Abstract
The paper studies two temporal metaphors, modern and poetic, encountered in a knowledge-based organization where they co-exist and conflict. It argues that the two metaphors are wedded to different discourses, i.e. to the macro-business and the micro-scientific discourse, respectively; hence, knowledge activities such as thinking and writing are increasingly rendered incomprehensible in commercialized research environments, and pushed at the margin of knowledge-work, since they prove difficult to measure and control. Practically, this implies a re-articulation of what innovation is and how to organize knowledge work. The paper explores the shortcomings linear metaphors of time bear when used to support radical innovation, and concludes by discussing the potentials of spiral time to structure work in knowledge organizations.
Keywords
Introduction
The paper brings insights from the sociology of time into the literature of knowledge and innovation management. The first stream of work widely acknowledges that organizations do not operate in a single temporal order (Clark, 1985, 1990; Bluedorn and Denhardt, 1988; Orlikowski and Yates, 2002), i.e. there co-exist multiple temporal metaphors. Encountering multiple and inconsistent metaphors at the workplace is not unusual (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980), since people focus on different aspects of the same phenomenon, and the construction of a metaphor is the product of their understanding and imagination in their effort to make sense of the world. The second stream of work (Asimakou and Oswick, 2010; Evans et al., 2004; Perlow, 1999; O’Carroll, 2008) has studied ongoing changes in the organization of knowledge work, and pointed out how these have transformed both its nature and the identity of knowledge workers. By exploring co-existing and conflicting metaphors of time, the paper studies their impact on structuring knowledge work and articulating innovation processes and activities; essentially, it argues that linear metaphors of time are not adequate to support the generation of basic knowledge and radical innovation, because they do not allow room for immeasurable and unpredictable events, which are fundamental aspects of knowledge generation work. Instead, spiral time metaphor is considered as a viable alternative to linear metaphors, since it allows room for uncertainty and undecidability, and therefore appears to be more adequate to support knowledge work and innovation processes.
The conceptual framework draws on Lyotard’s (1984, 1991) writings on modernity, time and knowledge, and specifically his ideas on periodization and on the nature of poetic activities: for Lyotard (1991), the present (now) remains always ungraspable, since it is always ‘not yet’ (future) or ‘no longer’ (past). In this context, periodization is a modernist concept, whereby a series of ‘presented presents’ are organized on a diachrony, i.e. timeline, in order to make sense of and predict the future, and thus control the flow of time and history.
Under this light, periodization constitutes the cornerstone of western metaphysics: by accumulation of past events, diachrony thrives towards the end of time, when information will be complete; on that final point, time is instantaneous and absolute (Lyotard, 1991). In this trajectory, events are neutralized, in the sense that they are predictable, and the future predetermined. The logic of periodization is clearly identified in modern innovation management models and knowledge generation processes, as it will be shown later.
In contrast, poetic activities, such as questioning, thinking and writing, constitute rupture in the linearity of time, as they are essentially timeless; they resist time control, and may disrupt the course of predicted events. The present paper argues that poetic activities lie in the heart of knowledge generation activities, and discusses the consequences of the apparent incompatibility between linear metaphors of time and poetic activities for the organization of knowledge work.
The paper perceives sociological constructs of time as metaphors, which, wedded to an influential discourse, create a sense of order in the workplace and structure knowledge work. In the case under examination, the metaphor of modern time, wedded to the macro-business discourse, develops the tools and practices to support the ‘rationalization’ of the innovation process. These tools and practices constitute the technologies of control developed for the reproduction of the business discourse truth-results, and hence the means to sustain its power effects (Foucault, 1982).
The paper starts by exploring how sociological metaphors of time, i.e. symbolic (cyclical), modern (linear), and spiral, relate to and affect knowledge generation processes; it proposes that the first two prevalent metaphors do not escape linearity, hence their relevance to support radical innovation is questionable. The empirical part draws on the study of R&D laboratories of a multinational oil company, when the need to support innovative research was reviving, and was taking a strategic direction. This part investigates the contestations the modern time metaphor enacts at the workplace, and analyses its assumptions and shortcomings, technologies of control, and counterarguments and strategies adopted by scientists by way of resistance or compliance. The paper concludes by discussing the implications of modern time upon radical innovation, and contemplates spiral time as viable alternative.
Time metaphors in organizations
There are three main sociological constructs of time in explaining how people structure their activities: cyclical, linear, and spiral (Burrell, 1992; Hassard, 2001), where the main distinction between the approaches is the dichotomy and interplay between subjective–objective assumptions (Orlikowski and Yates, 2002). These metaphors have guided academic research in organizations: time has been studied as a knowledge generation variable (especially in innovation and new product development) (Eisenhardt and Tabrizi, 1995), as a strategic factor in change and transformation, also in relation to knowledge work (Dubinskas, 1988b; Perlow, 1999), and so on. It has also been approached by a number of perspectives (e.g. functionalism, labour studies, postmodernism), whereby each discussed the possibility to control it and, less often, the resulting contestations.
