Essay
Communities of practice Sample Essay
- Module
- Knowledge & Decision Making
- Institution
- University Of Exeter (UoEX)
Sample essay on the subject of Communities of Practice
[Show more]
Content preview
Communities of PracticeIntroduction/Set Context
Lave and Wegner (1991) first introduced the concept of communities of practice (CoP) and suggested a
process of “legitimate peripheral participation” be engaged with in an attempt to create and share
knowledge. Managerial thinking on CoP’s and their benefits differs significantly and this essay will
outline some of the reasons for this. In addition I will suggest exactly how CoP’s can provide significant
benefits to organisations and will back this up with examples before concluding how managers might
best support these CoP’s to ensure their contribution continues.
Answer Question
CoP’s are defined as “groups of people who share a concern or a passion for something they
do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly” (Baker et al, 2008, P.1). To be
termed a CoP a group must possess the following three elements; a domain, a community and a
practice. The identity of a CoP can be defined by its domain, by belonging to a CoP the members are
expressing their commitment to, and their interest in, this domain. The element of community
surrounds the relationships that build up amongst members so that they are able to “learn from each
other through engaging in joint activities, discussions and information sharing” (Baker, et al,
2008, P.1). The element of practice is concerned with the work that members engage with.
CoP’s are often formed without members appreciating that this is what they are engaging in. Individuals
participating in regular but informal discussions about their work over lunch in an organisations canteen
could potentially be a CoP. Conversely some CoP’s are formed purposely and with intent to gain
knowledge in a specific field, or solve a problem in a certain area. CoP’s also vary greatly in size from a
small group, right up to a large and globally dispersed group. The vague definition of CoP’s and the
limited boundaries in terms of classification means it is difficult to ascertain whether or not a group
really is a CoP.
The literature on CoP’s has expanded since Lave and Wegner first coined the term in 1991. Brown and
Duguid (1991) were writing simultaneously on the subject, but their focus was on learning from a
community perspective which is closer to how we understand CoP’s today. More recently, the literature
on CoP’s has taken a managerial perspective and begins to discuss the importance of CoP’s to
organisations and how these can best be managed (Wegner et al, 2002).
Contribution of CoP’s
CoP’s are making more of an appearance in organisations as their contributions are being more widely
realised. Nonaka (1994) puts forward one of the greatest benefits of CoP’s by addressing the fact that
they allow for the “generation and dissemination of tacit knowledge” (Maurer et al, 2005, P.686)
which is by its nature, difficult to share, but at the same time arguably the most valuable type of
knowledge. CoP’s are also not restrained by geographic boundaries meaning they can incorporate some
of the best expertise from around the globe, obviously, this ultimately leads not only to a competitive
,advantage in terms of the knowledge possessed by a company, but also knowledge from a global
perspective.
The contributions of CoP’s is best understood through examples which help to establish the broad
variety of areas that CoP’s can help to benefit, and in some cases can help organisations to gain a
competitive advantage. Firstly, they can help to drive strategy as has been shown by the World Bank
who actively encourage, and fund, the growth and development of CoP’s. There have been
“significant increases in the number of organisation wide communities and in the intensity
of participation” (Wegner and Sydner, 2010, P.2) and these communities are starting to shape the
strategic direction. CoP’s can also help create new lines of businesses; Wegner gives the example of a
group of consultants who would regularly meet at O’Hare airport between travelling to clients. Their
meetings here eventually led them to create a new business which went on to be very successful.
Arguably, this was not a positive contribution for the organisation, as the new company could potential
pose a competitive threat.
Members of an organisation also do not have to be a member of a CoP to benefit from the outcomes
they produce. In many cases the knowledge products of a company are accessible to all employees
(Buckman, 1998), not just to read and download information but also to contribute articles or research
pieces for others to download and learn from. Informal CoP’s exist at IBM, for example, and these
communities spend part of their time formalising some of their thinking and uploading this to the
companies knowledge sharing sites so that the company as a whole can benefit.
