What Really is a Knowledge-Intensive Firm?

Transcription

1 What Really is a Knowledge-Intensive Firm? - The Rise and Fall of an Organizational Category ABSTRACT The concept of a knowledge intensive firm (KIF) is seemingly an important category of organization that has received considerable attention from researchers. The underlying inference from the literature is that the KIF constitutes a category of organizations that is distinct and different from other organizational categories. The research reported in this paper explores how scholars have used the concept in their studies, analyzing how it is portrayed in the literature, and critiquing the implications that are drawn from these studies. We conclude that it does not qualify as a category as the literature cannot provide the distinctive characteristic that would set these firms apart from others. As categories are important for ordering reality and in shaping meaning, the consequence of our analysis surfaces a number of problems that this concept of the KIF raises, but also highlights the contribution of the research conducted under its banner for progressing our understanding of organizing in the so-called Knowledge Economy. We suggest that what is needed is not a better definition of a KIF, but a better understanding of classification systems and their underpinning assumptions that guide how we present research on knowledge in organizations. The concept of the KIF is presented as a bridging concept on the way to a fuller understanding of knowledge work and organizations. This is reflected in a marked reduction in studies conducted under the label of the KIF which leads to some profound observations. Keywords: Knowledge Intensive Firm, Knowledge, Knowledge Work, Categories, Innovation June, 2009

2 Introduction The notion that we have entered a new era in economic development where knowledge and information are the primary sources of value creation is widely established in the management literature (Bell 1973; Drucker 1993; Winter 1987). For well over twenty years now, it seems like knowledge has become an all-embracing term that has come to stand for all the magic that goes on within contemporary organizations, making them successful; an elusive, yet pervasive asset that cannot be seen or touched, that resides in people s heads as well as in the connections between them and embodied in people or embedded in texts or artifacts. Organizations are encouraged to strive to become knowing organizations (Choo 1998), knowledge companies (Stewart 1997; Sveiby 1997), knowledge-based businesses (Davis and Botkin 1994), knowledge-based organizations (Leonard-Barton 1995), knowledge-creating companies (Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995), or learning organizations (Senge 1994). The task many researchers in various disciplines have set for themselves has been, in one way or another, to uncover the mystery of knowledge or, as Durand (1998) expressed it, the search for organizational alchemy. This discourse on knowledge as key driver of wealth for organizations as well as nations, which we refer to as the Knowledge Economy Rhetoric, provides the context for the analysis in this paper. We believe the time has now come to take a step back, reflect on and take stock of the ideas and concepts that have been developed under the banner of the Knowledge Economy. What are the implications and consequences of these concepts for how we design, conduct and interpret research? How has this research contributed to our understanding of the conditions for and nature of work in contemporary organizations? In this paper we have chosen to focus specifically on the concept of the knowledgeintensive firm (KIF), a term that has become widely used in the organization sciences literature during the past fifteen years and now represents a category of organizations within scholarly research. A large body of research reported in the organization sciences literature has by now been devoted to investigating KIFs and generating findings that are relevant to this type of organization. The underlying inference from this literature is that the knowledge-intensive firm constitutes a category of organizations that is distinct 2

3 and different from other organizational categories. But is this actually the case? And if not, what are the implications for organizational research and the Knowledge Economy Rhetoric? According to the New Oxford Dictionary of English, a category is a class or division of people or things regarded as having particular shared characteristics. As such systems of classification are seen as important in ordering reality (Douglas 1987), they should be mutually exclusive and exhaustive (Doty and Glick 1994). By suggesting the existence of different categories for a particular phenomenon there is an implicit assumption that there are specific criteria and decision rules that enable the distinctions that underpin the categorization to be made (Doty and Glick 1994; McKelvey 1975). In organizational research, organizational categories provide a parsimonious framework for describing complex organization forms that allows research findings to be applied to a specific type of organization and not another. There is thus a relatively straight-forward lexical meaning of the word category, also reflected in our everyday folk theory, which tells us that categories are defined by common properties. This definition is based on a classical technical theory that has been with us for more than two thousand years (Lakoff 1987). However, there is also a much wider meaning of how we actually use categories, to a large degree unconsciously, in our everyday lives. Categorization is the process of understanding what something is by knowing what other things it is equivalent to and what other things it is different from (McGarty 1999) and is widely studied in both cognitive psychology and social psychology and in other areas such as linguistics and philosophy. Every living being categorizes. This is necessary for our brains to handle the enormous amounts of incoming information (Bowker and Star 1999; Lakoff and Johnson 1999; McGarty 1999; Tajfel and Forgas 1981). We all spend large parts of our days doing classification work, often tacitly, and we devise and use a range of ad hoc classifications to do so (e.g. sorting important s from e-junk). These guiding standards and categories, however imbricated in our lives, are ordinarily invisible but they are critical for how we attach meaning to situations, people and artefacts in our everyday lives (Bowker and Star 1999). 3

