards division of labour, however the effects are different. With simpler tasks the drive is efficiency gained by dexterity through repetition so leading to a point where all variety is replaced with uniformity. While in more complex knowledge work the drive for efficiency leads to narrow and deep specialisms that enhance the value of the knowledge worker to the organisation and prohibit the assimilation of this knowledge into the organisation. The difference between the process of knowledge work and that of non-knowledge work again rests on the different treatment of knowledge.

Conclusions The aim of this paper is to analyse the usefulness of scientific management in the management of contemporary knowledge work where the central tension exists around 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 the worker becoming subordinate to the process. Conversely it is clear that for the knowledge worker to be valuable they must own and indeed protect (Boreham, 1983) their knowledge assets. While in general the effect of scientific management is the deskilling of work and increased division of labour this analysis suggests that, under certain conditions mainly in knowledge-intensive work, the effect is more complex. Division of labour as an outcome of the application of scientific management is present in both knowledge work and non-knowledge work. In knowledge work it results in a specialist with a deeper command of a narrower domain of knowledge while conversely 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 it should be employed as a co-ordinative rather than control mechanism. Knowledge workers must be empowered to use the knowledge that they possess and be able to act autonomously or the value of their knowledge will never be unlocked. Without empowered and autonomous working the knowledge worker is essentially worthless. Therefore this synthesis concludes that scientific management and knowledge work are compatible. The application of scientific management to knowledge-intensive work in pursuit of efficiency results in broadly the same effect as its application to other types of work. The difference is in the outcome for the worker where knowledge retention in the form of specialism and more autonomy enabled by flexible process results. This suggests that scientific management is compatible with knowledge work but 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 best from the worker as a knowledge carrier rather than extraction of this knowledge for assimilation into the process. Therefore it is proposed here that scientific management should not be thrown out to make way for a fundamentally different management control system to underpin the organisation of work in the knowledge economy. Its principles apply as much within contemporary knowledge work as they did within early manual work. The central
Labour process effects on knowledge workers Fragmentation Of knowledge Drive for increased efficiency Assimilation of knowledge into the organisation Retention of knowledge by worker Increased specialisation Division of knowledge Co-ordinative control Separation of conception and execution Fragmentation of task Labour process effects on non-knowledge workers Division of labour Process control Retained variety of work Increased depth Depth of knowledge Increased worker value to organisation Reduced variety of work Further limiting of knowledge Decreased worker value to organisation Decreased empowerment and autonomy Increased empowerment and autonomy

Introducing Taylor

33

Figure 2. Labour process effects extended

ER 35,1

34

issue is in the customisation of the scientific management system around the worker rather than the customisation of the worker around the system of scientific management. 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, Taylor encouraged the scientific selection and development of men, in the knowledge economy the vital knowledge-rich asset that is the knowledge worker must be found and nurtured to ensure best performance. Second, Taylor called for the intimate co-operation of management and workers. Within knowledge work this resonates most strongly as the drawing of the correct line between the separation of conception and execution is the key factor representing a far more delicate balance than that required in the management of other types of work. Therefore this suggests that, even at this empirical level, scientific management has some relationship with knowledge 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 labour process 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 with ambiguity, 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, in Desanctis, 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 pursuit of 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 team taylorism, in Warhurst, C. and Thompson, P. (Eds), Workplaces of the Future, Macmillan Press, Basingstoke, pp. 163-83. Barrett, R. (2001), Labouring under an illusion? The labour process of software development in the Australian information industry, New Technology, Work and Employment, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 18-34. Beirne, M., Ramsey, H. and Panteli, A. (1998), Developments in computing work: control and contradiction 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, Basic Books, New York, NY. Bertels, T. and Savage, C.M. (1998), Tough questions on knowledge management, in Von 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 activity systems 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 and interpretation, Organization Studies, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 1021-46.

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 the Comprehensive 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 help explain the experiences of state social workers in Britain since 1971, Organization, Vol. 16 No. 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 the Knowledge Worker, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, pp. 3-21. Crompton, R. (1990), Professions in the current context, Work, Employment and Society, Vol. 4 No. 5, pp. 147-66. Darr, A. and Warhurst, S. (2008), Assumptions and the need for evidence: debugging debates about 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, Radical America, 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: trends towards knowledge work and info-normative control, Work, Employment & Society, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 773-96. Frenkel, S., Korczynski, M., Shire, K. and Tam, M. (1998), Beyond bureaucracy? Work organization in call centres, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 6 No. 6, pp. 957-79.

Introducing Taylor

35

ER 35,1

36

Frenkel, S., Korczynski, M., Shire, K. and Tam, M. (1999), On the Front Line: Organization of Work 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, European University Institute, Italy. Korczynski, M. (2001), The contradictions of service work: call centre as customer oriented bureaucracy, 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 in the 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 management implementation, 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. and Tolbert, P.S. (Eds), The Oxford Handbook of Work and Organization, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, pp. 242-61. Mandt, E. (1978), Managing the knowledge worker of the future, Personnel Journal, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 138-41. Milgram, R.M. (1990), Creativity: an idea whose time has come and gone?, in Runco, M.A. and Albert, 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 knowledge creation, 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.

Polanyi, M. (1967), The Tacit Dimension, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London. Pruijt, H. (2003), Teams between neo-taylorism and anti-taylorism, Economic and Industrial Democracy, 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 Business School Press, Boston, MA, pp. 181-206. Reed, M.I. (1996), Expert power and control in late modernity: an empirical review and theoretical 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 Associate Professionals, 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. 34 No. 2, pp. 30-5. Scarselletta, M. (1997), The infamous lab error: education, skill, and quality in medical technicians work, in Barley, S.R. and Orr, J.E. (Eds), Between Craft and Science, Cornell University Press, New York, NY, pp. 187-249. Simon, H. (1991), Bounded rationality and organizational learning, Organization Science, Vol. 2 No. 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. 14 No. 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 Policy Dimensions, 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 of Management 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 at the end of the century, in Thompson, P. and Warhurst, C. (Eds), Workplaces of the Future, Macmillan Press, Basingstoke, pp. 1-24.

Introducing Taylor

37

ER 35,1

38

Warhurst, C. and Thompson, P. (2006), Mapping knowledge in work: proxies or practices, Work Employment and Society, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 787-800. Winch, G. and Schneider, E. (1993), Managing the knowledge based organization: the case of architectural 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 and Occupations, 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 contemporary organizations, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 851-62. Brinkley, I. (2008), The Knowledge Economy: How Knowledge is Reshaping the Economic Life of Nations, 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: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints