International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning, 9(1), 59–73
Rise of Intellectual Workers
and Intellectual Work
Maria Jakubik
Ronin Institute, USA
This paper seeks to answer the questions What is human intelligence? How
does human intellect evolve? How does intellectual worker differ from knowl-
edge worker? How does intellectual work differ from knowledge work? As a
synthesis of the literature review, the ‘rise of human intellect’ framework is
presented. The novelty of the paper is in proposing to change the ‘knowledge
worker’ and ‘knowledge work’ concepts introduced by Peter Drucker in the
1950s to ‘intellectual worker’ and ‘intellectual work’ because they seem to
be more appropriate terms with the move from the knowledge economy to the
creative and mind economy.
Keywords: creative and mind economy, human intelligence, intellectual
worker, intellectual work, knowledge and knowing
Introduction
This viewpoint paper is motivated by the recent enormous interest in de-
veloping machine intelligence to replicate human intelligence (HI). Is arti-
ficial intelligence (AI) a threat or opportunity for humans? Will AI replace
HI? Can AI make ethical decisions? The importance of these questions is
demonstrated by the largest single donation of GBP 150 million from Mr
Schwarzman to Oxford University in June 2019. The purpose is to establish
a new institute to study the ethics of AI. Mr Schwarzman raised important
questions ‘Why are we here? What are our values? How does technology
deal and interact with that?’ He also said that it was ‘important for people
to remember what being human is’ (Jeffreys, 2019). This paper focuses on
what human intellect is and how it is evolving.
This paper is further motivated by another, more general, emerging trend,
namely by the continuing integration of natural sciences (i.e., mathematics,
statistics, chemistry, physics, biology, bioengineering, bionics, engineer-
ing, robotics, etc.) and social sciences (i.e., history, anthropology, philos-
ophy, sociology, psychology, economics, education, management, leader-
ship, etc.). Boutellier et al. (2011, p. 2) write that natural sciences seek
to discover the laws that rule the world, and they focus on ‘the natural and
not on the social world.’ They refer to Ledoux (2002, p. 34) who defines
natural sciences as ‘disciplines that deal only with natural events’ (empha-
sis added). The author of this paper, however, disagrees with this definition
www.issbs.si/press/ISSN/2232-5697/9_59-73.pdf
60 Maria Jakubik
because natural sciences are increasingly turning towards understanding
human beings in the social world in order to create humanoid robots and to
replace parts of human work. Further, Boutellier et al. (2011, pp. 3–4) argue
that the difference between natural and social sciences lies in their subject
of study. According to them, social sciences focus on individuals, groups,
society, social interactions and coexistence. The author of this paper ar-
gues that social sciences has started to move toward subjects typical for
natural sciences, i.e. to explore how AI can replicate the features of HI. In
brief, social sciences focus on what it means to be human, on understand-
ing HI, on finding out what features of HI can be imitated and replicated
by AI. Natural sciences on the other hand, nowadays increasingly focus on
how to imitate and replicate features of HI by AI. To conclude, the author of
this paper argues that in the creative economy, the subject of study (i.e.,
HI) in natural and social sciences is converging, which makes the topic of
this paper interesting, contemporary and needed.
Additionally, there is a need for this paper because of the proliferation
of AI. It seems paradoxical that people design AI without knowing precisely
what HI is. ‘AI systems have yet to demonstrate the kind of flexible intelli-
gence that enables humans to reason, plan, and act in many different do-
mains’ (Strickland, 2019, p. 4). Flexibility of human reasoning is underlined
by McAfee and Brynjolfsson (2017, p. 71), arguing that ‘the cognitive work
that we humans do to navigate so easily through so many thickets of rules
is an ongoing demonstration of Polanyi’s Paradox, the strange phenomenon
that we know more than we can tell.’ Similarly, this paradox is expressed
in the Oxford Economics publication (2019), where on the one hand Mr
Cooper (p. 3) sustains that AI and the robotics revolution ‘will transform the
capabilities of robots and their ability to take over tasks once carried out by
humans.’ On the other hand, the report (p. 7) admits that ‘it will be difficult
for machines to replace humans in service sector occupations that demand
compassion, creativity, and social intelligence.’ Compassion, empathy, emo-
tional intelligence, and creativity are ingenious human qualities that will be
difficult to perform even by AI-enhanced robots. Therefore, this paper seeks
to explore contemporary questions: What is human intelligence? How does
human intellect evolve? How does intellectual worker differ from knowledge
worker? How does intellectual work differ from knowledge work?