4 Not only how we construct categories, but also the labels we attach to them have consequences. The words that we use, and more importantly, how we use them and the meanings that thus become attached to them, actively construct a version of the social world. That is, they do not just describe things; they do things. And being active they have social and political implications (Potter and Weatherell 1987). According to Bowker and Star (1999) a category is therefore something in between a thing and an action. Classification systems can be seen as infrastructures that guide everyday sense making and behavior. Each standard and each category valorizes some point of view and silences another. This is not inherently a bad thing indeed it is inescapable but we need to become aware of these infrastructures to be able to see and analyze their effects. The knowledge-intensive firm as an organizational category can thus be analyzed from two perspectives. Firstly, in the lexical/technical sense of the term, i.e. from the point of view of classifying organizations or to classify research. This requires fulfilling certain criteria, essentially relating to the characteristics and delimitations of the category or classifications system. Secondly, by exploring the discursive effects of how the term is used. The particular words used to describe the category have implications for the meanings that are ascribed not only to the category, but also to the particular organizations under study as well as other organizations, people or institutions we relate to the category. Given the alleged importance of knowledge in management literature it is important to study how knowledge and knowledge-based concepts are used in organizational research. What are the infrastructures that guide how we as organization scholars make sense of our own research on knowledge in organizations and how we position it to the outside world? In this respect KIFs are particularly interesting as they are portrayed as contemporary organizations facing new challenges the kingpin and mainstay of the Knowledge Economy we have seemingly irrevocably entered. In this paper we analyze the organizational category of the the knowledge-intensive firm 1 as portrayed in the research literature and the implications thereof. We first critically examine the depiction of the knowledge intensive firm in the research 1 The purpose of this paper is to gain a better understanding of the meaning of organizations that are classified as knowledge-intensive and its implications. We therefore do not intend to debate the terms 4

5 literature, consider how authors define and describe the category and the firms belonging to it, as well as how the term is used in this literature. We then look at the implications of using the label KIF in terms of how it contributes to shaping meaning for researchers themselves and for other audiences as well as the underpinning assumptions that may have guided the construction of the KIF category. Finally we reflect on trajectory of the KIF concept and the role of knowledge-based concepts, such as the KIF, in the development of organizational theorizing. The knowledge-intensive firm in the research literature To undertake our research, we first identified potential papers to analyze by searching a number of online library databases using the keywords knowledge intensive firm, knowledge-intensive and knowledge intensive organization. We were keen that the journals we drew from came from the broad area of organization science and reflected a variety of editorial policies and reviewing processes in order to provide a cross section of contemporary research, aiming for a representative rather than comprehensive review. The abstracts of papers identified from this search were reviewed and potential articles to be included in our research database determined. These were then read in full. The 25 papers we ultimately selected are those that specifically ground, or claim to ground, the reported research in knowledge-intensive firms. To be included, these studies must also have referred explicitly to the KIF as a specific organizational category. Papers reporting research in professional service firms (PSFs) were discarded unless the terms PSF and KIF were used interchangeably. The research studies included in our analysis are presented in the Appendix. It summarizes the content of each paper by presenting the definition used to define a KIF, the organization(s) studied and the issues and topics explored in the reported research. Definitions and descriptions The most glaring observation from our examination of the literature is that despite the widespread usage and apparent acceptance of the concept of the knowledge-intensive organization, firm and company as this is outside of the scope of this paper, but rather use them interchangeably. 5

6 firm in the research literature, there is no obvious or widely used and agreed definition. From our survey we observe that different authors focus on different aspects and characteristics when describing knowledge-intensive firms, but with a clear objective of distinguishing them from other organizational types or, at the very least, suggesting that they represent a new category. With little consistency across empirical studies and vague definitions, the focus of the introductory preamble in many of the papers particularly the earlier studies is to justify the research site as a KIF. Two different perspectives, commonly used for classifications of firms, can be discerned in descriptions of KIFs: input and output perspectives. Characterizing the input perspective, Starbuck (1992) argues that the term knowledgeintensive imitates the economists labeling of firms as capital-intensive or laborintensive. These terms describe the relative importance of capital or labor as inputs to the production process. Labeling a firm as being knowledge-intensive would thus imply that knowledge has more significance than other inputs (i.e. capital and labor 2 ). Similarly, several other researchers also emphasize this aspect, usually expressing it in terms of knowledge, knowledge base and knowledge workers (Ditillo 2004; Donaldson 2001; Pina e Cunha 2001; Nurmi 1998) or communities with highly specialized expertise (Boland and Tenkasi 1995). In this vein, KIFs are characterized as organizations where well-educated and qualified employees form a major part of the work force and engage in mainly intellectual work (Alvesson 2000; Starbuck 1992). Nurmi (1998), for example, describes knowledge as the raw material for processing in knowledge-intensive firms, while Alvesson (2004) states that a strong knowledge base is a key feature of the KIF. In contrast to the input perspective, Sveiby and Riesling (1986) have written that knowledge-intensive firms sell knowledge while Blackler (1995) has described knowledge-intensive firms as staffed by a high proportion of highly qualified staff who trade in knowledge itself, with Alvesson (2004, p.17) writing that KIFs can be loosely and preliminary defined as organizations that offer to the market the use of fairly sophisticated knowledge or knowledge-based products, thus also including 2 Note that the term labor is used here within the context of classic economic theory, where labour is seen as an additive resource similar to other forms of capital i.e. workers are seen as interchangeable and that their production capacity can be measures in time units. 6