The first metaphor, i.e. cyclical (or symbolic) time, suggests that time is subjective and furthermore, a social construction (Hassard, 2001). Clark (1985: 36) stresses “time is in the events” and therefore, the temporal landscape is being structured based on events that people find meaningful and adopt as temporal references. He goes on explaining (Clark, 1985, 1990) that cyclical time can be either homogeneous or heterogeneous; the main distinction between these two ‘chronological codes’ (sic) is that in the former, one can measure the occurrence of events objectively. ‘Objectively’ here means that some events are constructed as containing ‘defined measurable units of highly stable lengths’ (Clark, 1990: 147).
A crucial aspect of time metaphors is the relationship among past, present and future (Clark, 1990), because it generates assumptions about progress and knowledge generation. The cyclical metaphor focuses on the past. It assumes that past events (natural or symbolic) are repeated periodically: present and future are structured according to past knowledge (Pedersen, 2009). Most importantly, the past carries accumulated knowledge from different times in the form of rituals, stories, myths, etc. (Lyotard, 1984, 1991). It is the knowledge of the past that lies in the culture of the community and is enacted in the present, when a myth or story is re-cited. Given that events repeat themselves, and actions are taken on the grounds of past knowledge, the future is pre-defined and therefore cannot facilitate the construction of something radically new.
The second metaphor, linear (or modern) time, is a construct of modernity in support of its project to liberate humanity by means of science and technology (Lyotard, 1991). Linear time is based on the assumption of objectivity, i.e. that time is external to the events, and can be objectively measured and controlled with technological devices (Bluedorn and Denhardt, 1988; Orlikowski and Yates, 2002). This metaphor is also known as even-time (as opposed to event time discussed above), because it attempts to slice time in even and equitable parts. Nevertheless, although even, these temporal references consist again of socially constructed events. In this light, the two metaphors bear many similarities, and in practice they have similar effects on the organization of work, as they imply linearity, assume predictability, and pursue control and standardization.
The linear time metaphor can be seen as part of a wider business discourse (a discourse of commodification, see Hassard, 2001), where virtually everything (time, labour, knowledge, ideas, etc.) becomes a product, i.e. an object that can be measured with precision, priced and traded. The result of this articulation is that ‘time is money’ (Adam, 2003; Lyotard, 1991), hence, scarce and valuable: it needs be saved, controlled and rationally spent for the sake of accumulating more capital. The business world must move fast and save money in the name of ‘efficiency’. The concept derives legitimacy from the prescription of ‘rationalization’ that drives dominant management thinking. The efforts aim at continuously improving the use of work time by compressing it, whilst maintaining the same output; most of the times it is not possible, and quality may be undermined in favour of quantity.
In respect to assumptions about past, present and future, the linear temporal metaphor assumes that time unfolds and heads towards an end, while subordinating the present into a future that is foreseeable and controllable; this linearity of time is wedded with the idea of progress (Hassard, 2001; Lyotard, 1991), since while it unfolds, it leaves the old behind and thrives into the ultimate aim – the end of time. Past, here, is associated with obsolete knowledge and practices, and the graspable present ceases being open to contingencies, while optimizing the way to reach the end of history – an end that is already known; any step towards the future is associated with development and progress. From this standpoint, future can reveal nothing new, since it is already known and awaits its time to fulfill (Pedersen, 2009). Similar to the concerns about cyclical time, this observation also raises questions as to whether linear time is a useful metaphor for the creation of something radically new (Asimakou, 2009; Fonseca, 2002).
It is worth noting here that the postmodern turn in organizational research suggested a variation of the linear metaphor, i.e. the ‘compressed’ time (Hassard, 2001). This metaphor addressed critique to the extensive and intensified use of technologies that achieved to compress space into a ‘global village’ and time into instances, i.e. fractions of time beyond human ability to conceive. Information technologies achieved the control of employees’ time by turning linear into ‘instantaneous’ time: communication and exchange of information happen in instances, and as result many tasks may take place simultaneously or anytime, since time has been freed from waiting gaps. Nevertheless, compressed time does not break away from linear time, in terms of its relationship with past, present and future, and the two bear the same limitations.
A few authors (Burrell, 1992; Clark, 1985) have expressed their dissatisfaction with the previous metaphors, mainly because they do not offer new ways of understanding organizational phenomena. In effect, so much linear (and the related compressed) time, which have been the prevalent metaphor in functionalism and labour studies, as much as cyclical have been criticized for being overdeterministic (Bluedorn and Denhardt, 1988; Clark, 1990; Orlikowski and Yates, 2002), and for failing to explain organizational change.
