Learning and Knowledge Sharing in Virtual Communities of Practice: Motivators, Barriers, and Enablers

http://adh.sagepub.com/Human Resources

Advances in Developing

http://adh.sagepub.com/content/10/4/541The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/1523422308319536

June 2008 2008 10: 541 originally published online 3Advances in Developing Human Resources

Alexandre ArdichviliMotivators, Barriers, and Enablers

Learning and Knowledge Sharing in Virtual Communities of Practice:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Academy of Human Resource Development

can be found at:Advances in Developing Human ResourcesAdditional services and information for

http://adh.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://adh.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://adh.sagepub.com/content/10/4/541.refs.htmlCitations:

at Afyon Kocatepe Universitesi on May 8, 2014adh.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Afyon Kocatepe Universitesi on May 8, 2014adh.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://adh.sagepub.com/

http://adh.sagepub.com/content/10/4/541

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://www.ahrd.org

http://adh.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://adh.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://adh.sagepub.com/content/10/4/541.refs.html



What is This?

- Jun 3, 2008 OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Jul 11, 2008Version of Record >>

at Afyon Kocatepe Universitesi on May 8, 2014adh.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Afyon Kocatepe Universitesi on May 8, 2014adh.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://adh.sagepub.com/content/10/4/541.full.pdf

http://adh.sagepub.com/content/early/2008/06/03/1523422308319536.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml



Learning and Knowledge Sharingin Virtual Communities ofPractice: Motivators, Barriers,and Enablers

Alexandre Ardichvili

The problem and the solution. Virtual (online) communities ofpractice (VCoPs; when community members share and cocreateknowledge in online discussions and other forms of knowledgeexchange) are increasingly viewed as important vehicles of collectivelearning in the workplace. Currently, factors leading to successfulonline knowledge sharing are not well understood. This article isbased on an extensive review of online learning, knowledge manage-ment, and online communication literature, and proposes a frame-work for understanding motivators, barriers, and enablers forsuccessful online knowledge sharing and learning. The frameworkincludes key motivational factors, such as utilitarian considerations,value-based considerations, and sense of community and belonging;barriers to online knowledge sharing, including interpersonal factors,procedural and/or use of technology-related factors, and culturalnorms; and enablers of VCoP knowledge sharing, including support-ive organizational culture, presence of personal knowledge-basedtrust, and availability of adequate tools. The article concludes withspecific recommendations for promoting and supporting vibrant andproductive VCoPs.

Keywords: virtual communities of practice; knowledge sharing; onlinelearning

In recent years, communities of practice have been rapidly gaining popularityas a vehicle of collective learning and knowledge creation within organizations(Ardichvili, Page, & Wentling, 2003; Gourlay, 2001; Vestal, 2006). The term

This article was subjected to a two-tier blind review process that did not involve the authors whoare currently members of the editorial board.

Advances in Developing Human Resources Vol. 10, No. 4 August 2008 541-554DOI: 10.1177/1523422308319536Copyright 2008 Sage Publications

at Afyon Kocatepe Universitesi on May 8, 2014adh.sagepub.comDownloaded from


community of practice (CoP) was coined by Lave and Wenger (1991) whodefined it as “an activity system about which participants share understandingsconcerning what they are doing and what that means in their lives and for theircommunity” (p. 98). In CoPs, less experienced members learn from interactingwith more experienced members (experts) and with each other (Lave & Wenger,1991). Perhaps the most widely recognized benefit of CoPs is their ability toallow for the generation and dissemination of tacit knowledge, that is, knowl-edge which is hard to communicate because it is mostly intuitive and embeddedin a specific context (Nonaka, 1994; Polanyi, 1957). CoPs are regarded as aplatform for sharing and internalizing tacit knowledge and a key vehicle oforganizational learning (Brown & Duguid, 1991; Rucker, 1999; Wenger,McDermott, & Snyder, 2002).

