Group Decision and Negotiation

, Volume 22, Issue 4, pp 617–639 | Cite as

Community of Practice Behaviors and Individual Learning Outcomes

Article

Abstract

The community of practice (CoP) concept has grown in popularity, yet remains under-studied. In particular, we have not developed a sufficient understanding of the individual outcomes associated with CoP engagement. This paper offers a fresh research model that identifies three practice-based concepts described in the CoP literature—shared repertoire, joint enterprise, and mutual engagement—and links them to individual learning outcomes. Survey measures are developed using a card sorting procedure, a research model is pilot tested using survey data collected from 53 graduate students in a large Canadian university, and then the model is field-tested using interview and survey data collected from 59 employees in a non-profit organization. The paper offers a new set of distinct CoP measures, and examines how they are associated with learning. A discussion of practical implications and future research directions is provided.

Keywords

Community of practice Learning Multi-method research Partial least squares (PLS) analysis Field interviews 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Agresti W (2003) Tailoring IT support to communities of practice. IT Prof 5(6): 24–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allee V (2000) Knowledge networks and communities of practice. OD Pract J Organ Dev Netw 32(4): 1–15Google Scholar
  3. Barclay DW, Higgins CA, Thompson RL (1995) The partial least squares (PLS) approach to causal modeling: personal computer adoption and use as an illustration. Tech Stud 2(2): 285–309Google Scholar
  4. Brown JS, Duguid P (1991) Organizational learning and communities of practice: toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organ Sci 2(1): 40–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown JS, Duguid P (1998) Organizing knowledge. Calif Manage Rev 40(3): 90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown JS, Gray ES (1995) The people are the company: how to build your company around your people. Fast Co 1(October): 78–82Google Scholar
  7. Burt RS (1976) Interpretational confounding of unobserved variables in structural equation models. Sociol Methods Res 5: 3–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chin WW (1998) The partial least squares approach for structural equation modelling. In: Marcoulides GA (ed) Modern methods for business research. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJGoogle Scholar
  9. Churchill GAJ (1979) A paradigm for developing better measures for marketing constructs. J Mark Res 16(1): 64–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cook SDN, Brown JS (1999) Bridging epistemologies: the generative dance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing. Organ Sci 10(4): 381–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Corso M, Giacobbe A, Martini A (2009) Designing and managing business communities of practice. J Knowl Manag 13(3): 73–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Davenport E, Hall H (2001) New knowledge and micro-level online organization: ‘Communities of Practice’ as a development framework. Presented at the the 34th Hawaii international conference on system sciences. Hawaii, pp 1–10Google Scholar
  13. Fornell C, Larcker DF (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res 18: 39–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gongla P, Rizzuto CR (2001) Evolving communities of practice: IBM global services experience. IBM Syst J 40(4): 842–862CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Grant RM (1996) Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strateg Manage J 17(Winter Special Issue): 109–122Google Scholar
  16. Hara N, Hew KF (2007) Knowledge-sharing in an online community of health-care professionals. Inform Technol People 20(3): 235–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hara N, Schwen TM (2006) Communities of practice in workplaces: learning as a naturally occurring event. Perform Improv Q 19(2): 93–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hulland JS (1999) Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: A review of four studies. J Strat Manag 20: 194–204Google Scholar
  19. Jöreskog KG, Wold H (1982) The ML and PLS techniques for modeling with latent variables: historical and comparative aspects. In: Jöreskog KG, Wold H (eds) Systems under indirect observation: causality, structure, prediction. North Holland, Amsterdam, pp 263–270Google Scholar
  20. Juriado R, Gustafsson N (2007) Emergent communities of practice in temporary inter-organizational partnerships. Learn Organ 14(1): 50–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kerlinger FN (1973) Foundations of behavioral research, 2nd edn. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  22. Kirkman BL, Mathieu JE, Cordery JL, Rosen B, Kukenberger M (2011) Managing a new collaborative entity in business organizations: understanding organizational communities of practice effectiveness. J Appl Psychol. 96(6): 1234–1245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. LaContora JM, Mendonca DJ (2003) Communities of practice as learning and performance support systems. In: Proceedings of the international conference on information technology: research and education. pp 395–398Google Scholar
  24. Lave J, Wenger E (1991) Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lesser EL, Storck J (2001) Communities of practice and organizational performance. IBM Syst J 40(4): 831–841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Liang H, Saraf N, Hu Q, Xue Y (2007) Assimilation of enterprise systems: the effect of institutional pressures and the mediating role of top management. MIS Q 31(1): 59–87Google Scholar
  27. Lim KH, Ward LM, Benbasat I (1997) An empirical study of computer system learning: comparison of co-discovery and self-discovery methods. Inform Syst Res 8(3): 254–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Loyarte E, Rivera O (2007) Communities of practice: a model for their cultivation. J Knowl Manag 11(3): 67–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Manville B, Foote N (1996) Harvest your workers’ knowledge. Datamation 42(13): 78–83Google Scholar
