Communities of Practice versus Social Capital - Assignment Example

“The concepts of “communities of practice”, “practice based networks”, “open innovation” and “social capital” suggest social networks are becoming an important factor enabling organisations to learn and innovate. Contrast and compare at least two of the above terms in quotations and discuss some of the challenges organisations may face when participating in social networks”. 1. Introduction Traditionally, the growth of organizations has been depended on their ability to develop competitive advantages towards their rivals; other factors, such as the leadership style would also affect the potentials of an organization to improve its position within its industry. Today, the terms of organizational development have been differentiated. Innovation and learning have become key elements of organizational performance. In the past, innovation and learning were promoted using standardized policies, such as research and development, training programs and so on. Currently, the development of innovation and learning within organizations is mostly based on social networking. At the same time, concepts like communities of practice and social capital have been used for reflecting the key role of social networks in enabling organizations to learn and innovate. The above two concepts, the ‘communities of practice’ and the ‘social capital’ are compared in this paper. Their similarities and differences are presented and evaluated, using relevant literature. Moreover, the challenges that an organization is likely to face when participating in social networks are analytically discussed. It is revealed that social networking in critical for organizational success under the terms that it is aligned with the organizational ethics and culture. 2. “Communities of practice” versus “social capital” Communities of practice can be used along with other concepts, such as the ‘social capital’ concept, for highlighting the importance of social networking in promoting innovation and learning within organizations. However, the two concepts may be differentiated, as of their requirements or their priorities. This fact is made clearer by comparing the elements of ‘communities of practice’, as described above, with the elements of ‘social capital’. The first of the above concepts, the ‘communities of practice’ is based on the view that ‘learning starts with engagement in social practice and that this practice is the fundamental construct by which individuals learn’ (Wenger 1998, in Langer 2005, p.77). In the context of the above framework, the achievement of organization’s goals is based on the initiatives of teams that have ‘a shared way of pursuing interest’ (Langer 2005, p.77). On the other hand, the term ‘social capital’ is used for reflecting two different functions: the promotion of specific social structures and ‘the facilitation of certain actions of the actors’ (Coleman, 1988, p.98). The term ‘actors’, as used above, implies both individuals and organizations (Coleman 1988). From another point of view, social capital can be characterized as ‘an asset that emanates from participation in social relations’ (Nielsen 2003, p.2). In other words, social capital can be a quite wide concept, reflecting all activities of individuals, as members of a particular organization. However, in the context of social capital individuals, as actors, are not necessarily members of a team, as in the case of the communities of practice, a fact that offers them a higher flexibility in acting as they wish. Moreover, in accordance with Al-Ali (2003), employees tend ‘to form informal communities or networks all the time’ (Al-Ali 2003, p.91). These networks are used for the development of various organizational tasks, more or less important. This means that the control of organization over the rules and the form of communities of practice may be difficult, especially if they are used for supporting temporary organizational needs (Al-Ali 2003). Such problem does not appear in the case of ‘social capital’; as already noted ‘social capital’ is based on the initiatives of individuals who can be controlled and monitored as of their activities, in opposition with groups of people, which are quite difficult to be controlled, as in the case of communities of practice. At this point it should be noted that the ‘communities of practice’, or else, ‘CoPs’, are not static; this means that their growth can be continuous, as new members are added (Wenger, McDermott and Snyder 2002). These members may have different perceptions and interests than the existing members of the communities, a fact that leads to the differentiation of ‘the directions of the communities’ (Wenger, McDermott and Snyder 2002). In opposition, the principles and the ethics of ‘social capital’ are standardized, influenced by the fact that actors, acting as individuals, do not have enough power to initiate continuous changes in regard to the priorities of ‘social capital’. At the next level, the social capital cannot be used for applying ‘generalized ideas’ (Dasgupta and Serageldin 2001, p.143); in other words, social capital could not be used in organizations operating worldwide, but they can be rather used locally. At this point, social capital is differentiated from communities of practice, which can be developed worldwide, even if they are not easy to be controlled. Another important difference between the CoPs and the ‘social capital’ is the following one: the power of individuals as members of CoPs is not controlled (Hara 2009, p.13). This means that the members of these communities may exceed the limits of their power when being involved in research and development (Hara 2009, p.13). On the contrary, in the context of social capital, the power of the actors is clearly defined, meaning that actors are not allowed to exceed the limits of their power. Moreover, the elements of the organizational environment, as reflected in CoPs may not be real, misleading the stakeholders in regard to the level of learning and innovation, as promoted within a particular organization (Hara 2009). For this reason, it is suggested that CoPs are evaluated as part of the organizational culture rather than of the organizational performance (Henriksson 2000, in Hara 2009, p.13). No such problem is likely to appear in ‘social capital’, which precisely reflects the conditions in organizational environment. On the other hand, the use of the concept of social capital for developing cooperation among organizational units has been proved to be quite effective, leading to the improvement of cooperation and communication within organizations (Burke and Cooper 2006). Moreover, the empirical evidence developed in the particular field led to the following finding: ‘the development of social ties among employees’ (Burke and Cooper 2006, p.203) leads to the increase of employee performance, an outcome which is not guaranteed in the case of communities of practice. In regard to this issue also, the social capital is differentiated from the CoPs; these communities may promote cooperation but they cannot guarantee the improvement of teamwork in regard to various organizational activities. 