Two types of knowledge worker, which one are you?
There are two types of knowledge workers, which one are you?
The “Technician”: people in this category are dependable, credible workers who attain high standards of work. Their knowledge skills and experience are recognised by others and they are often referred to as “experts.”. Because of this, technicians are sometimes described as network “super-spreaders” (critical nodes). Technicians are seen as being indispensable when it comes to know-how and know-what in the simple and complicated knowledge domains - they operate best under conditions of low ambiguity. However, these people are ultimately limited by a missing ingredient within their core skills (e.g. critical thinking, decision-making, communication, leadership, entrepreneurship and networking skills) and do not tend to rise to the highest levels, perhaps not breaking through the ranks of middle management.
The “Rainmaker”: these people have the “X” factor, often desxribed as "natural talent," and are often referred to as “schmoozers.” Rainmakers make connections that others miss, connecting people, knowledge and opportunities in such a way as to create something new - they are often seen as intrapreneurs and/or thought leaders in the organisation. They thrive in complex and chaotic knowledge domains - being comfortable with high levels of ambiguity. These people are seen as highly valuable, being well compensated and rising through the ranks of the organisation to senior management/leadership positions. They have a complete suite/mix of competencies (e.g. critical thinking, decision-making, communication, leadership, entrepreneurship and networking skills), whereas “technicians” have critical gaps in these skills.
You might argue that people can be a blend/distribution of the two. I would agree. However, I would argue that more often than not a gap in core skills (competencies) limits the technician, inhibiting their ability to become a rainmaker.
You need a strong blend of technicians and rain makers if you are to continue to design, develop, deliver and maintain products/services that your current and future customers want. With this being the case, I have Some questions for you to ponder:
You could probably tell me how many subject matter experts you have in your organisation (e.g. engineers with knowledge of a specific type of equipment), but how many critical thinkers do you have? How many intrapreneurs? Should you know, especially if you are going to adapt to future changes in the environment (agility/resilience)?
How many rainmakers do you have in your organisation?
Where are they and what impact would it have if they leave?
Do you have contingency/succession plans in place that account for worst case scenarios?
This blog received an interesting comment on LInkedIn, which I would like to respond to, in case others are thinking the same way:
Mike McHugh
This is about personality, not skills. Behavioral preferences might influence the skill that individuals acquire and nurture, or are minded to bother about, but it's far from black and white. The binary model implied by this article maps perfectly to HBDI: left- and right-brain thinkers; but I can't go with such a facile categorization of knowledge workers as either 'technician' or 'rain-maker'. As in all nature, the bell curve of population variance encompasses a myriad of types. You might recognize 'rain-maker' tendencies in some, 'technician' tendencies in others, and the majority somewhere else.
David Griffiths, PhD
Thanks for the comment on my "facile" categorisation. First, I clearly state that it is not a straight forward delineated approach - see the bottom of the opinion piece - but this is about acknowledging a difference in knowledge workers and the capability limitations that impact individual/org. agility/resilience. Secondly, you can argue "skills" versus "personality" or "behaviours," (e.g. critical thinking, according to you is a behaviour and not a skill - I would debate this) but my argument is based on limitations around core competencies that impact a person's ability to operate within the four main knowledge domains - again, as stated in my opinion piece. The questions I ask at the end of this OP should highlight that this article is about looking beyond subject matter expertise in order to understand resilience and future competitive advantage. Cheers and thanks for the feedback, though we don't agree. David
Mike McHugh
@ David: I'm happy to disagree with you... At the level of competencies, I feel your remarks are well-founded. The categorization of knowledge workers into two camps is trivial.
David Griffiths, PhD
The categorisation is based on real world research into cases of subject matter expertise versus capability, aligned against the Cynefin knowledge domains. The typology, research would argue, exists, but, as I keep saying, I agree that a pure delineation is incorrect - I would also argue that characteristics or blend of characteristics are relevant and, in the context of my OP (agility/resilience when considering ongoing design, development, delivery, maintenance of products/services), an important consideration for organisations - as is being proven in a longitudinal study (3 years and counting) in the US. You may consider this trivial, but this is the language being used in organisations we are working with in the US and there are important points to be made in terms of future impact and Knowledge Management solutions.
