Van Heghe, Addleson, and North and Gueldenberg

Citation

Downs, A. (2013), "Van Heghe, Addleson, and North and Gueldenberg", Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 26 No. 2. https://doi.org/10.1108/jocm.2013.02326baa.001

Van Heghe, Addleson, and North and Gueldenberg

Article Type: Comparative review From: Journal of Organizational Change Management, Volume 26, Issue 2

Knowledge Centric ManagementHans Van HegheEcademy Press2011

Beyond Management: Taking Charge at WorkMark AddlesonPalgrave Macmillan Press2011

Effective Knowledge Work: Answers to the Management Challenges of the 21st CenturyKlaus North and Stefan GueldenbergEmerald Group Publishing2011

Twenty years ago, Drucker (1993) suggested that the relationship between knowledge and wealth creation was changing. That is, although the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries emphasized wealth creation from tools, wealth creation in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries depends on knowledge and “knowledge workers.” The capital of knowledge workers is knowledge! Coincident with the change in wealth creation are changes in the nature of “management.” So, Von Krogh (2011), among others, asks, “Can knowledge workers be managed?”. If one wished to survey different responses to this question, what might one read? Three alternatives are reviewed here. The first is Knowledge Centric Management by Hans Van Heghe; the second is Beyond Management: Taking Charge at Work by Mark Addleson; the third is Effective Knowledge Work: Answers to the Management Challenges of the 21st Century by Klaus North and Stefan Gueldenberg

Hans Van Heghe introduces his book by observing that “we live and work in a knowledge economy” (p. vii). The objectives of his book are to:

1. 1.

   provide knowledge on knowledge management;

2. 2.

   share his “lessons learned”;

3. 3.

   provide a framework for helping the reader’s organization implement knowledge management; and

4. 4.

   explain a “pragmatic approach (and technology) to set up Knowledge Management fast and easily” (p. viii).

According to Van Heghe, “Knowledge teaches us what is possible; experience teaches us what is impossible” (p. 26). Hence, to meet objectives (1) and (2), he provides an overview of knowledge (specifically, creating validated information, interpreting information, and disseminating information) and, then, gives his readers “lessons learned.” Among his lessons are suggestions to “accept chaos” (p. 38), because people act differently and structure information differently, and to consider JERI, “Just Enough Relevant Information” (p. 40). Like the lessons learned, Van Heghe’s framework for knowledge management derives from his experience as an industrial engineer who has a background in information technology. The framework (p. 56) includes four domains: knowledge preparation and know-how; knowledge organization perspective; knowledge worker perspective; and knowledge management context and supporting areas. So, for example, he explains that the knowledge worker is burdened by too much information, too little knowledge, and lost knowledge (p. 61). To ease the burdens of the knowledge worker, Van Heghe proposes JERI, which can be achieved by TiNK, “Transferring Information aNd Knowledge.” TiNK offers a question-driven approach to knowledge management: the TiNK 4U approach promised in Van Heghe’s fourth objective.

The strength of Van Heghe’s book lies in his experience. Given his experience, Van Heghe is able to provide “lessons learned.” With each chapter, he is able to provide “personal experiences and reflections.” My guess is that his writing style draws, too, upon his experience. His style tends to be that of a technical writer who prefers lists; for example, he provides three elements of “working with knowledge”; seven items of “potential knowledge issues”; and seven items of “solving knowledge issues” (pp. 26-27). He offers advice and examples regarding the quantification of knowledge management value. Moreover, he provides additional insight regarding knowledge management on his website: http://www.knowledge-centric-management.com/index.php. Like the book’s strengths, its weaknesses are probably attributable to Van Heghe’s technical background and experience. As is apparent in the preceding discussion of the book, Van Heghe makes prodigious use of acronyms: JERI, TiNK, and TiNK 4U, as well as ERP, CRM, IT, BRICS, CEO, ICT, HR, KM, R&D, BPM, FLOOW, COPs, CMM, CIMM, SEI, PMI, etc. At times, the acronyms overwhelm the text and, thus, efforts to communicate the fruits of Van Heghe’s experience flounder.

Does Van Heghe think that knowledge workers can be managed? He writes, “Knowledge Management is NOT about managing knowledge. Knowledge Management is more about managing organisations from a different perspective” (p. 35). If Mark Addleson engaged in a discussion with Van Heghe, Addleson – author of Beyond Management- – would likely engage in a bit of contretemps. Addleson, I suspect, would object to Van Heghe’s description of “managing organisations” because, as Addleson says, “It’s the zing not the zation that really counts” (p. 150). Addleson writes about “organizing” rather than “managing” an “organization.”

According to Addleson, “As pretty much everyone is a knowledge worker nowadays, we’d better do something about this. The question is what. Drucker only hints at knowledge-work being a game-changer. He doesn’t explain why or tell us how to deal with the fact that management practices are ubiquitous and deeply entrenched” (p. 2). Addleson’s book explains what he thinks we should do “about this”: i.e., overthrow “management” in order to advance to “organizing.” According to him, “management” originated in a world of factory work and is incompatible with knowledge-work: “Knowledge-work marks the end of the production line, which means, too, it is the end of the line for management” (p. 5). What will replace top-down management with its “documentation, data, directives, deliverables, deadlines, and dollars”? (p. 7). For Addleson, the world of knowledge-work requires an examination of the work of “organizing” rather than “managing,” and he explains that “managing” is an “outside” view of work, whereas “organizing” requires a look “inside” the complex, collaborative practices of knowledge workers.

