Innovation at the Intersections: Many-To-Many Connections

Timothy Chester identified in his blog The Accidental CIO that the nature of collaboration has shifted, it has shifted from one-to-many exchanges to many-to-many exchanges (Chester, MOOCs, 2013). The examples used for one-to-many was the traditional classroom setting in which the teacher presents knowledge to students. In the corporate setting the same could be said of certain hierarchical levels in which the upper levels dictate to the lower levels.

Competing in this complex environment requires new knowledge, innovative ideas, and exchanges that take place within the organization as well as outside of an organization. In their blog on Social Capital, TNT - The Network Thinkers discussed this same idea in the framework of social capital: “Creating competitive context requires social capital - the ability to find, utilize and combine the skills, knowledge and experiences of others, inside and outside of your organization” (Social Capital). Having the ability to utilize and find knowledge requires many-to-many exchanges.

As explained by TNT - The Network Thinkers, “Innovation happens at the intersections” (Social Capital). The intersections refer to the numerous connections made between the many, as opposed to the intersections in a one-to-many connection. You can see that more connections are possible in a many-to-many connection compared to a one-to-many connection. As these connections increase the number of intersections increase, and the potential for new knowledge and innovative ideas grow exponentially.

Expand your current network so that you are taking full advantage of the many-to-many connections rather than utilizing the one-to-many connections. To do this TNT - The Network Thinkers offer some steps to take in their article Community Networks. First, identify your current structure. Know where there are gaps, bridges, linchpins, and identify who is the core of the network and who is in the periphery (Community Networks). Secondly, begin closing the gaps by inviting and including all members within the network to contribute.

References:

Chester, T. (January 18, 2013). Why MOOCs are like Farmville. The Accidental CIO. Retrieved from www.accidentalcio.com/2013/01/why-moocs-are-like-farmville-html

Community Networks (October, 12, 2012). TNT-The Network Thinkers. Retrieved from www.thenetworkthinkers.com/2012/10/community-networks.html

Social Capital: the key to success in the connected age (July, 04, 2012). TNT-The Network Thinkers. Retrieved from www.thenetworkthinkers.com/2012/07/social-capital-key-to-success-in.html

Organizational Culture and Change

Meyerson and Martin (1987) view organizations as cultures in which organizational change incorporates "changes in patterns of behavior, values, and meanings (p. 624). From their research, Meyerson and Martin (1987) identified three paradigms of organizational culture: integration, differentiation, and ambiguity.

Paradigm 1: Integration

Integration views of organizational culture identifies with those views that are shared: "for example, a common language, shared values, or an agreed-upon set of appropriate behaviors" (Meyerson & Martin, 1987, p. 624). Through an exhaustive search of cultural studies and theories, Meyerson and Martin (1987) identified three common characteristics for integration cultural theories: "consistency across cultural manifestations, consensus among cultural members, and -usually- a focus on leaders as culture creators" (p. 625). An integration culture would be found in most organizations that operate in a traditional top-down, controllable, manner.

Paradigm 2: Differentiation

Differentiation theories of organizational culture espouse diversity, where attention is paid to "inconsistencies, lack of consensus, and non-leader-centered sources of cultural content" (Meyerson & Martin, 1987, p. 630). Where an integrated culture is more closed, a differentiation culture is more open, influenced from both inside and outside influences (Meyerson & Martin, 1987). A differentiation culture would be found in organizations that operate with a flat or horizontal hierarchy, allowing more decisions to be made from front-line employees.

Paradigm 3: Ambiguity

Where paradigm 1, integration, resists ambiguity due to its rigidity, paradigm 2, differentiation, is more open to ambiguity so that it can be managed. For paradigm 3, ambiguity is accepted as "the way things are, as the 'truth', not as a temporary state awaiting the discovery of 'truth'" (Meyerson & Martin, 1987, p. 637). An ambiguity culture would be found in organizations that operate on a network theory or a complexity theory model.

Organizations address culture differently, partly based on the type of environment they operate in. Weick and Sutcliffe (2007) recommended to make your organization as complex as the environment - the more complex the environment, the more complex the organizational system will need to be in order to function accordingly. 

No one organization operates completely in one paradigm, there are usually portions of each type of paradigm present in any organization. When addressing change, it is recommended to view the change effort from each of the three paradigms rather than solely from one paradigm. As Meyerson and Martin (1987) pointed out: "An awareness of all three paradigms simultaneously would avoid the usual blind spots associated with any single perspective" (p. 643).

References:

Meyerson, D., & Martin, J. (1987). Cultural change: An integration of three different views. Journal of Management Studies, 24(6), 623-647. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1467-6486

Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2007). Managing The Unexpected: Resilient Performance in an Age of Uncertainty. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.