Management Learning http://mlq.sagepub.

com/

Connecting Worlds
Juani Swart, Bart van den Hooff and Peter van Baalen Management Learning 2011 42: 371 DOI: 10.1177/1350507611408218 The online version of this article can be found at: http://mlq.sagepub.com/content/42/4/371

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Management Learning can be found at: Email Alerts: http://mlq.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://mlq.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://mlq.sagepub.com/content/42/4/371.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Sep 4, 2011 What is This?

Downloaded from mlq.sagepub.com at Universit degli studi di Pavia on December 7, 2011

408218

MLQXXX10.1177/1350507611408218Swart et al.Management Learning

Introduction

Connecting Worlds
Juani Swart

Management Learning 42(4) 371377 The Author(s) 2011 Reprints and permission: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1350507611408218 mlq.sagepub.com

University of Bath, UK

Bart van den Hooff

VU University, The Netherlands

Peter van Baalen

Rotterdam School of Management, The Netherlands

Abstract The focus of this Special Issue addresses cross-boundary issues by taking a closer look at how learning connects various different spaces. This develops our understanding of `how learning takes place across boundaries and is highly relevant to organizations operate in highly distributed networks, encompassing dispersed geographical regions, partners, suppliers, regulators and customers. The particular themes which the papers address pertain to the properties of boundaries across which learning may take place, i.e. geographical, knowledge, organizational and temporal boundaries. We also pay attention to the way in which entities connect across these boundaries, i.e., the means for interaction via structures, socio-psychological processes and technology. Finally we consider the most appropriate unit of analysis via which we should study cross-boundary learning processes in order to connect our worlds. Keywords
learning, boundaries, knowledge creation and exchange, networks

Based on the OLKC Conference in Amsterdam in 2009, the theme of this Special Issue of Management Learning is Connecting Worlds. The increasingly global and networked character of todays world raises the need to connect different contexts. Organizations operate in highly distributed networks, encompassing dispersed geographical regions, partners, suppliers, regulators and customers. Employees are also more mobile than ever before and use a vast range of social networking tools to communicate within their organizations, with colleagues and with other
Corresponding author: Bart van den Hooff, VU University, De Boelelaan 1105, Amsterdam 1081, HV, The Netherlands Email: bhooff@feweb.vu.nl

Downloaded from mlq.sagepub.com at Universit degli studi di Pavia on December 7, 2011

372

Management Learning 42(4)

Table 1. Key dimensions to consider in future research on cross-boundary learning Which boundaries do we span Geographical (P1, P2, P3) Professional (P1within profession, P2across profession) Organizational (P3) How do we connect Structurally (P1, P2, P3) Socio-politically (P1,3) Technologically (P1, P2, P3) How do we understand these connections Relational viewpoint (P3) Networked processes (P1, P2, P3)

P1Heizmann, P2Kauppila et al., P3Knoppen et al.

potential employers. We cannot, therefore, assume a single set of clearly defined organizational boundaries within which we study phenomena such as organizational and managerial learning. If we are to develop the future of our field of study it is imperative that we understand how learning takes place across boundaries, how different worlds are connected in these learning processes. That is to say, we need to firstly challenge our current thinking about within-boundary processes of learning and move toward a perspective that embraces the interconnectedness of knowledge, innovation and learning. The focus of this Special Issue addresses these cross-boundary issues by taking a closer look at how learning connects various different worlds or spaces. The ensemble of articles highlight three particular issues that we need to address in a crossboundary perspective on learning (See Table 1), i.e. the boundary focus, the method used for interconnection and the research methodology adopted to study interconnection. First, we need to be clear about the types of boundaries that need to be conjoined, i.e. which worlds we are interconnecting. All three of the articles on this issue point to the way in which organizations operate globally and highlight the need to integrate learning and knowledge-sharing processes across geographical boundaries. As organizations operate on a global scale there is a need to acknowledge the cultural diversity that is associated with multinational organizations. The study of interconnected learning processes therefore cannot assume a set of best practices that facilitate knowledge creation. The collection of articles rightfully points to the need to be contextsensitive in our approach and investigation of cross-boundary learning. The second boundary type that our articles identify is that of the knowledge boundary which finds expression through professional, occupational or practice-based boundaries. Knowledge in and of itself can therefore become a boundary which needs to be connected at the collective level to generate innovative outcomes. As Macpherson and Clark (2009) point out, communities work closely together to craft a set of situated knowledge and practices which become unique to the particular occupation or team. From the situated learning perspective, knowledge boundaries are erected through shared practice and identity formation (Gherhardi et al., 1998) and become islands of practice (Macpherson and Clark 2009: 565) which need to be connected to create meaningful learning at a collective and inter-practice-based level. These loosely coupled but deeply specialized islands of expertise also provide a rich resource for learning and innovation. It is only through interconnecting these heterogeneous knowledge sets that exploratory learning and innovation can occur (Boisot, this issue; Easterby-Smith et al., 2008; Granovetter, 1983). The third boundary that we identify is that of the organization. This raises an important challenge for the study of organizational learning. We can no longer assume that the knowledge-based outcomes that are derived at the level of the organization are dependent upon the knowledge resources within a singularly bounded entity. Organizations are increasingly relying on knowledge