The paper has five sections. The introduction establishes why the topic
is interesting, contemporary and needed. The literature review discusses
points and counter-points related to HI. Next, the proposed model of ‘rise
of human intellect’ is presented. Section four argues why the intellectual
worker and work concepts should replace the knowledge worker and work
concepts in the creative and mind economy. Here, also the differences be-
tween intellectual worker and knowledge worker and between intellectual
International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning
Rise of Intellectual Workers and Intellectual Work 61
work and knowledge work are distinguished. Finally, the limitations and nov-
elty contributions of the paper are discussed.
What is Human Intelligence and How Does It Evolve?
In the fourth industrial revolution (Schwab, 2016), in the age of digitalisa-
tion and computerisation, robots, AI, Internet of Things (IoT), smart phones,
smart cars, smart clothes, smart watches are complementing and helping
human life and work. They are integral parts of our lives and everyday prac-
tices. Even if it is unimaginable to live without technology, the human intel-
lect, HI, human knowledge, human creativity, human-to-human interactions,
social intelligence (Albrecht, 2006; Goleman, 2006) and emotional intelli-
gence (Goleman, 1996) have started to play an exceedingly important role
in the creative economy.
In the creative economy, skills related to HI will be in high demand. Ac-
cording to the The Future of Jobs Report 2018 (World Economic Forum,
2018, p. 12), in 2022 the top ten most demanded skills will be analytical
thinking and innovation, active learning and learning strategies, creativity,
originality and initiative, technology design and programming, critical think-
ing and analysis, complex problem-solving, leadership and social influence,
emotional intelligence, reasoning, problem-solving and ideation, and sys-
tems analysis and evaluation. This list of future skills also demonstrates
that skills are needed from both the natural and social sciences. Similarly,
based on research from LinkedIn Learning (Charlton, 2019), the most de-
manded soft skills will be creativity, persuasion, collaboration, adaptability,
and time management; and the most demanded hard skills will be cloud
computing, artificial intelligence, analytical reasoning, people management,
and user experience (UX) design. In brief, HI requires different, soft and hard
skills in order to operate successfully.
Human intelligence is multi-dimensional. Gardner (2006) argues that
multiple intelligences exist simultaneously. He outlines the five comple-
mentary dimensions of mind such as disciplined, synthesising, creating,
respectful, and ethical minds. He emphasises the role and responsibility
of education in cultivating all five kinds of minds because none of them is
superior to the other. ‘The five kinds of minds can and should work syn-
ergistically’ (Gardner, 2008, p. 166). Gardner’s theory about the multiple
features of the mind is similar to Edward de Bono’s concept presented in
his classical book, ‘Six Thinking Hats’ (2000). De Bono assigns colours
to different types of thinking such as white – neutral and objective, red –
emotional, black – cautious, careful, yellow – sunny, positive, green – cre-
ativity and new ideas, and blue – control and organisation. His goals are
‘to simplify thinking by allowing the thinker to deal with one thing at the
same time’ and ‘to allow a switch in thinking’ (de Bono, 2000, p. 176).
Volume 9, Issue 1, 2020
62 Maria Jakubik
Lateral thinking (de Bono, 1990) is about how to use the mind to handle
information, to generate new ideas, to look for new and creative ways of
thinking. ‘Lateral thinking develops as an attitude of mind’ (p. 12). The role
of lateral thinking increases when innovation is the driver in the mind econ-
omy. He asks an important question ‘What is a beautiful mind?’ (de Bono,
2004). ‘The beautiful mind [. . .] is a mind that can be appreciated by others
[. . .] usually through conversation’ (p. 2). The beautiful mind best shows in
our relationship with the social world. In the mind economy, the need for a
better understanding of mind, knowledge, knowing, thinking, intellect, and
creativity is essential.
Drawing on the theory of multiple intelligences of Gardner, Albrecht
(2006, p. 9) identifies six categories of intelligence such as abstract, social,
practical, emotional, aesthetic, and kinaesthetic intelligence. Albrecht uses
the ASPEAK acronym to help to remember these six intelligences. He also
refers to Goleman (1996) who identifies self-awareness, self-regulation, mo-
tivation, empathy, and relationships as five dimensions of emotional intel-
ligence. Goleman (1996) in his theory of emotional intelligence strongly
builds on Salovey and Mayer (1990) who first identified the five domains
of emotional intelligence such as knowing one’s emotions, managing emo-
tions, motivating oneself, recognising emotion in others, and handling re-
lationships. Building on both Goleman’s and Gardner’s theories, Albrecht
concludes that the main factors in social intelligence are situational aware-
ness, presence, authenticity, clarity, and empathy. The author of this paper
argues that in the mind economy, where the driving force of value creation
is creativity and innovation, there is a need for a deeper understanding of
HI formation and intellectual work.
