Communities of Practice Need Some Practice
This is my 3rd post in my journey to cover my thoughts and ideas on the four topics covered in week 3 of the Exploring Innovations in Networked Work and Learning cMOOC. So far, I’ve covered Crowdsourcing and Idea Management and Design with the only one left for tomorrow being Working out Loud which also happens to be my favorite.
Defining Communities of Practice (CoP)
It’s hard to define a Community of Practice, but I think a good start would be to quote a Tweet I recently saw from another MSLOC430 participant. It sums up what happens when you’re in a Community of Practice and it’s a summary of none other than Harold Jarche who seems to have something relevant to each category I’m writing about.
— Karen Jeannette (@kjeannette) February 11, 2015
As long as you’re changing your practice, you know you’re in a community of practice. That’s pretty simple, but there are so many nuances that go along with a CoP.It’s not as easy as creating a group of people interested in the same topic and say “we’re going to talk about this, and change our practice. Next month we’ll talk about something else and improve ourselves in that topic.”
Let’s Make a CoP
It’s not as easy as creating a group of people interested in the same topic and say “we’re going to talk about this, and change our practice. Next month we’ll talk about something else and improve ourselves in that topic.”
I’ve seen this attempted. People seem to think a CoP is a formal group that needs strict guidance and cannot build organically with open discussions and open topics. What would happen if we just let people talk willy-nilly? It would be crazy and nobody would learn or get anything done right?
When there’s strict guidance and you start introducing things like steering committees, the organicness of the CoP is lost rapidly. People become disengaged from the group and start to not care anymore. Those that attend do so out of obligation after a while, not interest.
Discussions and the group have to form organically and discussions have to happen naturally. A CoP need not have an owner, just a single topic that everyone is interested in which then leads to a natural discussion on any part of that topic. Maybe everybody has an interest and turns are taken to discuss that interest and have a messy interconnected conversation (many to many) and not one person to many.
When a CoP turns so formal that there’s one topic that one person “teaches’ the others and then it’s over it is no longer a CoP.
I realize that I just got finished rambling for several paragraphs straight, but as you can tell I have strong feelings about what a CoP is and is not. I’ll stop rambling now and try to get back on track if I ever had a track to get back on.
If you want to get official about what Communities of Practice is and isn’t, even the one I describe above could be considered a CoP. As with anything else though, a CoP could be a failure or a success, but both of them are still Communities of Practice.
Here’s what Etienne Wenger defines as a CoP:
Communities of practice are groups of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly.
After reading that more carefully, I might say that what I defined above as a failure CoP might not even be a CoP at all. The keywords to take out of that description are interact and regularly. Those two must be present in a CoP to be a CoP. My failed example above does not do this, there’s none or little interacting.
Meeting once a month around a topic that was pre-determined by a steering committee then asking a few questions in the end is noy interacting.
I’ll leave it at that, the absolute most important element of a CoP is that there is interaction. It’s a group thing, we’re all in this together as equals who love to talk about what we do and want to improve it.
The CoP must benefit each member equally and each one must feel like they own it as much as anybody else. Having one central leader and introducing committees into it turns things back into a company with a hierarchy, that kind of stuff doesn’t work well in the network age, just ask Harold Jarche.
What’s your take on Communities of Practice? have you seen them succeed in changing the way people practice? I hope to see some great examples of how they’ve improved you.
I will take this last part to say that the most successful Communities of Practice I’ve seen are Twitter chats. I’d definitely classify them as a CoP. Even with a central group running the chat, you would never know from the outside. I’m a regular at Chat2lrn and they are very well-organized on the back-end. Before I took part in that back-end once, I had no idea it existed and it doesn’t interfere with the wonderful dynamic of the group.