HumaneIA

Steve Collins wrote the following:

Shawn Callahan of Anecdote argues that the need for the term knowledge worker is redundant now that technology is ubiquitous in the developed world and that almost every worker trades in knowledge of some sort. He sees its use as a way to discriminate between identified knowledge workers and those whose roles are not traditionally viewed this way:

It’s an dark undercurrent and tacitly becomes a basis for discrimination. “Our salespeople are knowledge workers but our gas fitters are not.” I suspect this feeling of superiority comes from the erroneous data-information-knowledge model where knowledge (and even more ridiculously, wisdom) sits at the pinnacle of the pyramid.

I see where Shawn is going with his argument, particularly in developed nations. But I agree with Matthew Hodgson, who puts forth an alternative position that Shawn’s views are misplaced. Matthew argues that Shawn misses an opportunity to communicate an understanding of knowledge work outward from the insider community to the larger workforce and organisational management who don’t necessarily label themselves as knowledge workers - “Oh, no! I work in marketing/HR/finance/logistics/whatever.”

This is the story so far as I can tell:

• Shawn sees every worker as a knowledge worker and worries about discrimination against perceived non-knowledge workers.
• Matt is worried about over-generalisation that implies an under-specialisation of the knowledge worker role, and what might happen in a world without knowledge workers.
• Steve is worried that people might read Shawn’s post and think that identified knowledge workers are no longer necessary.

Generally speaking, these guys know what they are on about. All three are respected within their own fields of endeavour. By the tone of the three posts, we can probably guess that Shawn doesn’t identify as a knowledge worker - but Matt and Steve do, and are looking to defend the distinct identity of the term.

There is a discrimination, if subtle, against non-knowledge workers by those who see themselves as being different. I’ve seen it.  Wherever one profession sets themselves above another, there are territorial disputes - this piece of the project is mine, that is yours, don’t touch. Following the example set in IA recon, I think that the defenders of the concept need to separate knowledge worker as a role from knowledge work as an activity - then they may find more common ground with people like Shawn (and I) who see the role as devalued but the activity as essential.