Ralph, I’m what Drucker describes as a knowledge worker, and in my heart I know you’re right. I just don’t see how stakeholders with short-term interests can be kept quiet while the long-term interests of an organisation are addressed.

Knowledge can’t be controlled, and organisations investing in the contents of their workers’ heads face huge costs in getting them up to a common standard, and then retaining them and their knowledge within the organisation. This example from The Economist is quite compelling:

“You can't have a bunch of hippies running a plant full of explosive hydrocarbons,” [Gerard Fairtlough, a former CEO of Shell Chemicals and the founder of Celltech, a British biotechnology company] says. “But would you rather have the plant operated by trained professionals, for whom pride in safe working is part of their personal identity, or by people who only work safely because they are afraid of the boss?”
http://www.economist.com/surveys/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5380483

Compelling, but nonetheless a description of an organisation shifting one risk (explosion) to another (cost of knowledge walking out the door). Obviously the second is the less catastrophic risk, but if you can deal with it more cheaply by making the employees scared of the boss, where’s the incentive to invest in knowledgeable workers?

It seems to me that many companies find outsourcing knowledge from consultants and contractors a much less risky proposition than building and maintaining the knowledge of their existing ‘human resources.’

Where are the tools for measuring the benefits of investment in employees’ knowledge and creativity? Until that CEO you mention can make a commercial case for building up his organisation’s knowledge resources, of course he is going to “depreciate them correctly.”

Ralph, you raise many important points that new management strategies such as those seen in Learning Organisations are attempting to address. I also feel most have a long way to go. At the end of the day the asset of knowledge should not be depreciated. In an environment that protects and cultivates knowledge it should appreciate on the balance sheet. In traditional organisations the Manager's job was to control, whereas in those organisations that see knowledge as a powerful asset the Manager's job is to enable others. The competitive advantage becomes how well employees learn/have expertise etc, no longer relying on products and services to put them ahead of their competition.

JPW2040 suggests "outsourcing knowledge from consultants and contractors a much less risky proposition than building and maintaining the knowledge of their existing ‘human resources.’". Perhaps in the short term this may appear so, however I feel this is false economy at times. There have been issues of loyalty, lack of responsibility and in general a lack of continuity within organisations who rely heavily on outsourcing. I predict the wheel will turn and we may see a return to greater use of employees. Although one ethical problem that may need to be overcome,which would not routinely occur in outsourcing ,is that if performance evaluations are based on knowledge then is it ethical to expect sharing of that knowledge between employees?

Perhaps as more traditional organisations give way to learning organisational practices we may even see greater respect and incentivies offerred to employees in order to protect the commodity of knowledge. One can hope.

Ralph; this is a plea from the grassroots. We can be what we want to be but we must not build our brains around the exclusive rhetoric of our peers. However we each have a need to be recognised by all those around us. In another sense we are only as good as those who went before us and we must stand on their shoulders.

For a few months I was privileged to be part of a group of drifters in the capital who regularly met for meals and recreation. We had whiz heads from CSIRO, DEFAT, DOTAC, and other major institutions, also some practical people like me including a rare glass blower from the Uni and a salesgirl from my home region on the far side of the Strait. She sold fine leather in a boutique. We each had our own language at work.

Besides coffee before work and after dinner we had another common interest, interrogating a hapless character in the group, a veteran forecaster from BOM. His models for daily and long term predictions became the subject of much discussion and his private thoughts on the official forecasts even more so.

This was my introduction to government policy in practice. I recall the introduction of percentage rain statements quite clearly. It leads me to this conclusion, our common interaction depends on us understanding the ‘weather’ and that’s the levelling factor in our collective creativity. Being one up on the weather in the one to one intro is also very important

The culture as outlined by language should not inhibit who we are or want to be but our common rhetoric does just that. Two decades ago this ad hoc group above was trying to get into the heads of those inside BOM from the outside. Knowledge was our goal. Language in used this area of science and politics today can surely lead us astray.

My main concern then and today is how quickly we can leave the basic practice based on personal observation in any operation behind. Let me say too after five decades of exposure to industry and enterprise at the practical end, the words ‘grapevine and grafting’ remain as valid as they ever did in finding new information.

It would be nice to think that employers valued creative, possibly even 'different', employees.

But we just don't get hired.

Not unless we sneak in as normal 'droids and can survive doing normal drudge until such time as we have been around long enough to be allowed to strike out and do something innovative.

I am not an artist, I'm a lawyer, biologist and computer scientist by training. Plenty of solid, conservative employee on my CV. Heaven help me if I'm not that when I hit the maze, but I can't help myself. I refuse to sit quietly when I see problems, and I really despise having to 'wait my turn' before offering suggestions or alternatives. Being creative 'is just not done' in many jobs.

Many of our creative people go overseas. At least, many of those with the means. Not all of us have that luxury. Or desire.

I'd rather fix what we've got going for us here. I can't help myself. I love hard problems. The harder, the better. But employers seem to want more of the same, not new and/or creative.

How the hell do we get past *that*?