  30. McDermott R, Archibald D (2010) Harnessing your staff’s informal networks. Harv Bus Rev 88(3): 82–89Google Scholar
  31. Merriam SB, Caffarella RS (1999) Learning in adulthood: a comprehensive guide. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CAGoogle Scholar
  32. Mittendorff K, Geijsel F, Hoeve A, de Laat M, Nieuwenhuis L (2006) Communities of practice as stimulating forces for collective learning. J Workplace Learn 18(5): 298–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Moore GC, Benbasat I (1991) Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Inform Syst Res 2(3): 192–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nahapiet J, Ghoshal S (1998) Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Acad Manag Rev 23(2): 242–266Google Scholar
  35. Nunnally JC (1978) Psychometric theory, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  36. Orlikowski WJ (2002) Knowing in practice: enacting a collective capability in distributed organizing. Organ Sci 13(3): 249–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Orr JE (1990) Sharing knowledge, celebrating identity: war stories and community memory in a service culture. In: Middleton DS, Edwards D (eds) Collective remembering: memory in society. Sage, Beverly Hills, CAGoogle Scholar
  38. Orr JE (1996) Talking about machines: an ethnography of a modern job. Cornell University Press, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  39. Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee J-Y, Podsakoff NP (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol 88(5): 879–903CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ringle CM, Wende S, Will A (2005) SmartPLS 2.0 (beta). Retrieved January 11Google Scholar
  41. Rouser K, Dorsey A (2003) Strong threads of learning—knowledge transfer within communities of practice. In: Proceedings of the engineering management conference. pp 141–145Google Scholar
  42. Sandefur RL, Laumann EO (1998) A paradigm for social capital. Ration Soc 10(4): 481–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Senge PM (1990) The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organization. Doubleday, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  44. Severiens SE, Ten Dam GT (1994) Gender differences in learning styles: a narrative review and quantitative meta-analysis. High Educ 27(4): 487–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Smith MK (2003, 2009) Communities of practice. The encyclopedia of informal education. http://www.infed.org/biblio/communities_of_practice.htm. Accessed 9 Feb 2012
  46. Smits M, de Moor A (2004) Measuring knowledge management effectiveness in communities of practice. Presented at the the 37th Hawaii international conference on system sciences. Hawaii, pp 1–9Google Scholar
  47. Sole D, Edmondson A (2002a) Situated knowledge and learning in dispersed teams. British J Manag 13(Supp): 17–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sole D, Edmondson A (2002b) Bridging knowledge gaps: learning in geographically-dispersed cross-functional development teams. In: Choo CW, Bontis N (eds) The strategic management of intellectual capital and organizational knowledge. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, pp. 587–604Google Scholar
  49. Storck J, Hill PA (2000) Knowledge diffusion through “Strategic Communities”. Sloan Manag Rev 41(2): 63–74Google Scholar
  50. Swan J, Scarborough HR, Robertson MJ (2002) The construction of communities of practice in the management of innovation. Manag Learn 33(4): 477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tajfel H, Turner JC (1979) An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In: Austin WG, Worchel S (eds) The social psychology of intergroup relations. Brooks/Cole, Monterey, CAGoogle Scholar
  52. Tajfel H, Turner JC (1986) The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In: Worchel S, Austin WG (eds) Psychology of intergroup relations. Nelson-Hall, Chicago, ILGoogle Scholar
  53. Tesluk PE, Jacobs RR (1998) Toward an integrated model of work experience. Pers Psychol 51(2): 321–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Veenswijk M, Chisalita CM (2007) The importance of power and ideology in communities of practice. Inform Technol People 20(1): 32–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD (2003) User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quart 27(3): 425–478Google Scholar
  56. Ward A (2000) Getting strategic value from constellations of communities. Strat Leadersh 20: 4–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Weick KE, Roberts KH (1993) Collective mind in organizations: heedful interrelating on flight decks. Admin Sci Q 38(3): 357–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wenger E (1996) How to optimize organizational learning. Healthc Forum J 39(4): 22Google Scholar
  59. Wenger E (1998) Communities of practice: learning as a social system. Systems thinker. http://www.co-i-l.com/coil/knowledge-garden/cop/lss.shtml. Accessed 9 Feb 2012
  60. Wenger E (2004) Knowledge management as a doughnut: shaping your knowledge strategy through communities of practice. Ivey Bus J 68(3): 1–8Google Scholar
  61. Wenger EC, Snyder WM (2000) Communities of practice: the organizational frontier. Harv Bus Rev 78(1): 139–145Google Scholar
  62. Werts CE, Linn RL, Jöreskog KG (1974) Intraclass reliability estimates: testing structural assumptions. Educ Psychol Meas 34(1): 25–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wold H (1982) Systems under indirect observation using PLS. In: Fornell C (ed) A second generation of multivariate analysis. Praeger, New York, NY, pp 325–347Google Scholar
  64. Zárraga-Oberty C, Saá-Pérez PD (2006) Work teams to favor knowledge management: towards communities of practice. Eur Bus Rev 18(1): 60–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Zhang W, Watts S (2008) Online communities as communities of practice: a case study. J Knowl Manag 12(4): 55–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Richard Ivey School of BusinessThe University of Western OntarioLondonCanada
  2. 2.Department of Information SystemsCity University of Hong KongKowloonHong Kong

Personalised recommendations