I'm not sure whether summarization is part of the Org-Learning community's
repertoire, but since it seems to be particularly helpful for virtual
communities, I've been thinking of producing some kind of analytical
summary of the 11 postings to the learning-org list between late June and
now.
[Host's Note: Summaries are always welcome. I wish we had more of them.
...Rick]
First a chronological summary that tries to pick out the thread of the
argument (dropping most of the richness), followed by a more analytical
discussion.
The conversation goes way back to June 4th, when Michael Ayers
<mbayers@mmm.com> http://www.learning-org.com/99.06/0044.html discussed some
of the ideas in J. Botkin's "Smart Business: How knowledge communities can
revolutionize your company" which distinguishes between:
'knowledge communities' (KC)
and
'communities of practice' (CoPs).
Botkin claims that "CoPs are visible mainly to social anthropologists."
The conversation was picked up by a question posed by Fred Nickols
(nickols@worldnet.att.net) in LO22051
(http://www.learning-org.com/99.06/0263.html).
He distinguished between "identifying and supporting existing CoPs" and the
case where an organization "takes the lead in initiating or starting up a
Community of Practice." He asked:
> Does anyone know of any instances in which companies have
> successfully initiated Communities of Practice?
In LO22085 "T.J. Elliott" <tjell@idt.net>
http://www.learning-org.com/99.07/0012.html
Focused the conversation on intention: "informal organization" vs. "formal
organization"
He suggests that CoPs can leave behind the original purpose (of the
company), growing organically. Organic growth, beyond the control of the a
company "shows how influential and yet powerless
a company may be in relation to CoPs."
In LO22124, Keith Cowan <keith.cowan@eXcape.net>
http://www.learning-org.com/99.07/0051.html
Points out that the idea of CoPs is one level an acknowledgement of social
segmentation: "managers hang out with managers." He also observes that
companies try to thwart organic processes: "Many places still restrict
access to the Internet and the company intranet, powerful new expansions to
one's community of practice."
In LO22130 Malcolm Burson" <mburson@mint.net>
http://www.learning-org.com/99.07/0057.html
Focuses on this conflict between corporate and community interests. He
describes specific cases in which:
"the ongoing learning and success [of a CoP that a company initially
sponsored] almost inevitably brought them into conflict with those higher in
the organization who found that the group was 'out of control' from their
point of view."
He suggested that CoPs would ultimately have difficulty when confronted with
"the reality of management's control needs."
In LO22141 T.J. Elliott <tjell@idt.net>
http://www.learning-org.com/99.07/0068.html
Pursues the theme of fundamental opposition between CoPs and management but
said he has hope, because, in the "contest between management and CoPs: CoPs
will win."
LO22149 Michael Ayers <mbayers@mmm.com>
http://www.learning-org.com/99.07/0076.html
Again describes Botkin's ideas.
IN LO 22155, John D. Smith <smithjd@teleport.com>
http://www.learning-org.com/99.07/0082.html
Acknowledged the risks of formal corporate "support" for CoPs but argued
that CoPs were in any case ubiquitous. Talking about CoPs is merely a way
of seeing what is going on as people deal with new ideas, events, and
interventions (such as the Harmony Buck in the AutoCo Learning History).
In LO22164 DP DASH <dpdash@ximb.stpbh.soft.net>
http://www.learning-org.com/99.07/0091.html
Admonishes that organizational learning and organizational control should be
studied together, providing a reference to Espejo, R., Schuhmann, W.,
Schwaninger, M., and Bilello, U. "Organizational Transformation and
Learning: A Cybernetic Approach to Management." He summarizes the books
argument as an attempt to balance the interactions in a company that can be
viewed as learning and others as control.
In LO22177 Fred Nickols <nickols@worldnet.att.net> replies to LO22149
Michael Ayers http://www.learning-org.com/99.07/0143.html
Comments that Knowledge Communities have primary value to the company and
that CoPs have primary value to their members.
In LO22178 Fred Nickols <nickols@worldnet.att.net> responds to LO 22155 John
D. Smith http://www.learning-org.com/99.07/0105.html
Offers a story about "Fire Control Technicians and how much of what they did
arose from a need to get around the inadequacies of the formal organization.
Moreover, the formal organization was smart enough to leave well enough
alone."
In LO22216 Raul Espejo http://www.learning-org.com/99.07/0143.html
responds to DP Dash:
"The interest of this dilemma is that once people (including managers!!)
understand it, they can recognize alternative behaviours to the
commanding/overcontroling type and that might help to improve relations and
give a chance to the idea of respecting autonomy."
==========================DISCUSSION==============================
It seems to me that the way Wenger talks about communities of practice is
the result of an intention to talk about learning in a particular way. If
we are to talk about learning in a meaningful way, we need to somehow be
able to talk about its meaning to the learner. We probably need to talk
also about the meaning of learning to others as well, but we can't miss the
crucial role of the learner herself.
I would ask members of this august list to consider whether, when we are
talking about a conflict between "management" and "CoPs" we aren't slipping
a bit on this issue of meaning (from the inside vs. from the outside)?
My interpretation of this conflict is that we tend to talk about learning
from the (meaningful) inside when we're talking about natural CoPs. That's
the good guys. Us. When we begin to talk about "management" we slip into
talking about their learning from our perspective (which is their outside).
When I became a manager, I read an interesting book that confirmed my
suspicions that managers didn't really learn to be managers in school, but
rather they learned by talking with other managers. Haven't re-read it
since then, but I would recommend Linda A. Hill's "Becoming a Manager:
Mastery of a New Identity" (Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press,
1992). Reflecting on that it's interesting to me how clearly it emerges
from the author's field-work that learning depends on a change of identity
for it to be meaningful.
One reason I think learning histories are important is that they seek to
bring everybody's "inside" into a form where they can be discussed in a
roughly equivalent way. The AutoCo Learning History to me demonstrates that
"management" is really a CoP like others (well there are differences, but
they're much more the same than they are different as far as learning is
concerned).
================= PRO BONO ADVERTISEMENT ======================
By the way, Etienne Wenger is teaching a class on communities of practice
again and you can get the particulars about the class, which lasts 3 weeks
and starts on August 23rd, at:
http://www.KnowledgeEcology.com/keu/cc/99aug.cop.shtml
I found the class to be quite helpful, providing me with new insights into
how communities work and giving me many new ideas about how to help them
accomplish their learning objectives. (It's really more of a seminar with
small enrollment.)
What I learned from that class and in subsequent conversations and
reflection very much shapes this summary, which I am clearly labeling as a
summary FROM MY POINT OF VIEW.
John
--*
--* John D. Smith, (503) 963-8229
--* 2025 SE Elliott Ave., Portland OR 97214-5339
--* We could never learn to be brave and patient,
--* if there were only joy in the world. -Helen Keller (1880-1968)
--"John D. Smith" <smithjd@teleport.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>