WHAT IS DIVERSITY?
At INNOVERSITY COPENHAGEN we insist on working with knowledge-based diversity, where each difference in a group, team or organsation represents knowledge that can
be leveraged for innovation
Diversity of knowledgeable identity domains (knowledge domains in short) within a group provides for a broader repository of domain-specific knowledge, understood as perspectives and
heuristics.
In innovation groups, people pertaining to different knowledge domains represent "access to" different sets of perspectives and heuristics, which, when combined and exchanged, can provide novel solutions, and approach problems from new angles, thereby, creating non-routine ideas, concepts, and solutions (Raghuram & Garud, 1996).
Sessa, Jackson, & Rapini (1995) argue that, in problem-solving processes, the presence of individuals who view the problem differently may stimulate others to discover novel solutions that they would not have otherwise considered. Other benefits of the availability of multiple sets of heuristics within an arena stem from the flexibility that such diversity allows, i.e. Nonaka & Takeuchi's (1995) "requisite variety" -- diversity, when co-constructed in the group may allow the group to, at least hypothetically, benefit from also absorptive capacity (Cohen & Levinthal, 1991), creative destruction, etc.
Diversity of knowledgeable identity domains is, thus, described to enhance problem solving due to diversity offering different options and points of view, which is highly important for problem solving (Leonard, 1998). According to Thomas and Ely (1996, p. 85), "employees frequently make decisions and choices at work that draw upon their cultural background - choices made because of their identity-group affiliations".
However, as argued by Northcraft et al. (1995), it is not the variety among individuals' social category memberships that produces synergy; it is the variety in perspectives and heuristics that is associated with the diversity, which allows for innovative idea cross-fertilization.
Diversity may thus provide for the construction of multiple of points of view to understand problems, and of heuristics as means for solving new problems, thereby, allowing for diversity to stimulate non-obvious alternatives (Nemeth, 1986).
While heuristics can also, according to Johansson (2004), be described as a set of concepts such as knowledge and practices, and in order to understand a heuristics, one has to understand and master at least some of its concepts. According to Johansson (2004), the more concepts one understands
within a particular knowledgeable identity domain, the more expertise one will build within that domain, and the more legitimacy within a particular practice. With this it becomes possible to transcend the stage of peripheral participation and move to the core of a particular domain.
When it comes to defining group diversity as the construction and simultaneous salience of multiple knowledgeable identity domains within a group, the combination and exchange of concepts as described by Johansson (2004) then happens at the intersection between domains (innovation), as opposed to combination and exchange of different concepts and practices within a given domain (directional innovation).
Johansson (2004) so brilliantly describes how we, when operating within a particular domain, are primarily able to combine and exchange concepts within that particular domain, generating ideas that evolve along a particular direction or what Johansson calls directional ideas. Instead, he argues that what we need to do is to step into the intersection, where one can combine and exchange concepts between multiple domains, and generate ideas that leap in new directions, or what he calls "intersectional ideas" (Johansson, 2004). "Stepping into the intersection does not mean simply combining two different concepts into a new idea.
These types of combinations are part of both directional and intersectional innovation. Instead, the intersection represents a place that drastically increases the chances for unusual combinations to occur" (Johansson, 2004:20).
Salient diversity in groups, from this perspective, can bring about boundary-spanning behaviour, if and when members of such a group are able to co-construct several domains simultaneously, and allow for active combination and exchange among the salient knowledgeable identity domains within the group.
In such a situation with multiple domains being salient, participants often have only a very limited or partial understanding of domains other than their own, and may actually only be able to articulate their knowledge within their
own domain (Hutchins, 1991; Johnson et al., 2002; Lave & Wenger, 1991). Being part of such a group with possible "access" to multiple domains, therefore, also involves a continuous negotiation of the shared competence regime (Boland & Tenkasi, 1995; Brown & Duguid, 2000; Gioia, Thomas, Clark, & Chittipeddi, 1994), as a means for negotiating a shared boundary spanning language within which to communicate.
According to Gasson (2005), experts increasingly need to combine and negotiate knowledge from multiple domains when desiring to produce novel and hybrid solutions (Engestrom, Engestrom, & Karkkainen,1995). Expertise or competence (the ability to act knowledgeably within a specific knowledge domain) can, according to Gasson (2005), be obtained from two sources: membership within a specific domain and the ability to synthesize knowledge from multiple domains (Johnson et al., 2002). As a boundary-spanning group possesses a multitude of perspectives and heuristics that can be combined and exchanged, individual group members may influence what knowledge is considered relevant by framing the group problem in specific ways.
This discussion of group diversity as the availability and salience of multiple knowledgeable identity domains, each representing a unique set of perspectives and heuristics coated with the social identity pertaining to that domain; thus, makes innovation practice a matter of exchange and combination of perspectives and heuristics among these different domains.
When applying this conceptual framework (The INNOVERSITY Model), it is possible to see how diversity within a group is leveraged and used, in order to ensure that existing domains are being challenged and that new domains are being negotiated and created through processes of exchange and combination; e.g. innovation.
A NEW KNOWLEDGE-BASED DEFINITION OF DIVERSITY
Building on this approach to the study of group diversity, now brings about a
new definition of diversity, defining diversity as availability AND simultaneous salience of multiple knowledgeable identity domains.
Each knowledgeable identity domain represents a unique set of perspectives and heuristics coated by a layer of social identity. Using this definition, it is argued that, for instance being a woman, Asian, and an application engineer
in an otherwise male, Caucasian, and scientist-dominated organisation does not necessarily provide for diversity.
Diversity only exists if, first of all, the domain is actively constructed, being a woman, Asian and engineer allows for the construction of the three domains: Asian, woman, and engineer allows for three of these domains to be constructed.