Downloaded from mlq.sagepub.com at Universit degli studi di Pavia on December 7, 2011

Swart et al.

373

assets and learning processes that are situated outside their boundaries. That is to say, they learn from and in their networks and our exploration of learning consequently needs to be focused at the inter-organizational or network level. The final boundary across which we need to connect is that of time (Swart and Kinnie, 2007). Both the research essays that we have included in this Special Issue remind us of the impact of time upon learning. Argote (this issue) takes a time-based perspective on the scholarly work in the field of organizational learning and elegantly points out that what we know today is so intimately linked to the knowledge we held yesterday and this in turn will set a trajectory for future learning. This is why it is so important that we consider carefully the journey that we take into our future work and the perspectives that would be appropriate to address the issues that we need to inquire into. Boisot (this issue) also reminds us that dispersed ways of working, together with rapid technological developments, invite a deeper look into the nature of organizational coordination, i.e. the different ways in which knowledge flows and gets integrated in space and time across formal and informal organizational and national boundaries. The second dimension that the collection of articles refers to is that of the method for interconnection, i.e. the practices and process used to integrate knowledge across geographical, professional, organizational and temporal boundaries. All of the articles highlight the importance of structural mechanisms for interconnection. In particular they point to the networks which connect geographical, organizational and practice-based spaces. The first networked form identified is the network-of-practice (NoP) (Roberts, 2006) which provides a powerful connective tissue both within and across spaces such as organizations or practice-based areas. Second, the structural connective methods can be more virtual in nature, and here we are reminded of the power of virtual teams in activating knowledge sharing in a globally dispersed organization. We therefore need to include both virtuality and non-virtuality in our exploration of how we learn across boundaries. Another powerful structure which interconnects geographically dispersed and subject specific knowledge is the project or the team. However, learning at the level of the team (Kauppila et al., this issue) or project is often challenged (Engberg et al., 2006; Newell et al., 2006; Swan et al., 2010) and our exploration of structural integration therefore needs to be accompanied by the complementary knowledge integration perspectives. The second method for interconnection that our articles address consists of the social-psychological processes that are situated across the various boundaries. In particular issues of power, trust and psychological safety are raised. We cannot study interconnectivity without taking into account what it feels like to cross knowledge, geographical or cultural boundaries. Similarly these socialpsychological processes act as valuable fluid which enables knowledge to flow and integrate within and across a dispersed networked structure. Indeed, the very socio-psychological characteristics of the relationships which cross boundaries will also impact on the ability of the network, and its constituent parts, to benefit from the outcomes of knowledge sharing and learning. We therefore should not focus just on the processes of interconnection but our exploration should also include what organizations and individuals do with integrated knowledge, i.e. the opportunities which it affords them. One such perspective that we can take is that of absorptive capacity (Easterby-Smith et al., 2008; Jones, 2006, Knoppen et al., this issue) as a dynamic capability which enables the organization to incorporate shared knowledge into its systems and processes. The third method for interconnection that this Special Issue focuses upon is that of technology. Both Argote and Boisot urge us to include technological coordination in our future studies on organizational learning and each of the empirically rich articles addresses the impact of technology on knowledge transfer across boundaries. Kauppila et al. in particular addresses the impact of technology and virtuality on the process of knowledge sharing whereas Heizmann and

