High-Performance Teams And Communities Of Practice

Abstract

This paper compares and contrasts teams and Communities of Practice, and at least partially resolves the rhetorical question “aren’t Communities of Practice just like teams with another name?”   Findings derive from intensive work with both types of work groups, and considered within the extant literature.  The study builds on and refines the rich body of knowledge on teams and teamwork and contributes substantially to the emerging understanding of Com-munities of Practice.  Similarities and differences between teams and Communities of Prac-tice are sometimes subtle, sometimes striking.  Communities of Practice are most like self-directing teams.  They share critical success factors including maturity and effectiveness in tools and ways of working that govern and enable collaboration and self-management.  Both must possess or be developing skills, knowledge, behaviours, and supporting attitudes in a range of areas, including visioning, defining purpose and objectives, understanding and contending with capabilities, problem-solving, decision-making, managing performance and sustainability, exploiting diversity, reconceptualising and reinventing, and implementing initiatives.  In this context, effective collaboration across time, complex tasks, and diversity of membership implies individual and group self-leadership.  Neither self-directing teams nor Communities of Practice have or rely solely on external supervision or direction.  Thus, the nature and source of leadership is internal.  There is some evidence that imposed, external leadership may be counterproductive to the evolving efficacy of self-directed teams and Communities of Practice, or that an enlightened form of collegial, facilitative leadership is required.  While questions remain as to whether or not Communities of Practice can be mandated and formally established, certain organisational supports can be helpful.