Supporting CoP’s
A CoP is not something that can be managed in the traditional sense, which could explain why CoP’s
are not being utilised as much as they could be in some organisations. The most successful managers
are able to take a step back from interfering directly with the community and are instead able to
support it through providing “an infrastructure in which communities can thrive” (Wegner and
Sydner, 2010, P.140). Wegner & Sydner (2010) discuss that there are three key things mangers need to
do to cultivate CoP’s; identify potential communities, provide infrastructure and use non-traditional
methods to measure value.
It can be difficult for managers to identify CoP’s, because their very nature means that managers may
not know of their existence. However, identifying them is extremely important because they can help to
develop an organisations core competences and strategic capabilities. This leads onto the second job of
managers which is to provide the necessary infrastructure to allow these CoP’s to thrive. This often
means investing time (or allowing members the time to meet) and money to allow the community to
reach its full potential. However, managers may sometimes be unwilling to invest this time and money
because the success of CoP’s may be difficult to measure, so a clear link cannot be drawn between the
CoP and the extra success it brings for the firm. Managers need to be prepared to measure the
contributions of CoP’s in a more non-traditional way. Wegner and Synder (2010) suggest that the best
way is “to assess the value of a community of practice by listening to members stories in a
systematic way” (Wegener, and Sydner, 2010, P.145).
Problems with CoP’s
, The effects of CoP’s are not instantaneous, so managers would have to wait a while to see some sort of
return on their investment. In addition, results appear in the day to day work of the organisation rather
than in the CoP, and therefore it is difficult to attribute the results to the CoP’s, even if this is the case.
CoP’s are not just groups meeting up, which means the problem of groupthink (Janis, 1972) is not
immediately associated with them. This concept was formed as part of the thinking within the field of
social psychology and refers to the fact that a group may make incorrect decisions, or decisions that
are not in the best interest of all those involved, due to the tendency for members to conform to a
group consensus. However, Storck and Storck still think that groupthink is still a problem within CoP’s
and that it “potentially biases innovation and knowledge sharing” (Storck and Storck, 2004,
P.246). Nemeth (1987) also recognises this problem and claims it is more prominent in closed CoP’s
which often reject new ideas and as such struggle to react to external input in a timely fashion. Brown
and Duguid describe how CoP’s “can easily be blinkered by the limitations of their own world
view” (Brown and Duguid, 1998, P.97) and the way to combat this is to instead concentrate on
knowledge creation and sharing between CoP’s rather than just within them.
Eff ect of Culture on CoP’s
According to Ardichvilli et al “recent research on organizational learning and knowledge
creation indicates that
knowledge sharing, communication, and learning in organizations are profoundly
influenced by cultural values of individual employees” (Ardichvilli et al, 2006, P.1). As such this is
a dimension that cannot be missed out when discussing the concept of CoP’s. Wegner et al place great
emphasis on the issue of saving face and this is something that is of greater importance in some
countries than others. Ardichvilli et al found that overall Russians were not concerned with saving face,
and in China saving face was not as important as expected. However, across Russia, Brazil and China it
was understandably found that saving face was of more importance for older employees.
There are two factors which Hofstede (2001) discusses in his work on culture, which are particularly
relatable to CoP’s; individualism vs. collectivism and in group vs. out group orientations. Individualism
vs. collectivism is concerned with whether employees place personal goals over and above the goals of
an organisation and so conflicts may arise if some members of a CoP have an individualistic
perspective whilst others have a collective outlook. In group vs. out group orientations considers
whether employees take a them and us approach or whether prominence is placed on sharing
information with others, regardless of whether they are out of the group. In the example of IBM
presented above the group as a whole obviously has an out group orientation as they are willing to
share information across the company. An awareness of different culture preferences is essential for
both managers and members of CoP’s to understand. Korac-Kakabadze and Kouzmin (1999) claim that
this is something that has been fairly overlooked in studies on the subject but that effective knowledge
sharing in CoP’s cannot take place without an understanding of different approaches.
Contribution/Originality/Future Direction
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller HarrietLong24. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for £8.49. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
73918 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy revision notes and other study material for 14 years now