Knowledge Worker LO16252

Winfried Dressler (winfried.dressler@voith.de)
Tue, 16 Dec 1997 11:01:40 +0100

Replying to LO16215 --

Richard,

> I'll still take the bet

>> What will happen to your enterprise, when it becomes known, that
>> the knowledge-worker enterprise made a very good offer to buy the
>> worker-worker?

> Why couldn't it be the other way around? Which asset would be more
> valuable to an investor, a state-of-the-art plant which was fully staffed
> with world-class workers but needed to buy leadership and administrative
> talent on the open market, or a state-of-the-art plant which had no staff
> but which had world class leadership and administrative talent? I'll
> still invest in the former. First class CFOs are a dime a dozen--but
> first class production teams? Rare as hen's teeth, in my experience.

I just expect, that workers (world class or not) prefer to be bought by
leadership and managment talent requesting for them, than to buy it on the
open market. How would they go through the decision process whom to take
and what to care about?

>> Of course not all, lets say, 30% (those with high
>> working-knowledge including those who are willing to change).

> Why do you assume this 30%? IMHO It's a mental model that doesn't
> gibe with the rules of the thought experiment (or reality, for that matter).

This 30% is not a rule of the game, but a rule which might be set by the
knowledge worker side for buying workers to get the best of the
worker-workers quite surely. It spreads fear among the workers in the coat
of a special chance for some and activates a "me first" attitude. 30% as a
figure is just a guess. I personaly would judge such an offer as highly
imoral, or as At de Lange would say as BO (backroom operation), but I have
to anticipate, that such thinking is used and I have to take caution not
to be knocked down.

(Besides, what does IMHO stand for? I have seen it quite often and think
that IMO is "in my opinion", but the H? And what is it used for? Of course
any writing is the opinion of the author.)

[Host's Note: Yes, IMO = In my opinion. IMHO - In my humble opinion. And,
finally, IMNSHO - In my not so humble opinion, which IMHO is going too
far. ...Rick]

> Even if you had such a 30/70 split, it would be the same for the
> "Knowledge" workers.

Again, I just do not expect, that worker-workers would think about and
apply such a trick.

>> Are you still willing to invest in the worker-worker enterprise?

> Absolutely.

If you don't just invest but engage as their first new knowledge worker,
perhaps they have a chance. But I am still wondering how you can be
successfull in preventing them to change to the other company.

> Is not "charismatic knowledge worker" an oxymoron?

Hopefully not. Those who are driven by a vision and able to inflame others
are charismatic. Why not driven by the vision of LO? If most knowledge
workers are traditional thinkers, but some are charismatic without a
chance yet, they could make a big difference when overtaking the
management of the workers company. Again, I don't see this scenario as too
realistic.

>> In a more friendly setting, I would expect, that the owners of the
>> enterprises will sit together at a round table to find a common
>> solution.

> You're probably right, Winfried, or at least I would hope so.

At least such round table talking is what my engagement would aim.

Thank you for this instructive thinking experiment.

-- 

Winfried.Dressler@voith.de

Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>