What organizing methods does Addleson recommend? Methods, he says, must exhibit “agility” and “care” (p. 113). Addleson provides an example from rugby. One such method is “scrum,” which he explains is a rugby term and describes a collective action. A scrum forms when players “bind together (i.e., interlock) to take possession of the ball and gain some ground” (p. 118). Addleson compares scrum to the software development process, in which developers collaborate with each other and with clients in order to create software. According to Addleson, “[Knowledge workers] need practices that both encourage and support people’s efforts to align, so they can work together to get good results, even when they aren’t sure what to do and in spite of obstacles and boundaries between them” (p. 119). For Addleson, scrum is an “agile” practice; moreover, he explains that “care” is the “secret ingredient of agile practices” and the “metaphorical ‘glue’ in social relationships” (pp. 120-21). Knowledge workers must care about their work and about each other. In addition to the rugby example, Addleson provides the example of communities of practice. According to Addleson, communities of practice “manage themselves” and their motivation comes from within the community – not from top-down, outside management targets. For Addleson, organizing requires a “a shift in values, to openness and showing care, both for the people we work with and for the things we do” (p. 134). Organizing requires “aligning”: i.e., openness, commitments, and accountability (p. 154).

Clearly, for Addleson, top-down management of knowledge-workers is anathema. Similarly for Klaus North and Stefan Gueldenberg, authors of Effective Knowledge Work, “Knowledge-oriented leadership can never occur in the form of centralised management” (p. 70). Like Addleson, North and Gueldenberg advocate for a decentralized, “distributed leadership” (p. 70). What do North and Gueldenberg add to the debate about “organizing” knowledge workers? As explained in the forward by Richard Straub, their book is “ highly geared towards application and practice with numerous case studies” (p. x). Their applications and case studies offer insight.

Chapter 2, “Managing and measuring knowledge workers,” and Chapter 3, “Resources for effective knowledge work,” provide examples of their applications and case studies. In Chapter 2, North and Gueldenberg offer examples of shortcomings of existing performance measurement systems: “We too often measure the wrong thing”; “Too often measure using the wrong scale”; “We do not measure what is important”; and “We measure without realising why” (pp. 81-83). After evaluating various methods to measure and increase the productivity of knowledge workers, North and Gueldenberg remind readers that efficiency (i.e., measurement of performance) is not sufficient; effectiveness must also be considered. Hence, in Chapter 3, they consider the resources necessary for effective work. For example, they point out issues of stress and burnout among knowledge workers and explain IBM’s “people-oriented work design” (POWR). Designed to identify inefficient processes and, then, identify solutions, POWR allows participants to identify root causes of problems and develop as well implement action plans; such plans begin by identifying the “quick wins”: problems that can be solved quickly with limited time and effort (p. 117). The Chapter includes a questionnaire that assesses risks of burnout (p. 114). Chapter 3 also includes short case studies from British Telecom and General Electric, as well as IBM and other knowledge-work entities.

North and Gueldenberg conclude their book with “a few pragmatic suggestions” (pp. 204-206). They urge workers to develop “ideal” concepts. In other words, knowledge workers first develop the ideal and, then, compare it to the real in order to develop solutions for improvement. They urge each worker to know “what I want.” Such knowing includes knowing how to maintain “sovereignty” over time, taking time to reflect on “what went well” and “where do we need to improve,” and regularly practicing sports or hobbies. Finally, North and Gueldenberg urge knowledge workers to seek the support of the community: i.e., know whom to ask for help. These suggestions are “pragmatic,” and I like that pragmatism as well as the tone of suggestions rather than commands. I expect that Addleson would agree to the pragmatic suggestions of North and Gueldenberg, who (like Addleson) seem to stress the “zing” rather than the “zation.”

I return to my introductory question: “Can knowledge workers be managed?” (Von Krogh, 2011). Although disagreeing with each other in part, the authors of the books reviewed here would probably answer in the negative. Knowledge workers can probably be organized and coached, but not managed. Among the knowledge workers are university professors, and I am one of those workers. I acknowledge the university’s need to organize, and I appreciate very much the support of colleagues and hope that I collaborate well. I think that Van Heghe, Addleson, North, and Gueldenberg provide helpful directions for organizing knowledge workers. Having recommended their books, I would like to add one caveat. All four authors probably agree that “pretty much everyone is a knowledge worker nowadays” (Addleson, p. 2). However, I take issue with that statement. Some workers still use tools, though robots assist the workers. For example, the Wall Street Journal reports on the in-house production work at Lenovo (Chao, 2012). Why this caveat? Knowledge work should not necessarily be privileged over other work, and the tools of management should not necessarily be disposed.

Alexis Downs