How does human intellect evolve? In the fourth industrial revolution,
where computerization, AI, and human robotics are essential parts of our
lives, there is an even greater need for social connections and social life in
developing HI. Hobson (2004) explores how the human mind and thinking
develop. His point is that the mind develops through social and emotional
engagement with each other. Hobson (2004, p. xv) even argues that, ‘If
computers want to think, they had better get a social life.’ Furthermore,
Hobson (2004, pp. 107–108, pp. 271–272), with a relatedness triangle
model, explains how the social intellect of an infant develops. Figure 1 is a
modified model of Hobson’s triangle.
Social intellect develops on the one hand during the individual, the ‘me’
relatedness to the physical world, to ‘things’ (1), to the place, which di-
rectly relates to life. It could be, for example, a person’s country, city, dis-
trict, street, workplace (building, infrastructure, etc.). On the other hand,
individuals also relate to ‘others,’ to their social world (2) such as family
members, community, friends, neighbours, fellow citizens, and colleagues
International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning
Rise of Intellectual Workers and Intellectual Work 63
Individual world (me) Physical world (things)
Social world (others)
1
42
3
6
5
Figure 1 Social Intellect Development Model (adapted from Hobson, 2004, p. 107)
at work. In brief, individuals relate to physical and social worlds at the same
time. Therefore, the ‘me’ has a physical and an emotional engagement. The
relationship of the individual to the social world is a two-way relationship
because ‘others’ connect to the individual (3) too. Others have their own re-
lationship to the physical world (4). Individual intellect and thoughts develop
when the ‘me’ experiences and feels how the ‘others’ relate to ‘things’ (5),
and by internalising, understanding, and by taking others’ attitude, the ‘me’
develops its own attitude and becomes cognitively engaged with the social
world (6).
Summing up, on the one hand Hobson (2004) focuses only on the re-
lationships of ‘me’ to ‘others’ (i.e., to social world) and to ‘things’ (i.e., to
the physical world) (Figure 1). Both the ‘others’ and ‘things’ are external
worlds to the individual. What is missing in Hobson’s arguments is opening
up the internal processes of thoughts, namely the connections 5 and 6 in
Figure 1. It is not clear how the ‘me’ understands the ‘others’ relations to
the physical world and how the ‘me’ develops his/her own attitude when
cognitively engaging with the social world.
How human thoughts and thinking develop is an eternal problem of phi-
losophy, psychology, sociology, and education. Weed (2003, pp. 166–179)
proposes the processes of x and y thinking. She concludes that an x-type
thinking process aims to understand and make sense of the direct expe-
rience. The direct experiences are experiences in physical and social ex-
ternal worlds (Figure 1). On the other hand, the y-type of thinking process
deals with standardising, interrelating, and conceptualising thoughts. This
process relates to the internal world, to the sense-making process of a per-
son. Weed focuses on the internal world when discussing the two types of
thinking processes and seems to ignore the relationships to the external
worlds. Furthermore, the author of this paper does not agree with Weed’s
saying that ‘the x- and y-type thinking processes are [. . .] autonomous of
each other [. . .] the connection between the x- and y-type thinking processes
might occur’ (Weed, 2003, p. 166, emphasis added). Weed admits though
that ‘Both are needed for human thinking to take place, and most cases
of human thinking are a mixture of both’ (Weed, 2003, p. 165, emphasis
Volume 9, Issue 1, 2020
64 Maria Jakubik
added). However, it could be argued that the x- and y-type of thinking pro-
cesses cannot be autonomous of each other as they are happening at the
same time and place. They must be in unity.
Similarly to Weed, Kahneman (2011, pp. 20–21), drawing on the latest
achievements in cognitive and social psychology, presents his view on how
the mind works. He uses the terms fast and slow thinking. He identifies
fast thinking as system 1 that ‘operates automatically and quickly, with little
or no effort and no sense of voluntary control,’ and slow thinking as system
2 that ‘allocates attention to the effortful mental activities that demand
it, including complex computations. The operations of system 2 are often
associated with the subjective experience of agency, choice, and concentra-
tion.’ Importantly, Kahneman, in contrast to Weed, does not separate the
two systems of the working mind. He argues that decision-making, and judg-
ments require unity of both systems, i.e., ‘How do I feel about it?’ and ‘How
do I think about it?’ (p. 139). His thoughts concur with Goleman (1996,
pp. 32, 49), who writes that ‘in a sense, we have two brains, two minds –
and two different kinds of intelligence: rational and emotional [. . .] a person
has both cognitive and emotional intelligence.’ Moreover, according to Gole-
man, these are the qualities of emotional intelligence that make us more
fully human.