7 knowledge as the output of the production process. This perspective reflects the tradition with industrial classification schemes where organizations are grouped in industries by their outputs, and it is this logic that governs the widely acknowledged distinction between products and services. Indeed most authors use industries to exemplify what firms are included in the KIF category. While management and IT consulting are most commonly referred to (Alvesson 1995; Kärreman et al 2002; Morris, 2001; Morris and Empson 1998; Robertson and Swan 2003, 2004; Starbuck 1992) there is little consistency across empirical studies as to what industries can and perhaps more importantly, what industries cannot be included within the category. Most researchers tend to use what have traditionally been labeled professional service firms 3 as exemplars of KIFs (Sveiby and Riesling 1986; Starbuck 1992; Winch and Schneider 1993; Alvesson 1993, 2001; McGrath 2005; Morris 2001; Robertson and Swan, 2003) with case studies and practical descriptions focused on such organizations. Indeed, Morris (2001) uses both terms interchangeably. In a paper with Empson (Morris and Empson 1998) they use the term PSF to refer to organizations that trade mainly on the knowledge of its human capital, that is, its employees and the producer-owners, to develop and deliver intangible solutions to client problems (p. 610). Despite this, a number of scholars discuss the problematic overlap and confusion between the categories knowledge-intensive and professional services, concluding that there is a difference, stressing that knowledge-intensive firms are not necessarily professional services organizations (Alvesson 1995, 2000; Robertson and Swan 2003; Starbuck, 1992). Alvesson (2000) suggests that the term KIF is broader and does not emphasize the features ascribed to a typical profession, such as a code of ethics, standardized education and criteria for certification, a strong professional association (p. 1101). This theme is perhaps a reflection of the view that the traditional category of PSF has become less relevant as the importance of the professions has decreased, particularly as the main way of regulating abstract knowledge. Yet claims about the possession of knowledge are an important element in the constitution of professions and 3 Professional service firms have been defined as high contact organizations where customers spend a considerable time in the service process. Such service is seen as providing high levels of customization with the service process being highly adaptable in order to meet individual customer needs. They are also portrayed as being people based rather than equipment based, with staff given high levels of discretion. Examples often provided include those organizations involved in law, civil engineering, architecture, consulting, advertising, accounting and software production. See Lowendahl et al. (2001), Slack et al. (2001), Morris and Empson (1998), and Maister (1993). 7

8 professionalism (Grey 1998) just as knowledge also plays a central role in the constitution of KIFs. However, Morris and Empson (1998) argue that, although used in imprecise ways, the meaning of the term PSF has instead become widened today with many scholars, such as Alvesson (1993) and Starbuck (1993), using the terms KIF and PSF interchangeably. That services (as opposed to products) are the sole preserve of knowledge-intensive firms has also been challenged in the literature. Clegg et al. (1996) suggest that the notion of knowledge work should also be extended to more traditional forms of work, including manufacturing, while Styhre et al. (2002) and Kärreman et al. (2002) embrace pharmaceutical companies in their analysis of knowledge-intensive industries. So do Boland and Tenkasi (1995), who also emphasize firms involved in new product development in leading edge technologies. Alvesson (2004) adds hospitals, universities and investment bankers to the list; Horwitz et al. (2003) include government, with Swart and Kinnie (2003b) suggesting advertising agencies as typical examples of KIF, and even include a call centre in their analysis, based on the argument that such organizations perform knowledge work. In his study, Yinnon (1996) focuses on the plastics processing industry, which he describes as the manufacturing of high-value added products with characteristics that meet customers specifications. Referring to the production process as knowledge-intensive production, he points at requirements for a vast technological infrastructure, the need for services of experts, an educated labor force, R&D facilities, data bases and specialized trading companies for these firms. In addition, McGrath (2005) has argued the central people-based dilemmas explored in the KIF literature are not so new, and suggested that early medieval Irish monasteries have an impressive set of parallels with contemporary KIFs. It would be naive to suggest that definitions are as clear-cut as might be suggested above; while some researchers emphasize one viewpoint, many incorporate both perspectives in developing their position. However, most authors fall back on the logic of industry classifications when exemplifying what are KIFs. For example, Nurmi (1998) defines KIFs as those organizations that process what they know into knowledge products and services. Or, as proposed by Swart and Kinnie (2003a, p.61) the distinctive characteristics of KIFs are examined by considering the type of input, or capital, the type of work and the industry characteristics. These sweeping statements 8

