Hi Asif (thanks),

IMHO your theory's good :-). If you get proper sponsorship, and do it within a
proper change management programme, it could work, I think.

But culture and power politics are seriously solid. I gave up trying to do just
that at [] after two successive transformative CoP projects got derailed by "the
interests" :-), namely second-tier management, and I got posted to Siberia twice
for trying. You could say the culture created terminal dysfunction, while I was
too junior for my hat :-) and too naïve by half. Rather help people who want to
be helped (or get paid for the effort).

Also I agree the "natural" state of most CoPs out there is slightly
dysfunctional. Or rather, the tendency (and opportunity) to go dysfunctional is
always there. I guess most (all?) have some negative elements as Joitske says.
That's why they need management, and why moderators burn out.

Best regards,

Miguel

________________________________
De: com-prac@yahoogroups.com [mailto:com-prac@yahoogroups.com] En nombre de
asif.devji
Enviado el: miércoles, 07 de octubre de 2009 2:25
Para: com-prac@yahoogroups.com
Asunto: [cp] Re: Experiences with dysfunctional communities of practice



I think Miguel nailed it on the head with his post, tying in what Steve
mentioned earlier in terms of the impact of organizational culture on what makes
CoPs dis-function.

My two cents is this: a dysfunctional community (I do believe they exist - in
fact they constitute the majority of CoPs I've seen) is a "symptom" of the org
culture.

I think many orgs think that setting up a CoP will automatically generate
collaboration, when in fact it is only the infrastructure that could support
collaboration.

Bringing a CoP in, however, could be a prime moment to deal with dysfunctional
org cultures. With a widespread & coordinated strategy of org transformation, a
CoP could effectively be used to induce a culture of collaboration within the
physical org.

And a helathy org should produce healthy CoPs.

This is what I think theoretically anyway...never having had the opportunity to
put it into practice.

Thanks,

Asif

--- In com-prac@yahoogroups.com<mailto:com-prac%40yahoogroups.com>, "Cornejo
Castro, Miguel" <miguel.cornejo@...> wrote:
>
> Steve's story is great indeed, I'll be trying some kick-catalysing like that
soon :-).
>
> Joitske, I think you're heading towards a complex maturity model which should
be very interesting :-).
>
> Re the answers. What I meant is that there may be many levels to look at to
find dysfunctionality, the higher the easier to see (and the most terminal):
>
> 1. Executive: if the CoP is not doing what it's funded or authorized for; of
if it is not doing what we (members, founders) signed up for. That's a result,
not even a symptom. Those are the ones I mentioned earlier.
>
> 2. Com management: several things (indicators, symptoms) can tell us that the
CoP is not working smoothly, and most may be managed away with the right levers:
> - Participation concentration. A 10% of members with some degree of
participation can be reasonable sometimes. If it's less, the CoP is walking dead
(probably a long-declining group), an artificial construct (which never existed
in fact but many people got signed in to), or in very serious trouble due to
excessive barriers to participation.
> - Answer assymetry. If the most active CoP members pointedly do not answer all
(or most) questions, but stick to those from a few people (themselves and
friends, usually) you have either an invaded CoP on the defensive, or an
aggresive clique behaviour that will kill it.
> - Social awkwardness. Relationships and conversations are strained, resulting
in botched social initiatives, lack of cohesion, little esprit de corps.
Something is under people's skins and pulling the CoP apart.
> - Herd behaviour. CoP members follow their leaders blindly and massively, and
in some cases with aggresivity. The worst examples are groupthink, "political
correctness" and guru worship, which kill innovation and significant practice
development. This kind of CoP evolves into a thought sect, not a CoP.
> - Subject hijacking. Either through invasion (from some non-subject-concerned
people) or through drift (lack of interest or relevance of the main subject),
another subject creeps into the mainstream conversations and stays there. This
can be a natural evolution of the practice (or of the CoP), or can be unwelcome
by the old core (which should lead to a split). The worst is when it's simply a
case of a CoP talking about offtopics instead of their practice ("how's the
family?").
> - Work relevance. For any of the above reasons and for many more, a CoP may be
unable to provide help to practitioners: it may grow irrelevant. If people feel
the CoP is no longer generating stimulating debate, turning up useful advice or
catalysing initiatives... they will leave.
>
> 3. Culture: the ultimate causes usually are here. In the part that Steve
kicked: what's this about, what are we doing and what for, what's importante for
us. Having that clear allows forceful action (in design, moderation, activities)
and usually helps to avoid weed infestation (dysfunction). Usually. Not having
that, and the "institutional framework" that goes with it, is serious
dysfunctionality. Serious and relevant goals the members really care about, a
cooperative volunteering spirit, an affinity with fellow members, clear and
well-defined rules, active and coherent moderation, member ownership of the
community, aligned processes, efficient channels, sensible relationship with the
funding part... Curing dysfunctionality here takes long work by specialists...
and/or by very inspired, implicated members and moderators.
>
> Can't elaborate further :-) but that's how I see it. Maybe some of them can be
useful as dysfunctionality indicators.
>
> I don't know if they can be fit into a stages model, but if you do, I look
forward to using it :-).
>
> Best regards,
>
> Miguel
>
> ________________________________
> De: com-prac@yahoogroups.com<mailto:com-prac%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:com-prac@yahoogroups.com<mailto:com-prac%40yahoogroups.com>] En nombre
de joitske
> Enviado el: domingo, 04 de octubre de 2009 22:41
> Para: com-prac@yahoogroups.com<mailto:com-prac%40yahoogroups.com>
> Asunto: [cp] Re: Experiences with dysfunctional communities of practice
>
>
>
> Miguel, Jenny, Alice, Steve; thanks for your responses. Somehow not what I
expected, but I may have to explain my ideas better.
>
> Miguel states that you measure dysfunctionality by asking the sponsors and the
members whether the initial goals are achieved. This would be a natural thing to
do. However, members and sponsors may be content. Nevertheless, I wonder whether
as specialists we could have additional observations, a critical eye to spot any
disfunctionalities. And what are the disfunctionalities that we are on the
outlook for?
>
> Jenny thinks any community of practice is functional. This is taking the state
it is in as the state it should be. Personally I disagree, if you have a
relatively old CoP and it is still in the coalescence phase, you could judge
that its development is stunted. This may be what I'm looking for. Like the team
growth model by Tuckman can help to understand dysfunctional teams, the phases
may help to understand CoP development and problems? This is because I believe a
CoP can benefit from careful guidance.
>
> In Steve's story I can find the essence of taking ownership by the members? Is
this what you were forging? This could indeed by one of the signals to look out
for.
>
> If I think for myself it is mostly in the direction of not being
state-of-the-art, cliqueness resulting in lack of innovation.
>
> Alice, could you explain your idea about seemingly disfunctional activities??
>
> Greetings, Joitske
>
> --- In
com-prac@yahoogroups.com<mailto:com-prac%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:com-prac%40ya\
hoogroups.com>, Alice MacGillivray <alice@> wrote:
> >
> > LOVE the story Steve. It brings back many fond memories of bizarre
> > tactics I've used over the years. That must have been a great
> > experience.
> >
> > To Joitske: one comment on function: perhaps the "obvious" functions
> > of a self-governing group are not always what they need. There may be
> > times when groups need to engage in some seemingly dysfunctional
> > activities to cope with other aspects of their current contexts?
> >
> > Alice
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]