When Communities of Practice Fail: Community Ties and Organizational Commitment

  • Gaela Bernini
  • Jane Klobas
Part of the Contributions to Management Science book series (MANAGEMENT SC.)


Communities of practice (CoPs) are groups of people with significant interpersonal ties built through the process of collective learning about a common practice [27]. Research about CoPs has concentrated on their role in knowledge management, with results that demonstrate their value for knowledge creation, knowledge sharing and as repositories of knowledge [7; 14; 16; 25; 29].


Organizational Commitment Social Network Analysis Betweenness Centrality Market Area Professional Advice 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Andriessen JHE (2005) Archetypes of knowledge communities. In: Proceedings of the Second Communities and Technologies Conference, pp 191–215Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aronson E, Mills J (1959) The effect of severity of initiation on linking for a group. Journal of Social Psychology 59:177–181Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Benkhoff B (1977) Disentangling organizational commitment. Personnel Review 26:114–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Borgatti SP (2005) Centrality and network flow. Social Networks 27:55–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Borgatti SP, Everett MG, Freeman L (1999) UCINET 5 for Windows: Software for social network analysis. Analytic Technologies, Natick, MAGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brown AD, Starkey K (2000) Organizational identity and learning: a psychodynamic perspective. The Academy of Management Review 25:102–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brown JS, Duguid P (2001) Knowledge and organization: a social-practice perspective. Organization Science 12:198–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brown JS, Duguid P (2002) The social life of information. Harvard Business School Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Crossman A, Abou-Zaki B (2003) Job satisfaction and employee performance of Lebanese banking staff. Journal of Managerial Psychology 18:368–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ehrlich JJ, Graven DB (1971) Reciprocal self-disclosure in a dyad. Journal of Social Psychology 7:389–400Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Girvan M, Newman ME (2002) Community structure in social and biological networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99:7821–7826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Granovetter M (1973) The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology 78:1360–1380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Handy C (1995) Trust and the virtual organization. Harvard Business Review 73(3):40–50.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hildreth P, Kimble C (2004) Knowledge networks: innovations through communities of practice. Idea Group, Hershey, PAGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kinnear L, Sutherland M (2000) Determinants of organisational commitment amongst knowledge workers. African Journal Business Management 31:106–123Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lave J, Wenger E (1991) Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mitchell TR, Holtom BC, Lee TW, Sablynski CJ (2001) Why people stay: using job embeddedness to predict voluntary turnover. Academy Of Management Journal 44:1102–1121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mowday R, Porter L, Steers R (1982) Employee-organizational linkages: the psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Orr J (1996) Talking about machines: an ethnography of a modern job. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NYGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Perry-Smith J, Shalley C (2003) The social side of creativity: a static and dynamic social network perspective. Academy of Management Review 28:89–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Radicchi F, Castellano C, Cecconi F, Loreto V, Parisi D (2004) Defining and identifying communities in networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 101:2658–2663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Scholten V, Bhagavatula S, van de Bunt G, Elfring T (2004) A measurement model of tie strength for business networks: the case of a Dutch high-tech and an Indian low-tech organization. Paper presented at XXIV International Social Network Conference, May 12—16 2004, Portoroz, SloveniaGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Scott J (1992) Social network analyis. Sage, Newbury Park, CAGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sedikides C, Brewer M (2001) The individual self, the relational self, the collective self. Psychology Press, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ward A (2000, Mar–Apr) Getting strategic value from constellations of communities. Strategy and Leadership Magazine, pp 1–9Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wassermann S, Faust C (1994) Social network analysis. Cambridge University Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wenger E (1998) Communities of practice: learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wenger E, McDermott R, Snyder W (2002) Cultivating communities of practice. Harvard Business School Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wenger E, Snyder WM (2000, Jan–Feb) Communities of practice: the organizational frontier. Harvard Business Review 78:139–145Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Physica-Verlag Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gaela Bernini
    • 1
  • Jane Klobas
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Management, Economics and Industrial EngineeringPolitecnico of MilanMilanItaly
  2. 2.Carlo F. Dondena Centre for Research on Social DynamicsUniversità BocconiMilanItaly
  3. 3.UWA Business SchoolUniversity of Western AustraliaNedlandsAustralia

Personalised recommendations