Communities of Practice

My friend Nancy White made her debut as a "guest blogger" on Darren Sidnick's blog with this  post on Communities of Practice (note the excellent list of resources at the bottom).

In it she quotes a definition by her colleague Etienne Wegner, who coined the term:

"Communities of practice are groups of people who share a concern or passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly."

Like most everyone, I'm part of several "Community of Practices"; some that primarily or exclusively congregate online, some that are primarily face-to-face, and several that flow easily between mediums. I find most of them extremely valuable, and each one is unique, with its own particular strengths and weaknesses.

In some cases those strengths and weaknesses refer to the medium in which I experience them, but more often the benefits and drawbacks are to do with limiting factors like time availability, or interpersonal conflicts, differing models of relationship, or lack of some sort of necessary support.

I'm intrigued by the idea that many organizations want to have what they call Communities of Practice, but they don't know how to negotiate the fact that to a large extent communities of practice can't be created, they can only be encouraged and nurtured as they are developing. Too much structure or expectation is a "buzz killer" and can squelch a community of practice before it ever gets going.

One of the things I found most interesting in Etienne Wenger's article (which was part of this week's course reading) was his list of the largely internal leadership roles that he's found to be foundational in building & sustaining communities of practice:

• The inspirational leadership provided by thought leaders and recognized experts
• The day-to-day leadership provided by those who organize activities
• The classificatory leadership provided by those who collect and organize information in order to document practices
• The interpersonal leadership provided by those who weave the community's social fabric
• The boundary leadership provided by those who connect the community to other communities
• The institutional leadership provided by those who maintain links with other organizational constituencies, in particular the official hierarchy
• The cutting-edge leadership provided by those who shepherd "out-of-the-box" initiatives.

This distributed authority offers a new model of leadership that creates an altogether different fabric of relationship within a group. When almost everyone has some way of positively influencing and contributing to the experience of the whole, the "practice" becomes a collaborative endeavor and nurtures both individuals within the group and the ongoing development of the skills or learning involved.

Another point I found fascinating in Wenger's article was the paradox he observes in successful communities of practice between the need for external leadership or inspiration, and the need for autonomy and internal space. He puts it like this:

"Communities of practice do not usually require heavy institutional infrastructures, but their members do need time and space to collaborate. They do not require much management, but they can use leadership. They self-organize, but they flourish when their learning fits with their organizational environment. The art is to help such communities find resources and connections without overwhelming them with organizational meddling. This need for balance reflects the following paradox: No community can fully design the learning of another; but conversely no community can fully design its own learning."

So as facilitators it seems a challenge we face is how to both create the conditions that nurture leadership within communities of practice and make sure there is enough external stimulation to help them thrive.

Comments

[derek]

Cool, Amy.

I am a fan of Etienne's.

I'm curious: do you see any difference between a virtual community or a community - and a virtual (or not) Community of practice?

Etienne has visited New Zealand several times now. For a little while there was an attitude "We have a certain kind of problem" and "A CoP is the answer" so "Please give us three communities of practice by June 1st".

-Derek
PS - I appreciated the link to Seth Godwin as well.

[Cristina Costa]

Thanks for the simple yet relevant account on your personal experience.
I think what you described makes all the sense in the world. It is when we feel we need to bond with like-minded people to support our learning that it becomes relevant and we engage more. The group then transforms itself community, and those individuals with whom we collaborate become an integral part of what we are and do. I have a similar story - and in fact if it hasn't been for the web that has helped bridge such interactions I would probably be feeling I don't belong to where I am. I do need to connect to people who help me think. They contribute to my learning and help build up my confidence to do more and better.

[Sarah Stewart]

Thanks for this nice summary of CoP. I have recently been trying to get my head around what a community it compared to a network, so it was helpful to see your summary of the different elements of a community. If we are saying they can be formed deliberately, how do we do that?

[Amy Lenzo]

How exciting-I have THREE comments! Thanks to each of you for your thoughtful responses.

Derek, Yes, I do see a difference between a community and a community of practice - the difference being an emphasis on shared learning in the latter.

As for there being a differences between virtual and face to face communities, I think that the variations in communities have less to do with technology that the strength of the relationships between people.

Perhaps there is a sense in which virtual communities need stronger bonds (whether they be personal or of shared intent) in order to stay engaged & "live" without the glue of day to day physical interaction, but I'd have to think about that some more.

Cristina, I share your need to connect with other people as thinking partners, and am so glad to have your input here. I look forward to more cross-fertilization between us and others on the course and beyond.

Sarah, Thanks for your comment (and the compliment!). I don't think I was saying that communities of practice can be formed deliberately. Rather, I believe that an emerging CoP can be nurtured and developed (or hindered and squelched).

I too find the question of how we can nurture that development a fascinating one for further exploration. I think that will be the focus for at least one of our modules.