Burrell (1992) disappointed with chronarchical determinism, worked on the postmodern grounds of spiral time metaphor, exploring the undecidability of time and the unpredictability and uncertainty of events. Undecidability of time suggests that in any moment there is a multiplicity of actions that could be taken, and these would result in multiple possible realities. Furthermore, Burrell observes evidence of holes in the chronarchy fabric at the workplace, such as disorganized actions, absenteeism, sabotage, etc., which may propose a theoretical framework for explaining the generation of something new. He goes on to building on the metaphor of spiral time, which entails the concept of undecidability, breaks the linearity of diachrony, and removes the individual from the role of the fixed observer on the temporal landscape, passing this role on to the community, outside from the course of time.
Time and knowledge work
Many authors have argued that modern (business) discourse has imposed the dominant temporal structures in most workplaces. Clark (1990) notes the trend in restructuring the work according to business prescriptions, and warns against the usage of specialists who claim expertise in controlling time. The concern here questions the effect time constructs may have in the organization of work: business discourse might create corporate values that could potentially harm the organization, since it simplifies present events and draws a linear and formalized approach to the future.
Indeed, little is written on how time metaphors structure activities in knowledge-based organizations (Brown, 2005; Dubinskas, 1988b; Evans et al., 2004; O’Carroll, 2008; Perlow, 1999). Mirmalek (2008) analyses how clock time has been accepted as neutral, and experienced as the natural temporal order in NASA. Sabelis (2008) on a similar line of argument, questions whether linear temporal structures, which are tailored for the demands of factory work, are adequate for all forms of work organization, as it has now become the dominant practice.
The process of knowledge generation
The temporal dimension of innovation has attracted considerable interest, especially from a functionalist perspective; by innovation is commonly understood the product development process, not the knowledge development associated with basic research. Most research in this area studies the effect of slack and time pressure on the innovative capability of the organization (Amabile et al. 1996; Eisenhardt and Tabrizi, 1995; Hsu and Fan, 2010; Ruiz-Moreno et al., 2006). This stream of research explores the effect of time on the environment that would influence the generation of new ideas, and focuses widely on one aspect of time, i.e. pace. Pace is associated with the construction of heterogeneous codes, i.e. set locally important events as the frame of reference to structure the related tasks accordingly. Nevertheless, other aspects such as flexibility, linearity, punctuality, delay, scheduling, and separation remain secondary and under-researched (Ballard and Seibold, 2006).
Influenced by the work on time and strategic change, studies on innovation development have paid particular attention to the importance of setting and meeting deadlines, flexible teamwork, motivation, and improvization (Bernstein and Barrett, 2011; Kamoche et al. 2002). Especially, planning and setting deadlines have been praised in the relevant literature as the key aspect of product development, when an organization wants to take control of the environment, giving its own pace rather than following the external events (Pina e Cunha, 2004). Dominant models of new product development – and progressively of innovation – are born within this commercial rationale (Bessant and Tidd, 2007; Trott, 1998); time here is short-term oriented, and the process is built on the intention to control each stage of development – from the product proposal to its launch. Furthermore, the very basic novelty the new products involve in terms of knowledge, since it is about the applications of existing knowledge rather than radical innovation, makes them easy to price and market.
The question, as raised above, is whether this logic of linear, even, and controllable time, i.e. the temporal metaphor that drives new product development, is adequate for generating new knowledge. The process of knowledge generation is a creative effort that escapes compression and control (O’Carroll, 2008); it is the outcome of a time-generative process that cannot be anchored on a specific temporal point and escapes measurement. Despite the efforts to control it with technologies similar to the ones used in new product development (e.g. business cases, scouting stages, review panels, etc.), it remains elusive, since the tasks involved are of different nature.
The nature of knowledge work
Very limited research has examined the relationship between the nature of knowledge work (particularly the compatibility of the related tasks) and dominant models of innovation management. O’Carroll (2008), based on findings from an IT company, distinguishes two types of tasks involved in knowledge work: routine activities that are described as ‘fuzzy holes’, since they can take place in short time and fill-in the waiting gaps in a commercial organization, and tasks associated with the production of knowledge, such as time devoted in thinking and writing, which she describes as ‘intangible time’. This temporal metaphor emerges from the micro scientific discourse, constructed by the participants in the study. Intangible time has a qualitative aspect, in the sense that it is uncontrollable, cannot be pinned down in a specific moment, and it is impossible to account for in terms of outcomes.
Lyotard (1991) analyses in detail how this poetic time, i.e. time devoted to thinking and writing, ipso facto resists control, and by extension the commercial rationale. Thinking, he argues, essentially implies resisting the control of time: ‘To question requires that something happens that reason has not yet known. In thinking, one accepts the occurrence for what it is ‘not yet’ determined. One does not prejudge it, and there is no security’ (Lyotard, 1991: 74). This comes in contradiction with the ‘rationalization’ prescription of modernity that, together with associated concepts deployed around the commercial rationale and the support of scientific and technological means, aims at controlling the future, by neutralizing future events through prediction. In this discourse, the future hides no uncertainty; events that cannot be explained are subjects for questioning, given the fundamental assumption that there is one cause for their occurrence, which should be established. Evidently, uncontrolled creativity does not sit comfortably with the business discourse, and poetic activities constitute a disrupting and revolutionary act. Lyotard concludes: ‘Peregrination in the desert. One cannot write without bearing witness to the abyss of time in its coming’ (Lyotard, 1991: 74).
