communities of practice: dynamics and success factors

Communities of practice:dynamics and success factors

Kala S. RetnaVictoria Management School, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington,

New Zealand, and

Pak Tee NgPolicy and Leadership Studies Academic Group,

National Institute of Education (NIE), Nanyang Technological University (NTU),Singapore

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore the dynamics and key success factors in thedevelopment of communities of practice (CoP).

Design/methodology/approach – A qualitative case study, using in-depth interviews, wasconducted in a multinational company (MNC) in Singapore.

Findings – The findings indicate that CoPs can facilitate the creation, sharing and utilisation ofknowledge in an organisation, positively affecting its strategy, operations and bottom line. The keyfactors that nurture CoPs to promote innovative learning and knowledge-sharing environments areleadership, culture and individual motivation.

Practical implications – The findings indicate the value of informal CoPs in promoting innovativecultures with high levels of collaboration among organisational members.

Originality/value – This is an empirical study that reveals the dynamics of CoP development in anMNC and the key success factors of CoP development from the point of view of the employees in thecompany.

Keywords Learning, Leadership, Organizational culture, Motivation (psychology),Knowledge management

Paper type Case study

IntroductionOver the last two decades, the concept of the community of practice (CoP) has added animportant dimension to organisational development, especially in the area ofknowledge management (KM), which hails knowledge as an organisation’s critical andstrategic asset (Drucker, 1993, 1995; Davenport and Prusak, 2000; Edvinnson andMalone, 1997; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). In recent years, it has been recognised thatKM requires a social approach (Brown and Duguid, 2000; Conrad and Poole, 2002) tocapture tacit knowledge (Von Krogh et al., 2000). A CoP is a set of people who “share aconcern, a set of problems, or a passion about a topic, who deepen their knowledge andexpertise in this area by interacting on an ongoing basis” (Wenger et al., 2002, p. 4). It isan informal aggregation defined not only by its members, but also by the sharedmanner in which they do things and interpret events (Brown and Duguid, 1991; Eckert,1993; Lave and Wenger, 1991). The purpose of this paper is to explore the dynamicsand key success factors in the development of CoP. The paper is structured as follows.First, a review on CoP is provided. This includes a discussion on how CoPs can

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-7739.htm

Communities ofpractice

41

Received February 2010Revised May 2010

Accepted June 2010

Leadership & OrganizationDevelopment Journal

Vol. 32 No. 1, 2011pp. 41-59

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0143-7739

DOI 10.1108/01437731111099274

facilitate knowledge sharing and transfer that has positive impact on organisationaleffectiveness in learning and knowledge management. Second, the research frameworkand methodology are discussed. Third, key research findings are discussed using thethree key elements of CoP:

(1) domain;

(2) community; and

(3) practice.

This section also highlights the key success factors that contributed to nurturing CoPs.Finally, the paper concludes with some implications and suggestion for futureresearch.

Communities of practiceThe idea of a CoP starts with the recognition that adults in their workplace do not learnsolely from formal organised “learning activities”, such as attending a workshop,taking a course or watching an instructional video. Indeed, people learn a lot througheveryday activities and experiences. An employee picks up the most relevantknow-how in an organisation from day-to-day activities and by watching and talkingwith other employees. Everyone participates and contributes to a world that is sociallyand culturally structured and this world is constantly reconstituted by those involvedin it through activities. In such a world, knowledge is manifested by the capacity toparticipate with a certain level of competence in the complex web of relationshipsamong people and activities. In this context, to learn is to discover and give areasonable account of the why, what, when, where and how of doing things in thatworld (Gherardi, 1995). Therefore, rather than being something mainly garnered frombooks and similar sources of knowledge, learning for most people, most of the time, is aprocess that takes place among and through other people. Knowledge is a property ofrelationships. Through complex responsive processes, knowledge is created andtransformed through networks of human interaction (Stacey, 2001). Knowledgetransfer in organisations “is the process through which one unit (e.g. group,department, or division) is affected by the experience of another” (Argote and Ingram,2000, p. 15). It is a way in which information and skills are systematically transferredor exchanged by members in the organisation (Bresman et al., 1999; Wang et al., 2004).The concept of knowledge transfer is popular in the organisational learning andorganisational development literature as it is considered an important process forfacilitating knowledge sharing across groups and departments in organisation (Shieuet al., 2010). Some research claims that knowledge transfer is increasingly valued as ithas contributed significantly in understanding and improving performance,particularly in MNCs (Choo and Bontis, 2002; Holm and Pedersen, 2000; Steward,1997). According to Von Krogh et al. (2000), knowledge transfer is a critical element forleveraging knowledge towards greater performance as it allows knowledgeacquisition, knowledge re-use and knowledge creation (Huysman and de Wit, 2004;Inkpen and Tsang, 2005; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). These elements of knowledgetransfer are relevant to a CoP.

A CoP is not a formalised organisation. Rather, it is a set of relationships amongpeople and their activities that evolve over time in relation to other tangential andoverlapping CoPs. In CoPs, people who come together because of their common passion

LODJ32,1

42

and practice are referred to as “knowledge stewards” (Wenger and Snyder, 2000), suchas front-line workers who serve customers, implement projects, or solve problems bysharing and utilising knowledge on a particular issue. The effectiveness of knowledgetransfer is greatly enhanced when individual differences pertaining to tolerance forambiguity, signature skills, and holistic versus abstractive cognitive style match therequirements of the situation. (Bhagat et al., 2002, p. 218).

The idea of CoPs helps us to understand the processes by which the transmission oftacit knowledge and of knowledge-in-action take place, by stressing that theseprocesses are simultaneously social and cognitive. A CoP is indeed “an intrinsiccondition for the existence of knowledge, not least because it provides the interpretivesupport necessary for making sense of its heritage” (Lave and Wenger, 1991, p. 98).This interpretive support includes dimensions of culture, technology, economy andpolitics. Tennant (1997, p. 77) declares that “new knowledge and learning are properlyconceived as being located in communities of practice”.

