top of page
Writer's pictureJessica Grossman

Social Enterprise Technology & Community

Part 1: Communities, Networks & Organizational Learning

Communities and networks are key components in enhancing organizational learning. This is because knowledge is embedded in practice, history, and culture (Hislop, 2013), and so when individuals engage in personal participation in social life (activities, reflection, conversations) they produce conceptual artifacts (tools, stories, methods) that reflect a shared experience called reification (Wenger, 2010). The type of dynamic intertwined play between participation and reification, creates a social history of learning which combines the individual and the collective (Wenger, 2010). Based on generating this social history, a set of criteria and expectations starts forming in which membership is now recognized, called a regime of competence (Wenger, 2010). The concepts above represent the basis for defining community. But it is also important to recognize that the link between community, knowledgeability and modulation (assessing your own skills, needs to belong etc) reflects a complex relationship between the social and the personal, requiring a lot of identity work (Wenger, 2010). Thus learning within communities are highly linked to identity, dis identity and “a social becoming” (Wenger, 2010, p. 182). So, according to the social learning/pragmatist theory, if individuals are mutually constituted with the social, context and organization then they become a product of that organizational environment. Coming to know becomes rooted in coming to be. Therefore it is essential for organizations outcomes to build functional communities that engage individuals to effectively inquire, reflect and “become”.


But as the world became globalized, communities sometimes lacked the reach to enable substantive learning (Wenger, 2010). In this case, “networks seems more adaptive to a world where learning needs and connections are becoming increasing fluid” (Wenger, 2010, p. 191). Networks are not necessarily trying to capture a fundamental aspect of human learning and identity as seen in the definition of community but instead emphasizes concepts of connectivity (Wenger, 2010). Network is defined as the act of making connection with others (Rajagopal, Brinke, Druggen & Sloep, 2011) The connectivity of networks provide an opportunity to participate and relate to others, which is a key concept in the social-practice perspective (Brandi & Elkjaer, 2011). Therefore networks, in addition to communities can be leveraged for knowledge sharing supporting the social-practice perspective.


But networks and communities provide very different angles, specifically around the concept of boundaries. Because networks represent a more open system, the effects lead to serendipitous learning (leveraging weak ties) and focuses on a distribution of competencies (understanding structural holes) both promoting diversity in resources (Cross, Kase, Kilduff & King, 2013). However, with the closed system of a community, the focus is on a regime of competence. Both trust and cohesion are necessary inputs to create a functional social learning experience.


Although networks and communities represent two types of structuring processes, the two can easily coexist (Wenger, 2010). Therefore, as learning practitioners it is important to understand the complementary strengths and weaknesses in order to leverage technology to increase the learning capability for the group. For example, if a community starts to too strongly identifies with itself it can be prone to cognitive biases such as groupthink (Wenger, 2010). By fostering the connectivity of networks, communities could generate outside energy and diversify points of view (Wenger, 2010). As well, if a network is too “fragmented, undefined, and individualised, then developing its identity as a community is a good way to give it shape” (Wenger, 2010, p. 192).


Part 2: Enterprise Technology & Organizational Learning

Enterprise microblogging tools, such as Narrating Your Work (NYW) is a form of technology that acts like a water cooler for entire organizational access and “initiat[es] timely conversations; share[s] context specific information; facilitate[s] team awareness and build[s] stronger social connection with colleagues” (Maragaryan et al, 2015, p. 395). While enterprise technology like Wiki’s work under the objectivist perspective by defining learning and knowledge sharing as creating codified shareable information, microblogging supports the social-practice perspective by creating a sphere of communication that harnesses tacit and explicit knowledge at the same time (Hislop, 2013).


