Week 6 - C of P, Organsational units, Joint Enterprise...

The differences between C of P and ‘Organisational Units’... and Joint Enterprise.

I think Wenger may have meant that ‘organisational units’ have more of a stronger hierarchy of importance. Communities of practice do maintain an element of power i.e. a teacher, but they don’t diminish other members of the group from having any power. For example, in ‘Dance Mania’ the teacher would sometimes ask for our advice, or take some of our ideas and link them in with the dance she was teaching. Therefore, talking about social capital and Lesser and Storck, the following quote links it with the effectiveness of how my C of P worked, 'change that results in greater knowledge sharing, which in turn positively influences business performance.’ (Wenger) They believe that there is a behavioural change in C of P through the ‘social capital’ – the leader which provokes positive outcomes.

I would describe ‘organisational units’ more like the positions within jobs for instance, you certain job titles and you work to uphold that title. You have different departments, department leaders, secretaries, deputies, and bosses, all which have a specific hierarchical structure which can’t necessarily be deferred from. As communities of practice are described by Wenger as ‘informal’ it could be said that ‘organisational units’ differ in that they have more formalities within its structure.

In terms of joint enterprise – because joint enterprise is resulted from all members of the community, alike mutual agreements - I wouldn’t apply this to Organisational units. I see organisational units as having existing structure, which isn’t necessarily to do with the members, but is already apparent and has to be adhered to in a particular and agreed way.

Joint enterprise is essential to a community of practice in making it work, because it entails working as a community. It “is the result of a collective process of negotiation.” (Wenger: Chap 2) therefore every member’s contribution is equally accepted as part of the community continuation. The collaboration of all members’ views etc allows the community to be defined in a particular way to “develop around things that matter to people.” (Wenger)

One last though… However… can organisational units still be communities because they still work together to attain goals, work towards targets etc…
Wenger would argue that they are not because communities of practice constantly work together, not when they are just working towards targets. What do you think?