The early research on CoPs was focusing on face-to-face and collocatedcommunities (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998). However, the proliferationof online collaboration tools, coupled with rapid global expansion of businessorganizations, resulted in the emergence of a new form of collective learningand knowledge sharing: virtual communities of practice (VCoPs; Von Wartburg,Rost, & Teichert, 2006). Because sometimes there is a confusion between theterms virtual communities of practice and virtual teams, we need to make aclear distinction between these two terms here. Virtual teams are geographicallydispersed groups of individuals who have interdependent performance goalsand whose work is facilitated by communication technology (“Virtual teams,”n.d.). Chiu, Hsu, and Wang (2006) defined virtual communities as “onlinesocial networks in which people with common interests, goals, or practicesinteract to share information and knowledge, and engage in social interactions.”(p. 1880). McLure-Wasko and Faraj (2005) described “electronic networks ofpractice” and defined them as “computer-mediated discussion forums focused onproblems of practice that enable individuals to exchange advice and ideas withothers based on common interests” (p. 36). Von Wartburg et al. (2006) indi-cated that VCoPs are characterized by “at least partially virtual interactions . . .and are often said to be a more effective organizational form for knowledgecreation than traditional and formal ways of structuring interaction” (p. 299).Whereas virtual teams are usually created by organizations to achieve specificperformance goals, VCoPs are organized around community members’ com-mon interests, but, as a rule, are not working toward achieving specific perfor-mance goals.

VCoPs play central role in the knowledge management (KM) strategies ofnumerous multinational corporations, including, among others, Caterpillar (Powers,2004), Chevron, Ford, Xerox, Raytheon, IBM (Ellis, 2001), and Shell (Haimila,2001). At the same time, learning experts argue that online knowledge sharingcan be regarded as an important form of collective learning (Rosenberg, 2005).Therefore, understanding how VCoPs function and what leads to successfulknowledge sharing in these communities becomes an important task for humanresource development (HRD) and KM researchers and practitioners alike.

Advances in Developing Human Resources August 2008542



Despite the proliferation of VCoPs in business organizations around theworld, very little is known about factors leading to their success or failure. Oneof the critical factors determining a virtual community’s success is its members’motivation to actively participate in community knowledge-sharing activities.The goal of this article is to contribute to the understanding of factors determiningsuccess of VCoPs by exploring (a) motivational factors leading to members’active participation or lack of participation in VCoPs; (b) barriers and enablersof participation; and (c) specific strategies leading to the removal of barriers andstrengthening of enablers of participation. This exploration is based on a reviewand analysis of the extant KM, information technology, and collaborative learningliterature, related to online communities of practice. Based on the literature review,a framework for motivational factors, enablers, and barriers of knowledgesharing in VCoPs is proposed. The article concludes with implications andrecommendations for HRD and KM practitioners.

Determinants of Individuals’ Willingnessto Participate in VCoPs

Successful functioning of a knowledge-sharing CoP is impossible withoutan active participation of a substantial part (ideally, all) of its members (Dixon,2000). Members’ contributions to VCoPs are not limited to posting lengthyand well-thought-through knowledge entries or “lessons learned” write-ups.For a community to be truly vibrant, there should be an active participation ofmembers in various other knowledge-exchange activities. These activitiesinclude, among other things, posting questions on online community boards,engaging in live chats, participating in synchronous online and video confer-encing discussion sessions, and providing asynchronous answers and feedbackin discussion threads (Ardichvili et al., 2003; Hayes & Walsham, 2000).

Earlier studies have demonstrated that employees often resist sharing theirknowledge (Ciborra & Patriota, 1998), and that knowledge does not flow easilyeven when an organization makes a concerted effort to facilitate knowledgeexchange (Szulanski, 1996). One of the first reasons for reluctance to shareknowledge is information hoarding (“knowledge is power, why share it?”).Knowledge-hoarding behavior could be peculiar to specific organizational orprofessional culture norms (for example, knowledge sharing could be limitedamong members of highly competitive professional groups, like sales peopleworking on commission), or even encouraged by misalignment between anorganization’s KM strategies and incentive schemes (Scarbrough, 2003). Osterlohand Frey’s (2000) research on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation for knowledgesharing in organizations suggested that intrinsic motives are powerful enablersof such sharing. At the same time, extrinsic (e.g., monetary or administrative)stimuli were found to be less powerful, and in some cases, even detrimental.Scarbrough (2003) had identified four groups of reasons for knowledgesharing in organizations, and labeled them using the following four metaphors:web (knowledge sharing as a means of establishing connections with others in

Ardichvili / VIRTUAL COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE 543



the organization); ladder (sharing knowledge in the pursuit of status and careeradvancement); torch (sharing knowledge by following examples of leaders);and fortress (sharing knowledge as a source of protection against externalthreats).