In a CoP, knowledge is best understood as a custom or “habitus” sustainedcollectively by the members, rather than a cognitive structure (Bourdieu, 1980). The“habitus” is a product of history and is embedded subtly in the culture of thecommunity. It is a set of “unspoken” and almost “unconscious” system of principleswhich generate and organize practices and representations within the community.Though the idea of “habitus” has been criticised (Mutch, 2003; Roberts, 2006) itsinfluence on thought and behaviour is more powerful than formal rules and explicitinstructions (Bourdieu, 1980). To become full members of this community, learnersneed to absorb in and be absorbed by the “habitus” and this includes knowing who iswho, what they do, how to talk, work, and generally conduct their lives. According toNonaka and Takeuchi (1995, p. 21):

. . . knowledge, expressed in words and numbers, only represents the tip of the iceberg . . .knowledge is not easily visible and expressible . . . Whereas Westerners tend to emphasiseexplicit knowledge, and the Japanese tacit knowledge . . . human knowledge is createdthrough social interaction between the tacit and explicit.

According to Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998, p. 253), communities are useful vehicles forcreating shared narratives that can be used to transfer tacit knowledge, where “myths,stories and metaphors also provide powerful means in communities for creating,exchanging and preserving rich sets of meanings – a view long held by some socialanthropologists”.

Knowledge, activity and social relations are hence closely inter-related. Throughrelating with people, community members are able to hear and exchange useful tipsand anecdotes with others that are not located in any physical archive. A CoP is not anew way to organise learning within the organisation. It is a way of viewing howlearning takes place, and it emphasises that every practice is dependent on socialprocesses through which it is sustained and perpetuated, and that learning takes placethrough the engagement in that practice. The notion of “practice” is critical to theunderstanding of a CoP. In a CoP, people learn by actually practising one’s craft andexchanging ideas about it, leading to improved practice. Therefore, learning in a CoP isdifferent from learning through a classroom-based course for professional workers. Ina CoP, learning comes from the praxis of work, and work in turn, generates learning.CoP emphasises the link between the emergence of relations which are created aroundactivities, and the activities that are shaped through social relations, so that specific


43

skills and experiences become part of the individual identity and can be perpetuated intime (Eckert, 1993; Lave and Wenger, 1991).

According to Lesser and Storck (2001), CoPs have the potential to overcome theinherent problems of a slow-moving traditional hierarchy in a fast-moving industrialand commercial setting. CoPs are also effective in handling unstructured problems andto share knowledge outside of the traditional structural boundaries. CoPs are also ameans of developing and maintaining long-term organisational memory. The socialcapital residing in CoPs is a strategic asset to positively influence businessperformance. Lesser and Storck (2001) argued that attention to CoPs would enhanceorganisational effectiveness and profitability.

Given the “power” of CoPs, some organisations such as IBM and AmericanManagement Systems have intentionally nurtured internal CoPs to increase learningand knowledge management (Wenger and Snyder, 2000). In an organisation, there isalways a collection of many overlapping CoPs. It is therefore important to nurturethese communities so that they can manage knowledge efficiently and effectively. Todo so, as the name “community of practice” suggests, there are three importantcomponents to be emphasised (Wenger et al., 2002):

(1) domain – the area of knowledge that provides a common focus and relates tothe critical business of the organisation;

(2) community – the relationships among people that enable collective learning;and

(3) practice – the activities that anchor the knowledge in what people do.

This article now describes research in a multi-national company (MNC) that attemptsto understand the dynamics and key success factors of CoP development. The researchexamined whether the interactions of staff members displayed the dynamics of CoPs. Itexamined whether such interactions could help them to create, share and utiliseknowledge, leading to a higher level of business efficiency and effectiveness. Insituations where the interactions of staff members displayed the dynamics of CoPs andsuch interactions helped in knowledge creation, sharing and utilisation, the researchexamined the key success and inhibiting factors in allowing such CoPs to flourish andthe issues and challenges faced by the company in such an approach.

Research framework and methodologyA qualitative case study was conducted in a MNC in Singapore. The company’sjourney began with knowledge management activities and training specifically on thecreation and sharing of knowledge within the company. Several managementconsultants were brought in to train staff on the benefits of sharing knowledge withinand across all levels of the organisation.

To maintain confidentiality, the pseudonym “National Document Company” (NDC)is used in this paper. NDC is one of the leading providers of document and knowledgemanagement solutions. It provides software, hardware, consulting and businessservices that effectively help business to capture, archive, retrieve and distributeknowledge residing in multi-faceted document forms. Access to research in thiscompany was granted through a consultant who was involved in providing training.The CEO was receptive towards the study and assured cooperation in accessingmultiple points of view. Qualitative research was conducted through a triangulation of

LODJ32,1

44

methodologies, comprising interviews, participant observation and scrutiny oforganisational documents and physical artefacts. A qualitative approach was adopted,as research on CoPs is mostly based on qualitative case studies (Dyer and Nobeoka,2000; Gongla and Rizzuto, 2001). Also, the qualitative methodology has been viewed asan important approach that provides a holistic view of understanding complexbehaviour and relationship in its social context (Denzin and Lincoln, 2000).

A total of 30 organisational members participated in the face-to-face interviews thatgathered information about their informal learning activities, their benefits and howthey help them in their overall work performance. The HR manager of NDC sent ane-mail requesting participation in the research. A list of volunteers was compiled andthe HR manager made the final selection of participants for the interviews based on ourrequest for representation across the various levels of hierarchy. The total populationof NDC at the time of research was 102.

The aim of the interviews was to discover the learning experiences and sharing ofknowledge collectively that characterises of what happens in their CoPs. The inquiryinto CoPs in this research required in-depth insight and detailed descriptions ofinteractions and activities that takes place between and among CoPs in the NDC.Because of this, qualitative research was considered suitable for this study. Participantobservation and documentation were also included in data collection. Participantobservation is important for this study as its emphasis is on human interactions andinterpretations of meanings (Cassell and Symon, 1994). Participant observationsupplements direct face-to-face interviews.

