The extent to which communities of practice can be created and managed has
recently become the focus of considerable attention and debate (Contu and
Willmott 2003 ; McKinlay 2005 ; Wenger et al. 2002 ). Wenger and colleagues
( 2002 : 6 ), proponents of the organizational value of communities of practice,
argue that ‘cultivating communities of practice in strategic areas is a practical
way to manage knowledge as an asset, just as systematically as companies manage
other critical assets.’ Their argument is open to criticism on a number of fronts. In
particular, the conception of knowledge as ‘thing’ has been widely critiqued
(Newell et al. 2002 ; Tsoukas and Vladimirou 2001 ) and their unitarist assumptions
regarding the prospects for successfullymanagingcommunities of practice are
reminiscent of the widely criticized way in which management texts have treated
another anthropological concept—culture (see Smircich 1983 ; Meek 1988 ). Never-
theless, it is worth brieXy reviewing the ways in which Wenger et al. ( 2002 ) suggest
that communities of practice may be developed.
The essence of the argument is that organizations should retain an openness to
participation and change that facilitates engagement within and across Wrm
boundaries, actively develop and protect ‘community spaces’ that encourage vol-
untary and organic creativity while also retaining a management-informed focus
on value and organizational design features which act as catalysts to the organic
evolution of communities. This emphasizes the role of management in setting the
context, tone, and focus for collective engagement which is recognized and sup-
ported as organic and self-developing:
Although communities of practice develop naturally, an appropriate amount of design can
be a powerful engine for their evolution, helping members identify the knowledge, events,
roles, and activities that will catalyse the community’s growth. The organic nature of
communities of practice challenges us to design these elements with a light hand, with an
appreciation that the idea is to create liveliness, not manufacture a predetermined outcome.
(Wenger et al. 2002 :64 5)
The further advantage foreseen with such organizations is that they will be
popular places to work: ‘one company found that employees belonging to world-
class communities of practice exploring cutting-edge issues were much more likely
to stick around’ (Wenger et al. 2002 : 7 ). Cohen and Prusak ( 2001 ) have also argued
that the social capital and sense of belonging that employees can create at the
workplace contribute to their feelings of wider company commitment and loyalty.
There is little direct and robust empirical evidence on the success or otherwise of
organizational attempts at the systematic and proactive management—or ‘cultiva-
tion’—of communities of practice. Conceptually, it has appeared useful in
interpreting and analyzing the social interactions and knowledge-creating activities
of groups of skilled and knowledgeable practitioners but the prospects of putting
such ideas into practicefor managementseem questionable. Again, the debates
surrounding corporate culture (as metaphor or variable; managed or otherwise)
hrm and contemporary manufacturing 419