Meinolf Dierkes

"Organizations in the 21st Century: Knowledge and Learning—the Basis for Growth" was held Nov. 16-17, 2001 at the Social Science Research Center (WZB) in Berlin, sponsored by the Gottlieb Daimler- and Karl Benz-Foundation.

Diverse Networks as Drivers of our Learning on Organizational Learning and Knowledge

Meinolf Dierkes

Research Unit Organization and Technology, Social Science Research Center, Berlin

Professor zu Putlitz has already showcased perhaps one of the most important outputs of the Kolleg sponsored by the Daimler-Benz Foundation: The Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge. By just glancing through the Table of Contents of the Handbook, it is immediately apparent that the contributors include a wide variety of individuals, representatives of disciplines and subdisciplines including academia, managing, consulting, unions, government, and international organizations. By looking more closely at the subjects encompassed in this Table of Contents, it is further apparent that the chapters contributed by these individuals represent not only their personal spheres, but networks of inquiry; their chapters reflect the results of joint discussions and learning itself taken place through these networks.

Here at this conference, the participants demonstrate a similar variety of disciplines and networks. We are a group of individuals embedded in broad networks representing a multiplicity of experiences. Some have been involved in the Daimler Benz Foundation Kolleg, some have contributed to the Handbook, but all of us come here with academic interests and practical experiences which touch on the sphere covered by the term ‘Organizational Learning’. Although we in this room are primarily aware of the commonality that brings us together, an outside observer would be perhaps more astounded by the diversity we present. The variety of backgrounds, disciplines, cultures, countries of birth and countries of residence, and current or past organizational positions must be stunning to the external observer. The only way to make sense of what is occurring here would be for this person to believe that someone involved in bringing the Kolleg and all of us conference participants together must believe strongly in the potential embedded in diversity of people, diversity of organizations, and diversity of institutions.

This belief would be strongly supported by a mass of literature. When walking along bookshelves full of publications on international management - to name one of many relevant fields - the major recurring theme that would jump out and grab the reader is… Diversity. Diversity of workforce and diversity of networks are predominantly relied upon in the literature as a major asset to the organization. When using this term, "diversity," however, most of literature refers primarily to diversity of culture and gender; professional background, age, and experience are rarely viewed as fields worthy of such studies. This superficial treatment of diversity as a simple organizational asset carries even further: the publications also rarely acknowledge the inherent difficulties in dealing with diversity, and the potential disadvantages in its organizational implementation.

The rare examples in the popular literature that cover implementation or everyday use of diversity serve mostly to educate toward understanding or doing business with other cultures. This coverage continues to omit the challenges that come with internal organizational diversity. One glaring example – only marginally referred to in the literature and in practice - is the case of lack of knowledge-utilization of expatriates. Most organizations immediately assign them to tasks upon return which require little or none of the knowledge they acquired while abroad, although many have spent extended periods of time abroad, managing affairs in vastly different environments.

The same one-sided approach - here, biased toward optimism, even euphoria - in the literature can be seen with respect to the topic of networks. Popular literature increasingly conceptualizes the modern organization as confederations of networks; networks arching over many organizations are to be important components of future organizations. The "network approach" puts heavy emphasis on the use of teams, taskforces, and multiple temporary structures within organizations. The general tone is positive: Networks are the ideal response to modern organizational challenges; Networks built into organizations are supposed to be superior in performance to the traditional hierarchical structures.

What is all of this about? Why is diversity so important? What are the advantages of diverse networks in meeting contemporary and future challenges to our organizations?

The literature, including several articles in the Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge, stresses two main advantages. Diversity and flexible network structures enhance:

• Creativity in the organization – injecting ideas not yet available to the core of the organization or more difficult to generate via the more traditional structures; and

• Collecting a broad range of perceptions about the state of the environment and potential changes, challenges, and risks.

The strengths of diversity are specifically demonstrated by a large pool of research studies showing that new concepts and major technological progression quite often takes place at the interface of disciplines: where a diverse group of individuals - I mean now diversity of intellectual fields, experiences, backgrounds, not just cultural - are brought together. The role of outsiders in this process is stressed; networks of individuals who do not belong to the dominant paradigm is a topic of much discussion. Specifically, the role of boundary-spanning individuals has come into the spotlight – these individuals who are capable of blending the dominant ideas from multiple arenas, thereby creating something new and innovative. It is difficult to define whether these outsiders with their ideas are the forerunners of a completely new paradigm, or if they are only representing temporary deviations from the powerful concepts supported by the establishment; however it is clear that where revolutionary ideas occur, outsiders with their "diverse" conceptualizations are usually present.

