In their quest for greater efficiency, companies have opted to apply state-of-the-art automation technologies, with obvious repercussions for the number of manual workers they hire. Nowadays, the tendency is to call on technicians who interact with sophisticated equipment that carries out the entire production process, from robots for manufacturing cars to computerized ovens for optimizing the bread baking industry. At the same time, there has been a rise in the demand for knowledge workers to direct, plan and administer organizational processes. This is particularly notable during times of economic expansion.

However, as soon as they spy the first black cloud in the market, the same companies that gathered "stars" around themselves start to get rid of them. In the 1980s and 90s some of the most reputable corporations in North America began laying off talent left, right and center, only to gradually rehire the same people before launching a new round of layoffs in 2001. By 2007, with the crisis of 2008 already on the horizon, a repeat of the same pattern was underway.

Why are companies so fixated on this perverse process of creating value only to destroy it?

According to Roger Martin, dean of the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto, the answer to this question lies in the fact that despite numerous studies on the knowledge economy, companies have still not grasped how to structure their workforce between manual labor and intellectual labor.  Clearly, knowledge workers "don't manufacture products, but they do produce something: decisions", such as what to sell, at what price, what logistical systems to use, and so on. Their raw materials are data. Their productivity is measured in memos, presentations, and specialist committees where crucial decisions are made.

A manual worker's job description is all about productivity, measured in the number of units produced. But can, say, a marketing manager's job be designed in the same way? Let us not forget that the two key factors for achieving efficiency in the workplace are how each role is structured and the company's ability to learn from the lessons of experience.

A marketing manager will have a heavy workload during the rollout of a new product or when grappling with a competitor's aggressive strategy, but will undoubtedly have a much smaller workload at other times of the year. It is a serious mistake to assume that a knowledge worker's productivity will be constant and match the demand for labor. Knowledge workers usually learn by developing projects at the company, and not necessarily by making big decisions every day. That is why companies should treat their knowledge workers as "experts" at the entire organization's disposal. When these workers collaborate as part of a team with professionals from different areas, knowledge flows much better. Moreover, the company will not need to expand its workforce as it will achieve greater flexibility. 

In the consulting and IT sectors, project-based organization is already very common, and now the same system needs to be adopted in other sectors in order to break the binge-and-purge cycle of hiring and firing professionals.  This will not only improve the company's productivity but will also cut down on training and adaptation processes.

Knowledge evolves constantly, requiring workers to adapt to new times and managers to structure their organizations in line with the changes imposed by the modern world.