Deviant or Organizational Innovator?
David L. Bevett, BS, MPH
February 23, 2002
There has been a great deal of media, government, and industry interest and promotion for the
dawning of the knowledge age and economy in the U.S. and across the world. The business sector,
in particular, is in constant search of innovative ideas to drive profitability and create renewable
sources of competitive advantage to secure their position in the new economy through market
analysis, product development, and corporate learning via solutions to complex business problems.
The sum total of the information acquired results in intellectual capital, the new age currency and
source of corporate wealth that powers the knowledge economy. Yet, the real question is: who are
the individuals that actually collect, embody, and apply the information and intelligence? Knowledge
worker-innovators. Knowledge worker-innovators create uncertainty by questioning assumptions,
and perceive gaps in concepts, theories, organizations, products, processes, and services as the locus
for innovation, and in the process act and are thus often viewed as organizational deviants.
The illogicality of the relationship between knowledge worker-innovators and organizations arises
due, in part, to how information for innovation is acquired. In the quest for information, knowledge
workers act as “boundary spanners” working across departments and ideologies, investigators
questioning policy and procedure, and innovators continuously testing and applying their experiences.
To clarify, though knowledge workers or innovators are generally passionate about what they do,
they may not subscribe or conform to the structures, rules, and values imposed upon them by
organizations or even work or professional groups. However, knowledge workers do not act as the
sole force in creating their “deviant” roles, “Formal organizations clearly have the potential to produce
countercultures-subcultures whose basic understandings question and oppose the overall culture in
some way” (Trice and Beyer, 1993, p.244).
The deviant role of knowledge worker-innovators can also be attributed to the fact that “Old,
established organizations may give rise to countercultures when determined innovators feel they have
to oppose the dominant culture to try to achieve changes they envision” (Trice and Beyer, 1993, p.
246). For example: Bill Gates could not conform to the traditional educational structure imposed on
him by society, and therefore left to pursue the creation of a multi-billion dollar corporation. Nor did
Gandhi conform to his professional or new social class as a lawyer, but rather dedicated his life to
non-violence and social change. In both cases, traditional structures and rules were eschewed to
innovate a new paradigm. These examples also support the earlier argument that until information or
knowledge becomes accepted as valuable to the larger community, knowledge worker-innovators
efforts and motives are held in question, and they are viewed as defacto deviants.
Knowledge worker-innovators continue to provide information for the creation of new business
models, competitive advantage, and intellectual capital to fuel the engine of the knowledge economy.
Yet, the creation of intellectual capital takes time and requires a degree of rule breaking, questioning,
and chaos. These are the hallmarks and workspace for the art and science of innovation, and
therefore not immediately accepted by the organization, industry, or society. This phenomenon
presents a complex paradox: is a knowledge worker an innovator or organizational deviant?
References
Trice, H.M., & Beyer, J.M. (1993). The Cultures of Work Organization. Upper Saddle River, New
Jersey: Prentice Hall.
David L. Bevett, BS, MPH
February 23, 2002
There has been a great deal of media, government, and industry interest and promotion for the
dawning of the knowledge age and economy in the U.S. and across the world. The business sector,
in particular, is in constant search of innovative ideas to drive profitability and create renewable
sources of competitive advantage to secure their position in the new economy through market
analysis, product development, and corporate learning via solutions to complex business problems.
The sum total of the information acquired results in intellectual capital, the new age currency and
source of corporate wealth that powers the knowledge economy. Yet, the real question is: who are
the individuals that actually collect, embody, and apply the information and intelligence? Knowledge
worker-innovators. Knowledge worker-innovators create uncertainty by questioning assumptions,
and perceive gaps in concepts, theories, organizations, products, processes, and services as the locus
for innovation, and in the process act and are thus often viewed as organizational deviants.
The illogicality of the relationship between knowledge worker-innovators and organizations arises
due, in part, to how information for innovation is acquired. In the quest for information, knowledge
workers act as “boundary spanners” working across departments and ideologies, investigators
questioning policy and procedure, and innovators continuously testing and applying their experiences.
To clarify, though knowledge workers or innovators are generally passionate about what they do,
they may not subscribe or conform to the structures, rules, and values imposed upon them by
organizations or even work or professional groups. However, knowledge workers do not act as the
sole force in creating their “deviant” roles, “Formal organizations clearly have the potential to produce
countercultures-subcultures whose basic understandings question and oppose the overall culture in
some way” (Trice and Beyer, 1993, p.244).
The deviant role of knowledge worker-innovators can also be attributed to the fact that “Old,
established organizations may give rise to countercultures when determined innovators feel they have
to oppose the dominant culture to try to achieve changes they envision” (Trice and Beyer, 1993, p.
246). For example: Bill Gates could not conform to the traditional educational structure imposed on
him by society, and therefore left to pursue the creation of a multi-billion dollar corporation. Nor did
Gandhi conform to his professional or new social class as a lawyer, but rather dedicated his life to
non-violence and social change. In both cases, traditional structures and rules were eschewed to
innovate a new paradigm. These examples also support the earlier argument that until information or
knowledge becomes accepted as valuable to the larger community, knowledge worker-innovators
efforts and motives are held in question, and they are viewed as defacto deviants.
Knowledge worker-innovators continue to provide information for the creation of new business
models, competitive advantage, and intellectual capital to fuel the engine of the knowledge economy.
Yet, the creation of intellectual capital takes time and requires a degree of rule breaking, questioning,
and chaos. These are the hallmarks and workspace for the art and science of innovation, and
therefore not immediately accepted by the organization, industry, or society. This phenomenon
presents a complex paradox: is a knowledge worker an innovator or organizational deviant?
References
Trice, H.M., & Beyer, J.M. (1993). The Cultures of Work Organization. Upper Saddle River, New
Jersey: Prentice Hall.
| Copyright © Knowledgeark.net, 2016 |
| Terms and Conditions |
Knowledgeark.net > Organizational Development > Deviant or Organizational Innovator?
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |