European Community of Practice

An interview about the Community of Practice on Innovation and Mainstreaming.
Ana Vale asks Beverly Trayner some questions...

The CoPIM Steering Group are sometimes left puzzled about the dynamics of this Community of Practice. Sometimes it feels like people aren’t mobilized, and that they are not talking. What are they doing wrong? Ana Vale, who is leading the Steering Group, interviewed Beverly Trayner, who has been researching and working with communities of practice in Portugal since 1999.

In this newsletter Beverly also asks Nancy White of Full Circle Associates, an internationally renowned facilitator of online communities, to give an example of a community of practice and to share some of the lessons that could be relevant to the CoP on Innovation and Mainstreaming. Listen to this interview at the end of the interview.

Ana Vale (AV): We are finding it a challenge developing our CoP. Is that something normal?

Bev Trayner (BT): I hear a lot of people asking this question and there may be several issues involved.

The first one is about your expectations of what a community of practice is. Many people think that a community of practice is a website with content and some animation, If you provide those three elements, then people will use the site and talk about the content. When it doesn’t happen, they are disappointed.

The second is that your perspective of what a community of practice is will impact how you work on developing it. If you see a community of practice as changing relationships and conversations between people with a shared passion, you might look for ways of tapping into those relationships and conversations and look for ways to use technologies and resources to leverage them. That is a different approach.

Third, it takes time and resources to weave the relationships. People who listen to, support, and extend existing networks of relationships and learning are generally more successful in developing their CoP than people who separate the CoP from relationships and conversations. However, it’s not very easy to find support or sponsorship for supporting conversations and relationships, it is easier to find support for technology and content. So there are many CoPs with difficulties because their support is channeled in the wrong direction.

AV: If the potential participants in the CoP don’t recognise the advantages of participating in it, is there any advantage in creating and developing it?

BT: The short answer is no. Absolutely not. That’s why the design of a CoP must respond to the real and perceived needs of the potential community members. You have to be able to let go of what you think are the goals and objectives of the CoP and listen carefully to what members and potential members are saying. Weaving and dancing between the two is a major part of the job of community leaders, facilitators and technology stewards.

AV: If learning and sharing are not sufficient motivation, are there other strategies for mobilising participants?

BT: What mobilises people belong to communities of practice? People generally belong because they identify with the domain - in this case innovation mainstreaming - and they see that the community offers them something that will help them in their practice of it. People make sense of the domain through participating in the community, and in making sense of the community they develop a sense of accountability and belonging to that community.

There are different ways of belonging. You can belong because you find out more information that you can share with other networks or communities you belong to. You might belong because you identify with friends who belong. You could belong because the community helps you channel your care of people or passion for technology in that domain. Your motivation might be simply to produce more content about the domain. In other words there are many different types of motivation and belonging, so you need to have multiple strategies for seducing people with different motivations and needs.

People can be highly motivated when they identify with the values and practices of a community. This is why it’s important to be making those values and practices explicit, not just in words but also in actions. And not just in abstract concepts, but in things that people can relate to on a human level, especially in stories and actions.

Finally, a key element of belonging is identity and a test of someone’s belonging is if they can say “I am a <CoP domain>“. If people find it difficult to say “I am an innovation mainstreamer”, then it may be that the domain is too big for people to relate to. So one area for you to explore is how to express the domain of this community of practice more specifically.

AV: Our face-to-face meetings have been more mobilising and more fruitful than the online communication. Doesn’t that mean that there should be more face-to-face in the starting period?

BT: Face-to-face meetings are often mobilising and fruitful, which is why you have to make the most of them. They are also a luxury. Many people - especially as our communities span wider geographical locations - don’t have the choice of lots of face-to-face in the starting period and so it’s not an option for them.

My own thoughts - and I know others who differ - is that face-to-face meetings are much richer if they begin with online interactions. There is a lot you can do online in preparation for meeting face-to-face, so that when you come together you have already created a shared context for your face-to-face connections.

Online and face-to-face, or rather all the different modalities of meeting and being together, bring out different aspects of people’s personality. For example, I’m a different person on the phone (which I dislike) than I am in text (which I love) and than I am in person (where I’m rather shy). The richness of using different modes for communicating is that you get to know many more parts of another person, giving you different entry points to their knowledge, their ways of being, and the points of connection between you.

Another observation about working in different modes is that there are different types of power relations in each mode. A face-to-face leader who is not adept at communicating online may find their comfort zone stretched in online interactions. In the same way someone who is active and participative online may not hold the same sway in face-to-face settings. This opportunity to mix modes, redistribute power relations, and encompass different ways of working is complicated and rather nerve-racking, but it is driving innovation and (re-)shaping our social relations.

We have much more experience of working face-to-face, so privileging the face-to-face in the starting period can make it too easy not to explore online ways of being together, missing the multi-dimensional aspects of working and relating. If you meet and develop a working relationship online with someone, then you are usually curious and interested to meet people face-to-face. If you meet and develop a working relationship face-to-face with someone, then you often wait for the next face-to-face encounter to continue working together. That’s why I think it’s better not to have lots of face-to-face in the beginning.

AV: People complain that they don’t have time to dedicate to the CoP, but they have time to travel to face-to-face meetings. What is your comment on this apparent contradiction?

BT: To some extent I can identify with that. Traveling to and from a meeting helps me to bind the event in time and space and stops it from spilling over into other parts of my professional or family life. It would be much easier to manage my affairs with those clear boundaries.

But travel is for people with the resources to do it, and not everyone can.

The challenge is the initial and ongoing time investment to be able to integrate the tools and practices into your work routines that will enable you to go to a meeting without leaving your desk.

What’s more, as well as the time investment you also need to get better at experimenting, playing, taking risks and failing. You need to be able to take risks, experiment and “fail” in new types of human relationships as well as with the tools! The question is as much about how far you can step outside your comfort zone as it is about choosing whether to do things face-to-face or online. It’s also about finding an equilibrium between our resources, time for work, time for ourselves, risk-taking and getting things done.

Putting it that way, if you have the resources and have the luxury of time, then it might just be easier to travel to face-to-face meetings!

Now listen to a Skype interview with Nancy here:

And follow up with links to more information here:

Bibliography of resources about communities of practice produced by CPsquare (a community of practice about communities of practice) and Comprac (an online discussion group about communities of practice)
http://cofpractice-biblio.wikispaces.com/

Online Facilitation tips, pointers and resources, Nancy White, Full Circle Associates and an adjunct to the Online Faciltiation list on Yahoogroups
http://onlinefacilitation.wikispaces.com/