There must be a unity not only between emotional and cognitive in-
telligence, but also between the external world and internal world when
thoughts, social intellect and human thinking develop. Goleman (2006, p.
84) argues that social intelligence, as one aspect of emotional intelligence,
has two broad categories, namely ‘social awareness, what we sense about
others – and social facility, what we then do with that awareness.’ Primal
empathy, attunement, empathic accuracy, social cognition are parts of so-
cial awareness. Synchrony, self-presentation, influence, and concern are
elements of social facility. Rogers et al. (1992, pp. 297–298) call for more
research in this area because ‘little attention has been paid to the way in
which individuals interact with external representations or each other when
immersed in a cognitive activity’ and there is a need ‘to develop accounts
of cognition that are more “situated” in the context in which they occur.’
The author of this paper concurs with these concerns, which she aims to
address in this paper.
The unity of the external and internal words when knowledge, knowing
and HI arise is illustrated by the ‘becoming to know’ model (Jakubik, 2011a,
p. 391, 2011, p. 61). Jakubik argues that her model demonstrates the be-
coming epistemology that is ‘both an engagement (actions and interactions)
with the real world in a living present and making sense of the experience’
(Jakubik, 2011a, p. 391, emphasis added). The need for this unity corre-
sponds with the thoughts of Spinoza who argued for the unity of mind and
International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning
Rise of Intellectual Workers and Intellectual Work 65
matter and for the unity of external and internal worlds. Spinoza wrote ‘The
body cannot determine the mind to thought, neither the mind determine the
body to motion [. . .] the mind and the body are one and the same thing’
(Spinoza, 2001, p. 100). ‘The power of the mind [. . .] is determined by in-
telligence alone, we shall determine by the knowledge of the mind alone’
(Spinoza, 2001, p. 229). Durant (1954, p. 187) refers to Spinoza when
he writes that ‘The greatest good is the knowledge of the union which the
mind has with the whole nature.’ The ‘becoming to know’ model also shows
how ontological and epistemological chains link to each other in a specific
context and time. Intellect arises when learning and knowing interact during
the ‘becoming to know’ process.
There has been an ongoing debate and different views about HI and
knowledge ever since Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. Throughout the history
of philosophy, different views have developed about what knowledge is and
how we know what we know. John Locke (1632–1704) argued that experi-
ence and sensation are fundamental in knowing and all human knowledge is
based on experience. As a contra argument, Immanuel Kant (1724–1804)
maintained that not all knowledge is based on our senses. The mind trans-
forms the sensations to ideas, i.e., transforms ‘perceptual’ knowledge into
‘conceptual’ knowledge. ‘Sensation is unorganized stimulus, conception is
organized perception, science is organized knowledge, wisdom is organized
life’ (Durant, 1954, p. 271).
The father of dialectical idealism Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770–
1831) brought an important contribution to the development of thinking,
namely the movement, progression, the interplay of being and becoming.
As a counterpoint to Hegel’s philosophy, Arthur Schopenhauer (1788–1869)
emphasised the role of will in the development of mind and thinking. He
wrote that ‘The will is the only permanent and unchangeable element of
mind [. . .] gives unity to consciousness and holds together all its ideas and
thoughts’ (Durant, 1954, p. 313). This concurs with Benedict de Spinoza
(2001, pp. 88–89) who writes in Ethics, first published in 1677, that ‘the will
and the intellect are one and the same.’ Russell (1954) in presenting the
French philosopher Henri Bergson’s (1859–1941) thoughts about instinct
(i.e., intuition) and intellect concluded that ‘Intellect is the power of seeing
things as separate one from another, and matter is that which is separated
into distinct things. In reality there are no solid separate solid things, only
an endless stream of becoming’ (Russell, 1954, p. 822, emphasis added).
Spatial intuition plays an important role in both inductive and deductive
reasoning. Intellect becomes in a specific place, space and time.