McLure-Wasko and Faraj (2005), reporting on their longitudinal researchinto knowledge sharing in open-access online virtual communities, indicatedthat it is not immediately clear why individuals would want to help strangers insuch communities, because there is no direct benefit to contributors, “and free-ridersare able to acquire the same knowledge as everyone else” (p. 35). Applying theoryof collective action, McLure-Wasko and Faraj isolated individual motivationsand social capital considerations as main influencers on knowledge sharing.They had found that people tend to actively contribute to online communitieswhen they perceive that this enhances their professional reputations, and whenthey feel strong commitment to the community, being structurally embeddedin the network of exchange. At the same time, contributions are made withoutimmediate expectations of reciprocity from others. In an earlier study, thesame authors had identified numerous reasons individuals could have for shar-ing knowledge with other members of online CoPs, ranging from self-esteemboosting to altruistic and conformist considerations (McLure & Faraj, 2000).

Whereas the above studies focus on reasons for participation, other articlesdescribe reasons for both participation and nonparticipation. Thus, Garfield(2006) suggested 10 explanations for why people do not share their knowledgein online communities. These 10 reasons can be grouped into four main cate-gories: (a) people do not understand why knowledge sharing is important forthe organization or for themselves; (b) they do not know what the best ways ofsharing knowledge are; (c) they may understand the importance of sharing,and may even know what the recommended ways of sharing are, but do notbelieve these ways are effective; (d) they are not motivated to share and do notsee personal benefits of sharing (or they even see potential negative conse-quences of sharing).

Ardichvili et al. (2003) have found in their VCoP-related research in a largemultinational corporation that the majority of study participants viewed theirknowledge as a public good, belonging not to them individually, but to thewhole organization. When such perception exists, knowledge exchange ismotivated mostly by moral obligation and community interest considerations,not by narrow self-interest. Another reason for actively contributing knowledgewas associated with employees’ desire to establish themselves as expertsthrough multiple postings and contributions to the community. Still anotherreason for contributing knowledge was the feeling among some participantsthat they had reached a stage in their lives when it was time to start giving backby sharing their expertise. Regarding barriers to knowledge sharing, Ardichviliet al. (2003; Ardicvilli, Maurer, Li, Wentling, & Stuedemann, 2006) had found thatemployees could shy away from contributing knowledge for a variety of reasons.Some of these reasons included fear of criticism, fear of misleading the com-munity members (when their own knowledge or information was perceived to




be incomplete), the lack of clarity on what the most effective ways of sharingknowledge are, and cultural assumptions about appropriate and inappropriateways of knowledge sharing and communicating.

Chiu et al. (2006) integrated social capital and social cognitive theories topropose a model that explains individuals’ willingness to share their knowl-edge with other members of the community. Their research suggested thatsocial ties, trust, considerations of reciprocity, identification with the communityand its goals, shared mission and vision, and shared language play a signifi-cant role in employees’ decision to share their knowledge in a virtual commu-nity. Chiu et al. had also found that personal gain expectations were animportant influencing factor.

Jian and Jeffres (2006) proposed a three-dimensional framework for employeewillingness to contribute to electronic databases, including utilitarian, normative,and collaborative (community) dimensions. The utilitarian dimension is basedon the collective action and social dilemma perspectives, and assumes actors’rationality and self-interest in utility maximization behavior. The utilitarian per-spective is clearly present in practical advice for building successful CoPs, pro-vided in a number of recent practitioner-oriented articles. Thus, Vestal (2006)pointed out the need to clearly communicate “a compelling, clear business valueproposition to all involved” (p. 6). Advancing the self-interest argument, VanWinkelen and Ramsell (2003) called for aligning individual and organizationalneeds in creating and supporting CoPs. However, in departure from the pure util-itarian perspective, they identified the three following reasons for an individual’sparticipation in a CoP: intellectual (developing expertise, understanding differ-ent perspectives, etc.), emotional (satisfaction from helping others, sense ofbelonging, increased self-confidence), and, finally, material (improving pay byimproving job performance).

The normative dimension takes into consideration values and culturalnorms, which lead to employees’ decision to contribute their knowledge toCoPs. Chiu et al. (2006) cited organizational culture literature to support theirassertion that “value-based decision making functions to reconcile potentialconflict of interests between individuals and their organizations” and “culturalvalues serve as normative principles for employees to make day-to-day decisionsin the interest of an organization” (p. 246). Furthermore, as reported by Vaast(2004), contributing to organizational intranets is regarded by employees as asymbolic act, as a means of affirming their relationship with the organization.Therefore, following organizational norms (in this case, expectation thatemployees should be sharing their knowledge), affirms employees’ allegianceto a specific set of organizational values, and contributes to strengtheningthese values and norms at the same time.