Naturally, this study has its limitations. First the participants were volunteers;hence, we have to acknowledge that there may be other opinions within theorganisation held by those who were not interviewed. Second, the study was conductedin a high-technology industry that may easily facilitate knowledge sharing andtransfer. This may not be the case in other industries. Third, we acknowledge that theanalysis does not exhaust all themes in relation to CoPs that could be gleaned from thestudy. Our aim has been to develop analytical generalisations (Tsoukas, 1989) aboutthe dynamics and key success factors in the development of CoPs.

The analysis of documentary sources is one of the strategies used in qualitativeresearch. Cassell and Symon (1994) claimed that organisational documentation canilluminate many aspects of organisational life. A review of documents is anunobtrusive method, rich in portraying the values and beliefs of participants in thesettings (Marshall and Rossman, 1999). Access was granted to some documents suchas newsletters, brochures and some project works. These documents providedbackground information about the organisation and helped to augment evidence fromother sources as interviews and observations. The data were analysed using thecategory development framework by Constas (1992). The principle of category processdevelopment is based on combining perspectives from the literature and the study. Anexample of the key categories and components of the categorisation are shown inTables I and II. We used three components from the literature of CoP (Wenger et al.,2002) as the main categories for analysis, namely domain, community and practice. Wealso distil the key success factors for the functioning of the CoPs. Two components ofthe categorisation process were used for analysis:

(1) origination; and

(2) verification.


45

The origination component explains where the authorities for creating categoriesreside. Three sources such as participant, literature and interpretation were used in theorigination component. For example, the origination of category 1 (domain) came fromliterature, while the origination of category 8 (sharing knowledge by variousspecialists) came from the participants and the interpretive process. Strategies used tojustify a given category – that is, either rational and or referential – are used to explainthe verification component. In this research the rational verification was derived byshowing logic and reasoning while the referential verification was achieved usingtheoretical arguments. This is demonstrated in the earlier example where the category

CoPcomponents Distributed leadership Practices and challenges of CoP

1. Domain2. Community3. Practice

4. Shared leadership5. Shared responsibility6. Joint activity7. Organisation and individual

benefits

8. Sharing knowledge by various specialists9. Knowledge accessible to everyone

10. Cross-functional contributions11. Culture of sharing knowledge12. Technology used for sharing knowledge13. Commitment towards vision14. Motivated towards collective achievement15. Monitoring strategic development through

informal discussions16. Individual versus team success17. Power inequality18. Appreciation of informal groupings19. Team learning and creative outputs20. Application – bottom-up initiatives21. Experimentation of ideas22. Leadership by example23. Leadership at all levels24. Nurturing culture25. Open communication26. Collaboration at all levels27. Facilitation28. Time management

Table I.Key categories

Component ofcategorisation A priori A posteriori

OriginationWhere does the authority for creating categories reside?Participants 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19,

20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28Literature 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 17, 18, 20Interpretive 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 22, 23, 27, 28

VerificationOn what grounds can one justify a given category?Rational 8, 11, 12, 16, 18, 20, 23 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 20, 22Referential 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 16, 20, 23, 24

Table II.Documentational tablefor the development ofcategories

LODJ32,1

46

1 (“domain”) is referential based on theory, while category 8 (“sharing knowledge byvarious specialist”) was based on rational verification.

Key research findingsOne of the main observations derived from the research is that in the everydayinteraction of NDC staff in the course of their work, there are many naturally formingand informal CoPs at play. For example, technicians and accounting staff work onprojects together even though their functions are not normally administrativelyrelated. However, because of the nature of a given problem, their joint expertise canproduce synergistic advantages. These CoPs are formed from the natural dynamics ofthe staff members and most staff members, although aware that they are working as ingroups, are not deeply conscious of these groupings as they go about their daily work.The groups do not appear to be deliberate and artificial. There is a sense of“natural-ness” about these groups. However, when probed from the angles of domain,community and practice, the dynamics and utility of the CoPs reveal themselves, as thefollowing sub-sections elaborate.

DomainOne of the fundamental elements of CoPs is the domain of knowledge that creates acommon ground for members to participate and contribute towards learning andsharing in the organisation (Wenger et al., 2002). The knowledge domain helps tomonitor the process and progress of not only daily work-related issues but also thestrategic development of the organisation. NDC’s business is driven intensely byknowledge because it works in a high-technology sector and is customer-solutionoriented. Therefore, knowledge domains are strategic and dynamic. The functionalgroups of the organisation, such as product innovation, document management,information technology, customer relations, sales and technical repairs, form naturalCoPs by themselves and therefore create a basic division among various knowledgedomains. However, such division lines are blurred and there is overlap across theknowledge domains, creating new integrated domains where innovation flourishes. Infact, our interviews indicated that the cross-functional group integrated knowledgedomains that were more powerful and dynamic and more effective in bringing aboutinnovation than the single functional groups from which they had been derived.

An example of an integration of knowledge domains leading to innovation is foundin the product and solution team. In the past, people were “product specialists”.Individuals dealt with issues revolving around a particular type of product. With theintroduction of product and solution team, any problems related to any type of productwill be discussed by the team whereby various specialist and expertise knowledge isshared to solve problems. The motivation for such enhanced interactions is to generatesolutions to problems using practical knowledge and experience by differentindividuals in the team. The outcome is usually a new or modified way of handling atask or product to customers’ satisfaction. The derived solutions to problems areplaced in a repository where any member of the organisation can access and use it asand when appropriate. This practice among different teams in the organisation helps tointegrate and develop knowledge domains that are vital for the organisation tocontinuously produce innovative solutions and products. For example, a seniormanager explained:


47

Here, always teams are looking for new ideas, solutions for different problems or improvingcurrent processes. Each time something is solved or a new idea is created by a team, it will beput into our common folder. I find it very good and useful. It helps and motivates me to comeup with new ideas by reading other people’s ideas. This is why my company is doing well allthe time in meeting the needs of our clients and customers.