Summing up, the integrative and theoretical literature review of this sec-
tion illustrates the ongoing interests, discussions, and debates about what
HI is, what skills and attributes contribute to HI, how human thinking devel-
Volume 9, Issue 1, 2020
66 Maria Jakubik
ops, and how the human brain works. These discourses of social scientists
are especially important nowadays when, with the help of technology and
natural sciences, we want to create robots enhanced with AI that can repli-
cate HI. The aim of this critical theoretical literature review and the critical
discussion of relevant existing models about HI development was to show
the main concepts as building blocks of the proposed framework of this
paper. The literature review also establishes the arguments and the needs
for a new framework and new insight on HI, which is presented next.
Rise of Human Intellect Framework
This section presents the ‘rise of human intellect’ framework (Figure 2).
This is the main outcome or synthesis of the different points and contra
points, different views about the rise of human mind, human thoughts and
thinking, social intellect, and knowing in the reviewed literature.
According to Bergson, the beauty of the human intellect development is
that it is in a constant flux, it is evolving and becoming during the whole life
(Russell, 1954, p. 822). In this process, the interplay between perceptions
and judgments is crucial (Goleman, 1996; Kahneman, 2011). The interplay
between the external and internal worlds (Goleman, 2006; Jakubik, 2011b)
is the driver of the development of something new (e.g., feelings, under-
standing, attitude, action, and knowledge). How individuals sense their
external worlds (physical and social) and develop intuitions about these
worlds and then how they make sense of all their perceptions through emo-
tional and cognitive judgments lead to new thinking, new thoughts, and to
new knowledge of the intellect. Building on these thoughts the ‘rise of hu-
man intellect’ is presented in Figure 2, which shows the synthesis of these
thoughts in a simplified way. There is the conscious and/or unconscious
will, and the thoughts and objectives of the individual (i.e., ‘me’) to engage
in the worlds of ‘others’ and ‘things’ in a specific time and place. While
experiencing the external worlds through learning, actions and interactions,
perceptions develop through intuitions and sensations. Simultaneously, the
‘me’ internalises these perceptions and develops emotional and cognitive
judgements. In conclusion, the new knowing, thoughts, knowledge, and in-
tellect of the ‘me’ are formulated by judgements of perceptions. The idea of
becoming is a change from being in a specific time and place and moving to
another time and place, to another living moment. That is called ‘becoming
to know,’ when the ‘me’ becomes a new ‘me.’ Thoughts and intellect arise
this way.
In brief, human thinking and intellect development requires physical,
emotional, cognitive, behavioural, and social engagements with both the so-
cial and the physical world. The rise of human intellect is inseparable from
its contexts (i.e., place, space, time). In this mutual interconnectedness,
International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning
Rise of Intellectual Workers and Intellectual Work 67
Perception
Judgement
Intuition (from general to individual) Emotion (feeling)
Sensation (from individual to general) Cognition (thinking)
External worlds
(‘others’ and
‘things’)
Internal world
Individual (‘me’ and my will)
Individual (‘me’ and my will)
Figure 2 Rise of Human Intellect
the human intellect forms its context, and at the same time it is formed by
its context. Human intellect develops in everyday actions and interactions,
in work practices. Because of the technological development, the world of
work has changed and new ways of working have emerged.
There are studies that aim to understand the new ways of working, their
impacts on communication, leadership, and collaboration (Hesse, 2018,
pp. 54–78). While digitalisation is transforming businesses and ways of
working, there is little attention paid to how it transforms the actors them-
selves, the human beings, and the human intellect. Sternberg (2018) ar-
gues that from research on intelligence the sociocultural aspects are ig-
nored. Therefore, it needs to be explored who the actor (i.e., intellectual
worker) is and what the actor does (i.e., intellectual work) in these new
contexts of the mind economy. This is the focus of the next section.
Intellectual Workers and Intellectual Work versus Knowledge Workers
and Knowledge Work
Already in the 1960s, Peter Drucker (1966, 1969, 2001, 2008) coined the
terms ‘knowledge worker’ and ‘knowledge work’ to differentiate them from
the physical worker and manual work of the industrial economy. ‘The terms
knowledge industries, knowledge work and knowledge worker are nearly fifty
years old. [. . .] Knowledge has become the key resource and the only scarce
one.’ Knowledge workers are professionals. ‘The knowledge society is a
society of seniors and juniors rather than of bosses and subordinates.’
(Drucker, 2016, p. 38–39) However, this paper argues that, in the creative
or mind economy, it would be more appropriate to change these terms to
‘intellectual worker’ and ‘intellectual work.’ The arguments are that human
intellect is more than knowledge, intellectual worker is more than knowledge
worker, and intellectual work is more than knowledge work.