But such construction only provides for diversity when the perspectives and heuristics pertaining to any one or all three of these domains are actually apprised to be different from the perspectives and heuristics of the salient domain.
In innovation groups, people pertaining to different knowledge domains represent "access to" different sets of perspectives and heuristics, which, when combined and exchanged, can provide novel solutions, and approach problems from new angles, thereby, creating non-routine ideas, concepts, and solutions (Raghuram & Garud, 1996).
Sessa, Jackson, & Rapini (1995) argue that, in problem-solving processes, the presence of individuals who view the problem differently may stimulate others to discover novel solutions that they would not have otherwise considered. Other benefits of the availability of multiple sets of heuristics within an arena stem from the flexibility that such diversity allows, i.e. Nonaka & Takeuchi's (1995) "requisite variety" -- diversity, when co-constructed in the group may allow the group to, at least hypothetically, benefit from also absorptive capacity (Cohen & Levinthal, 1991), creative destruction, etc.
Diversity of knowledgeable identity domains is, thus, described to enhance problem solving due to diversity offering different options and points of view, which is highly important for problem solving (Leonard, 1998). According to Thomas and Ely (1996, p. 85), "employees frequently make decisions and choices at work that draw upon their cultural background - choices made because of their identity-group affiliations".
However, as argued by Northcraft et al. (1995), it is not the variety among individuals' social category memberships that produces synergy; it is the variety in perspectives and heuristics that is associated with the diversity, which allows for innovative idea cross-fertilization.
Diversity may thus provide for the construction of multiple of points of view to understand problems, and of heuristics as means for solving new problems, thereby, allowing for diversity to stimulate non-obvious alternatives (Nemeth, 1986).
While heuristics can also, according to Johansson (2004), be described as a set of concepts such as knowledge and practices, and in order to understand a heuristics, one has to understand and master at least some of its concepts. According to Johansson (2004), the more concepts one understands
within a particular knowledgeable identity domain, the more expertise one will build within that domain, and the more legitimacy within a particular practice. With this it becomes possible to transcend the stage of peripheral participation and move to the core of a particular domain.
When it comes to defining group diversity as the construction and simultaneous salience of multiple knowledgeable identity domains within a group, the combination and exchange of concepts as described by Johansson (2004) then happens at the intersection between domains (innovation), as opposed to combination and exchange of different concepts and practices within a given domain (directional innovation).
Johansson (2004) so brilliantly describes how we, when operating within a particular domain, are primarily able to combine and exchange concepts within that particular domain, generating ideas that evolve along a particular direction or what Johansson calls directional ideas. Instead, he argues that what we need to do is to step into the intersection, where one can combine and exchange concepts between multiple domains, and generate ideas that leap in new directions, or what he calls "intersectional ideas" (Johansson, 2004). "Stepping into the intersection does not mean simply combining two different concepts into a new idea.
These types of combinations are part of both directional and intersectional innovation. Instead, the intersection represents a place that drastically increases the chances for unusual combinations to occur" (Johansson, 2004:20).
Salient diversity in groups, from this perspective, can bring about boundary-spanning behaviour, if and when members of such a group are able to co-construct several domains simultaneously, and allow for active combination and exchange among the salient knowledgeable identity domains within the group.
In such a situation with multiple domains being salient, participants often have only a very limited or partial understanding of domains other than their own, and may actually only be able to articulate their knowledge within their
own domain (Hutchins, 1991; Johnson et al., 2002; Lave & Wenger, 1991). Being part of such a group with possible "access" to multiple domains, therefore, also involves a continuous negotiation of the shared competence regime (Boland & Tenkasi, 1995; Brown & Duguid, 2000; Gioia, Thomas, Clark, & Chittipeddi, 1994), as a means for negotiating a shared boundary spanning language within which to communicate.
According to Gasson (2005), experts increasingly need to combine and negotiate knowledge from multiple domains when desiring to produce novel and hybrid solutions (Engestrom, Engestrom, & Karkkainen,1995). Expertise or competence (the ability to act knowledgeably within a specific knowledge domain) can, according to Gasson (2005), be obtained from two sources: membership within a specific domain and the ability to synthesize knowledge from multiple domains (Johnson et al., 2002). As a boundary-spanning group possesses a multitude of perspectives and heuristics that can be combined and exchanged, individual group members may influence what knowledge is considered relevant by framing the group problem in specific ways.
This discussion of group diversity as the availability and salience of multiple knowledgeable identity domains, each representing a unique set of perspectives and heuristics coated with the social identity pertaining to that domain; thus, makes innovation practice a matter of exchange and combination of perspectives and heuristics among these different domains.
When applying this conceptual framework (The INNOVERSITY Model), it is possible to see how diversity within a group is leveraged and used, in order to ensure that existing domains are being challenged and that new domains are being negotiated and created through processes of exchange and combination; e.g. innovation.
A NEW KNOWLEDGE-BASED DEFINITION OF DIVERSITY
Building on this approach to the study of group diversity, now brings about a
new definition of diversity, defining diversity as availability AND simultaneous salience of multiple knowledgeable identity domains.
Each knowledgeable identity domain represents a unique set of perspectives and heuristics coated by a layer of social identity. Using this definition, it is argued that, for instance being a woman, Asian, and an application engineer
in an otherwise male, Caucasian, and scientist-dominated organisation does not necessarily provide for diversity.
Diversity only exists if, first of all, the domain is actively constructed, being a woman, Asian and engineer allows for the construction of the three domains: Asian, woman, and engineer allows for three of these domains to be constructed.
But such construction only provides for diversity when the perspectives and heuristics pertaining to any one or all three of these domains are actually apprised to be different from the perspectives and heuristics of the salient domain.