Asimakou (2009) highlights the incompatibility between the commercial rationale, which drives new product development and the production of technological knowledge, where time is perceived and enacted as merely a difference between short- and long-term deadlines on the same time-horizon. The present paper refines this argument by suggesting that the time horizon for innovation is essentially infinite: time is not a limited resource or a variable, but a qualitative experience, which is signaled by unpredictable events during the research process. Hence, poetic activities (questioning, thinking, and writing) are increasingly banished when knowledge work is restructured, since in essence the business and the scientific discourse are incommensurable: poetic activities lie beyond the control technologies of modern time, and clash with the commercial rationale.
Methodology
This study is part of a wider project that investigated the innovation processes in two Technology Groups (Grease and Fuels) in an energy company, hereafter called Oil Co. The company employed highly academically qualified scientists in the respective fields, some being world experts in their subjects, and with a current innovative research in alternative fuels. The study took place while the company was changing from a traditional scientific research site into a fully commercial organization, i.e. from R&D Labs into R&D Consultancy. The data collection lasted one year, and involved in-depth interviews (a total of 41 interviews with Technology Group and Innovation Managers, scientists, and support staff, min. 1 hour each), documentary data (newsletters, websites, e-mails, previous research projects conducted on site) and participant observation (attendance of meetings, presentations, informal conversations). This paper includes representative excerpts from the interviews with technology managers and fuels and grease scientists, relevant to time and knowledge generation. The analysis examines the local discourses of time (as constructed in the interviews) and how they relate to the web of articulation of the dominant metaphors of time that have been discussed above.
The paper examines the effects of temporal ‘rationalization’ upon the organization of knowledge work and innovation by focusing on two time metaphors, the grand, modern, adopted by the Business and evident in the interview of Innovation Manager and the related tools to support innovation, and the local, poetic time, suggested by scientists. The analysis develops as follows: first, it examines modern time, its assumptions and shortcomings regarding innovation, the technologies it employs to control knowledge work, and unanticipated consequences that may emerge; then, it looks at poetic time, i.e. the assumptions and activities traditionally associated with innovation, and the nature of knowledge work; finally, the analysis examines the scientists’ reactions – acceptance or resistance to the linear time metaphor – and the discursive strategies followed to justify their stance. The analysis assumes that scientists’ subjectivity is not fully determined by the local discursiveness, but that local discourses provide scientists the arguments to resist the grand discourse; hence the analysis brackets off the construction of local meaning.
A commercialized knowledge company
Oil Co has traditionally been an innovative technology-based company, operating in the Energy Sector. In the past, the company had embarked in a trajectory of rationalizing and commercializing the business. However, the commercial focus on short-term objectives has emptied the shelves from ideas that would sustain the business into the future; hence, the company shifted back to supporting long-term R&D activities, while continuing with the commercialization of laboratories. Technology Manager A describes this trajectory of shifting the focus of innovation activities through time: I guess historically there was more, an emphasis on knowledge creation, because we used to have, eh, proportions of budgets set aside to do blue-sky types of research, we then moved more to a, eh, product development, product application, and it’s only recently that we started to look again at … new knowledge generation.
This scientist distinguishes the scientific tasks and the respective eras when they were formed; in doing so, he makes clear that knowledge generation is different to product development. The company, in order to facilitate the change from product development to innovation, used concepts from that past era, such as ‘knowledge generation’ that made sense to scientists. However, the terms did not come with the same old meaning; hence the new discourse became a site for struggle over its re-articulation. Meanwhile, modern time had restructured the knowledge work on site.
Modern time and knowledge work
The linear, ‘rational’ understanding of time, which is suggested to be the dominant metaphor on site, is depicted below in the words of the Innovation Manager A, who was responsible for designing and managing the innovation mechanism for radically innovative ideas, according to the prescriptions of the Business: down here [points onto a piece of paper] we’ve got next year’s new programmes or whatever; and the gap is here, it’s in the middle, because these projects that are in the long-term never ever become short-term for some reason {laughs} because they are done by long-term researchers, the guys whose drivers are … social or scientific or whatever, and haven’t really got much incentives to get the idea done; and these people don’t even look off their desks. So the gap is sitting here in some sort of three+ year horizon, and again what we are trying to do, in order to change this, is to actively manage this chunk, so that it later drags ideas from year to year, and drags experience from here.
