I want to introduce you to a line of organizational research that you may not be familiar with that has some important implications for diversity and inclusion workers. The article I will be referencing throughout is Social Capital, Intellectual Capital and the Organizational Advantage, by Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998). The article is a great starting point into the basics of social capital and its importance for organizational advantage. But you may have noticed I substituted “Diversity” for “Organizational” in the title of this post. I did this because I think the authors, and many organizational thought leaders, ignore the link of diversity when talking about the importance of networks.
The argument is simple: Social capital (who you know) largely affects your intellectual capital (how much you know) and this decides how advantageous you are. This argument works equally for individuals and organizations. Nahapiet and Ghoshal argue that an organization’s advantage—their success—is directly related to how much knowledge they have. This is especially true in our rapidly changing knowledge economy, where knowledge is power. In other words, whichever organization can attract the most knowledge, wins the day. Although convincing, I think the authors miss some important points.
The authors assume that just because an organization has a lot of knowledgeable workers, that those workers will experience the effects of that knowledge equitably. In short, they tell us how knowledge is created, but not what the knowledge is made of. This point is crucial because we all know that our knowledge is bound by our respective cultures and flavored by our different races, class, religions, families, region, and generation. So if we are going to talk about the organizational advantage of having the most knowledge (intellectual capital), we must talk about what kind of knowledge it is we want. I would argue that we want the most diverse knowledge possible. And this is why diversity work is so important.
Nahapiet and Ghoshal argue that innovation and knowledge creation comes from two things: Combing and exchanging information. If this is true—and I think it is, then the case for diversity work is strengthened by their argument. If the strength of your social networks (social capital) determines you knowledge, then the diversity of your social networks determines your level of innovation. Organizations that are largely dominated by male leadership for example, limit their innovative possibilities by cutting women out of these positions. When who you know (your network), looks just like you, the avenues for new ideas and possibilities become cul-de-sacs where the same ideas circle around endlessly.
The diversity advantage is not just tied to the organizational advantage, but it is connected to a social advantage as well. The world is now holding organizations to higher standards. The pressure of corporate responsibility is alive and well. One way that organizations can enact positive change in culture is by creating new networks that would otherwise not exist. For many people, work is a place where they must interact and work with people who they may normally not associate with. This is a great opportunity for creating innovations that might not be possible outside of the organization. As social networks expand, so does the potential for knowledge creation. As organizations and researchers begin to grapple with the many facets of the knowledge economy, diversity workers should be ready to make our case for why the types of knowledge we manage matter. At the end of the day, what we know is shaped by who we are. So creating more inclusive and diverse networks is the key to tapping into the knowledge, which not only makes us unique, but gives us our competitive advantage.