Finally, the collaborative dimension is based on trust, reciprocity, andmutual accountability (Chiu et al., 2006, p. 1882). Thus, desire to be part of acommunity and to contribute to community building can be regarded as animportant factor in individual’s decision to make contributions to a VCoP.




The above discussion focused on reasons for individuals’ willingness tocontribute to VCoPs. However, posting of knowledge entries and other activecontributions by members of a community represent only one side of the equation:the supply of new knowledge. For a community to be vibrant there should bealso an active participation on the demand side: numerous members should bevisiting the VCoP Web site, using online search tools or posting questionswhen they search for advice or information (Cross, Bogatti, & Parker, 2001).Therefore, it is necessary to add one more requirement: VCoP members shouldbe comfortable with participating in a computer-mediated, Internet-based CoP,which involves very little face-to-face communication. The degree of thiscomfort would depend on multiple factors, including familiarity with andaccess to computer technology, professional demands of specific jobs, andother considerations (Ardichvili et al., 2003; Wenger et al., 2002).

Cross-Cultural Differences in Motivationand Barriers to Contributing to VCoPs

In addition, assumptions about individuals’ openness to VCoP-based knowl-edge sharing will vary from country to country. Research shows that transfer ofknowledge across cultural boundaries creates additional challenges for collabora-tive learning in multinational and global organizations. Thus, Wenger et al. (2002)stated, “People’s willingness to ask questions that reveal their ‘ignorance’, dis-agree with others in public, contradict known experts, discuss their problems, fol-low others in the thread of conversation—all these behaviors vary greatly acrosscultures” (p. 118). Review of the related cross-cultural research suggests that sev-eral national culture characteristics influence employees’ knowledge-sharing pat-terns within multinational organizations, among them: in-group and out-grouporientation; fear of loosing face; differences in understanding what constitutesmodest behavior; and power distance (Ardichvili et al., 2006).

Hutchings and Michailova (2004), discussing the impact of in-group member-ship on knowledge sharing, indicated, “In China one’s membership of in-groupsaffects all daily activities” and “is the source of identity, protection, and loy-alty” (p. 87). The implication of the in-group versus out-group distinction isthat in-group-oriented members of the VCoP might stay away from sharingknowledge with someone not considered a member of a narrowly defined in-group. Furthermore, in Asian cultures, the desire to save face could consti-tute a significant barrier to active participation in VCoPs. Posting questionsonline could be threatening to people concerned with saving their own face: inan open forum like this, there is always a threat of ridicule. Hwang, Francesco& Kessler (2003) found that students concerned with loosing face (these weremostly Asian students) were less likely to ask questions in class, and preferredasking questions of the professor outside the classroom. Research suggestsalso that modesty tends to be considered an important virtue in collectivisticcultures (Kurman, 2003). Bansler and Havn (2003) found that one reason why




managers of a European pharmaceutical company did not want to contributeto the company’s Intranet-based knowledge database was that they wanted toavoid giving the impression of bragging.

Finally, Hofstede (2001) suggested that in high power distance cultures(where it is generally accepted that the existence of a high power differentialbetween individuals is normal), information flows are usually constrained byhierarchy. Therefore, in hierarchical cultures, top managers’ need for control overthe information flow, and the desire to restrict access to critical information bylower-level employees, could lead to significant organizational barriers toknowledge sharing.

Table 1 presents a summary of major motivational factors, discussed above.The factors are grouped under three categories: personal benefits; community-related considerations, and normative considerations.

Enablers of Knowledge Sharing in VCoPsAlthough a list of potential enablers of knowledge sharing in VCoPs could

be rather long, this section will focus on three main enablers, discussed mostoften in the literature: organizational culture and leadership, trust, and supportingtools and technology.

Organizational Culture

As suggested in the earlier discussion of normative and community-build-ing considerations, one of the most important enablers of knowledge sharingis organizational culture. A number of studies have found direct relationshipbetween supportive organizational culture and successful knowledge sharing(DeLong & Fahey, 2000; Janz & Prasarnphanich, 2003). As reported byHackett (2000), organizational culture (in this case, a culture that encouragesknowledge hoarding behavior) was the second largest obstacle to knowledgesharing in numerous business organizations. Closely related to this barrier orenabler is executive leadership support (Vestal, 2006; Scarbrough, 2003).