The innovation manager above assumes that the problem of managing the innovation process is a question of timeline, i.e. short-term commercial needs vs long-term scientists’ thinking. For him, there is no essential difference between a short-term (commercial) and a long-term (radical) project, other than the end time, which in the second case stretches longer in the future. Notably, innovation and business managers, even though they had scientific training (all being highly qualified scientists), hardly acknowledged a different time metaphor, other than the linear, that could potentially structure research work, or a difference between routine and creative work that would imply a different temporal regime. This need is highlighted below: […] so we cut innovation off the bottom of R&D budgeting, and we did that successfully from 199… probably from ‘98 onward, that we cut innovation off the bottom, and that was the problem: the people that actually decided how to spend the money, they were all short term business people, there was nobody with a, should we say, helicopter view of what the business might need.
Technology Manager B questions the adequacy of business people to take decisions regarding innovation. He identifies the core problem of supporting innovation in a commercial order as being the uncertainty and uncontrollability of knowledge generation process; the suggestion of ‘helicopter view’ entails the element of undecidability of time, acknowledging that each moment there is a number of directions that could be followed, and is better captured by the spiral time metaphor. Most critically, the interviewee represents the short-term thinking of the Business as barrier to constructing a vision for innovation. For this technology manager, the clash is between the linear metaphor of time, especially the short-term horizon, and the ability to look beyond the timeline, and have a helicopter view of past, present and future, which implies a spiral metaphor.
Technologies for time control
Linear time had progressively become the hegemonic temporal metaphor on site, changing the structure of knowledge activities and work requirements. A number of technologies widely used in commercial environments were implemented, and facilitated this change; these technologies (tools and practices) are suggested to be the refinement of the clock, since they offer more sophisticated methods to control work. The question again is whether these technologies are adequate to support knowledge activities, and what the implications may be on the temporal structure of work.
(a) ‘Time and Delivery’ Scheme: ‘Time’, perceived as a ‘scarce resource’, became a great concern in the commercialized site. In the past, scientists used to work on projects with loosely defined deadlines and deliverables; findings had been reported when available, and projects rolled on from year to year. Clearly this relaxed environment was not compatible with the efforts to rationalize the Business, since deliverables had been highly uncertain and the innovation process could not be tightly controlled. The ‘time and delivery’ scheme signaled the re-organization of scientific work, and brought in the research site the values of the commercial rationale. Essentially, the Scheme intended to discipline scientists by using penalties, and by training them to meet short-term deadlines and become customer-oriented. Scientist A explains this scheme and the underpinning rationale: the penalty of not meeting it [the deadline], is you get less funding for that project, or in principle the project is stopped, so, so, I mean, that’s good, it’s a rigorous practice, why not? it is fair the people to know when it is going to finish, it is fair you’re asked about the chances of success, and I think it is a natural result of that, that your sponsor wants to pin down those ten things to work, doesn’t he?, that’s the normal business, but you have to ask, if people work in that mindset in the majority of time, are they likely to propose terribly innovative projects?
The scientist draws a distinction between ‘normal business’ and ‘innovation work’; he does not challenge the rationale behind the control of time; however, he stresses that innovation requires a different time metaphor, or creativity is lost. Here, we observe the clash between modern and poetic time, wherein the latter escapes the control of diachrony.
b) Activity numbers: ‘Rationalization’ not only changed the time horizon of scientific work from long to short-term, but also supported the development of a system for measuring time and translating it into cost: the activity number. Each activity has a special number for recording the time staff spend on it. Scientist A points out the impact of this system on knowledge work: […] there are no time-free activity numbers, you can’t just call a time and write an activity number, you have to give an explanation. So that’s probably the biggest block for innovation, the time to sit and think about; now, the time to sit and think about is dictated by where you are writing your time.
‘No time-free activity numbers’ means that there was no number for justifying the time spent on thinking about an idea: the activity number would be given after the project/activity were approved and recorded. This technology attempts to control a creative activity, such as thinking by anchoring it on a timeline with a specific deliverable. The process does not leave space for ‘intangible time’, i.e. time to think about a new idea, since there is no activity number for it. The findings here indicate an inconsistency in the logic behind the intensive rationalization of work activities and the hegemonic expansion of modern time, where the latter is questionably adequate to structure all tasks associated with knowledge generation.
c) The Business Case: As part of the rationalization process, the innovation system has moved to the use of the business case, i.e. a tool used in product development processes. A business case intends to provide a close estimation of the time intended to spend on each activity involved in the technological project, the money needed, the deadlines, and deliverables in each stage. The tool assumes that innovation time is linear, controllable and even. Technology Manager B summarizes the frustration of the scientists with the innovation system in place, and their reluctance to engage with it. that’s the first downside with an idea: you have to make a business case, you have to go out and find, you see, before you even start it, before you EVEN START you have to have a business case,… isn’t it just a sad way to do anything? I mean you can’t even have an inkling of an idea, you don’t even know whether it’s going to work or not, because it has to have a business case.