Table 1 shows the similarities and differences between knowledge work-
ers, knowledge work of the knowledge economy and intellectual workers
and intellectual work of the creative and mind economy. In the creative econ-
Volume 9, Issue 1, 2020
68 Maria Jakubik
Table 1 Knowledge versus Intellectual Workers and Knowledge versus Intellectual Work
Questions* Knowledge workers Intellectual workers
Who am I? Knowledge workers identify them-
selves mainly by their profession
(e.g., lawyer, teacher, knowledge
technologist). They are profession-
als and specialists of their fields of
knowledge acquired in formal and
continuing education.
Intellectual workers identify them-
selves mainly by their interest in a
specific field (e.g., doing art, playing
music, doing science, social work).
What are my
strengths?
Knowledge workers ask and seek for
feedback from others to know their
strengths.
They receive feedback, apprecia-
tion from others based on what they
strengthen in their personal traits.
How do I
work?
They prefer to work independently
and autonomously with no control
and supervision. They seek to solve
problems with applying their spe-
cialized knowledge. They are result-
oriented, they apply substantial theo-
retical knowledge in their work.
They seek to find big, general, ur-
gent, important problems that mat-
ter not only for their organisation but
also for the whole community and
society (e.g., climate change, wars,
social injustice).
Where do I
belong?
Belonging to a professional commu-
nity is more important for knowledge
workers than belonging to an organi-
sation. They decide where they want
to belong. They are highly mobile.
They want to belong to an organisa-
tion, community whose values and
ethical principles do not contradict
with theirs.
What is my
contribu-
tion?
They want to contribute quality and
quantity by solving tasks assigned
to them, by acting upon their knowl-
edge. They thrive for performance
and achievements not primarily for
money.
The main objective for intellectual
workers is to contribute with cre-
ative new ideas, innovation to solv-
ing problems they perceive signifi-
cant in physical and social worlds.
What are my
relationship
responsibili-
ties?
Knowledge workers take the respon-
sibility for their work. They are not
subordinates but specialists and as-
sociates. They do not need bosses
to manage them. They need col-
leagues who trust them.
Intellectual workers not only take re-
sponsibility for their relationships but
they are continuously seeking to im-
prove these relationships.
How to plan
for the
second half
of my life?
Knowledge workers think about their
future, they are ready to start a new
career, to move to another organiza-
tion, they are ‘knowledge nomads,’
mobility within their special field is
important for them. They care about
their own success.
Intellectual workers think about find-
ing joy, happiness, and satisfaction
in their own work and at the same
time, they help others to flourish and
succeed.
Continued on the next page
omy, value is created through innovation, imagination, new ideas, and new
thoughts of intellectual minds. Nevertheless, applying existing knowledge
and developing knowing will continue to play important roles in the future.
International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning
Rise of Intellectual Workers and Intellectual Work 69
Table 1 Continued from the previous page
Questions* Knowledge work Intellectual work
What is my task at
work?
Knowledge workers can define
and perform the tasks at work.
Intellectual workers not only are
able to define for themselves
what the task/work is but they
have arguments for why the task
is important.
How do I manage
myself at work?
Knowledge workers are not sub-
ordinates. They are specialists,
professionals who can manage
themselves.
Intellectual workers are able of
leading themselves and have an
impact on ‘others’ and ‘things’ in
their work.
Do I have autonomy
at work?
Knowledge workers need auton-
omy and trust to conduct their
work, to make their decisions.
Intellectual workers achieve au-
tonomy in their work and make
decisions by considering ‘others.’
They want others to follow them
for what values they have and for
what they did for others.
Do I continuously
innovate in my job?
They aim to continuously inno-
vate in their work, find solutions
for the problems.
Creativity and innovation are
their everyday practices.
Do I learn and
teach continuously?
Continuous learning and teach-
ing have to be built into their job.
It is not training but learning that
drives them.
They continuously learn, develop
themselves, and care about oth-
ers’ learning.
Do I contribute not
only quantity but
quality as well in
my work?
They are accountable firstly for
quality and then for quantity con-
tributions. They want to demon-
strate their own contributions to
the organisation.
They consider ethical values,
quality, and quantity in their work
contributions. They thrive in shar-
ing their expertise with others.
Does my organisa-
tion treat me as an
asset rather than a
cost?
Knowledge workers are loyal not
to their organisations but to their
knowledge area.