This quote explains how the different domains of knowledge help achieve the overallgoals of organisation. Knowledge is shared within these domains with the aim todevelop and create new and innovative document technologies, products and servicesthat improve work processes and business results for customers and clients. AlthoughNDC deals with a wide range of specialised knowledge that needs to be sharedfrequently, members form CoPs according to their knowledge domain and interest.

CommunityTo understand CoPs, it is important to find out how the community is organised,nurtured and supported by members and the organisation. These are importantelements as they would enable CoPs to function in a desired manner and would assistin building good relationships and trust among people and facilitate their professionalgrowth (Saint-Onge and Wallace, 2003). Participants were asked why they met, howthey organised their activities, how useful it was for them to be a member of the group,and other communal aspects of the group.

In discussing the reason for meeting together, the majority of the participants saidthat they had a common challenge of providing different customer solutions and it wasimportant for everyone to connect with everyone else across the organisation to learn,share and create new knowledge continuously. This is gathered from the response of aparticipant:

As a technician, I have various types of problems from clients. Being in this informal group, Iget ideas and good solutions not only from other technicians but also from people who are indifferent divisions doing different jobs. This helps all of us to learn from each other andexpand our way of dealing with things. It is really very useful because I appreciate people andlearn better and more now from those who work in other areas than mine.

Findings show that CoPs provided a forum for free expression of information related totheir nature of work and also served as a channel of communication for enhancedinterpersonal relationship. Besides face-to-face communication, these groups doconnect themselves through intranet that has several collaborative functions. Most ofthe participants emphasised that they enjoy good relationships with each other and areable to raise issues not only at a professional level but also at a personal level. Some ofthem commented that they feel like a “family” whenever they meet for discussions,even if they meet once a week. A typical comment that represents the groups’ sense ofbelonging is expressed by a sales officer:

At first, I did not feel comfortable because the group consist of people from all over thecompany. But after few weeks, I enjoy exchanging ideas and advice from each other. Now, weoperate like a family with jokes, laughter and serious discussions. I enjoy the atmosphere andhave a sense of belonging – family-like feelings. Learning and solving problems is a funactivity now for me.

The findings show that members present ideas on their practice for others to learn,discuss each others success stories, report on issues from customers, explore new

LODJ32,1

48

territories, document new solutions for experimenting, create new tools, post questionsand answers through intranets and websites. Two factors are required for successfulknowledge transfer: capability and the willingness of people to engage in transfer ofknowledge. This is evident in our findings. For example, Customer Relations Officers(CRO) responsible for customer product training are able to access through the intranettraining materials in product familiarisation, usage, service and maintenance in theform of rich-media. This training material and information allows learning to takeplace as and when required by all CROs. This is one of the results of NDC’s strategy ofenabling collective learning and sharing among all CROs in the organisation.According to one new CRO, lots of discussion takes place in his CoP on issues based onproduct information made available through the intranet. Though he found theinformation on the intranet useful, he expressed that discussions in his CoP enhancedhis knowledge and helps him realise his contribution towards the organisation’smission of learning, sharing and creating new knowledge.

The findings also show that the frequency of meetings depends on their outdoorsales work, but they do meet regularly to learn, share and seek help when workproblems arise with individual members. Their meetings are conducted in a room thatgives them a “sense of belonging”. Observations and visits to these meeting roomsshow the sense of pride that members hold in learning, sharing and creatingknowledge. For example, a technician enthusiastically commented:

Anyone who walks in or tours around our company will know about our activities and thetype of creative things we do. This is a reminder for everyone in our company. It also tellsexternal people, for example, you [researcher] how we work together so well.

The above quote supports the observation made during the period of research in theorganisation. Artefacts as posters depicting their creativity in coming up with newsolutions, words of inspiration, collective achievements and even photographs ofmembers were displayed in the room. Along the walkways, various CoPs achievementsand short synopses of successful projects and their creative solutions were alsodisplayed prominently. Beside each successful project, the date of implementation wasgiven and, in some cases, rewards given for creative ideas were also indicated. Theseactivities, achievements and recognition, according to some participants, were topromote healthy competition among these informal groups and also to encourage newmembers to join the existing groups. It is evident from the discussions andobservations during the research that creating and sharing knowledge among the CoPsreflects bottom-up initiatives that add value to the organisation.

PracticeIn CoPs, it is the practice element that energises practitioners to learn and share withinthe different knowledge domains. Practice ultimately allows practitioners to use theknowledge acquired to affect their work efficiency and effectiveness (Wenger et al.,2002). Participants were asked to assess what impact their informal communities hadon the way they worked, and whether these communities improved the effectiveness ofNDC.

Cutting down on the time taken to respond to customers is an example of how CoPsactivities improve the effectiveness of NDC. Handling customer problems has been atask of a person or a department that specialises in the product. However, with the


49

practice of CoPs, there is a mutual engagement between them to provide advice,solutions and expert knowledge on the problem by various members through theintranet. Subsequently, the person who received the problem initially will collateinformation from these sources and would respond with a solution in a timely mannerto customer. This is a reflection of how members perceive their capabilities inknowledge transfer and attain their specific goals of meeting the needs of theircustomers. Members’ self-efficacy and attitudes play an important role in transfer andcreation of knowledge (Durndell and Haag, 2002). This has enhanced customersatisfaction, which is part of NDC’s mission.

Another example of how CoPs affect practice in NDC is through greater re-use ofexisting knowledge and expertise in innovation of new software. For example, aparticipant described:

We share, create new ways of doing things in our area of work; communicate with each otherthrough text-message, e-mail, and website. Everything we do is to keep ourselves above ourcompetitors in our own field of expertise. All important solutions and different ideas fromeveryone are documented so that it can be used when needed.

