where the task is to ‘shape the behaviors of people and create an environment that
enables them to take initiative, to co-operate and to learn.’ The management of
knowledge workers has been compared to conducting a symphony orchestra
(Mintzberg 1998 ) where the key role of the manager is creating an environment
for the harmoniousXow of knowledge.
In many employment situations, the management of the knowledge workers is
loosely structured withXuid project teams, rotation of leadership positions, and
low degrees of monitoring and control being present (Alvesson 1995 ). This often
Wts with employee needs for autonomy and self-directed development (Morris
2000 ). May et al. ( 2002 ) argue that the knowledge worker’s need for autonomy and
cutting-edge skill development can best be met by creating an ‘enclave’ organiza-
tional form: an independent section of experts within a larger organization. Inside
the enclave, a high degree of interdependence between knowledge workers with
complementary forms of knowledge is likely to prevail. The authors warn that this
enclave should not have absolute autonomy, but managerial control and market-
based mechanisms such as performance-based reward systems should be used to
focus knowledge workers’ eVorts on organizational and strategic objectives.
Given theXuid nature of both knowledge work and the organization of this
work, managers often seek to use ideological controls and strive to create a strong
sense of belonging, or a strong culture (Alvesson 1993 ). A process of establishing an
organizational identity (Mael and Ashforth 1995 ) helps an organization to erect
mobility barriers and goes some way toward tying valuable knowledge workers to
the organization. Small to medium-sized knowledge-basedWrms often beneWt from
a strong sense of shared identity at theWrm level. This is often because the owner-
manager is still present in theWrm and/or the majority of the original workforce
is still part of the organisation. In largerWrms, however, this sense of belonging
needs to be ‘manufactured’ by using individual performance and/or organizational
rewards (Alvesson 1993 ), establishing a variety of community-based activities
(Swart et al. 2003 ), and engaging in some cultural manipulation to inXuence how
knowledge workers view themselves and their relationship to theWrm.
Project-based work has without any doubt become the dominant form of
organizing knowledge work (Lam 2000 ) and a key organizational characteristic.
However, project-based working presents a danger because it is often the case that
knowledge workers build a strong sense of identiWcation with their project team,
which may replace their identiWcation with their organization. Furthermore, if the
team is client focused and client based, there is a strong possibility that valuable
competitive knowledge may leak out to the client and remain outside the bound-
aries of theWrm.
It is therefore important to think relationally when seeking to understand the
management of knowledge workers (Gulati et al. 2000 : 203 ; Granovetter 1973 ).
Knowledge-basedWrms often operate within larger knowledge networks where
they have frequent interaction with clients, partners, educators, and suppliers at
hrm and knowledge workers 457