Intellectual workers look for joy
and happiness in their work, they
are loyal to their profession and
field of expertise.
Notes *Proposed by Drucker (2001, pp. 131–159, 2008).
Additionally, there will be a great need for emotional and social intelligence
(Albrecht, 2006; Goleman, 1996, 2006; Sternberg, 2018) that will promote
the move from knowledge toward wisdom. Indeed, there is a need to move
away from a more egocentric (‘me’) view toward an altrocentric (‘others’)
perspective in feeling, thinking and in behaving. For intellectual workers it
is important that they contribute to making the world a better place for all.
Both knowledge and intellectual workers have strong intrinsic motivation.
Knowledge workers seek not only financial recognition but also appreciation
at work. Knowledge workers apply their theoretical knowledge at work. Intel-
lectual work is hard work, and as a continuous struggle it is an attitude. It
will not necessarily lead to fast success and appreciation. Therefore, intel-
Volume 9, Issue 1, 2020
70 Maria Jakubik
lectual workers need more persistence, determination, patience, and sup-
port from others. They need to be fully (i.e., emotionally, mentally, socially
and physically) engaged in what they do.
Conclusion
This paper aims to address important questions about the creative and
mind economy, such as: ‘What is human intelligence? How does human in-
tellect evolve? How does intellectual worker differ from knowledge worker?
How does intellectual work differ from knowledge work?’ By examining the
arguments and counter-arguments about human mind, thoughts, thinking,
knowing and intellect development in the literature, the ‘rise of human in-
tellect’ framework (Figure 2) is created. This framework shows, in a syn-
thesised form, the interplay of the physical (‘things’) and social (‘others’),
external and internal worlds of the individual (‘me’) in a living moment and
place. It also demonstrates how the perceptions develop through intuition
and sensation, how these perceptions are judged emotionally and cogni-
tively (i.e., system 1 and system 2, cf. Kahneman, 2011), and how they be-
come integral parts of the individual intellect. Human intellect formation is
a continuous movement from states of being to becoming (Russell, 1954).
The author of this paper concurs with McAfee and Brynjolfsson (2017, p.
120) who argue that ‘for a long, long time to come, people will still have a
large role to play in creative work, even as technology races ahead.’ They
further argue that being creative ‘requires that the creator be living in that
world, and computers are not “living” in ours in any real sense of the word.’
The proposed framework of this paper therefore facilitates a more enlight-
ened understanding of HI development.
Answers to questions How does intellectual worker differ from knowl-
edge worker? How does intellectual work differ from knowledge work? are
presented in Table 1. Moreover, the paper argues that, in the creative and
mind economy, it would be more appropriate to use the concepts of ‘in-
tellectual worker’ and ‘intellectual work’ rather than knowledge worker and
knowledge work that were appropriate in the knowledge economy (Drucker,
2001, 2008).
Main limitations of this paper are that it explores only a limited range
of literature and that human intellect is approached here from one, mainly
social sciences’ perspective. These limitations, however, offer areas for
further research. The rise of intellect needs to be explored more from the
educational, sociological, and other social science viewpoints, as well as
from the natural sciences’ perspectives. Strickland (2019, p. 4) argues
that ‘everybody thinks that [. . .] AI will transform society from top to bottom
– yet no one knows when AI agents will be smart enough to really shake
things up.’ As further research, it would be an interesting topic to research
International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning
Rise of Intellectual Workers and Intellectual Work 71
the conditions of joy, happiness and pleasure from intellectual work and to
study the wellbeing of intellectual workers.
Creative, intellectual work gives moments of satisfaction when feelings
and thoughts are united. How to be happy and intelligent, and how to be
happy through intelligence are concepts not easy to determine, but are
linked with the outcome of hard work, the continuous struggle to achieve
a goal or vision. It could be argued whether the vision and goal are fixed
or move during the intellectual journey, yet they do emerge along the way.
Bertrand Russell (1954) provides the following analogy for the process of
intellectual work when he writes that ‘first walking all over the mountain in
a mist, until every path ridge and valley is separately familiar, and then,
from a distance, seeing the mountain whole and clear in bright sunshine’
(Russell, 1954, p. 145).
Regardless of its limitations, this paper offers a new, original framework
for a better understanding of the ‘rise of human intellect’ (Figure 2). It has
also novel suggestions (Table 1) for using the concepts of intellectual worker
and intellectual work that seem to be more appropriate in the creative and
mind economy than the knowledge worker and knowledge work of the knowl-
edge economy. Although this paper may be imperfect, in Durant’s words,
‘we may be forgiven if we advanced the matter a little, and have done our
best’ (1954, p. xv).