New innovations in terms of software and products have, in the past, taken many yearsfor its launch. With several CoPs in NDC, there has been a number of innovations, suchas the data management software and security back-up that was created by reusingexisting knowledge and expertise among various groups of CoPs. The findings alsoshow that members value the activities and interactions that take place in their CoPs asthey acknowledged that as an individual it is difficult to keep current with the latestknowledge and technology in their job. All the participants agreed that CoPs is the placethat exposes them to understand their competence and contribution that are needed toachieve their organisational goal. The debate and different perspectives that comes outduring the meetings enabled members to realise their potential and also how they canconfront problems that are outside their competency level. A participant put it:

I am ever willing to take new projects because I can discuss it with my members and we aresure to come up with great ideas together. It’s really amazing and fun to think together.Everyone is smart in something and when everyone gets together, the outcome is a big bang.

This and other responses show that there is a high level of intellectual engagementwithin the members and all forms of communication, such as e-mail and face-to-facediscussions, are considered to be important in achieving their goals in their particulararea of work and practice. The members, individually and collectively, feel that theyare more confident and likely to handle related problems and issues that emerge withcustomers in future (Attwater and Derry, 2005). It is clear from the findings thatindividual members are highly motivated in applying what they learn and in the doingso enhance their individual and organisational performance (Lesser and Storck, 2001).

Key success factorsMeeting and satisfying customers’ requirements and needs, with innovative productsand customised solutions, is the business of NDC. To do so, NDC’s strategy is to enableits employees to share ideas, information, documents and solutions across theorganisation. Such a strategy depends on how well the CoPs work. From the researchfindings, we distil three key success factors that have contributed to nurturing CoPs atNDC:

LODJ32,1

50

(1) leadership;

(2) organisational culture; and

(3) individual motivation to learn.

LeadershipAccording to Kouzes and Posner (1987), leadership is essentially a relationshipbetween leaders and followers. Leadership contributes tremendously in reinforcingcertain beliefs and desired values in promoting learning and sharing in work settings(Jashapara, 2004). This research found that there were two aspects of leadership thatare important to the development of CoPs in NDC:

(1) the leadership by the CEO of NDC; and

(2) the practice of distributed leadership in NDC.

First, on the question of how they are supported by management, every participantappreciated the CEO of NDC for supporting them in creating and sustaining the informalway of creating knowledge. Most participants explained that they admire the leader’ssupport in providing them with excellent facilities such as rooms for their meetings, asophisticated pantry that provides various types of hot and cold drinks, and boardroomsfor activities. In addition, light refreshment is also provided every evening for those whoreport back to the office after working outside the premises and meeting customers.Comments such as “our CEO feeds our stomach and heart well”, “I like to come back tooffice in the evenings to meet my group as there is food for stomach and your brain”,suggest that members enjoy the support given by the leader of NDC.

In particular, it is evident that the staff see the CEO as being personally committedto CoPs, and indeed the driving force behind its development. He does this in variousways.

He legitimises the CoPs concept by having a special agenda item during formalmeetings and by acknowledging the importance and significant contributions made bythe various CoPs. He ensures that staff have time to participate in CoPs meetings, andaccording to some participants the CEO regularly presents himself in various CoPs’meetings to share his knowledge and experience across the organisation. He availshimself to open discussion and supports new projects that come out of CoPs. Also,budget and resources are made available for courses/workshops that are recommendedby informal groups for enhancing their knowledge. One participant enthusiasticallycommented:

I have studied in university about the importance of leadership, but only now I am reallyseeing it through my CEO.

In NDC, all participants attributed their successful maintenance of their CoPs to theCEO. He has integrated CoPs into company policy, processes, and reward schemes.Every single individual gave favourable comments about the leader for the kind ofsupport and encouragement given to them for collaborating and sharing knowledge intheir CoPs. This is summarised by a participant:

We have a great leader – our CEO. He totally supports everybody in the company in ourprofessional and personal development. With a person like him, nothing is impossible toachieve in this company.


51

It is clear from this and other responses that leaders play an important role insupporting and facilitating a learning and sharing culture in an organisation( Jashapara, 2004). The findings show that all CoPs in NDC value the support given bythe leader, and most of them strongly endorsed that knowledge sharing and knowledgecreation is a result of the CEO’s way of motivating and nurturing a work culture thatcaters for professional and personal development.

It is also evident from the findings that the CEO and staff of NDC have a positivework relationship that contributes to the overall support and commitment inmaintaining CoPs. In two of the meetings held with the CEO, one message that cameacross very strongly and passionately is:

As a leader, I am behind my [CoPs] teams and they are behind me. Trust and confidence inthe leadership is the most important factor in growing people and the company.

It is clear that the CEO sees CoPs as an essential mechanism for developing “trust andconfidence” between him and the staff.

Second, other than his own leadership, perhaps more importantly, the CEOencourages and supports the practice of distributed leadership in the organization,aligned with the belief that it is not possible for an individual to achieve the goals of anorganization (Ancona et al., 2007; Brown and Gioia, 2002; Yukl, 1999). According toYukl (2002, p. 292):

Distributed leadership does not require an individual who can perform all of the essentialleadership functions, only a set of people who can collectively perform them. Some leadershipfunctions may be shared by several members of a group, some leadership may be allocated toindividual members, and a particular function may be performed by different people atdifferent times. The individual actions of any individual leader are much less important thanthe collective leadership provided by the members of the organisation.

Distributed leadership, practised in the organisation, helps CoP development becausedifferent people can take the lead in the various knowledge domains.

Just as it is not possible for a solo leader to possess all the required competencies tomanage an organisation effectively (Gronn, 1999), it is not possible for the CEO to leadin all knowledge domains. Also, organisations have discovered the importance ofemployees working as a team and suggest that it is crucial for today’s organisations formaintaining flexibility, motivation and learning among members (Drucker, 1992;Edmonstone and Western, 2002; Knights and Willmott, 2007; West, 2004).Organisations need to distribute responsibility more widely among members(Ancona et al., 2007), in particular the responsibility for creating, sharing andutilising knowledge.

