Posted by Yogesh Malhotra on January 21, 1998 at 12:10:01:

In Reply to: Teams and Communities posted by Denham on January 21, 1998 at 11:34:24:

Very well stated Denham: you have made a very explicit distinction between the way teams are viewed in the traditional organizational and management thinking and the emergent notion of CoPs.

For a moment, let's try to blur the boundaries between the two 'distinctions' to stretch the two to something that has the best of both worlds. Specifically, instead of looking at the distinctions from the point of view of that 'external someone,' let's attempt to see what _really_ happens.

Let's consider the team's definition that you have stated and view the characteristics from the 'internal members.'

>The mandate is external someone decides a team must be formed, issues a directive, may make >appointments, allocate roles and authority.

Ths vision is external someone decides a mission should be accomplished and solicits / invites others who can identify with the vision (remember Senge's notion of 'leader' in his Sloan Mgmt Review article).

>The strategic parameters, deadlines & deliverables (the what & why) are mostly determined at >the start at least the problem or issue to be addressed is formulated.

The strategic parameters, deadlines and deliverables (the what & why) are determined as: let's be a learning / knowledge-creating organization / team / department. The only difference is that we have some clearly delineated goals and norms (or rules) to begin with, however over the long- term, the vision guides the goals and norms. The continuous and examination of goals and norms will result in their redefinition as the needs of the 'internal members' and the 'external someones' change. The 'external someones' need to be heeded if they control the allocation of resources for the knowledge processes to function. In reciprocity, they will need to heed the 'internal someones' as long as their interests are tied together with them.

>Participation is binary you are in/on or out/off.

More than four decades ago, the management scholar Lawrence made the distinction between 'participation' and 'involvement.' In fact, the topic of his HBR article "How to Deal with Resistance to Change" published in 1954 creates a feeling of déjà -vu.

More recently, this difference has been the topic of research and practitioner literature in the domains of management and information systems. Here is Lawrence's 'knowledge nugget' from the The Gold Mine of Knowledge .

"Participation is not something that can be conjured up or created artificially...Participation is a feeling on the part of the people, not just the mechanical act of being called in to take part in discussions."
-- Lawrence,P.R. (1954 May-June). "How to Deal with Resistance to Change," Harvard Business Review, 32(3), pp. 49-57.

The stretching of the boundaries, while wearing the lenses of the 'internal members' may help us understand how to view the acts and artefacts of organizing in ways that can sustain the overall, long-term focus of learning, identity and repertoire building, while taking care of the [strategic, tactical and operational] maintenance activities needed for the ongoing survival of the [formal / informal] organization.

• The Gold Mine of Knowledge

---

Follow Ups:

• Participation vs. assignment Denham 14:42:19 1/21/98 (0)

---

Click Here to Post Follow Up in New Forums

    Knowledge Management Think Tank (New)

  

 Subject: 

Message: