This month the Dutch magazine Intellecteel Kapitaal released a second article that Simon van der Veer and I wrote based on the case studies in my phd study. This year, we are following five organisations who have networks that are working on specific knowledge productive questions related to organizational development. Questions that demands several professionals throughout the organisation to cooperate. In this article we wrote about the research principles and objectives in our research. If academic research wishes to be closely linked to practice and the field it operates in, we strongly promote action-research. We use six research principes that I would like to mention:

We use an appreciative research approach
Research starts at those places were there is movement towards the desired outcome of the group of professionals. The research starts with identifying small successes. This approach is strongly related to appreciative inquiry.

Research is a collective process
We conduct research activities together with the participants. This means that we use an approach that is social and design to create interaction. We support the learning process of the network in order to develop methods and instruments that are helpful for the desire result.

Doing research is a form of learning
We see research as a process of learning. Research is meant to get smarter as an organization! Learning has to do with finding an interesting organizational question and then designing a well fit research approach.

We try to find the core of the question
In the vast majority of data and information research produces, it is important to find the essence of the question. To use the participants to validate and further analyse results it is possible to cut to chase and find what is all about.

Be transparant about the research approach
Transparancy about the chosen research approach strengthens the network ability to be curious and investigative. This means that the research is clear about the usage of data, guidelines and deadlines.

Find a clear approach and methodology
Method and approach needs to be clearly defined aforehand. For instance validation, reflection of the results need to be clearly chosen and alligned with the respondents. It also means that the initial research question of the organization needs a specific, tailor-made approach, designed together with the participants.

Here you can download the paper, its in Dutch: enjoy! IK 2008 II

While I was surfing on the website of Assist Social Capital I found an interesting paper of Michael Woolcock. The title is the place of social capital in understanding social and economic performance. The paper reviews empirical evidence in support of key hypotheses of economic development and especially the relationship between informal and formal institutions and their collective capacity to manage both opportunity and risk. Examples are issues such as corruption, bureaucratic delays or civil liberties. The paper adresses three specific questions:

1. how are social capital, human capital and social capability related to one another?
2. how can social capital be measured?
3. how might existing economic growth models give more adequate attention to social capital?

Michael Woolcock is with the development research group of the world bank and the researcher at the Kennedy School of Management at Harvard University. He has published regurarly on the topic of social capital and economic development.

Together with my colleagues Joseph Kessels and Suzanne Verdonschot we will present a refereed paper for the 9th International Conference on Human Resource Development and Practice in Lille, France. The paper we are presenting is based on a study we did at seventeen supermarkets in the Netherlands. We used an interesting research approach. For one whole day, we would visit the supermarket and participate in the day-to-day work activities. During the work we would ask questions, interview the manager or attend meetings. Besides this we would write down all the quotes and insights we obtained on large flip-overs and lay them at the central meeting point for the personnel. They would then validate them, two steps in one! When we did this, we would analyse the qualitative data and put it on a large poster for the employees of the supermarket. We did this seventeen times, and based on all the posters we tried to answer the following research question:

How can the talents and successes of the employees – seen as knowledge workers – contribute to the change of their work environment?

And

What interventions encourage knowledge workers to contribute to this process?

Besides the methodology we used appreciative inquiry, this simply means that we collected the successes and uniqueness of the store in order to better understand how you can use talents of employees to work on continues improvement and innovation. From the analysis of the data three types of successful supermarkets emerged. We found supermarkets organised as a family, supermarkets organised as a student house, and supermarkets organised as a firm. It seems to be important to allow for this kind of diversity in culture. In each of the three types of supermarket ownership and entrepreneurship could be observed. However, in each of the three types organises this takes a different form. It also appeared that the supermarket manager’s personal preferences and capabilities are crucial for the success of a supermarket.

Secondly our research in the 17 supermarkets revealed that it is necessary to allow for diversity; that ownership and entrepreneurship contribute more to change than discipline and obedience; and that the specific role and capability of the manager seems to be crucial. Employees need to develop competencies that match their own ability and interests in order to successfully innovate in the supermarket. In order to become innovative shop employees should be granted the authority to engage in knowledge work. In the supermarkets that we visited during the research, we found various interventions that could support the development of ownership and entrepreneurship of the supermarket staff.