9 are perhaps a reflection of the difficulty of separating input from output and process when analyzing knowledge work, but also an illustration the fuzziness of the concept. Yet, as stressed by Starbuck (1992), classifications grouping organizations by input differs from those grouping by output in terms of their usefulness for topic of study. Application of the KIF concept in the research literature What then do scholars use the term for? What is immediately apparent from our analysis is how broadly authors use the concept of the KIF in their studies. Taking a critical perspective Alvesson (1993, 2001) for example, reflects on the notion of a KIF and knowledge work, questioning the functionalist understanding of the nature and significance of knowledge. Some use the concept of a KIF as an umbrella term when discussing their research. For example, Lee (1999) suggests a taxonomy of HRM policies of knowledge-based firms. Others, and this represents the bulk of studies, treat the KIF as an organizational category for which their research findings are relevant. If there is a common thread in this literature, regardless of the definition of KIF or the organization studied, it is the emphasis placed on the reliance on people to perform intellectual work as opposed to manual labor. It is this premise that underpins much of the research in KIFs, which have been described as particularly good examples of contemporary forms of people dependent organizations (Robertson and Swan 2004, p. 124). KIFs are seen as operating under conditions that invalidate industrialbureaucratic forms of managerial control (Ditillo 2004; Kärreman et al. 2002) and consequently issues around structure and control are among the most common themes addressed by researchers. The dilemmas surrounding the balance between autonomy and control is a frequent research topic and it is generally argued that resolving such dilemmas lends itself to control based around normative processes and culture rather than around hierarchy and structure. Culture, identity and leadership are therefore among the common themes as well as the ability to manage relationships and interactions with clients and other external parties. 4 Most studies on KIFs use one, or perhaps two, case companies to illustrate the arguments put forth. It appears that the characteristics of the particular organization 9

10 under study, as well as the topics of interest in the study, guide authors descriptions of KIFs and their characteristics. For example, Starbuck s (1992) engineering firm Garden Company and law firm Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen and Katz 5 and Alvesson s (1995) Enator seems to shape each study s understanding of what is a KIF. Authors definitions of KIFs therefore tend to retrospectively borrow the characteristics of the empirical case companies studied; it thus becomes self-referential. Indeed, it is unclear as to whether empirical cases used as examples of KIFs by some authors would qualify as such by others. As an illustration, the issue of organizational size (critical given the themes typically addressed such as structure, control and identity) is treated very differently by scholars. Accordingly, is unlikely that Beta, the large, global consulting firm described in Kärreman et al. (2002) would be eligible as a KIF in Starbuck s (1992) terms as he claims that as they grow, organizations loose their knowledge-intensity. In contrast, Alvesson (2004, p. 1) writes that the term KIF relates to large firms employing substantial numbers of people, thus by implication dismissing the possibility of small boutique consulting firms being considered, presumably meaning that he would not regard Winch and Schneider s (1993) architectural practice or Robertson and Swan s (2003) Universal Consulting or Morris and Empson (1998) Valley Consulting as KIFs. A third contrasting position is taken by Swart and Kinnie (2003b), who contend that one of the key characteristics that distinguishes KIFs from more traditional organizational forms is their growth patterns. According to these authors, KIFs typically develop from an innovative idea addressing a niche market, but then tend to expand employment rapidly. Noting the inherent problems with the concept of knowledge in considering KIFs, Starbuck (1992) emphasizes esoteric expertise that is unique as a key characteristic of KIFs, while in contrast Winch and Schneider (1993) refer to some standardized intangibility as being of central concern in determining whether an organization is a KIF or not. In distinguishing an expert from a professional and deploying it as a key criteria in defining a KIF and to differentiate it from professional service firms, 4 See Appendix for a more detailed description of research topics. 5 Indeed, these are two very different firms, with clearly different organizational challenges. We suspect this might be the source of the contradictions in Starbuck s text, some of which are noted below. In addition, in his later study of law firm Wachtell (Starbuck 1993), he reports on his surprise of discovering that a law firm could indeed be a KIF, and thus had to modify his own idea of what is a KIF. 10