Distributed leadership is a product of conjoint activity. The dimension of conjointactivity is central to encouraging bottom-up practices that allow CoPs to increase theorganisational knowledge capability for the overall performance of an organisation.Although CoPs can be encouraged and supported top-down, they are fundamentallybottom-up practices. Therefore, distributed leadership is important to nurturing CoPs.Through distributed leadership, CoPs cultivate and re-orient themselves to understandthe benefits of collaboration, which promotes wider cross-fertilisation of ideas,resulting in creative ideas and projects, enhancing the overall quality of anorganisation’s performance. Distributed leadership recognises the distinct knowledge

LODJ32,1

52

and expertise of people across the organisation and allows people to take initiatives attheir local level. One participant articulated the above point in this way:

In order to succeed and perform well, each of us think of ourselves as a leader. We shareleadership and distribute our work according to our knowledge expertise. We don’t use ourtitle to decide who should carry out various tasks when we come up with a solution for thecompany. We look at it as a joint venture and everyone is a leader in it.

CultureOrganisational culture plays an important role in understanding the behaviour ofpeople as it a reflection of values, attitudes and practices that are consistently held bymembers of that organisation (Ashkanasy and Jackson, 2001). According to Cooke andSzumal (2000), a positive culture has a significant impact on organisational members’performance and achievements. NDC seems to have an appropriate organisationalculture that supports and strengthens the activities of CoPs. Also, organisationalculture plays an important role in organisations that rely on service, knowledge andsharing of expertise (Debowski, 2006). The findings show that NDC has opencommunication, good interactions and collaboration that were demonstrated acrosslevels. This is explained by a marketing officer:

Though we do not work in the same office or department, we communicate freely and talkabout issues openly when we meet. We trust and help each other and because of our goodrelationship we have managed to come up with innovative solutions.

From a training manager’s perspective, a good working environment and relationshipamong colleagues is more important than individual expertise:

I am considered an expert in my area, as others are in their area of work/department, but wehave a strong culture, a sense of belongingness and focussed on making our company thenumber one in the near future.

Though within the organisation, subcultures such as professional, managerial, and soon exist at multiple levels; working and collaborating together was not only seen as acore activity but it was also acknowledged by all participants as a way of life in NDCfor innovation in the organisation.

As part of the corporate culture, a strong company vision also lends impetus to thedevelopment of CoPs. A few participants cited this as one of the main reasons for theirinterest in keeping in touch with people of their domain of knowledge and expertise ona regular basis. This is explained by one of the participants:

Everybody knows that our vision is to be a leader in our business. We want to come up withbetter solution than our competitors. Because of this, we regularly meet to discuss, update onour success, problems and challenges with our customers. Through these meetings, we shareand learn a lot and come up with new ideas and solutions.

Individual motivationFinally, the research shows that one of the most important key success factors is theindividual motivation displayed by each member of CoPs, who consider theirparticipation and contribution as an integral part of delivering world-class services andproducts to their customers. Most of the participants view CoPs as a means to discover


53

new and best practices that will not only enhance their organisational performance butalso tap into the capabilities of individual members’ various skills and knowledge forinnovation. As a participant puts it:

We have come up with interesting new projects through our meetings. I have realised thateveryone has great things to contribute in their own ways. I am sure our projects will lead tonew ways of doing things and good profits.

The findings suggest that staff of NDC are aware of the dynamic environment theyoperate in and tend to value and appreciate the opportunity they get to reflect on theirpractices with others. The staff are motivated to learn in order to survive in thisindustry or face irrelevance. A serious note of caution was sounded by one participant:

We know that we run our business in a very, very highly competitive ground. It iscompulsory for us to learn from our colleagues, our clients, from newspapers, internet and so,on [etc.]. If you don’t learn and keep ahead of other companies, you will die [no job] soonerthan you can think.

The face-to-face interviews with all the participants appear to project an image of ahighly self-motivated group of people belonging to different CoPs. They seem tounderstand the benefits of collective learning and innovation to accomplish theorganisational vision. The findings also show that people appreciate the benefits thataccrue from joining CoPs as some of them claim that their professional growth hasbeen boosted by participating in CoPs and they feel much more competent in dealingwith day to day issues. With a tone of confidence, a technician explained:

After being in the group for few months, I feel good and I worry less about handling issues.My group members are there to help when I need it. I can check for information throughintranet for various solutions and ideas. I can also instantly get help through text messagesfrom my group members.

The above quote and other discussions with participants show that knowledge andsolutions are readily available through their meeting notes and also accessible throughthe intranet for the use of all technicians in the organisation.

Issues and challengesIn spite of positive comments, there were some concerns highlighted by a few memberson issues of facilitation, commitment and time management.

Guided facilitation versus self-organisationParticipants raised the issue on guided facilitation. This issue was a concern for sometechnicians, who do not work together physically in a shared office as their nature ofthe job requires them to be out of the office frequently during work hours. However,some of them felt that there should be a leader among the CoPs to co-ordinate the groupprocesses in terms of meetings and making knowledge available instantly to those whowere not at the meetings. The response from one of the participant shows the need forguided leadership in informal CoPs:

There are 8 of us in this group and we are really a good group of professionals. I think wewould do better if we have a leader to lead and guide us in our discussion and solvingproblems. I also belong to another group and I also feel the same in that group.

LODJ32,1

54

Responses from the interviews reveal that there is a need for better facilitation, as there isa tendency for members to go astray in their discussions and sometimes individuals maydominate their views about certain issues. For example: “I love to go for the meetings;they are the best place to learn and share knowledge, but time is precious, so there shouldbe a facilitator to guide and prioritise issues of importance”. This and other responses doindicate that some form of formal facilitation is important for expanding membershipand also to monitor the CoPs meeting processes that involves activities such asco-ordinating meetings, distributing discussion agendas, updating intranet on solutionsdiscussed during meetings, etc. Some participants strongly emphasised that activitiesneed to be well organised and facilitated in order to maintain the interest of individualmembers. Therefore, a facilitator is considered to be an important factor in helping theCoPs to grow and evolve in membership and culture (Land, 2003).