From an organizational learning perspective, the second advantage of diversity may be even more important: that of the diverse perceptions of the environment. The organization that blends these perceptions together has the advantage of creating the broadest possible organizational view of the outside reality. Gareth Morgan, in his classic study, Images of Organizations, illustrates this nicely by asserting that different individuals and groups have different perceptions of the world around them, and that these perceptions shape their perceptions of the organization. The idea is solidified by specific metaphors that demonstrate how different actors provide significant, but partial, information about the role of organizations. Organization as a Machine, organization as a Brain, and organization as a Culture, to name a few, show how individuals are capable of seeing the same organization and conceptualizing it in very different ways. Analysts and observers of organizations "see" what is reflected in their mental maps: Observers approaching organizations as a culture note symbols, rituals, and shares belief systems, whereas the observers who view the organization as a brains see the underlying information streams, data processing efforts, storage lines, and knots in the system.

Each of these observations is an important link in gaining an understanding of the organization as a whole, and by putting together a group with a diversity of "mental maps" the organization is better prepared to react the various dimensions of its situation. Another illustration of this concept can be drawn from the sociology of technology, referring to technological visions, for example, that of the "paperless office". Though all firms active in the field of office equipment subscribed to this vision, the interpretation of what this term ultimately means differed between the organizations involved. The ultimate outcome is difference in the form of technologies – varying in form and function. The diversity of interpretations resulted in a diversity of hardware and a complete reshaping of the workplace as a whole.

The message, by now, is clear: Organizations ought to be open to a diversity of perceptions, views, and values in order to tap into the broadest possible reading of their environment. It goes without saying that this is especially important at times of rapid change and uncertainty. It is easy to draw a basic conclusion from all of this: Diversity is useful, occasionally necessary, sometimes even crucial to survival because diversity in views, perceptions, and values serves as the best way to get the most comprehensive view of the organizational environment and potential changes. Diversity is the raw material of Organizational Learning.

Like all raw material, however, diversity, too, must be processed correctly before it is ready for use. Multiple individuals and groups may pose strong disagreements about their differing views. What happens if there is a lack organizational processes to deal with these views, to reduce the complexity of divergence in reflections of the environment? Ultimately, this can lead to inaction, open conflict, and power struggles over the "right" and "wrong" perceptions of the situation. Diversity, in this sense, is clearly not the universal solvent to the organization.

Here, then, we need to modify the original conclusion: that diversity is useful if it has a framework. Like markets need extensive regulations, diversity requires management - it needs to be organized and structured.

In order to be the productive organizational tool that the literature touts, diversity requires compatible leadership behavior, culture, and structure. Through these structure, the fruits of different perceptions and ideas can be processed without antagonizing members of the organization or stifling effective action.

In order to stimulate learning, the organization needs:

• A culture which supports and encourages the development of new, different, and diverse views;

• A structure which gives those ideas a chance to be heard, discussed, and used; and

• A leadership and a culture of leading which encourages individuals and groups to actively engage in the search for new and unfamiliar ideas, especially as boundary-spanning individuals embedded in larger networks.

To put these conclusions into an organizational learning context: Diversity is the raw material which, especially in processes of double- and deutero-learning, helps to develop options for strategies intended to ensure or support the development and survival of the organization.

Let us finally come back to the design of this conference. We are a group as diverse as can be, coming from Europe, the United States, Asia, and the Middle East; differing in religion, gender, professional interest and training. We come here with our different mental maps as we approach the world around us. There will become evident as we look together at Organizational Learning and Knowledge Creation for the 21^st Century. Do we have the infrastructure to capitalize on our diversity?

I think we do. We have a flow structure, we have assigned roles in our workshops that allow different views to be articulated and explored at length. We have moderators skilled in the management of group conflict, and we are all – as boundary-spanning individuals – accustomed to listening to others from different cultural, educational, and institutional backgrounds. Thus, we are all quite well prepared to, on the one hand, profit from the diversity and, on the other hand, have our divergent views be integrated into a structure which allows us to work together during the next two days. Our diversity and our structure has prepared us to, hopefully, push the field of organizational learning and knowledge creation forward: beyond the Handbook, beyond the State of the Art, and into the future.

Revised: 11/13/02. All contents copyright 2001 by Steve Barth, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB), and individual authors. All rights reserved. For more information, please contact the Webmaster. Photographs by Peter Hinsel.