11 Starbuck (1992) is at odds with many scholars who include PSF within what they understand the concept of KIF as encompassing (c.f. Alvesson 2001; Donaldson 2001; McGrath 2005; Morris 2001; Morris and Empson 1998). However with this position, Starbuck (1992) seems to later contradict himself when he notes KIFs may be professional firms (p. 717). Despite these contradictions, authors do cite each other s work. This is confusing as the argumentation in a paper might covertly dismiss research by other scholars, essentially as their research site does not meet criteria laid down in the paper for a KIF. Yet that very same work is frequently drawn upon and often the reported research builds on the results of the dismissed papers. In addition, the intellectual inheritance of KIF research is limited to a few foundational papers, notably the work of Sveiby and Riesling (1986), Alvesson (1993, 2001), Starbuck, (1992, 1993) and Blackler (1995), but as illustrated above, these scholars do in fact have quite different conceptions of what is a KIF. When referenced, these studies are typically lumped together, often illegitimately. Several of the later studies use some of the core features from earlier foundational papers when defining KIFs, and then add additional features relevant for their own study. For example, Lee (1999) defines knowledge-based firms 6 as those that are staffed by a high proportion of highly qualified staff, referencing Alvesson (1993), Blackler (1995) and Starbuck (1992, 1993). On top of this, Lee adds that KIFs are typically involved intimately in research and development activities as well as a number of observations relating to the conditions for human resource management in KIFs (e.g. that KIFs typically outsource non-core processes, that job requirements change more often in KIFs than in not so knowledge intensive firms and that many KIFs have developed cultures and systems that support empowerment). However, for these observations Lee references other fields of literature. The publication outlet is a journal on innovation management and the focus of the paper is on HR practices. In a similar vein, Swart and Kinnie (2003a), studying knowledge sharing and HRM practices in KIFs, uses a similar core definition of KIFs and then add two more characteristics: that KIFs tend to have different growth patterns when compared with more traditional firms, and they emphasize the importance of market relations that KIFs 6 Like some other authors, Lee (1999) uses the terms KIF, knowledge-based firms, or knowledge firms interchangeably. 11

12 encounter. Not surprisingly, Swart and Kinnie specifically study growing KIFs and the impact of client relationships on HRM systems. With this line of reasoning, the KIF becomes a term to which almost any meaning can be attached. In addition, it is interesting to note that the foundational papers referred to above do not treat the KIF category as unproblematic, but spend considerable space discussing the problems inherent in the concept, sometimes even from a highly critical perspective. Yet, what is subsequently picked up from these papers by other authors are often not so much the problematic aspects of the category, but they are used as a reference to justify their own research site as belonging to the category of KIFs. So what can we conclude from this review? In summary, from the literature we have established that there is no set of characteristics or criteria that can permit the construction of a consistent and coherent category of organizations that is meaningfully distinct from other organization types. Simply by using the word intensive the term knowledge-intensive firm becomes vague by definition. Any evaluation of intensiveness is likely to meet with heated debate. Furthermore, no coherent or commonly agreed set of criteria crucial in differentiating across categories is given as to how distinctions are made; what should, and perhaps more to the point, what should not be included in this category? The KIF can therefore not be considered a category in the lexical/technical sense of the term and is thus not useful for classifying research. While providing material for debate and dialogue, the notion of a KIF does not help us in better understanding the characteristics of some relatively coherent and homogenous group of organizations with implications for their strategy and management. Yet, authors persistent in using the KIF category to report on their research. Though many authors seemingly take the meaning of KIFs for granted (thus treating it as unproblematic), or at least abstain from providing a definition, others are aware of the difficulties inherent in the KIF concept and indeed often highlight and discuss them in their papers. Winch and Schneider (1993), for example, note a remarkable heterogeneity among these organizations that seem to defy classification at first sight. Alvesson (2001) writes that the category does not lend itself to precise definition or delimitation and it includes organizations which are neither unitary nor unique, but still concludes that it makes sense to refer to KIFs 12

13 as a vague, but meaningful category, a position supported by both Newell et al (2002, p. 26) and Ditillo (2004). But how does it make sense? How does the KIF category shape meaning? While the above analysis reveals that the KIF is not a meaningful category in the lexical/technical sense of the term, it is clearly meaningful to the researchers that continue to use it. The popularity of the concept of the KIF indicates that it must be meaningful to other audiences as well. This leads us to consider the second perspective for analyzing categories: their discursive effects. Categories are active constructions imposed on the environment that affect our perception and interpretation of incoming information (Tajfel and Forgas 1981). Assigning things, people or their actions to categories is a ubiquitous part of everyday work life, and an essential tool for organizational theorizing. It is indeed so fundamental to how we make sense of the social and material world that we seldom stop to think about the assumptions or conceptual models that underpin the categories we use, or about their ethical, political or practical consequences. The usage of the KIF category is therefore not innocent as it affects the perception and interpretation of the research for other audiences. The use of an organizational category provides the illusion of pertaining to a particular set of firms with certain characteristics. How, then, does the KIF category contribute to shaping meaning for other audiences? The key to answering this question, we suggest, lies in examining the prevailing constructions of knowledge. It is, of course, beyond the scope of this article to conduct and in-depth discourse analysis of this vast and complex topic, and by no means do we claim to do so. Rather, we seek to highlight critical implications that emerged from such analysis, given the particular perspective chosen in this paper the role of categories and their implications for sense making. First, in order to understand the implications of the constructions of knowledge within the KIF literature, we need to understand the context for this discourse. As stated in the beginning of the paper, the impetus for this analysis, and thus its context, is the Knowledge Economy Rhetoric. According to the Knowledge Economy Rhetoric, which infuses all management disciplines today, knowledge is seen as the quintessential resource; the key to success, 13

