The original CoP was a self devised community that worked outside the management. Gradually the learning and knowledge organisation took hold- using cognitive theory first. Social theory is now the approach being used acknowledging the role of social drivers for learning , creativity and knowledge sharing. Tapping tacit knowledge, training new staff, creating social networks and allowing a knowledge worker to sort out problems were best left to the CoP rather than IT programmes or top down management.
Cynically, management has measured the CoP output and calculated the cost benefit ration of the CoP. Managements are creating top- down CoPs. These CoPs are formally structured, use formal communication processes, defines community roles, sets agendas and sets tools for measuring effectiveness.This is so that knowledge is share and not confined to the members of the CoP only and staff who leave do not take knowledge with them.
This also stifles creativity and does not respond to individual needs.
Some staff found that they were expected to spend their out of work hours on CoPs and had been coerced into the roles. This is a problem when the CoP is one of mal practice, with difficulties with trust, relationships, explosive emotions, coercive CoPs and power issues.
These top-down CoP's seem to have blurred the boundaries of teams, project groups and CoPs.
The five degrees of managerial acceptance of the CoP , by Wenger, move from the invisible CoP which some of the team members are not even aware they are involved in, to the Bootlegged team which are only known to those who are in them and then the visible CoPs , from non-acceptance, to acceptance to promoting to created CoPs from a a management perspective.
This research found that the Bootlegged CoP had better acceptance by staff and were more productive.
Pastoors, K. (2007). Consultants love-hate relationships with communities of practice. In J. Pemberton (Ed.), Communities of practice- one size fits all (pp. 21-): Emerald Group Publishing Ltd.
Cynically, management has measured the CoP output and calculated the cost benefit ration of the CoP. Managements are creating top- down CoPs. These CoPs are formally structured, use formal communication processes, defines community roles, sets agendas and sets tools for measuring effectiveness.This is so that knowledge is share and not confined to the members of the CoP only and staff who leave do not take knowledge with them.
This also stifles creativity and does not respond to individual needs.
Some staff found that they were expected to spend their out of work hours on CoPs and had been coerced into the roles. This is a problem when the CoP is one of mal practice, with difficulties with trust, relationships, explosive emotions, coercive CoPs and power issues.
These top-down CoP's seem to have blurred the boundaries of teams, project groups and CoPs.
The five degrees of managerial acceptance of the CoP , by Wenger, move from the invisible CoP which some of the team members are not even aware they are involved in, to the Bootlegged team which are only known to those who are in them and then the visible CoPs , from non-acceptance, to acceptance to promoting to created CoPs from a a management perspective.
This research found that the Bootlegged CoP had better acceptance by staff and were more productive.
Pastoors, K. (2007). Consultants love-hate relationships with communities of practice. In J. Pemberton (Ed.), Communities of practice- one size fits all (pp. 21-): Emerald Group Publishing Ltd.
No comments:
Post a Comment