Here you can download the paper! Enjoy the read. Knowledge work in succesful supermarkets

In a presentation Bo Rothstein gave at the ISOCA conference in Finland last year an interesting challenge erose when trying to conceptualise and measure social capital. Studies on social capital critisize the concept of social capital because it can be functionalistic and difficult to operationalise. Rothstein gives a very clear argument to avoid this and starts by explaining how social capital is determined:

Capital = Asset
- Both individuals, groups and organizations can have assets
- With an asset, there are things individuals, groups and organizations can do that they could not accomplish without that specific asset

If it is social, it is relational
- Relations are how individuals, groups and organizations are connected
- Such connections can differ both in quantity and in quality
- Like for human capital, it is not only how much you know, but the quality of the knowledge that is important

Defining social capital
And so Rothstein argues that social capital is to be determined and understood precisly researchers should considered that:
- We should avoid functionalist definitions (Coleman)
- We should avoid definitions that are too broad (Putnam, Ostrom)
- We should avoid definition that can not be operationalized

Definition of Rothstein
The definition Rothstein uses for social capital is very simple: networks x trust. Networks being the number of contacts x the level of trust in these contacts. This definition works at all levels.

Avoiding the dark side?
On the other hand. criticism that social capital is funtionalistic because it only discusses the advantages of networks and not the ‘dark side’ need to take into account that:
- All assets of social capital are positive for the individual, group or organization that have them
- Like all other forms of capital, all assets can be used for different purposes
- And finally, how something is used does not change the normative quality of the thing as such

I have attached his presentation at the bottom of this post!

Presentation of Bo Rothstein

From May 2008 until June 2009 I will study several networks within five different organizations in the Netherlands. The progress and results of this study can be found in the Dutch journal Intellectueel Kapitaal (Intellectual Capital). In the forthcoming year every issue of this journal will include an article on the background, methodology, results and conclusions of the multiple case study! You can also find the articles online at the website of Intellectueel Kapitaal. Besides this you can find recent information about the study at this website, at the heading case study research I will provide in depth information about the research activities.

The Sunbelt Conference in St. Pete Beach Florida until now is very interesting. At the first day I followed a workshop from Thomas Valente on the relation between networks and behavioral change. Very interesting because he uses a very powerful methodology in which he combines network analysis with change processes. Yesterday Steve Borgatti gave a very interesting keynote presentation on the theory - perspective debate in social network studies. Besides this new studies were presented on identifying learning networks within or between organisations. An interesting insight is that when determining who learns from who, a reliable question can be from who do you often get advice? People from who individuals obtain advice are a very reliable measure of learning processes between people!

The XXVIII Sunbelt conference on social networks this year will be held in St. Pete Beach, Florida, USA. The program shows a very interesting week. The keynote this year will be provided by Steve Borgatti, professor in Management and Economics at the Kentucky University. He is also the co-creator of UCINET. Beside this, there is a wide range of workshops: on analysis of networks, networks for newbies, but also on behavioral change and the relation with social networks. On the 24th I will present a paper on a case study within my phd study. It deals with the relation between social capital and knowledge productivity. More specifically, the relation between the quality of relations and collaborational breakthrough in interorganizational collaboration. Herein, we look more closely at how trust determines the quality of a professional relationship. Here you can download the paper I am presenting! And here is a PDF of the presentation. Enjoy..!

In November of this year, Rita Jonkeren, a HRD Master student at the University of Twente finished a very interesting research on the relation between social capital and knowledge sharing.

She constructed several hypotheses, in which she tries to measure if identification, trust, networks and norms correlate to knowledge sharing of professionals at Holland Casino. She operationalises trust on three levels: trust in collegue’s, trust in superiors and trust in the organisation. Networks are operationalised through formal and informal networks. Norms are operationalised through loyalty and acknowledgement.

In her study she defines knowledge sharing as:

“A social relational process through which individuals try to establish a shared understanding about reality and to establish the (potential) ability to transform this understanding into (collaborative) actions which yield performance, by using diverse combinations of signs (e.g. language, gestures, and tools (e.g. physical objects, communication technologies, mental models).” Boer, 2005, p. 39

Besides her Dutch written thesis, that is well written and offers an insightful overview of social capital literature, Rita presents two overarching conclusions in her study that I would like to mention:

1) Knowledge sharing and acknowledgement of indviduals correlate the most (R=.639, p <.00)
2) Strongest betweencorrelation in social capital is acknowledgement and trust (R=.571, P <.00)

Trust, networks and norms in general correlate with knowledge sharing of individuals. This has already been tested by the enormous interest in Communities of Practice and studies on social networks and innovation. But what I find interesting is the insight that acknowledgement within the construct of norms has the highest correlation with sharing knowledge. And that acknowledgement also correlates with trust. What would this mean? And what implications would this have when organisations wishes to promote knowledge sharing? Rita is now finishing her thesis, within a couple of weeks I will attach the PDF version here.