14 which we have to learn to manage effectively. 7 Yet, as noted by Starbuck (1992), knowledge is almost as ambiguous an idea as value or importance. Indeed, the nature of knowledge is one of the key questions of philosophy. Plato and Aristotle produced vastly different theories of knowledge and philosophers today still disagree as vividly as ever about what knowledge is, about how you get it, and even about whether there is any to be gotten (Lehrer 2000). It is therefore not surprising that, within the organization science literature, knowledge is an all-embracing, and therefore somewhat empty, notion (Alvesson and Kärreman 2001). However, within the context of the rhetoric of the Knowledge Economy, the very word knowledge conjures a promise of insight, skill, prestige and power (Blackler 2002) and indeed there is a certain mystique associated with terms such as knowledge work and knowledge worker (Blackler 1995; Davenport et al. 2002). Knowledge work is associated with those who occupy a privileged position within the division of labor. Knowledge workers are understood to be highly qualified individuals who belong to, or form a distinct component of, an elite group of professional and managerial employees (Knights et al. 1993; Schultze 2000). As a consequence, conceptions about knowledge-intensive companies take over highly idealized views about professionals and the nature of knowledge (Alvesson 1993). If knowledge is power and a source of competitive advantage for commercial organizations, is it not better to be more rather than less knowledge-intensive? And if so, why would not all companies desire to be KIFs? Accordingly, the concept of a KIF itself has become politicized. The goal of the Lisbon Agenda, adopted by the European Council in 2000, is to make the EU the most dynamic and competitive knowledge-based economy in the world. At a country level, national governments have been promoting the importance of knowledge for success in a post-industrial economy. The rhetoric of politicians is dotted with reference to knowledge and the imperative to establish knowledge organizations. Research funds are made available for conducting research in knowledge-oriented domains. This can, we suspect, lead to a refocusing of research efforts, a repositioning of research or merely a re-labeling of research as being in more knowledge-intensive domains in order to fit 7 For a review, and indeed a rather typical example, of what we call the Knowledge Economy Rhetoric from an economic perspective, see Harris (2001). 14

15 in with calls for proposals. The knowledge economy is a key theme in the European Union s Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Framework research programmes. Accordingly, the knowledge-intensive firm becomes an attractive label for designating organizations being studied in research funding proposals. This inevitably adds to the current dilemma where the concept of a KIF is obligated to accommodate such a wide range of organizations. The KIF is typically portrayed as the flag bearer of the knowledge economy and so it becomes a symbol for the cutting-edge or leading organization. Such a term obviously stands more chances of grabbing attention and excitement among readers as well as providers of research grants. Yet at the same time, the choice of words and the way they are used adds to the Knowledge Economy Rhetoric. Given the role ascribed to KIFs, scholars interpretation of what a KIF actually is becomes important. There is thus what might be called a meaning-making spiral in operation. When designating research as studying KIFs it grabs attention and is assigned a particular meaning (a leading organization for the knowledge economy ). At the same time, it contributes to an understanding of the knowledge economy and what it entails to be successful in this emerging competitive landscape. The interpretation of what knowledge is and how it manifests itself in organizations is, of course, core to the Knowledge Economy Rhetoric. Consequently, it is important to study how knowledge is interpreted and portrayed in the KIF literature as well as what other possible interpretations there might be. Interpretations of knowledge in the KIF literature In spite of the diversity in terms of theoretical backgrounds and epistemological stances among the research reviewed for this study, a particular view of knowledge is implicit in, and promoted by, the notion of a KIF category. The literature on KIFs tends to stress knowledge as related to intellectual competencies at the expense of other possible understandings and conceptualizations of organizational life and work (Elkjaer 2000). For example, Alvesson (2004, p.13), uses the concept of knowledge to draw attention to analytic, intellectual and theory-guided activities, proposing that [p]ractical skills, the ability to use the body and creative talents crucial in arts, crafts and sport for example are not necessarily best understood in terms of knowledge, and suggests that 15

