Irma Bogenrieder

Learning Groups: What Types are there? A Theoretical Analysis and an Empirical Study in a Consultancy Firm

This article attempts to unpack the notion of ‘communities of practice’, in more detail than has been done before, and looks more generally at intra-organizational groups for learning. First, it gives a theoretical analysis of the relevant characteristics of learning groups which affect the possibilities and conditions for the sharing and joint development of knowledge. These characteristics include opportunities for learning (on the ‘competence’ side of relations), relational risk (on the ‘governance’ side of relations), and the effects on both from the ‘structural features’ of groups. On the competence side, it analyses the implications of different types of knowledge and learning, and the trade-off between stability of relations (for the sake of mutual understanding and trust) and flexibility of relations (for the sake of variety as a source of learning). On the structural side, it considers the effects on competence and governance of network density, the strength of ties, structural holes, and stability of group membership. On the governance side, it considers psychological risk, in loss of reputation or legitimation, career risk and risk of competition, and risk of lock-in into the group. Trust yields one basis for dealing with such risks, and the article discusses what that means and how trust develops. Next, the analysis is used in an exploratory empirical study of a consultancy company, to see if the theoretical framework can explain the occurrence, structure, functioning, and performance of learning groups found in practice.

Contested practice: Multiple inclusion in double-knit organizations

Purpose – Most people participate in various groups and communities simultaneously. Many authors have pointed to the importance of multi‐membership for knowledge sharing across communities and teams. The most important expected benefit is that knowledge that has been acquired in one community of practice (CoP) can be applied into another CoP or group. This paper seeks to discuss the consequences of multi‐membership for knowledge sharing in a CoP.Design/methodology/approach – The concept of multiple inclusion is used to explain why and how multi‐membership can hold up knowledge sharing between groups.Findings – This case study shows that knowledge transfer between CoPs and teams can be problematic when norm sets between these two groups conflict.Originality/value – This paper concludes that CoPs can sustain when the “practice” remains at a safe distance from the “real” project work in teams that are guided by managerial objectives.

The Emergence of Learning Communities: A Theoretical Analysis

A central issue in theories of organizational learning concerns the relation between knowledge of individuals and knowledge on the level of an organization (Cohen, 1991; Cook and Yanow, 1993; Weick and Westley, 1996). Communities form an intermediate level for learning between an organization as a whole and individual people. There, knowledge links between individuals are achieved and common knowledge is acquired. The central purpose of this chapter is to further analyse this process, in communities. One question to be explained is what types of communities there are (Bogenrieder and Nooteboom, 2002).

Memory and learning: Selecting users in the port of Rotterdam, 1883–1900

During the closing decades of the nineteenth century, the port of Rotterdam experienced very strong growth. Changing views and concrete experiences induced the port to widen the initially limited circle of regular users of berths. We study this case in order to increase our understanding of the dynamic interrelationship between organisational memory and learning. While organisational memory guides the application of routines, this practical experience may also question underlying beliefs. Our study of deliberations by the Rotterdam government – to a significant degree representing the preferences of the local business elite – demonstrates how so-called lower order learning on the level of routines induces a so-called higher order learning on the level of beliefs. Finally, our case-study suggests that the traumatic nature of initial experiences that are part of organisational memory may hinder the deliberation of beliefs and thus retard higher order learning.