References
Albrecht, K. (2006). Social intelligence: The new science of success. Jossey-
Bass.
Boutellier, R., Gassmann, O., Raeder, S., Dönmez, D., & Domigall, Y. (2011).
What is the difference between social and natural sciences? https://www
.collier.sts.vt.edu/sciwrite/pdfs/boutellier_2011.pdf
Charlton, E. (2019, 14 January). The hard and soft skills to futureproof your
career. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/01/the-hard-and-soft
-skills-to-futureproof-your-career-according-to-linkedin/
de Bono, E. (2004). How to have a beautiful mind. Vermilion.
de Bono, E. (2000). Six thinking hats. Penguin.
de Bono, E. (1990). Lateral thinking: A textbook of creativity. Penguin.
Drucker, P. F. (2008). Management (Rev. ed.). Collins Business.
Drucker, P. F. (2001). Management challenges for the 21st century. Harper
Business.
Drucker, P. F. (1969). The age of discontinuity: Guidelines to our changing soci-
ety. Harper & Row.
Drucker, P. F. (1966). The effective executive. Harper & Row.
Durant, W. (1954). The story of philosophy: The lives and opinions of the world’s
greatest philosophers; From Plato to John Dewey. Pocket Books.
Gardner, H. (2008). Five minds for the future. Harvard Business School Press.
Volume 9, Issue 1, 2020
72 Maria Jakubik
Gardner, H. (2006). Changing minds: The art and science of changing our own
and other people’s minds. Harvard Business School Press.
Goleman, D. (1996). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ.
Bantam Books.
Goleman, D. (2006). Social intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. Ban-
tam Books.
Hesse, A. (2018). Digitalization & the new WOW: Impacts of digitalization and
new ways of working on leadership, communication and collaboration [Un-
published PhD dissertation]. European Business School.
Hobson, P. (2004). The cradle of thought: Exploring the origins of thinking. Pan
Books.
Jakubik, M. (2011a). Becoming to know: Shifting the knowledge creation
paradigm. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(3), 374–402.
Jakubik, M. (2011b). Becoming to know: Essays on extended epistemology of
knowledge creation. Hanken School of Economics.
Jeffreys, B. (2019, 19 June). Oxford University accepts £150m from US pri-
vate equity boss. BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/education
-48681893
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking fast and slow. Penguin Random House.
Ledoux, S. F. (2002). Defining natural sciences. Behaviorology Today, 5(1),
34–36.
McAfee, A., & Brynjolfsson, E. (2017). Machine, platform, crowd: Harnessing
our digital future. W. W. Norton.
Oxford Economics. (2019). How robots change the world: What automation
really means for jobs and productivity. https://resources.oxfordeconomics
.com/how-robots-change-the-world
Rogers, Y., Rutherford, A., & Bibby, P. A. (Eds.) (1992). Models in the mind:
Theory, perspective & application. Academic Press.
Russell, B. (1954). History of western philosophy and its connection with po-
litical and social circumstances from the earliest times to present days.
Readers Union with Allen & Unwin.
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cogni-
tion, and Personality, 9, 185–211.
Schwab, K. (2016). The fourth industrial revolution. World Economic Forum.
Spinoza, B. (2001). Ethics. Wordsworth Editions.
Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.) (2018). The emerging role of intelligence in the world of
future. https://doi.org/10.3390/books978-3-03897-263-1
Strickland, E. (2019). How smart is artificial intelligence? IEEE Spectrum.
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=8678419
Weed, L. (2003). The structure of thinking: A process-oriented account of mind.
Imprint Academic.
World Economic Forum. (2018). The Future of Jobs Report 2018. http://www3
.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Future_of_Jobs_2018.pdf
Dr Maria Jakubik is a social scientist and a Research Scholar at the Ronin In-
stitute, USA. She has a Dr(Econ) from Corvinus University of Budapest, Hun-
International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning
Rise of Intellectual Workers and Intellectual Work 73
gary (1984) and a DSc(Econ) from Hanken School of Economics, Helsinki,
Finland (2011). She is an active scholar and conference participant. Her re-
search and teaching interests include Knowledge Management, Action Re-
search, Appreciative Inquiry and Leadership. She is a reviewer and author in
several journals and conferences. maria.jakubik@ronininstitute.org
Volume 9, Issue 1, 2020