16 they might instead be called talent-intensive work. Yet, creativity is often said to be a key feature of KIFs (e.g. Alvesson 2004; Roberson and Swan 2003; Sveiby and Riesling 1986; Starbuck 1992; Swart and Kinnie 2003a) in fact, this seems to be one of the few aspects authors agree on. Does this mean that there are not only different kinds of knowledge, but also different kinds of creativity: one intellectual and one artistic? Once again the difficulties of drawing boundaries and making distinctions become apparent. It is far from evident what should be called talent and what should be labeled analytical/intellectual work. 8 For example advertising agencies are portrayed as KIFs, yet their output can sometimes be difficult to distinguish from contemporary forms of art, and advertisements are sometimes even shown at art exhibitions. Equally, Starbuck s (1992) Garden Company clearly has features of art and craft. There is indeed a growing stream of research questioning the separation between the purely analytical and the purely aesthetic, advocating an aesthetic understanding of organizations and organizational life (e.g. Strati 1999) and portraying organizations as art and management as aesthetics (e.g. Guillet de Monthoux et al. 2007). Indeed, Blackler (1995) asserts that all individuals and all organizations, not just knowledge workers and knowledge-intensive firms are dependent upon knowledge, as knowledge in it's various forms is an integral feature of all individuals and collectives. Knights et al. (1993), Swart and Kinnie (2003a) and Alvesson (2001; 2004) similarly acknowledge the presence of knowledge in all forms of work and organization. As Grant (2002) notes, different workers use different types of knowledge and it is therefore difficult to compare the knowledge intensity of different occupations. While it might be argued that a manufacturing organization is somehow different from a software company or a law firm, is it more or less knowledge intensive? Is this not the central aspect that the concept of a KIF promotes? But if all workers are dependant on knowledge and apply knowledge in their work, then how do we assess what work is 8 Following the choice of words, the assumption seems to be that one cannot have a talent for analytic, intellectual and theory-guided activities. It is also interesting to note that The Economist, in a special issue on The Search for Talent (7 th -13 th October, 2006), refers to talent as one of those irritating words that have been hijacked by management gurus. It used to mean innate ability, but in modern business it has become a synonym for brainpower (both natural and trained) and especially the ability to think creatively. (p. 11). They then refer to PSFs, consulting firms and investment banks as talentintensive companies. 16

17 more knowledge-intensive than other? The tradesman installing windows in a house applies knowledge that she has gleaned from her training and experience, as does the gardener tending flowers and shrubs. Are they any less of a knowledge-worker than a management consultant developing a competitive strategy for a client or the research chemist attempting to synthesize a new compound? Do manufacturing processes not contain embedded knowledge? Or does the practice of continuous improvement not demand the application of knowledge and the creation of new knowledge? Consider, for example, a producer of furniture emphasizing the novel design and ergonomic qualities of their products. Is this company not likely to be critically dependent on their highly qualified designers, ergonomics researchers and marketing professionals? Does it not face many of the same managerial challenges as so-called KIFs? The view of knowledge as purely intellectual, or embrained as opposed to embodied to use Blackler s typology (1995), reflects the Cartesian separation of body and mind, so deeply rooted within Western thought in general and, perhaps, Western management literature in particular. Recently, proponents of this view have warned against a tendency towards phenomenological influences in the conceptualization of knowledge that emphasize the situated and context specific nature of knowledge. Schreyögg and Geiger (2007) assert that knowledge-intensive firms are first of all firms which make intensive use and/or generate knowledge in the discursive mode (p. 91). They reject all forms of embodied or tacit knowledge that cannot be verbalized and validated in an argumentative process. However, what this conceptualization of knowledge fails to recognize is that language itself is embodied in character. As empirical research in cognitive sciences has clarified, everything that we can experience, think and know is dependent on how our bodies and brains cooperate in thinking and acting. 9 In other words, all so-called intellectual activity is embodied (Damasio 1994, 1999; Johnson 1987; Lakoff and Johnson 1999; Maturana and Varela 1987; Varela et al. 1991). While this is not necessarily a controversial statement for many KIF authors, it seems the Cartesian duality still overshadows the way knowledge is conceptualized in the papers included in this study. This is problematic if all of our knowledge and beliefs are framed in terms of a conceptual system that is not only unconscious for the most part, but also embodied in its constitution (Lakoff and Johnson 9 Johnson (1987) calls this view of the mind as embodied the second generation of cognitive sciences, while the view of the brain as a computer represents the first generation. 17