The excerpt here stresses the inadequacy of the Business Case tool, i.e. a product development model, to manage the process of knowledge generation and radical innovation. It points to the uncertainty of the creative work that is necessary before an idea comes to a stage that can be managed with some process.
d) Virtual Teams: To achieve the ‘optimum’ use of knowledge and skills in relation to time, and as Technology Manager A explained, in order ‘to break the walls of these individual silos’, the management proceeded to the restructuring of scientific work into flexible, virtual teams. The work was re-organized in many projects that run simultaneously, and each employee was involved in two or three at the same time, according to their skills, instead of one own project in a specialized area. Furthermore, given that not all project members were located on the same site, the work was designed in loosely dependent parts, which allowed each member to complete their own in predetermined time, without being constrained by other members’ work completion. The restructuring of scientific activities appeals to the ‘compressed’ time metaphor, where activities happen in parallel, since waiting – temporal blank space – is translated into loss of money.
The following senior Scientist C scrutinizes the adequacy of ‘flexibility’ for organizing knowledge work, and questions its feasibility on the simple grounds of human interest. … it may be less rewarding for some of the scientists here [point to the drawing of new work design], because they see themselves as working on five different projects and perhaps are not committed, here [point to the old work design] you felt ‘I’m just committed to one project, now I’ll give my best’, how do they decide how to prioritize and choose which is the best project to put all effort into?
The point raised here is people’s commitment and the quality of the produced work. People have emotions, interests, and preferences, which determine if not the amount of time they will commit on a task, certainly the intensity of their efforts and the subjective priority of tasks. The intensity of efforts, especially in non-measurable work, like knowledge work, is an aspect that cannot be captured in the linear metaphor of time and the related technologies, and even though essential when studying work, it proves impossible to measure and control, as the commercial rationale prescribes.
Poetic time and knowledge work
Some senior scientists attempted to attack the transformations in their work, by contrasting their own understanding of appropriate temporal structures for poetic activities and by defending the creating aspects of knowledge work. Technology Manager B below asserts the essence of a scientist’s work being the freedom to think beyond controlled tasks, and challenges the ‘irrationality’ of management by suggesting that full control over a scientist’s time does not make economic sense: if I’m assigned 100% of my time on a specific project you might as well pay someone with far less qualifications than what I have, because then you are dictating what they should do; I mean you should only ever dictate 80% of a true scientist’s time because then that leaves 20% to think, and that’s really what you are paid to do, it’s to think, …that’s only my own personal view, and I’m sure it’s completely out of the standard modern management literature.
The contradiction between the objective to control the uncertainty of poetic activities, by ‘dictating’ the scientist’ work, and the nature of scientific work is exposed again here, this contradiction is presented as barrier to the production of knowledge. Finally, the interviewee questions the relevance of modern management prescriptions to structuring scientific work.
The creative nature of knowledge work
Senior scientists insisted on counter-posing their understanding of innovation against the product development model of the Business. Their arguments were mainly constructed around promoting the creative side of science, and the uncontrollable nature of knowledge generation. Scientist A elaborates this point: I think sometimes innovation comes through serendipity, you look at something and then somebody else can say well, that could be used for the benefit elsewhere in the organization, I think innovation is creative and I think that’s often forgotten, a lot of science is routine and so on, but I do think that science is also a creative subject, built in thinking what you are doing, sort of while doing the work, and also when you write it up, you present it, you explain it, I think that’s creative as well, and certainly they are aspects that are coming in innovation.
This scientist splits the activities involved in knowledge work in routine tasks and creative tasks; he argues that these tasks resist the control of time, by pointing to the role of serendipity in the process of innovation. His account attacks the rationalization of time by exposing the incompatibility of tasks and stressing that the new discourse ‘often forgets’, i.e. does not support the creative side of science.
The clash between the Business understanding of innovation and scientists is evident in the way they discuss the nature knowledge work and the ways to support innovation. As result, two different attitudes towards innovation initiatives were identified, as it will be discussed next.
The politics of ‘no time’
The argument ‘no time’ appeared to be the most popular justification for not engaging with the innovation systems; for some scientists, it represented indeed the stressful commercial culture, whereas for others it was a discursive strategy to contest the commercial restructuring of knowledge work. These two views are exemplified in the excerpts below, where the junior scientist suggests a different reading of, and a different stance towards the innovation move than the senior scientist.
So, ‘No Time’?
The temporal restructuring on site was perceived in various ways and has caused a mix of feelings and responses, and certainly did not achieve to engage the scientists, at least to the extent that it was anticipated by the Business. Some scientists (mostly new recruits) stated that they were overwhelmed by the new commercial tasks they had to undertake, and that they experienced high levels of stress, whereas others (mostly senior) appeared more relaxed and capable to balance their commercial and scientific tasks. The following junior scientist E justifies his choice not to engage with innovation: the big problem I think we have is time pressures on our resources, […] as I said this year I will focus on aviation courses and they are very specific on what I am trying to do on a day-to-day basis; I am trying to find the time to say OK I’ll take another week off to go on a fuel-conference it will be nice, but it will be one more week out of the office and when I’ll come back I will try to catch up with the work at the best, so it’s difficult, it is more about prioritizing I think, that’s the problem we have with innovation, it’d be nice to do rather than a real part of your day-to-day job, perhaps.
