This emphasises a hierarchically imposed, normative model of in-depth analysis, planning, implementation and control. This perspective has its roots in the writings of Fayol (1916/1949) and is dominant in much of the strategic management literature (e.g. Sloan, 1963; Ansoff, 1965). The rational planning paradigm may be an appropriate way of thinking about strategy in relatively complex and reasonably predictable environments (Fredrickson & Mitchell, 1984; Fredrickson, 1985; Mintzberg, 1973). In these environments, this paradigm's strength lies in analysis of explicit knowledge such as accounting data and trend data because this is supposed to provide reasonable safe guidelines for the future.

However, weaknesses arise due to hierarchically imposed planning procedures. Gathering data in this way is limited when tacit knowledge is important to the organization, because this type of knowledge does not lend itself to straightforward analysis. Furthermore, the enforcement of too much control due to hierarchically imposed planning procedures might not be appropriate for some contexts, as this can lead to a lack of empowerment and alienation of the workforce. This control is unlikely to be tolerated in highly knowledge intensive contexts.

Another limitation of the rational planning paradigm is that it is focused mainly on predicting the future based on internal interpretations of the external environment, and these interpretations can be biased. Cognitive biases can be the result of culture (Hitt, Dacin, Tyler & Park, 1997) and/or past experience (Ireland, Hitt, Bettis & De Porras, 1987) and these biases can result in inaccurate predictions especially during periods of unpredictable change. In these situations rational planning can become ineffective.

The characteristics of Modernist thought in an organizational context, according to Alvesson and Deetz (1996), are the instrumentalisation of people and nature by scientific thought. Thus there are three interrelated aspects of modernist thought that need to be considered in relation to knowledge: people, nature and the possibility of instrumentalisation or control.

Critical theorists have implied that strategies can be introduced for reasons of control and domination of the workforce (Knights & Willmott, 1987). However, in some large organizations requiring a high degree of standardization, some control and dominance may be inevitable. However, strategies for knowledge management dominated by the modernist paradigm are likely to break down in more complex relational service contexts, where empowerment of staff is required and standardization of service is of little value to customers.

The modernist view is anthropocentric as it focuses on the utilitarian value of products for the benefit of human lives by controlling nature through scientific technologies (Firat & Shultz, 1997). However, many products are not purchased for their utilitarian value but for their symbolic value (Combe & Crowther, 1999). Consequently, modernism's focus on the product and product attributes may be myopic, and this may have serious consequences for a company managing knowledge from this perspective. Theorists such as Alvesson and Deetz (1996) suggest that modernist thought is based on a false premise of control, which is illusory. They also provide the most damning criticism of modernist thought when they point to the disastrous consequences for the environment and the alienation of the workforce when humans try to control nature and people for their own ends.

Taylor’s (1911) reductionist view of scientific study aimed at maximum specialization is prevalent in the Functionalist paradigm. Morgan (1986) considers that Taylor’s (1911) views can be still found today in the routinized operational focus of organizations such as McDonalds. Weber (1947) promoted a similar rational specialist view within the bureaucratic organization by recognizing the growing need for experts with technical knowledge. Obtaining knowledge within this paradigm is supposed to be efficiently achieved through formal methods of auditing of routines and operations. Therefore the functionalist approach can be found in analytical techniques such as value chain analysis (Porter, 1985) and services blueprinting (Shostack, 1984). This bureaucratic approach to knowledge acquisition and management is unlikely to be sustainable as a source of competitive advantage in certain highly competitive environments. Bureaucratic systems would have difficulty in coping with continuous changes due to innovation and in acquiring and managing knowledge in complex relational exchanges such as experienced in professional services. Furthermore, by focusing on individual functions in minute detail, knowledge is gained about these functions and not how these functions ultimately come together to form a holistic picture.

Follett’s (1924) views, much influenced by Gestalt psychology, form the roots of a holistic view of organizations, where the focus is on an overview of the organization together with the advantages of human co-operation over human conflict. Thus the holistic paradigm can be identified in the network literature, in an attempt to reduce risk by co-operation and relationships with others. It is also present in the stakeholder literature, where there is a consideration within strategies of balancing many demands on the organization. The network literature is especially influential in relation to knowledge, because networks have been seen to increase knowledge especially in some technological sectors. The holistic paradigm also implies that knowledge is best achieved through co-operation rather than through individualistic means. From this perspective knowledge management is best achieved through philosophical means rather than a functional approach. The knowledge implications of adopting this paradigm is the focus on a particular type of knowledge in the form of relationships in systems and configurations that may be identified to reveal new possibilities (Miller, 1996; Nonaka, 1988).