Conflicting Identities and Power Between Communities of Practice: The Case of IT Outsourcing

Abstract

Previous studies of communities of practice had often emphasized the ease with which members are able to participate in the collective learning process through joint practices within a particular community. However, nothing much has been done to reveal the difficulties and problems of learning between different communities due to different and sometimes conflicting identities and power inequalities. This article reports a failed experience of a tertiary institution to outsource its information technology (IT) department. By highlighting the social conflicts experienced by the in-house IT technicians in coordinating with the outsourcing staff, we argue that the received unitary, managerialist viewpoints of communities of practice somehow neglect the broader social context and micro-political factors of learning. This neglect underestimates the critical challenges of resolving the social tensions caused by multiple identities and embedded power differentials across different communities of practice.

Explaining Discontinuity in Organizational Learning: A Process Analysis

“…Thus, extending the finding that the institutional context may hamper the feed-forward of new learning (Zietsma et al 2002;Crossan and Berdrow 2003), we find that discontinuities emerge from changes in how learning is embedded in that context. So far, these findings underscore the role of politics in shaping organizational learning (Coopey and Burgoyne 2000;Lawrence et al 2005), which was empirically demonstrated in studies of interpretative struggles between two parties (Hong and Fiona 2009;Huzzard and Östergren 2002;Marshall and Rollinson 2004). The I-Bank case shows how these struggles over involvement and interpretations can be distributed, and may evolve over time.…”

Managing organizational culture change and knowledge to enhance customer experiences: analysis and framework

“…Researchers and scholars have recognized the wide variety of forms that power can take in firms (Jayasingam, Ansari, & Jantan, 2010;Lang, 2009;Lawrence et al, 2005;Lawrence, Winn, & Jennings, 2001;Subramaniam & Soh, 2009;van der Vegt, DeJong, Bunderson, & Molleman, 2010). The former can be expressed as a legitimate, and referent power of top management (Jayasingam et al, 2010) and the latter through expert power relationships within and among communities of practice in organizations (Hong & O, 2009;Lang, 2009;van der Vegt et al, 2010). The former can be expressed as a legitimate, and referent power of top management (Jayasingam et al, 2010) and the latter through expert power relationships within and among communities of practice in organizations (Hong & O, 2009;Lang, 2009;van der Vegt et al, 2010).…”

“…Power asymmetry can affect organizations both negatively and positively. Power imbalances can have a negative effect where communities of practice do not share social identities and when legitimate power from top management is not softened by support (Hong & O, 2009;Lang, 2009). Power advantages in teams are used to advance collective interests when performance feedback is for the whole team (van der Vegt et al, 2010).…”

Knowledge dynamics at the firm-user community boundary: A Community of Practice view

“…These characteristics, while useful for the creation of knowledge within a CoP, pose a challenge for exchange of knowledge across a CoP, as they give rise to 'knowledge boundaries' (Carlile, 2002(Carlile, , 2004, which can hinder the capture of innovation by the firm initiating the CoP (Brown & Duguid, 2001;Swan et al, 2007). Tensions arise at these boundaries due to conflicting identities and worldviews, as well as goals and motivations between the interacting entities (Handley et al, 2006;Hong & Fiona, 2009).…”