The scientist here picks on the scarcity of time and other resources, and represents it as the main obstacle for innovation. Time pressures on work lead to prioritizing pressing deadlines and day-to-day work over other activities that belong to a longer time-horizon but might be more valuable or relevant to the Business. It is relevant to note that this scientist, like others on site, does not perceive innovation as a ‘real’ part of their work, but as optional activity that does not belong to the compressed time on site. This observation also raises questions as to what the role of a R&D scientist would be in a fully commercial environment.
Or ‘Non-Engagement’?
The study encountered a stark contrast between junior and senior scientists: the former perceived the commercial discourse as the natural order (i.e. the only way of being), yet very stressful, by which they had to comply in order to progress their careers; on the other hand, senior scientists were more opinionated about what innovation is and how to manage it. They clearly disagreed with the ‘rationalization’ of their knowledge activities, and with words or actions attempted to resist the new controlling environment.
As a way of resisting the new temporal regime, the argument ‘no-time’ was probably the most popular justification for not engaging with the innovation initiatives, even when the interviewees acknowledged the significance of innovation for the survival of the Business Group. The question is not whether people really had less time or whether it was a political argument, but how the new ‘rationalized’ time structure provided legitimization to treat it as a valid and accepted reason for not engaging with innovation, i.e. non-measurable activities. The following senior scientist C makes a different use of the argument ‘no time’ from the junior scientist above: I: I think … I have a slight worry about how those ideas are assessed, because. […] if all those 300 hundred ideas are just. not being pushed forward the right way, perhaps I would have a worry about it, well of course some of the ideas have been pushed forward from the Innovation Funnel… but, … I certainly, I’ve probably submitted twelve ideas into it in the first quarter of this year, and I haven’t submitted any for the past six months R: Why? I: I guess I don’t have the time.
This scientist could have found the time to get involved with innovation, as he had done in the past; however, being dissatisfied with the politics of innovation, he chose the legitimate argument ‘no-time’, which practically meant a ‘non-engagement stance’, to ‘sabotage’ the ‘rational’ innovation system. Paradoxically, the strategy of ‘non-engagement’ employed by senior scientists is an acceptable behaviour, since it confirms that the modern time metaphor has reached its goal to control scientists’ work. Either ‘sabotaging’ or ‘complying’ with the work demands, ‘no-time’ points to the inconsistencies of the linear time metaphor in managing knowledge work, and indicates ‘holes’ in the chronarchy fabric, suggesting that spiral time may be more appropriate in this context.
Discussion
The findings throw light in the time metaphors that co-exist in a knowledge-based organization, where the discourse of modernity, with the ‘rational’ prescriptions of cost and time-efficiency guide decisions and actions, and they highlight implications for innovation management.
The study first looked at the technologies associated with the modern time metaphor that are implemented on site in order to ‘rationalize’ knowledge work and control scientists’ time. These technologies are standard tools and practices encountered in any commercial organization, and are accepted as normal management practices: ‘time and delivery’ scheme, activity numbers, business case, and flexible, virtual teamwork (O’Carroll, 2008; Trott, 1997); they are intended to diminish the ‘waiting gaps’ in scientists’ work, and compress their work time, thus, achieving ‘optimum’ use of this scarce resource (Hassard, 2001). Indeed, these technologies are very effective in creating a rationalized temporal structure, where there is virtually no slack in scientists’ time. Together with structural changes, these technologies and the associated concepts bring a change in the language of knowledge work, and the dominant understanding of time.
The modern time metaphor introduces tools such as flexibility, deadlines, an emphasis on delivery, and certainly the perception that time is a precious, scarce resource. All these concepts are not new, and have been extensively discussed in the literature in relation to time and to innovation (Bluedorn and Denhardt, 1988; Bucciarelli, 1988; Dubinskas, 1988a; Pina e Cunha, 2004; Perlow, 1999). Especially, the mainstream literature on innovation management has praised deadlines not only as a way to ensure deliverables, but also as a key-motivator for knowledge workers. However, much research on organizational time disagrees: Perlow (1999) has demonstrated how short-term and daily work takes priority over a long-term and uncertain task, like the tasks associated with knowledge generation. The present study also suggests that technologies for time-control create a stressful and controlled environment, where scientists do not perceive innovation as part of the daily job. Consequently, poetic activities and radical innovation are pushed aside, and short-term objectives become the main task of knowledge work.
