From cooperation to competition: an interaction-based contingency theory of communities of practice

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to provide a theoretical framework that explains the roles and viability of both cooperation and competition as they emerge in communities of practice. Although the usefulness of cooperation in communities of practice is well-understood, few studies have considered the role of internal competition, and those that have generally only explored cases in which antagonistic behavior led to the community’s collapse. Design/methodology/approach A contingency theory of communities of practice is developed based on the manifestations of members’ participation. Findings This theory demonstrates the root causes of fracturing and also provides a foundation for studying communities of practice that have previously defied explanation. Research limitations/implications This manuscript explains the potential role and limitations of internal competition in communities of practice, as well as the emergence of subgroups based on differing preferences for cooperation and/or competition. Future research should examine the manifestation and ramifications of such individual differences between community members. Practical implications Practitioners can use this theoretical framework to assess communities of practice that they oversee, diagnose potential pitfalls and take corrective action to mitigate potentially toxic influences or inject additional motivating forces that would sustain the community. Originality/value This theoretical framework diverges from previous assumptions that internal competition is necessarily toxic for communities of practice, showing the value that it may offer in some contexts.

[Retracted] A Public Health‐Oriented New Energy Industry Competitiveness Evaluation

“…The fifth factor is opportunity, which refers to the chances presented to businesses and industries as a result of changes in the surrounding environment that are beyond their control, such as scientific and technological breakthroughs, natural disasters, and social changes, all of which have the potential to alter the competitive situation that is currently in place. The sixth component is the effect that government action has, either positively or negatively, on the previous four factors through the implementation of industrial policies [ 20 , 21 ]. Later academics made additions to this model that were based on it in order to make it more useful.…”

Identity reconciliation and knowledge mobilization in a mandated community of practice

“…It might also explain why they saw participation in the CoP of value only for less experienced "others" (Soekijad and Smith, 2011). The veteran advisors were also not averse to competitive behavior amongst themselves to ensure that it was their own, rather than a peer's improvement projects and/or host organization, that was being presented in their best lightaligning with recent research highlighting that CoPs are not always characterized by cohesion, but characterized by a "darker side" of competition and internal difference (Britt, 2020;Gherardi, 2009;.…”

“…professional and organizational boundaries), prior research on CoPs in healthcare has not sought to understand the processes through which this occurs (Swan et al, 2016). In addition, as within mainstream knowledge management fields, studies tend to focus on cooperation and mutuality rather than the challenges engendered by difference (Britt, 2020;Contu and Willmott, 2003;Gherardi, 2009). Some scholars have therefore argued that CoPs would be more usefully treated as they were originally conceivedas social phenomena rather than unproblematic organizational learning tools (Harvey et al, 2013).…”

“…Moreover, we advocate the broader adoption of such a developmental perspective among scholars as it enables us to take a middle ground between passive analytical and overly directive instrumental views of CoPs, and thereby focus more closely on previously "blackboxed" aspects of knowledge mobilization. These recommendations will help to ensure that practitioners working to promote knowledge mobilizationand researchers seeking to understand itdo not fall into the trap of assuming that knowledge will simply flow between individuals as a result of the creation of new collaborative initiativesas has tended to occur within the knowledge management and healthcare management literatures (Britt, 2020).…”

Fostering collaborative approaches to gender equality interventions in higher education and research: the case of transnational and multi-institutional communities of practice

“…This collaborative action and practice give rise to the generation and discovery of new knowledge, thereby redefining and informing the domain (Cambridge et al, 2005). The focus in the most recent CoP literature appears to be on pedagogy and education (Finn et al, 2021;Hoelscher, Barragato, & Mong, 2021;Ryan, Faulkner, Dillane, & Flood, 2021), including the Covid-19 pandemic as a contextual lens (Bolisani, Fedeli, Bierema, & De Marchi, 2020;McLaughlan, 2021); and on management (Britt, 2020;Haas, Abonneau, Borzillo, & Guillaume, 2020;Hennekam, Macarthur, Bennett, Hope, & Goh, 2020;Rennstam & Karreman, 2020). However, utilizing CoP as a vehicle for promoting social justice and equality efforts in HE has been rarely explored in previous studies, with some notable exceptions (Hakkola et al, 2021;Sidman-Taveau & Hoffman, 2019;Annala & Mäkinen, 2017).…”