Narrating Your Work leverages communities and networks to share and create knowledge by offering space to encourage a “sphere of communication” within organizations (Brandi & Elkjaer, 2011) . According to Dewey, in order for experiences to be apprehended as knowledge, language is needed; “Only when individuals experiences turn into communicative experiences and become learning experiences can they inform future practice” (Brandi & Elkjaer, 2011, p. 32). Therefore, it is critical for organizations to move individuals from a place of inquiry towards conscious, public reflection. NYW facilitates this in teams by encouraging individuals to write about key milestones and relevant resources that leads to an increase in insights and ideas for their and others work. This dialogue encourages regular self-reflection that organizational members can access, listen and comment back on (Margaryan et al, 2015). This process helps individuals transform tacit knowledge into explicit information for the collective group. As well, NYW allows team members to develop and maintain awareness of teams knowledge (Margaryan et al, 2015), which could help individuals within organizations identify and shape regimes of competence, ultimately leading organization to organically produce communities of practice (COP).


In addition to the development of COP’s, the potential communication style of microblogging enables informal conversations that can lead to serendipitous connections (Margaryan et al, 2015). This aids in creating a cohesive network by offering both a closed network focused on the team as well as links within the organization to get the diversity needed to increase information sharing (Cross et al, 2013). This technology enabled network offers the learner to browse, select and choose the most relevant information resources, finding hidden expertise or those that share similar interests to increase collaboration (Rajagopal et al, 2011). Ultimately participatory individuals build a personal learning network (PLN) by activating strong, weak and very ties for the purpose of becoming a skilled practitioners (Rajagopal et al, 2011; Brandi & Elkjaer, 2011).


Part 3: Concluding Thoughts


Based on the assessment above, enterprise microblogging technology such as Narrating Your Work, enables communities and networks within teams and organizations to learn through inquiry and reflection. But if learning is “not just acquiring skills and information; it is becoming a certain person” (Wenger, 2010, p.181), then how does technology not just enable the actions and practices associated with “coming to know” but also facilitate the identity development and socialization of “coming to be” (Brandi & Elkjaer, 2011)? With regard to technology enabled communities and networks, turning experiences into knowledge for the purpose of becoming a skilled practitioner creates knowledgeable activity that provides the groundwork to move individuals from knowing to being and becoming.


However, there is hesitation to the argument that enterprise technology focused on creating just networks supports the social-practice perspective; that “knowing is inseparable from human activity” (Hislop, 2013, p.33). When discussing technology enabled networks and SNS’s that exist separate from communities, they tend to lack the necessary input of identity development. A possible explanation that disproves this hesitation could suggest that the affordance of associations and/or perceptions of those we associate with are linked to identity development; our connections shape who we are. Another point of hesitation is because technology tends to play a more cognitive role, as seen in NYW, and typically fails to take into consideration a holistic view involving the whole body, which is critical to the social practice perspective (Hislop, 2013).


In conclusion, because of today’s globalized, web based economy, knowledge is no longer a scarce resource and so the skill to select the right knowledge at the right time has become essential (Brandi & Elkjaer, 2011). So, in order to increase organizational learning, enterprise technology should enable both communities and networks. This can help individuals build communities of practice and personal learning networks that leads to an increase in the skill to create, sharing and find the right knowledge in order to provide organizations a competitive advantage in today's difficult business landscape.


References

Brandi & Elkjaer (2011) Organizational Learning Viewed from a Social Learning Perspective, in Handbook of Org Learning and Knowledge Management

Cross, R., Kaše, R., Kilduff, M., & King, Z. (2013). Bridging the Gap between Research and Practice in Organizational Network Analysis: A Conversation between Rob Cross and Martin Kilduff. Human Resource Management, 52(4), 627–644.

Hislop, D. (2013) The Practice Based Perspective of Knowledge, in Knowledge Management in Organizations (Chapt. 3, pp 31-46). New York: Oxford University Press (3rd Ed.)

Margaryan et al (2015) Narrating Your Work- An approach to supporting knowledge sharing in virtual teams. Knowledge Management Research and Practice. 13 (4). 391-400.


Wenger, E (2010) Communities of Practice and Social Learning Systems: The Career of a Concept in C. Blackmore (Ed.) Social Learning Systems and Communities of Practice. (pp 179-197) London: Springer-Verlag

4 views0 comments

Comentarios


Post: Blog2_Post
bottom of page