As expected, scientists attempted to resist the temporal transformation in their work. It is worth noting that, their arguments do not question in principle the commercial rationale, since this has become the regime of truth in modern organizations; instead they doubt the relevance of tools and practices it constructs for managing knowledge work and innovation. Clark (1985) has stressed how different time metaphors, within a single organization, may lead to conflict; Dubinskas (1988a) attributes these conflicts to the incompatibility of feedback cycles (short- versus long term) between some departments, especially between the Business and the R&D functions. The findings here are explained in this light: the modern time metaphor focuses on short-term objectives and appear inadequate to accommodate and structure the long-term and uncertain tasks associated with knowledge generation.
Scientists employed a set of discursive and non-discursive strategies, in order to expose the inadequacy of these practices for knowledge work. They: (a) expose the incompatibility between short- and long-term horizon for knowledge generation; (b) stress the uncontrollable nature of knowledge work; (c) stress the lack of time (‘no-time’ argument) under the current commercial regime; and (d) adopt a non-engagement stance towards the innovation system, especially since it was promoted as ‘optional’ and not as essential part of their daily tasks. The last two strategies are legitimized by the modern discourse, since they reconfirm that the technologies achieved the control of scientists’ time. Especially, the non-engagement strategy implies an alternative time metaphor: Burrell (1992) conceived such acts of resistance as ‘holes in the temporal fabric of linearity’ that present the potential to generate something new.
It is relevant to examine closer the first two strategies, since they give insights into the nature of knowledge work and its relation to time. The modern discourse tries to control innovation by borrowing the model of product development (Bessant and Tidd, 2007; Trott, 1997): it attempts to control the vague horizon for knowledge generation, by splitting time into short controllable stages, setting deliverables to anchor efforts on the temporal landscape, and requiring an estimation of the expected profits, i.e. relevance to the business and the market. The difference it recognizes between product development and knowledge generation is the time-horizon: for knowledge generation, it allows a timeframe of three to four years, or exceptionally slightly longer. This way, some sense of linearity and finiteness is brought in the process, and thus can be understood by the Business, since it appears that it belongs to the same modern discourse. However, pursuing the controllability of the future is rejecting the possibility for radical, disruptive innovation (Asimakou, 2009; Fonseca, 2002), since the latter challenges periodization, by presenting a turning point in the linear time trajectory. Thus, in order to accommodate the contradiction, the Business re-articulates the pursued ‘long-term innovation’ as a safe and controlled activity, ignoring its radical and uncontrollable character.
On the other side, scientists argued for the uncontrollable character of innovation that makes impossible to know whether and when something will work; scientists often referred to serendipity, in order to emphasize precisely this uncertain and random character of the process. Knowledge generation is asserted as being a creative subject; this creative side is captured by the concept of poetic activities that, as Lyotard (1991) stresses, is the kind that resists by nature any attempt of temporal control. O’Carroll (2008) theorizes this time metaphor associated with these tasks as ‘intangible time’, which is essentially non-measurable, whereas Lyotard (ibid) talks about ‘the abyss of time in its coming’ when one engages in. The difference between the Business’ and the scientists’ understanding of innovation is not a difference between short- and long-term horizon, as the Business would like to think, but between controllable and non-measurable activities.
Participant scientists often stressed the distinction between new product development and radical innovation; the latter being described as a principally creative activity, whereas the former as a core activity in the rationalized Business. Furthermore, no scientist made reference to scheduled events that structure innovation tasks, but to serendipity. It is argued therefore that in relation to innovation, not only is the linear and controllable understanding of time not useful, but it further complicates the temporal landscape, since it fails to capture the infiniteness of the poetic activities. Given the creative nature of scientific work, external and unpredictable events contribute to making sense of familiar and unfamiliar cases, and by means of serendipity a picture of the future is constructed. The new is a synthesis between the old and the unknown; hence the implied metaphor assumes that past, present and future are always in conversation.
It is argued therefore that, radical innovation needs a non-linear time metaphor to support its process, one that would allow for the uncontrollability and unpredictability of events. As discussed earlier, both modern and symbolic time metaphors are based on constructed homogeneous and heterogeneous events; for both the succession (engineered or cyclical) of predictable events is part of their construction, hence they present the same shortcomings. The paper presents preliminary evidence that a non-linear temporal metaphor of time may be more adequate to organize knowledge work. The metaphor of spiral time, as suggested by Burrell (1992), captures the undecidability of the moment, and proposes the continuous conversation between past, present and future; spiral time then would allow an understanding of the infiniteness, or rather the ‘abyss of time’, for which scientists have argued. Consequently, a less stressful working environment could be formed, where knowledge generative interactions would be part of the work organization.
In conclusion, this paper offers a critique to the dominant time metaphor of modernity in terms of its adequacy to organize knowledge work, and throws light into its shortcomings in supporting innovation activities; it also represents a preliminary investigation on the adequacy of spiral time in this area. Certainly, more work is needed on how this concept may support the organization of knowledge work, and especially the practices and activities associated with innovation development.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.