Commitment and timeAs for commitment and time, few members felt that as much as they are fullycommitted to their CoPs, there are occasions where they find it difficult to go on withthe momentum of the group, as can be seen from the comments from participant:

I truly support my group of marketing managers but sometimes the meetings are at oddhours. When I miss any of the meetings, I feel my commitment is less than others. This goesfor others too. I am not sure what level of commitment is expected of members.

Time is precious and we are running about from one to another place. I wish to spend moretime with my expert members but time is always a problem for not only me but for others too.

The above and other responses suggest that some members of CoPs find it a challenge toattend meetings on a regular basis considering their workload and other formal meetings.There is a sense of guilt among a few members because of their irregular attendanceduring meetings. This creates a bit of uneasiness and tension for those involved, thoughthey hold favourable views about their membership of a COP. The degree of commitmentamong members is an issue that needs attention in sustaining the motivation of membersin continuing their participation and contribution towards innovation in NDC.

ConclusionThe case study of NDC shows how CoPs can facilitate the creation, sharing andutilisation of knowledge in an organisation, positively affecting its strategy, operationsand bottom line. Some learning points from this case include:

. Informal CoPs should be nurtured and supported and rewarded across theorganisation.

. In order to enable staff to improve their capacity to acquire and utiliseknowledge, some training on soft skills such as time management should beconsidered by the leadership of the organisation.

. Informal CoPs can act as a motivational tool for adapting to organisationalchanges. Leaders across the organisation need to think through some incentivesand rewards for maintaining CoPs to stimulate further innovation and enablenew learning to take place.

. CoPs can be an effective mechanism for promoting knowledge transfer bothwithin the CoP itself, and throughout the wider organisation.


55

As NDC moves ahead, it is looking to developing better mechanisms to facilitate thedevelopment of its knowledge management capabilities that harness the knowledgebases across its multi-national network. The value of informal CoPs is evident inpromoting an innovative culture with high level of collaboration among organisationalmembers. By connecting people with similar interest and expertise on an informalbasis the CoP has great potential in contributing to the overall performance of anorganisation. The strength of informal CoPs in this context reflects organisationalmembers’ alignment with organisational goals and their willingness to learn andinnovate. As a corollary, for this to happen it is essential that organisational cultureand leadership styles are congruent with, and truly supportive of, the concept of CoPs.Moreover, organisational goals must be such that they can inspire members of CoPs.

This paper opens the opportunity for further research. First, one can explore morefully the interrelationship between CoPs and the organisations of which they are a part,whether they are private or public organisations. It would be interesting to know ifthere is any difference between the two in their utilisation of CoPs, and if so, why.Second, research could examine whether some industries are more conducive to CoPsthan others. Third, there is the question of the scale of the organisation: does sizematter? Last, but not least, what role does national culture and the ethnic compositionof organisations play? Such avenues would deepen our understanding of CoPs as apotentially valuable organisational resource.

References

Ancona, D., Malone, T.W., Orlikowski, W.J. and Senge, P. (2007), “In praise of the incompleteleader”, Harvard Business Review, February.

Argote, L. and Ingram, P. (2000), “Knowledge transfer: a basis for competitive advantage infirms”, Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 82 No. 1, pp. 150-69.

Ashkanasy, N.M. and Jackson, C.R.A. (2001), “Organisational culture and climate”, in Anderson, D.S.,Sinangil, H.K. and Visweran, S. (Eds), Handbook of Work and Organisational Psychology,Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 398-415.

Attwater, R. and Derry, C. (2005), “Engaging communities of practice for risk communication inthe Hawkesbury Water Recycling Scheme”, Action Research, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 193-209.

Bhagat, R.S., Kedia, B.L., Harveston, P.D. and Trandis, H.C. (2002), “Cultural variations in thecross-border transfer of organizational knowledge: an integrative framework”, Academy ofManagement Review, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 204-21.

Bourdieu, P. (1980), Le Sens, Le Minuit, Paris.

Bresman, H., Birkinshaw, J. and Nobel, R. (1999), “Knowledge transfer in internationalacquisitions”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 439-62.

Brown, J.S. and Duguid, P. (1991), “Organizational learning and communities of practice: towarda unified view of working, learning and innovation”, Organization Science, Vol. 2 No. 1,pp. 40-57.

Brown, J.S. and Duguid, P. (2000), The Social Life of Information, Harvard Business School Press,Boston, MA.

Brown, M.H. and Gioia, D.A. (2002), “Distributed leadership in an online division of an offlineorganization”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 397-419.

Cassell, C. and Symon, G. (1994), Qualitative Methods in Organisational Research: A PracticalGuide, Sage Publications, London.

LODJ32,1

56

Choo, C. and Bontis, N. (2002), “Knowledge, intellectual capital, and strategy: themes andtensions”, in Choo, C. and Bontis, N. (Eds), The Strategic Management of IntellectualCapital and Organisational Knowledge, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, pp. 3-19.

Conrad, C. and Poole, M.S. (2002), Strategic Organizational Communication in a Global Economy,5th ed., Harcourt College Publishers, Fort Wayne, IN.

Constas, M.A. (1992), “Qualitative analysis as a public event: the documentation of categorydevelopment procedures”, American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 29 No. 2,pp. 253-66.

Cooke, R.A. and Szumal, J.L. (2000), “Using the organizational culture inventory to understandingthe operating cultures of organisations”, in Ashkanasy, N.M., Wilderom, C.P.M. andPeterson, M.F. (Eds), Handbook of Organizational Culture and Climate, Sage Publications,Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 147-62.

Davenport, T.H. and Prusak, L. (2000), Working Knowledge, Harvard Business School Press,Boston, MA.

Debowski, S. (2006), Knowledge Management, Wiley, Brisbane.

Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (2000), “The practices and politics of interpretation”, in Denzin, M.K.and Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2nd ed., Sage Publications,Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 897-922.

