Thami Nompula MBA Dissertation March 2007 - Rhodes eResearch ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

2.2.7 The importance of building intellectual capital in the modern organisation The late 1980s ushered in the beginning of the information age (Beckemeyer and Kilkeary, 1997; Kinnear, 1999; Liebowitz, 1999). Knowledge workers have the skills and the wisdom to develop new strands of knowledge that may bring about significant breakthroughs that may catapult the human experience into a significant level of invention, reasoning, innovation and problem- solving. With knowledgeable employees, organisations will tap into a wealth of ideas and input that seek to meet their expectations in an unprecedented manner (Beckemeyer and Kilkeary, 1997). By bringing into the production process flexible, intelligent and change-ready employees, organisations will lead the revolution of bringing responsive solutions to specific and general customer problems. This customer value will be achieved through the sharing of detailed business information between the employer and employees as well as among the employees (Beckemeyer and Kilkeary, 1997). Sharing information increases the knowledge worker’s ability to develop innovative products and services that not only meet customer requirements but also improve the organisations competitiveness, which translates into sustainable profit. This approach gives meaning to the concept of employees as assets of the organisation. 2.2.8 Managing knowledge workers successfully in order to retain them The essence of utilising intellectual property is sharing knowledge amongst employees by fostering teamwork practices, recognising the scarce nature of knowledge workers and their mobility. It is also important to appreciate that knowledge workers need to be managed differently from other category of workers in order to retain them (Stewart, 1997). First, in managing knowledge workers, management needs to allow them autonomy (Beckemeyer and Kilkeary, 1997). These authors have found that self-managed employees express interest in self-growth and group cooperation that result in a heightened sense of self-esteem and productivity. Kaye and Jordan-Evans (2002) also found autonomy to be important for employees who stay longer with their employer. Because of the nature of their work, knowledge workers apply their experience and expertise to problem-solving areas that create value for the firm. They 20
esent unnecessary supervision; they rather prefer an environment where they can develop ideas and create knowledge that will achieve the firm’s strategic goals (Beckemeyer and Kilkeary, 1997). Once they know what the organisation wants to achieve and what contribution they can make to the outcomes, they thrive on the freedom they are given in order to develop solutions that meet unique customer requirements. This encourages them to stay with the employer. Secondly, knowledge workers need to realise their full potential and utilise their strengths (Kaye and Jordan-Evans, 2002). This means making fewer, if any, dictatorial and top-down rulings and moving toward collaborative decision-making (Beckemeyer and Kilkeary, 1997; Kaye and Jordan-Evans, 2002). Managers need to be more approachable, pliable and willing to embrace new ideas from an independent and spirited workforce that is looking more for coaches and mentors than managers (Liebowitz, 1999; Beckemeyer and Kilkeary, 1997). In this type of milieu, the employer does not make decisions without consulting employees. Employees’ input must be sought on all aspects of the operations. Thirdly, knowledge workers look for opportunities where they can be creative and take risks using organisational resources and expect the attendant rewards (Hammer, 2002; Liebowitz, 1999). Too often corporate incentive systems reward safe, bureaucratic behaviour rather than the risk-taking individualistic behaviour characteristic of knowledge workers (Coetsee, 2001). Knowledge workers respond to a mix of financial and non-financial incentives and most talented people need a concrete sense of adventure, appreciation for their hard work and recognition of achievements to remain highly motivated. High achievers want to be measured so that they can prove their accomplishments. Knowledge workers respond best to challenges, personal recognition, freedom of activity and financial rewards (Coetsee, 2001). Rewards are important to reinforce the correct behaviour so that it can be repeated or amplified for the employer’ benefit. Lastly, job enrichment, like autonomy, is important to drive the performance of knowledge workers (Mohr and Zoghi, 2006; Umstot and Rosenbach, 2002). The factors of job enrichment are similar to McGill and Slocum (1995) anchors of a high performance culture. This theory looks at factors that are an integral part of the job itself. An enriched job is one that is high in skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, affords employees feedback from the job and goal clarity (Umstot and Rosenbach, 2002). Job enrichment includes a number of workplace 21