Trust

Trust has been described by various researchers as the key factor in promot-ing participation in virtual communities (Chiu et al., 2006; Ridings, Gefen, &Arinze, 2002). In VCoPs, two types of trust are important: personal knowl-edge-based trust and institution-based trust. Personal knowledge-based trustemerges on the basis of recurring social interactions between trustor andtrustee, and takes root when actors get to know one another and are able to pre-dict what to expect and how the other party will behave in a certain situation(Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). However, not all trust is based on first-hand




knowledge of specific individuals. Thus, institution-based trust is based on thebelief that necessary organizational structures and procedures are in place thatwill ensure trustworthy behavior of individual members, and protect themembers from negative consequences of administrative and procedural mis-takes (McKnight, Cummings, & Chervany, 1998). For example, Ardichvili etal. (2003) had found that participants feel less hesitant to post information onVCoP forums if they believe that organizational control mechanisms are pre-sent that will prevent others from misusing posted information.

Supporting Tools

Recent applications of the Vygotskian activity theory to the analysis ofonline communities (Barab, Schatz, & Scheckler, 2004; Jian & Jeffres, 2006)


TABLE 1: Motivation for Knowledge Sharing in Virtual Communitiesof Practice (VCoPs)

Dimensions Sources

Personal BenefitsStatus and career advancement, Ardichvili et al., 2003, 2006; McLure-

enhancement of professional Wasko & Faraj, 2005;reputation Scarbrough, 2003

Emotional benefits (boosting of McLure & Faraj, 2000; Van Winkelen &self-esteem, being able to Ramsell, 2003contribute, being useful)

Intellectual benefits (developing Chiu et al., 2006; Van Winkelen & expertise, expanding one’s Ramsell, 2003perspective, finding new challenges)

Material gain (community Van Winkelen & Ramsell, 2003; Garfield,participation linked to 2006; Vestal, 2006compensation and benefits)

Community-related considerations

Sharing as means of establishing Scarbrough, 2003ties with others

Sharing as means of building a Ardichvili et al., 2003; Chiu et al., 2006;stronger community and McLure-Wasko & Faraj, 2005;

strengthening one’s Scarbrough, 2003embeddedness

Sharing as a means of protecting Scarbrough, 2003against external threats

Normative considerations

Shared values and vision Chiu et al., 2006Conformity, following leader’s Scarbrough, 2003; Vaast, 2004

example Reciprocity Chiu et al., 2006



and online learning systems (Hung & Chen, 2001) conceptualized online col-laboration as a dynamic interaction among human agents and technologicalartifacts (such as electronic databases, collaboration software, and other sup-porting technologies). Wenger (1998) calls electronic databases “shared reper-toire,” and groups them together with stories and routines. A VCoP can beconceptualized as a sociotechnical interaction network, which includes “people,data, equipment, documents and messages, legal arrangement and enforcementmechanisms, and resource flows” (Barab et al., 2004, p. 26). According toBrown and Duguid (1991), community interaction and evolution of a practicecreates tacit knowledge that is often overlooked, because it is socially distrib-uted between individuals, rules and conventions of practice, and tools used inpractice. Therefore, technology, used in VCoPs, should be treated not just as atool, but also as an important influence on community’s identity, character, andpatterns of behavior.

Motivators, barriers, and enablers of knowledge sharing in VCoPs are sum-marized in Figure 1. As can be seen from the figure, motivation for sharing isbased on considerations of personal benefit, community-related expectations,and normative beliefs. This motivation may never result in actual participation,though, if an individual encounters some of the barriers, listed in the right-hand box of the framework. These barriers include interpersonal considera-tions, lack of adequate understanding of benefits or procedures, lack oftechnological aptitude, and cultural norms. Finally, knowledge sharing can bepromoted not only by removing the above-discussed barriers, but also by cre-ating or stimulating a number of enablers, including supportive corporate cul-ture, atmosphere of trust, and presence of adequate supporting tools.

