es” built into them as well as the fact that productivity leaps are obtained by the confluence of better ways of doing things along with innovation that is a direct result of applying knowledge to situations.
To examine the impact of Drucker’s work on the linkage between the learning organization and productivity, I use the references from a journal article by Burton Gummer as well as the textbook by Drucker to emphasize the key connections between Drucker’s work and productivity. To quote from the article, “Drucker points to six factors that determine knowledge-worker productivity: Knowledge workers must, on their own, identify the task that they are to accomplish; knowledge workers have to have autonomy; continuing innovation has to be part of knowledge work; knowledge work requires continuous learning and continuous teaching on the part of the knowledge worker; knowledge worker productivity is primarily a matter of quality of output, not quantity; and finally, the knowledge worker must be seen by management as an asset rather than a cost. The crucial question in knowledge-worker productivity is: What is the task? In manual work, the key question is always: How should the work be done? In manual work, the task is always given. In knowledge work the task does not program the worker.” (Gummer, 2000, p.11)
As the above excerpt makes it clear, Drucker used sophisticated reasoning to conclude that learning organizations do indeed contribute to higher productivity as well as the role of knowledge workers is indeed paramount in propagating the way in which the mutually reinforcing loops of organizational processes and the knowledge workers contribution feed on each other.
if we examine the impact of knowledge on productivity in a specific way, we find that the article by Casey makes the connection clear in terms of how knowledge workers redefine the roles that the organization sets for them as well as ensure that their contribution leads to higher