Downloaded from mlq.sagepub.com at Universit degli studi di Pavia on December 7, 2011

374

Management Learning 42(4)

Knoppen et al. include the interconnecting power of technology in their case study analysis on interconnection. We are reminded that, even though technological integration is a powerful managerial artefact, it brings with it socio-psychological and normative challenges for cross-boundary learning (Newell et al., 2006). The third dimension that this Special Issue puts forward for consideration when connecting worlds is methodological, i.e. what are the most appropriate units of analysis and methods to adopt when we study interconnecting learning processes? First, we identify that it is important to take a networked perspective on learning, whether that is a relational network that is situated within a single organization (Heizmann, this issue; Kauppila et al., this issue) or an inter-organizational network that includes customers and suppliers (Knoppen et al., this issue). It is clearly advocated that we move away from singularity in our research (Holmqvist, 2009) to include experiences and activities which are situated between various parties. A unit of analysis that would be appropriate to study this betweenness needs to be situated at the level of the network, yet it needs to include the activities that take place within such a network. We suggest that a possible approach that we could use is that of networked process as the lens to look through to understand how knowledge flows across boundaries. Networked-processes hold the properties of a network, rather than a community (Afuah, 2001). This unit of analysis has as its focus the boundary-spanning nature of activities (Kogut and Zander, 1996) which is situated at the level of the relational or organizational network. Within the boundaries of the networked-processes relationships are constantly redefined and knowledge (re)described as it flows across through boundary-spanning practices. Hence knowledge is situated at a relational level between the various constituent parts of the network. Finally we need to adopt appropriate methods for the analysis of data that is situated at the level of the network. Kauppila et al. offers a clear example of how social network analysis and sociograms in particular can be deployed to understand knowledge sharing across boundaries. These methods do, of course, provide insight into structural and relational aspects of the network, i.e. who speaks to whom and how often. The fine-grained analysis of what happens in the network will naturally be grasped by methods such as discourse and thematic analysis. In this Special Issue on Connecting Worlds we include two research essays from leading scholars on organizational learning. The first of these by Argote establishes connections across time by tying together the past, present and future of the research on organizational learning. A clear definition reminds us that organizational learning is the process through which the past effects the present and the future (Argote, this issue). We are also reminded that the past work on organizational learning brought us to an appreciation of both cognitive and behavioural perspectives, individual and collective levels of analysis and knowledge creation, retention and transfer in our research. According to Argote, given that the historical work on organizational learning played a major role in us accepting the multidisciplinary nature of our work, the emphasis on current research in the field is on the context within which learning occurs. This creates an opportunity to use a more fine-grained approach to understanding the micro-foundations of learning at the collective level. As the river of research that connects the present to the future meanders through societal changes, such as new technologies and organizational forms, we are given the opportunity to inquire into the impact of these developments on knowledge creation and entrepreneurship in particular. The second essay provides a clear framework within which we can study the interconnection of knowledge and learning. Boisot develops the dimension of the I-space which can serve as a map for future research. With the focus on organizational coordination Boisot illustrates that the structuring of information consists of two interrelated activities, i.e. codification and abstraction, which taken together will influence the speed at which information can be diffused amongst a network of agents. The interrelationship of these dimensions (codification, abstraction and diffusibility) produces four

Downloaded from mlq.sagepub.com at Universit degli studi di Pavia on December 7, 2011

Swart et al.

