the key resources for sustainable competitive advantage, attention is focused on
the management of knowledge workers. There has, however, been a tendency
to mystify knowledge work and subsequently the management of knowledge
workers. Some of this mysticism, attached to the symbolic-analytic nature of
knowledge production, is justiWed but if we are to better understand the ‘science’
of knowledge worker management, we need to be a lot clearer about knowledge
working and knowledge workers.
A comprehensive model of knowledge workers and knowledge working that
takes the institutional environment into account is needed. One possibility is to
build on the work of May et al. ( 2002 ), which takes into account the market-based
model of knowledge working as well as the dual-dependent relationship between
knowledge workers and the organization. This can be extended to understand the
interrelationship between the nature of the knowledge environment and the
process of knowledge production.
A key weakness in the current literature is the tendency to lump all knowledge
workers together as if they were one big occupational category. There is a real need to
disentangle the knowledge worker category. It might be beneWcial to take a close look
at the knowledge classiWcation developed by Blackler ( 1995 ) for types of organizations
and extend this classiWcation to types of knowledge workers. This would mean taking
account of Scarbrough’s ( 1999 ) view that one can only be considered a knowledge
worker if one engages in knowledge working. A more detailed approach to the
possible categories of knowledge workers would be useful in understanding which
HR practices have an impact on their motivation, commitment, and satisfaction.
The key tensions referred to in this chapter provide a fruitful avenue for future
research and practice. We need to know more about the tensions between employer
and employee in the value appropriation process. This also represents an area for
research on reward practices. Are there diVerent ways of rewarding and recognizing
knowledge workers for the direct applicability of their intellectual capital to the
client problem? Which reward strategies will better meet the appropriation needs
of theWrm and the reward goals of the individual or teams of knowledge workers?
The possible management of knowledge worker identiWcation provides a
further opportunity for research. Social identity theory can usefully be applied to
knowledge-rich settings. One particular area that needs attention is the question of
competing identities. How can we understand the dynamic interplay between the
various identities? Should, and indeed can, organizations manage the multiple
identities of the knowledge worker?
Finally, management practitioners need to both retain and develop their know-
ledge workers. This challenge is intimately linked to their skill development focus.
Should aWrm develop organization-speciWc skills to gain advantage in the market
place or should the Wrm focus more on transferable skills, thereby fulWlling
the employability need of its knowledge workers? To answer this question, a better
understanding of the nature of the skills involved in knowledge work is needed.
hrm and knowledge workers 465