3. Challenges that organisations face when participating in social networks One of the most common problems when using social networks is to set the boundaries of the network’s power (Kadushin 2012). Because social networks are quite difficult to be controlled, the abuse of power by their members cannot be always confronted. Moreover, it seems that organizational leaders face difficulties in managing social networks, especially in organizations that operate internationally and the networks of which can be quite complex (Cross and Thomas 2009). A similar issue is highlighted in the study of Hellriegel and Slocum (2009); in accordance with the above researchers, the control of social networks in organizations that operate globally is quite difficult. Reference is made, as an example, to the firm Procter & Gamble. The operating units of the above organization ‘are dispersed globally’ (Hellriegel and Slocum 2009, p.495). Social networking, as related to these units, cannot be effectively controlled, leading to doubts as to whether these networks can help to promote organizational growth or not. Of particular importance is the following issue: social networks are highly based on technology. However, ‘over-relying on technology’ (Hellriegel and Slocum 2009, p.495) can threaten the organizational performance, taking into consideration the high risks for sabotage, failures of the system, or failures in regard to the IT systems’ administration (Hellriegel and Slocum 2009). The problem developed above is made clearer in the case of virtual teams. These teams, which are a common form of social networking, as part of the organizational environment, offer the following advantage: individuals with different expertise can share their ideas and cooperate in resolving critical organizational problems without being, physically, at the same place (Anderson 2011). This form of networking, is also based on the use of technology for promoting learning and innovation; the risks related to ‘the ‘over-relying’ on technology’ (Hellriegel and Slocum 2009, p.495), as explained above, are highly involved in the specific form of social networking. Other challenges that organizations using social networks are likely to face can also include: a) changes in regard to the terms of use of social networks; for example, when handling a crisis, the time that a member can wait for guidelines in regard to the particular problem can be extremely shortened, compared to the time required for having a feedback in regard to daily organizational tasks (Graen and Graen 2008, p.88), b) the ability of leaders to respond to the needs of social networks, such as the need for ‘supporting and motivating the new members of these teams’ (Kleindorfer, Wind and Gunther 2009, p.329), is not standardized or guaranteed. 4. Conclusion The form and the role of organizational frameworks are not standardized, being influenced by the conditions in the organizational environment and the goals set. The comparison between two, common, organizational concepts, such as the communities of practice and the social capital, led to the conclusion that organizational initiatives can be based on different principles and priorities, even if it is likely to be organized on the basis of shared action and shared interests. At the same time, it has been made clear that the involvement of organizations in certain initiatives, such as social networking, can be followed by a series of challenges. At this point, the ability of organizations to confront the difficulties related to such activities cannot be identified in advance; rather, the potentials of organizations to respond to these challenges are reflected in the organizational performance, either in the short or the long term. The effective management of complex organizational concepts like ‘communities of practice’ and ‘social capital’ has been proved to be related to the effectiveness of the leadership style involved; the appropriate response of organizations to social networking is influenced by similar factors, under the following differentiation: organizational concepts, such as ‘communities of practice’ and ‘social capital’ refer to the internal organizational environment while social networking focuses primarily on the improvement of communication between the organization and its external environment. In this context, the limitations that an organization sets in regard to social networking should be carefully reviewed in advance, ensuring that they do not harm the organization’s image in the market or its communication with its customers. References Al-Ali, N. (2003) Comprehensive intellectual capital management: step-by-step. Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons. Burke, R., and Cooper, C. (2006) The human resources revolution: why putting people first matters. Oxford: Emerald Group Publishing. Coleman, J. (1998) Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital. The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 94, Supplement: Organizations and Institutions: Sociological and Economic Approaches to the Analysis of Social Structure. (1988), pp. S95-S120. Cross, R., and Thomas, R. (2009) Driving results through social networks: how top organizations leverage networks for performance and growth. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. Dasgupta, P., and Serageldin, I. (2001) Social capital: a multifaceted perspective. Washington: World Bank Publications. Graen, G., and Graen, J. (2008) Knowledge-driven corporation: complex creative destruction. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing (IAP). Hara, N. (2009) Communities of practice: fostering peer-to-peer learning and informal knowledge sharing in the work place. New York: Springer. Hellriegel, D., and Slocum, J. (2009) Organizational Behavior. Belmont: Cengage Learning. Kadushin, C. (2012) Understanding Social Networks: Theories, Concepts, and Findings. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kleindorfer, P., Wind, Y., and Gunther, R. (2009) The network challenge: strategy, profit, and risk in an interlinked world. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall. Langer, A. (2005) IT and organizational learning: managing change through technology and education. London: Routledge. Nielsen, K. (2003) Social Capital and Innovation Policy. Research Papers. Network Institutional Theory. Research Paper No 10/2003 Wenger, E., McDermott, R., and Snyder, W. (2002) Cultivating communities of practice: a guide to managing knowledge. Boston: Harvard Business Press. Read More