375

types of interaction networks which exist in the I-space, i.e. bureaucracies, fiefs, markets and clans. The guiding framework is then applied to the case of ATLAS which is a high-energy physics experiment and is classified as big science, i.e. an exploration of the basic forces which have shaped our universe. The experiment is tracked across the various dimensions of the I-space to illustrate how information connects across a network of scientists. This essay powerfully reminds us of the role that boundary objects and artefacts play in the process of interconnecting knowledge across boundaries (Macpherson and Clark, 2009) which ultimately generates value at the collective level. The first article (Heizmann) in this Special Issue clearly addresses Argotes challenges to future research by examining the process of knowledge sharing within the context of new forms of organizing, i.e. communities and networks of practice (Roberts, 2006). The author emphasizes the importance of personal and political processes, framed here within the power debate, on knowledge sharing. That is to say, if we connect the lessons learnt from current research, i.e. the emphasis on fine-grained experience, to the future, i.e. the changes in organizational form, then we have to be mindful of how the socio-cultural and political processes impact on organizational learning. This article uses a relational perspective on power (Foucault, 1980) and illustrates the power struggles that exist between practitioners within an intra-organizational network of practices (NoPs). The case study in this article highlights the conflict-laden dynamic of knowledge sharing between a head office and regional HR practitioners when connecting across geographical boundaries. As we develop knowledge-sharing practices within new organizational forms we need to pay attention to power struggles wherein which one group in a network may contest the validity of anothers knowledge, creating a them-us dynamic. This lens will enable both scholars and practitioners to understand the barriers and enablers of knowledge flow within networked forms of organizing. The second article (Kauppila et al., this issue) connects with the first in the way in which knowledge sharing within a new organizational form is addressed. Kauppila et al. illustrates how virtual teams that function as knowledge activists can enhance knowledge sharing in globally dispersed organizations. The emphasis is on the virtuality of new forms of organizing. The challenge that we need to address here in terms of future research is that as we connect our worlds, across geographical regions and knowledge domains, we rely on virtual and technological means to do so. It is difficult to imagine a world where we are not using social media and online forums to share knowledge and experience, yet much of the present research on organizational learning continues to emphasize the tangibility of shared experience. As Kauppila et al. (this issue) points out: most of these studies conclude that knowledge sharing relies on face-to-face encounters, cohesive social ties, dialogic practices, shared norms and trust. Most of these enablers to knowledge transfer do not sit comfortably within the virtual world. How would we then create conducive conditions for knowledge sharing when we connect across geographical boundaries via virtual teams? The article puts forward a clear conceptual model of how the barriers and facilitating factors that virtual teams present to the knowledge-sharing context. The article connects with the previous one by illustrating that knowledge is often seen as a possession that facilitates power and inhibits knowledge sharing (Kauppila et al., this issue). The establishment, membership and systems and processes that connect the virtual team therefore need to be mindful of the socio-political dynamics. A further key aspect that needs to be addressed when sharing knowledge virtually is how we connect across knowledge/functional domains as the benefits of knowledge sharing often stem from crossing heterogeneous knowledge boundaries (Powell and Swart, 2010). Recent research (Jarvenpaa and Majchrzak, 1998; Malhotra et al., 2009; Kauppila et al., this issue) points out that organizational and contextual factors, such as increased cohesiveness, new methods of communication and the building of diachronic trust are all important factors in bridging knowledge boundaries. Interestingly this study connects with the fine-grained analysis

Downloaded from mlq.sagepub.com at Universit degli studi di Pavia on December 7, 2011

376

Management Learning 42(4)

approach suggested by Argote (this issue) by adopting social network analysis to show that purposeful managerial actions, informal roles of knowledge activists and the leadership of virtual teams all play a role in transferring knowledge in virtual cross-boundary communities. The final article (Knoppen et al.) highlights the mechanisms that lead to innovations in a relational context in customer-supplier dyads. Whereas the first two articles draw our attention to the connecting worlds within one organization, Knoppen addresses the importance of crossing boundaries between organizations and connects the current research to the inter-organizational learning, where the outcome of the learning depends on the interaction between partners (Larsson et al., 1998). The relationship therefore becomes the focus for analysis of connecting worlds. And within this context we can understand the benefits of inter-organizational learning by understanding absorptive capacity better. That is to say, if partners are to benefit from knowledge exchange and innovation across organizational boundaries then they need to be able to retain what they learn from one another. Hence the relational level of analysis needs to go hand-in-hand with the ability of the partners in the relationship to develop their absorptive capacity. In particular the author asks how structural, cultural, psychological and policy mechanisms support the processes of absorptive capacity, i.e. exploration, assimilation and exploitation, in customersupplier relationships. The detailed analysis of two sets of relationships within two contrasting case study organizations (low and high levels of innovation) illustrates how the four contextual mechanisms vary across the different relationships to impact on absorptive capacity. Within this context, and in addition to the current literate on the importance of structure in spanning boundaries and connecting worlds, we are reminded how important cultural, psychological and policy mechanisms are in inter-organizational learning. These mechanisms work together to integrate the processes of exploration and exploitation over time. This is an important avenue for future research given that these learning processes have often been regarded as competitive. Innovation which is regarded as so central to the survival and sustainable competitive advantage is intertwined with the cultural, political, psychological and structural mechanisms that operate within relationships which connect the worlds of individuals, organizations and networks.

