Leading Smart, Creative People

I recently read Clever, buy Goffee and Jones, which speaks to some of the dramatic differences between managing laborers and knowledge-workers.   Their central argument is that the nature of work in the present day has undergone a dramatic change from previous generations, and an equally dramatic change is needed in organizational structures and management practices if we are to leverage the full benefits of the intelligence and creativity of the modern workforce.

Essentially, personnel management from the dawn of civilization (or even the dawn of cooperation in tribal societies) reflected the model of "one mind many hands" - that is, one person decided what was to be done and many people contributed their effort to executing on the leader's ideas, with minimal problem-solving taking place on the front lines of an organization.

One architect designed a pyramid and made all the essential decisions, and legions of drudges carried out his plans, with supervision by a large hierarchy of overseers.  Some decisions might need to have been made when the stones didn't fit together quite right, but these were minor adjustments and workers for the most part toiled away mindlessly to execute on the leader's plan.

But in the modern age, problem-solving and even strategic decision-making is done on the front lines of an organization.   They are still guided by the goal set by a leader, but they are not merely following orders but applying their knowledge and skills to defining the solution.   In such an organization, "one mind many hands" has ceded to "one goal many minds."

It's most obvious in industries that have long relied on the expertise of workers:  a hospital administrator who has a business degree and knows nothing of medicine must manage a staff of surgeons, or a venture capitalist with an idea for a web site but no web development skills must manage a staff of programmers, designers, and other specialized personnel.   In such situation the leader can describe the conditions of success, but cannot instruct them in the work that must be done to achieve it, and must often rely upon their expertise to modify his vision to make it better and more feasible.

While there is still a place for drudge-workers to carry out orders mindlessly and without questioning or modifying the orders they receive, this work is increasingly being sent overseas, and the real value creation is not in the hands-on tasks but in the mental work to determine what tasks ought to be done.   And yet, the knowledge workers are being managed by the same techniques that common laborers are managed - which effectively prevents them from doing what they do best: to think and solve problems.

This is fairly obvious in the way in which companies pay lip-service to being "innovative" or even demand it of their workers, but at the same time fail to create a culture in which innovation is possible, and often cling to old command-and-control models that discourage and punish innovation.    The firms that understand innovation and genuinely desire it understand this, and have made some radical changes.  The firms that do not understand innovation but cover its results merely imitate the innovators in superficial ways, and do not seem to understand where they are going wrong.

My sense is the Goffee and Jones provide at least a partial answer.   In many instances, their focus falters, or they have a great sense of what should be done but not how to do it.   But at the most basic level, they seem to be onto something fundamental that has significant potential that has broad implications for businesses, their employees, and their customers.