Implications for HRD Practice and ResearchThe analysis, presented in this article, shows that VCoPs are organic sys-

tems that emerge and are constantly constituted and reconstituted throughinteractions among community members, community members and membersof the larger institutional environment, and community members and numer-ous tools, constituting the community’s “repertoire” (Barab et al., 2004;Wenger, 1998). Therefore, HRD and KM experts, charged with supportingsuch communities, would be advised to overcome a “designers-users” duality(Barab et al., 2004), and should treat both designers/supporters of the commu-nity and users as cocreators of this ever-evolving experience. Furthermore, thechallenge in enabling VCoPs is not so much that of creating them by adminis-trative decree, but that of removing barriers for individuals’ participation, sup-porting and enriching the development of each individual’s uniqueness withinthe context of the community, and linking that uniqueness with the communitypurpose.

Specific suggestions for how HRD professionals could go about encouragingparticipation or removing barriers to participation could be derived from the




summary of factors, presented in Figure 1. Thus, the list of motivating factorssuggests that VCoP participation can be encouraged by promoting members’sense of belonging to the community, by promoting conditions for an open,uninhibited exchange of ideas and information, by creating time and space forexchanging stories and expertise, and by teaching community members aboutthe value of storytelling and how to develop and share stories.

Because opportunities for face-to-face meetings in VCoPs are likely to bevery limited, HRD professionals would need to pay a special attention to activitiesaimed at creating the sense of community and belonging. This could includeinsisting on organizing at least some initial face-to-face meetings of commu-nity members, and providing opportunities for regular live videoconferences,in which participants could get more familiar with each others’ appearance andnonverbal communication clues.

To address the potential differences in cultural norms (both on the nationalculture and organizational culture levels), global companies, especially thoseinvolved in cross-border mergers and acquisitions, would be advised to takeinto consideration values and cultural preferences of employees in each of theaffected locations. To provide just one example, to address the in- and out-group orientation, it would be necessary to enlist help of local coordinators(members of local in-groups) who would serve as knowledge intermediaries(Wenger et al., 2002).


MOTIVATING FACTORS

Personal BenefitsStatus and career advancement, enhancementof professional reputationEmotional benefits (boosting of self-esteem;being able to contribute; being useful)Intellectual benefits (developing expertise;expanding one’s perspective; finding newchallenges)Material gain (community participationlinked to compensation and benefits)Community-Related ConsiderationsSharing as means of establishing ties withothersSharing as means of building a strongercommunity and strengthening one’sembeddednessin community structureSharing as a means ofprotecting againstexternal threatsNormative ConsiderationsShared values and visionConformity, following leader’s exampleReciprocity

BARRIERSInterpersonal (e.g., fear of criticism [Ardichvili et al.,2003]; fear of misleading others [Ardichvili et al.,2003])Procedural (e.g., lack of clarity on best ways ofsharing; lack of clarity on what knowledge cannot bedue to security and confidentiality considerations[Ardichvili et al., 2003; Garfield, 2006])Technological (lack of technological aptitude oracceptance of technology as means of communication[Ardichvili et al., 2003])Cultural (In-group orientation; saving face; modesty;Power Distance [Ardichvili et al., 2006; Bansler & Havn,2003; Hutchings & Michailova, 2004; Wenger et al.,2002])

ENABLERSSupportive Corporate Culture (De Long & Fahey, 2000;Janz & Prasarnphanich, 2003; Hackett, 2000) andsupportive leadership (Vestal, 2006; Scarbrough, 2003)Trust: institutional and knowledge-based (McKnight et al., 1998; Ardichvili et al., 2003; Chiu et al., 2006;Ridings et al., 2002)Tools (Barab et al., 2004; Jian & Jaffres, 2006; Wenger,1998; Hung & Chen, 2001)

FIGURE 1: Motivating Factors, Barriers, and Enablers of Knowledge Sharing in VirtualCommunities of Practice (VcoPs)



Because trust was identified as one of the main enablers of knowledge shar-ing in VCoPs, a number of suggestions for building and strengthening trust willbe made here. First, to build interpersonal knowledge-based trust, it is advisableto supplement online community interactions with teleconferences and someface-to-face meetings. Furthermore, the institutional trust theory postulates thatone of the reasons why people would participate in a community populatedmostly by strangers is employees’ trust in a larger social entity, the whole orga-nization. Specifically, members would need to have trust in the integrity of theorganization as a whole, and it’s determination to discourage misuse of sharedinformation. To ensure this type of trust, organizations need to make the organi-zational expectations and procedures transparent through clear and widelyaccessible communication of these expectations and rules. In other words, thereis a need for creating and clearly articulating a set of institutional norms promot-ing institution-based trust. These norms would clearly communicate that knowl-edge sharing is an organizational expectation and a moral obligation of allemployees, and that the organization puts trust in employees’ loyalty, compe-tence, and ethical standards. In addition, a set of clearly communicated normsand standards for sharing knowledge will reduce anxiety associated with theuncertainty about what constitutes acceptable postings, what violates corporatesecurity rules, and so on.