Conclusion
The connection of worlds requires us to be appreciative of the types of boundaries that we need to cross to integrate knowledge and learn at the collective level. This issue points to geographical, organizational and practice-based (knowledge) boundaries across which we work and learn. When we consider the flow of knowledge across boundaries we need to be mindful of the (un)ease of movement. The inherent properties of knowledge and how these impact on its interconnectivity therefore come into focus. This Special Issue considers not only these properties but also the sociodynamics that are intertwined with the process of knowledge flow. Importantly, it provides a perspective on the various approaches and methods that the agents within a network can use to integrate knowledge and to produce innovative outputs. Finally, we provide a map or pathway of appropriate future methods and units of analysis which can be adopted to study the integration of knowledge across boundaries. References
Afuah A (2001) Dynamic boundaries of the firm: Are firms better off being vertically integrated in the face of a technological change? Academy of Management Journal 44(6): 12111228. Easterby-Smith M, Graa M, Antonacopoulou E and Ferdinand J (2008) Absorptive capacity: A process perspective. Management Learning 39(5): 483501.

Downloaded from mlq.sagepub.com at Universit degli studi di Pavia on December 7, 2011

Swart et al.

377

Engberg C, Lindqvist L and Tell F (2006) Exploring the dynamics of knowledge integration: Acting and interacting in project teams. Management Learning 37(2): 143165. Foucault M (1980) Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and other Writings. New York: Pantheon Books. Gherhardi S, Nicolini D and Odella F (1998) Towards a social understanding of how people learn in organizations: The notion of situated curriculum. Management Learning 29(3): 273297. Granovetter M (1973) The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology 78(6): 13601380. Heizmann H (2011) The socio-cultural and political dynamism of knowledge sharing in practice: A discourse analytic approach. Management Learning 42(4): 379393. Holmqvist M (2009) Complicating the organization: A new perspective for the learning organization. Management Learning 40(3): 275287. Jarvenpaa SL and Majchrzak A (2008) Knowledge collaboration among professionals protecting national security: Role of transactive memories in ego-centered knowledge networks. Organization Science 19(2): 260276. Jones O (2006) Developing absorptive capacity in mature organizations. Management Learning 37(3): 355376. Knoppen D, Senz MJ and Johnston D (2011) Innovations in a Relational Context: Mechanisms to connect Learning Processes of Absorptive Capacity. Management Learning 42(4): 419438. Kogut B and Zander U (1996) What firms do? Coordination, identity, and learning. Organization Science 7(5): 502518. Larsson R, Bengtsson L, Henriksson K and Sparks J (1998) The interorganizational learning dilemma: collective knowledge development in strategic alliances. Organization Science 9(3): 285305. Macpherson A and Clark B (2009) Islands of practice: Conflict and a lack of community in situated learning. Management Learning 40(5): 551568. Malhotra N and Morris T (2009) Heterogeneity in professional service firms. Journal of Management Studies 46(6): 895922. Newell S, Bresnen M, Edelman L, Scarbrough H and Swan J (2006) Sharing knowledge across projects: Limits to ICT-led project review practices. Management Learning 37(2): 167185. Powell J and Swart J (2010) The elephant in the room: The implications of axiomatic approaches to knowledge scaling upon network learning and organizational knowledge. European Journal of International Management 4(6): 621643. Rajala R, Kauppila OP and Jyrm A (2011) Knowledge Sharing Through Virtual Teams Across Borders and Boundaries. Management Learning 42(4): 395418. Roberts J (2006) Limits to communities of practice. Journal of Management Studies 43(3): 623639. Swan J, Scarbrough H and Newell S (2010) Why dont (or do) organizations learn from projects? Management Learning 41(3): 325344. Swart J and Kinnie N (2007) Simultaneity of learning orientations in a marketing agency. Management Learning 38(3): 337357.

Downloaded from mlq.sagepub.com at Universit degli studi di Pavia on December 7, 2011