18 1999). The result is a very limited view of how knowledge (regardless of how it is construed) is developed in the work place and what role it plays in and for organizations. According to this perspective, establishing categories is one of the most fundamental cognitive activities that all organisms perform, for the most part unconsciously. It is part of what our bodies and brains are engaged in constantly and categories are the most basic building blocks of more complex, so-called intellectual reasoning. As an abstract concept, knowledge that has no referent in the physical world and thinking about knowledge therefore generally requires the use of metaphor. The analysis of metaphors is therefore an interesting method for exposing underlying assumptions about the nature of knowledge. Building on Lakoff and Johnson s (1980, 1999) theory of metaphors, proposing that all abstract reasoning is based on metaphorical thought, Andriessen (2006) has analyzed how knowledge is conceptualized in two most heavily cited publications in the knowledge management literature: Davenport and Prusak (2000) and Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995). He concluded that virtually all statements about knowledge (ninety five percent) in both these texts are metaphorical, with the dominant metaphor being that of knowledge as something physical, followed by knowledge as thoughts and feelings (i.e. our bodily experiences are used to conceptualize the intangible nature of knowledge) and knowledge as a living organism. 10 Following this analysis, and based on the definitions of KIFs cited earlier in this paper, the concept of a knowledge-intensive firm implies metaphors of knowledge as something physical: knowledge as resource (input perspective) and knowledge as product (output perspective) using Andriessen s vocabulary. Using the term KIF entails building on, and thus perpetuating, these functionalist assumptions. This is in line with the bulk of the literature on knowledge management where the metaphor of knowledge as something physical is implied. Even the label knowledge management projects a meaning of knowledge as an artifact or object that can be managed directly and hence 10 The difference between the authors is noteworthy because of their different cultural origins. While the Japanese (Nonaka and Takeuchi) used a mix of metaphors for conceptualising knowledge; as thoughts and feelings (31%), as a process (23%) and as something physical (29%), the metaphors of knowledge as something physical dominated the Americans (Davenport and Prusak) 18

19 the deployment of information and communications technology as a tool for managing knowledge. This position is, however, in conflict with the non-positivist view of knowledge that several of the KIF authors seemingly ascribe to, as well as the basic rationale behind the concept of the KIF: that the heavy reliance on highly qualified employees to perform knowledge work (i.e. with freedom to act based on their own understanding and judgment) requires new frameworks, models and tools. On the one hand, while choosing to focus on knowledge as intellectual or theoretical, at the expense of other possible interpretations of knowledge, the KIF literature (re)defines what should be meant by knowledge. In this sense it contributes to shaping our understanding of what is desirable in the Knowledge Economy. On the other hand, in his analysis of knowledge work, Alvesson (2001) asserts that the extent to which knowledge is a particularly significant element in the functions of knowledgeintensive companies remains an open question (p. 867). From a critical perspective he suggests that KIFs might be usefully seen purely as systems of persuasion, relying primarily on their persuasive strategies (esoteric skills) rather than expert knowledge or skills per se to convince clients of their superior ability and expertise to satisfy their expectations. In other words, the heavy reliance on knowledge (as portrayed in the KIF literature; i.e. the intellectual kind ) in KIFs may be largely a myth. In addition, it has been questioned whether the general trend towards knowledgeintensification is actually reflected in empirical changes in the economy. Take for example banks and insurance companies with their droves of knowledge workers. These organizations have been in existence for many hundreds of years, but are they any more or less knowledge-intensive today than they were a hundred years ago? While the managerial challenges for these organizations are certainly different today, is this not so much a consequence of the increasing role of knowledge but the increasing rate of change and technological progress in the economy in general that has made these institutions more complex? Over the last number of years, due to the introduction of IT and industry consolidation, many work tasks have become routinized and automated and thus less demanding from an intellectual perspective. Thompson et al. (2001) have argued that despite the emergence of the so called knowledge economy, the key growth conceptualizations of knowledge completely (59%). Metaphors of knowledge as thoughts and feelings and as a process only accounted for 4% of all statements about knowledge in their book. 19

20 in employment has not been and will not be knowledge work, but rather low skill service jobs that draw on broader social competencies and the aesthetic qualities of employees. Others have started question the logic of the Knowledge Economy and the consequences that follow from the separation between theoretical and practical dimensions of knowledge. For example, Sennett (2008) has proposed that the separation of head from hand of Western society where practical activity has been demeaned, divorced from supposedly higher pursuits (p.21) resulting in demoralized workers. He suggests we take inspiration from the past life of craft and craftsmen with their attention to the use of tools and materials, their processes for development of skills and organization of work as a more viable alternative also for so-called intellectual work. Similarly, some politicians have raised concerns about the Knowledge Economy Rhetoric and the policy decisions that have followed. The contempt for practical knowledge undermines our country s welfare in the long-term (Dagens Industri 2005) some Swedish politicians argued, claiming that the preferential treatment of theoretical knowledge has severe negative consequences for the educational system and the structure of the labor market. In summary, it seems impossible to pin down what knowledge actually is as it can be all things to all people. The KIF literature tends to emphasize certain forms or aspects of knowledge, and as such KIFs are often described as organizational role models in the Knowledge Economy, thereby perpetuating the Knowledge Economy Rhetoric. This discourse also promotes a view of knowledge work (as intellectual ) that is limited and inherently problematic, if not deeply flawed. Still, whether knowledge as thus construed has actually increased in importance in today s economy, or is actually a significant element in what KIFs do, has also been questioned. It seems to us that the literature that we have reviewed, seen as a collective, on the one hand uncovers and questions the myth of the KIF, yet on the other hand reinforces this very same myth by persisting to use the term KIF, treating it as an organizational category promoting a particular view of knowledge. 20