In November 2006 Joseph Kessels gave a key-note for the dutch ROCMN school. You can find the Dutch presentation on YouTube! What I find interesting in his presentation is the focus on two perspectives on learning and organizational development. The traditional perspective focusses on structure. In this perspective, planning, clear goals, measuring output and assessing indivduals is dominant. Joseph argues that the traditional perspective offtenly creates a learning environment of personal distance, distrust and nonproductive norms of how we do things around here. 

In a knowledge economy, these thoughts are very difficult to hold on to in relation to creating powerfull network organisations. It hinders working on personal interests and is also not stimulating for stimulating curiosity, sharing experiences or creating room for communities of practice. And it is especially the organisational ability to be knowledge productivity that will be become dominant to organisational survival. I think Joseph Kessels describes it very powerfully by stating: Individuals will not be smart against their will.

So, this demands an other approach, and in the presentation a new line of reasoning is desribed, the relational perspective. It focusses on creating powerfull networks in which professionals learn. In his appraoch Joseph Kessels desribes learning as making meaningfull connections between individuals. And making connections happens in a powerful way if it is done based on your personal interest and passion as a professional. This demands an attractive social environment. Joseph Kessels describes knowledge as a social process of acquiring new capabilities based on powerful learning processes.  I think this also has an overlap with looking at a new way at knowledge. Knowledge as an active verb: knowing. If you go to youtube you will find more presentations of Joseph Kessels!

SEE trust is a wonderful entrepreneurial appraoch to building trust and connectivity in South Africa. SEE stands for Social and Economical Empowerment. A group of entrepreneurs started the initiative to create social and economical empowerment through a practical combination of care facilities and educational facilities for children. Work and development opportunities for adults, and sources of income for individuals, for the facilities and for the community. I think this initiative presents a lot of characteristics to build social capital in a community. The website offers a very powerful development appraoch through principles for the SEE trust strategy that overarching are important levers to built trust, initiative reciprocity and to create powerful networks:

Social and economical empowerment are intertwined. They need to be addressed simultaneously. This creates a dynamic in which one plus one is more than two.

Empowerment is not black or white, it is about individuals and communities regardless of their status, colour, religion, culture. The power is in connecting across people, cultures, and colours.

It start from strengths, possibilities and energy. Every one has possibilities, everyone has capabilities and everyone has a drive. Using these as a starting point will create development and empowerment, much more and much faster than looking at what is not there.

Joint local ownership and responsibility will make it powerful and sustainable. Thus not bringing solutions from the outside, and taking over responsibility. It is the community itself which is responsible for creating solutions, for their own development. Through connecting with the community: bringing in investment, creating social and economical structures, creating facilities, these elements are merely the context for local ownership and development.

Working and learning opportunities are the cornerstones for development and empowerment. They create income and the capabilities needed for sustainable development. Creating work, education and learning are thus key in our approach.

Entrepreneurship is a better base for sustainable development and empowerment than donorship. Our entrepreneurial approach is aimed at development and value creation that are self supporting, independent of gifts.

You can not learn and grow others, but you can create and foster a favorable and stimulating environment for growth. The role of SEE trust is like being a gardener, who has a passion for plants, trees and beautiful gardens. He knows that grass doesn’t grow by pulling it. A gardener plants seeds, creates conditions for growth, supports the well being of plants and trees through feeding and cultivating, and looks for a balanced development of all elements in the garden to make it a beautiful whole.

The world in a global community in which we are interdependent across countries and continents. What happens in one place, has effects elsewhere. Our approach is global, people from different countries working together to create something worthwhile. This global partnership is personal and shows that we don’t need to be multinationals to be working together globally.

It is based on an open concept, with no given limits. It aims to be opening up and holistic. Is is not only a social project, not only an economical project. It is multipurpose, multiperspective, and inclusive. It aims at creating a natural dynamic and base for growth, with inherent energy that attracts more energy and growth.