Drucker, P.F. (1992), “The new society of organizations”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 70 No. 5,pp. 95-105.

Drucker, P.F. (1993), The Post-Capitalist Society, HarperBusiness, New York, NY.

Drucker, P.F. (1995), “The information executives truly need”, Harvard Business Review,January/February, pp. 35-44.

Durndell, A. and Haag, Z. (2002), “Computer self-efficacy, computer anxiety, attitudes towardsthe internet and reported experience with the internet, by gender, in an east Europeansample”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 521-35.

Dyer, J.H. and Nobeoka, K. (2000), “Creating and managing a high-performanceknowledge-sharing network: the Toyota case”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 21No. 3, pp. 345-67.

Eckert, P. (1993), “The organisation as a community of engaged learners”, working paper, PaloAlto, CA.

Edmonstone, J. and Western, J. (2002), “Leadership development in health care: what do weknow?”, Journal of Management in Medicine, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 34-7.

Edvinnson, L. and Malone, M. (1997), Intellectual Capital: Realizing Your Company’s True Valueby Finding its Hidden Roots, HarperCollins, New York, NY.

Gherardi, S. (1995), “Organizational kearning”, in Warner, H. (Ed.), International Encyclopaedia ofBusiness and Management, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.

Gongla, P. and Rizzuto, C.R. (2001), “Evolving communities of practice: IBM global servicesexperience”, IBM Systems Journal, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 842-62.

Gronn, P. (1999), “Substituting for leadership: the neglected role of the leadership couple”,The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 41-62.

Holm, U. and Pedersen, T. (2000), The Emergence and Impact of MNC Centres of Excellence:A Subsidiary Perspective, Macmillan, London.

Huysman, M. and de Wit, D. (2004), “Practices of managing knowledge transfer: towards asecond wave of knowledge management”, Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 11No. 1, pp. 81-92.


57

Inkpen, A. and Tsang, E. (2005), “Social capital, networks, and knowledge transfer”, Academy ofManagement Review, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 146-65.

Jashapara, A. (2004), Knowledge Management – An Integrated Approach, Prentice-Hall,Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Knights, D. and Willmott, H. (2007), Introducing Organizational Behaviour and Management,Thomson Learning, London.

Kouzes, J.M. and Posner, B.Z. (1987), The Leadership Challenge, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Land, D. (2003), CIO Wisdom, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991), Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation,Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Lesser, E.L. and Storck, J. (2001), “Communities of practice and organisational performance”,IBM Systems Journal, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 831-41.

Marshall, C.G. and Rossman, B. (1999), Designing Qualitative Research, Sage Publications,London.

Mutch, A. (2003), “Communities of practice and habitus: a critique”, Organization Studies, Vol. 24No. 3, pp. 383-401.

Nahapiet, J. and Ghoshal, S. (1998), “Social capital, intellectual capital and the organizationaladvantage”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 242-66.

Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge Creating Company, Oxford University Press,New York, NY.

Roberts, J. (2006), “Limits to communities of practice”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 43No. 3, pp. 623-39.

Saint-Onge, H. and Wallace, D. (2003), Leveraging Communities of Practice for StrategicAdvantage, Butterworth-Heinemann, London.

Shieu, Y., Chang, C., Yang, S. and Chen, C. (2010), “Organizational knowledge transfer withinmultinational corporations”, Journal of Chinese Entrepreneurship, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 76-92.

Stacey, R.D. (2001), Complex Responsive Processes in Organizations: Learning and KnowledgeCreation, Routledge, New York, NY.

Steward, T.A. (1997), Intellectual Capital: The New Wealth of Organisation, Doubleday Dell, NewYork, NY.

Tennant, M. (1997), Psychology and Adult Learning, London, Routledge.

Tsoukas, H. (1989), “The missing link: a transformational link view of metaphors inorganizational science”, Organization Studies, Vol. 23, pp. 211-48.

Von Krogh, G., Ichijo, K. and Nonaka, I. (2000), Enabling Knowledge Creation: How to Unlock theMystery of Tacit Knowledge and Release the Power of Innovation, Oxford University Press,New York, NY.

Wang, P., Tong, T.W. and Koh, C.P. (2004), “An integrated model of transfer from MNC parent toChina subsidiary”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 168-82.

Wenger, E. and Snyder, W.M. (2000), “Communities of practice: the organizational frontier”,Harvard Business Review, January/February, pp. 139-45.

Wenger, E., McDermott, R. and Snyder, W.M. (2002), Cultivating Communities of Practice:A Guide to Managing Knowledge, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.

West, A. (2004), Effective Teamwork: Practical Lessons from Organizational Research, Blackwell,Oxford.

LODJ32,1

58

Yukl, G. (1999), “An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismaticleadership theories”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 285-305.

Further reading

Yukl, G. (2002), Leadership in Organizations, 5th ed., Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

About the authorsKala S, Retna is a Senior Lecturer at the Victoria Management School at Victoria University ofWellington. She teaches organisational behaviour at various levels including postgraduate,undergraduate, and post-experience. She also has extensive experience in professionaldevelopment, facilitation and teaching in diverse cultural backgrounds. Her main areas ofresearch at Victoria University are learning organisation, knowledge management, andleadership, creativity, cross-cultural management as well as teaching and learning in highereducation. Kala S. Retna is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:[email protected]

Pak Tee Ng is an Associate Professor at the Policy and Leadership Studies Academic Group,National Institute of Education (NIE), Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore. Heread Mathematics at Cambridge University (BA (Hons), MA) and subsequently Management atLeicester University (MBA) and Bradford University (PhD). His main areas of teaching, researchand consultancy are learning organisation, change management, knowledge management,quality management, innovation, complexity, leadership, coaching and education policies. He isthe author/editor/reviewer of several books and numerous journal articles, book chapters andconference papers. He is also a journal editor and an editorial board member of several otherjournals.


59

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

communities of practice: dynamics and success factors

Documents