Page 1 and 2: AN EXPLORATORY INVESTIGATION OF THE
Page 3 and 4: Declaration I, Thami Ignatius Nompu
Page 5 and 6: Acknowledgements A number of people
Page 7 and 8: 2.2.4 Definition of knowledge work
Page 9 and 10: 3.6.2 Factors that influenced the c
Page 11 and 12: CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMEND
Page 13 and 14: Table 4.21 Sense of achievement ana
Page 15 and 16: LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A: The
Page 17 and 18: 1.1 Introduction CHAPTER 1: INTRODU
Page 19 and 20: 1.3 The National Energy Regulator T
Page 21 and 22: 1.5 The Importance of Knowledge Wor
Page 23 and 24: continuous success. South Africa, a
Page 25 and 26: 1.6.2 Cost of turnover and opportun
Page 27 and 28: 1.6.5 Staff Turnover at the Nationa
Page 29 and 30: 2.1 Introduction CHAPTER 2: LITERAT
Page 31 and 32: Knowledge-based organisations rely
Page 33 and 34: 2.2.5 Definition of a knowledge wor
Page 35: • Knowledge workers tend to work
Page 39 and 40: equipment, exist and are worth cult
Page 41 and 42: the organisation that cause or are
Page 43 and 44: Although knowledge workers may be a
Page 45 and 46: Guest’s (2001) findings. The Hay
Page 47 and 48: ecruiters. In the United States top
Page 49 and 50: sustainable objectives both for the
Page 51 and 52: 2.5 The Work Dimension According to
Page 53 and 54: environment is more conducive to hi
Page 55 and 56: improved productivity and a longer
Page 57 and 58: 2.7.1 Quality of leadership Quality
Page 59 and 60: leave an organisation because senio
Page 61 and 62: 2.8.3 Capacity Building In an attem
Page 63 and 64: for staff working for regulatory in
Page 65 and 66: 3.1 Introduction CHAPTER 3: RESEARC
Page 67 and 68: inefficiencies of management may le
Page 69 and 70: 2004). Furthermore, because the int
Page 71 and 72: According to Walonick (2004), one o
Page 73 and 74: contained section one of the questi
Page 75 and 76: Wisniewski (2002) describes reliabi
Page 77 and 78: Of the 34 respondents, there were m
Page 79 and 80: As indicated in Figure 3.4, of the
Page 81 and 82: 3.8.7 Number of previous years work
Page 83 and 84: 3.8.9 Divisional distribution This
Page 85 and 86: The Chi test was used to test furth
Page 87 and 88:
generated and these are attached as
Page 89 and 90:
to a leader who believes in their v
Page 91 and 92:
Senge (1990) introduced the concept
Page 93 and 94:
According to the literature once kn
Page 95 and 96:
4.3.1 Job enrichment Seventy six pe
Page 97 and 98:
4.3.3 Control over work assignments
Page 99 and 100:
4.3.5 Challenging work For 70% of t
Page 101 and 102:
and RERA are continental initiative
Page 103 and 104:
Table 4.17: Exchange programmes wit
Page 105 and 106:
either work for two years for NERSA
Page 107 and 108:
4.5.1 Sense of achievement and numb
Page 109 and 110:
and Armstrong and Murlis’ (2004)
Page 111 and 112:
Table 4.25 Freedom to plan and exec
Page 113 and 114:
The next chapter explores in greate
Page 115 and 116:
need to create a favourable environ
Page 117 and 118:
5.3.3 Focus on the individual and g
Page 119 and 120:
5.4.1 Factors Analysis: factors tha
Page 121 and 122:
workers’ need for individualism a
Page 123 and 124:
Branham, L. (2005). Keeping the peo
Page 125 and 126:
Dumas, J. and Redish, J. (1999). A
Page 127 and 128:
Kaye, B. and Jordan-Evans, S. (1999
Page 129 and 130:
National Energy Regulator, (2006).
Page 131 and 132:
Sturgess, J. and Guest, D. (2001).
Page 133 and 134:
November 2006 Dear Colleague APPEND
Page 135 and 136:
SECTION 2: FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE Y
Page 137 and 138:
APPENDIX B: SOURCES OF RETENTION VA
Page 139 and 140:
38 Opportunities for feedback, self
Page 141 and 142:
Table 3: Opportunity to achieve per
Page 143 and 144:
Table 9: Information sharing 127 FR
Page 145 and 146:
Table 14: Scope to balance work and
Page 147 and 148:
Table 20: Scope to create desirable
Page 149 and 150:
Table 26: Job enrichment Table 27:
Page 151 and 152:
Table 31: Adequate remuneration, be
Page 153 and 154:
Table 37: Management that values in
Page 155:
Table 43: Reputation of the organis
show all

Thami Nompula MBA Dissertation March 2007 - Rhodes eResearch ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?