Furthermore, lack of technological proficiency, combined with potentialaversion to the use of online technology as a communication medium, couldbe a serious barrier to knowledge sharing. Therefore, HRD professionals couldplay a crucial role in providing both the initial and follow-up training in theuse of KM tools, and in organizing periodic formative feedback and user eval-uation. Results of such feedback would be used not only in additional training(if deemed necessary), but also in continuous improvement of the tools usedby VCoP members.

Although there could be numerous promising strategies for future researchrelated to VCoPs, here we will discuss only one possible direction, based onthe application of principles of the activity theory and situated cognitiontheory (Barab et al., 2004; Engstrom, 1999; Hung & Chen, 2001). Accordingto these principles, to generate useful recommendations for the design ofVCoPs, practitioners and scholars need to understand individual elements ofsystems, tensions and dualities in systems, and the role of these tensions insystems’ evolution and functioning. Wenger (1998) provided a detailed analy-sis of dualities in CoPs, and described these dualities as endemic to the sys-tems’ activity: “a duality is a single conceptual unit that is formed by twoinseparable and mutually constitutive elements whose inherent tension and com-plementarily give the concept richness and dynamism” (p. 66). Some of thedualities in VCoPs, which need to be explored further through empirical studies,are (a) the need for global centralization of VCoP support activities versus needfor utilization of local talent; (b) the need to ensure manageability of the content(i.e., avoiding information overload and eliminating redundancies and obsolete




content) versus comprehensiveness of coverage and respect for contributionsmade by all members; (c) the need for standardization of community norms andpractices versus the need for promoting diversity of opinions and developmentof local norms and rules of behavior; and (d) the need for achieving economiesof scale through global coordination of VCoP support versus leaving open spacefor local self-organization and spontaneous emergence of new organizationalforms and processes.

References

Ardichvili, A., Maurer, M., Li, W., Wentling, T., & Stuedemann, R. (2006). Culturalinfluences on knowledge sharing through online communities of practice. Journal ofKnowledge Management, 10(1), 94-107.

Ardichvili, A., Page, V., & Wentling, T. (2003). Motivation and barriers to participationin virtual knowledge sharing teams. Journal of Knowledge Management, 7(1), 64-77.

Bansler, J. P., & Havn, E. (2003). Building community knowledge systems: An empiricalstudy of IT-support for sharing best practices among managers. Knowledge andProcess Management, 10(3), 156-163.

Barab, S., Schatz, S., & Scheckler, R. (2004). Using activity theory to conceptualizeonline community and using online community to conceptualize activity theory.Mind, Culture, and Activity, 11(1), 25-47.

Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities of practice.Organization Science, 2(1), 40-57.

Chiu, C., Hsu, M., & Wang, E. (2006). Understanding knowledge sharing in virtualcommunities: An integration of social capital and social cognitive theories. DecisionSupport Systems, 42(3), 1872-1888.

Ciborra, C. U., & Patriota, G. (1998). Groupware and teamwork in R&D: Limits tolearning and innovation. R&D Management, 28(1), 1-10.

Cross, R., Bogatti, P., & Parker,A. (2001). Beyond answers: Dimensions of the advice network.Social Networks, 23(3), 215-235.

DeLong, D., & Fahey, L. (2000). Diagnosing cultural barriers to knowledge management.Academy of Management Executive, 14(4), 113-27.

Dixon, N. (2000). Common knowledge: How companies thrive by sharing what theyknow. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Ellis, K. (2001). Sharing the best practices globally. Training, 38(7), 32-38.Engstrom,Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engstrom,

R. Miettinen, & R-L. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19-38).Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Garfield, S. (2006). Ten reasons why people don’t share their knowledge. KM Review,9(2), 10-11.

Gourlay, S. (2001). Knowledge management and HRD. Human Resource DevelopmentInternational, 4(1), 27-46.

Hackett, B. (2000). Beyond knowledge management: New ways to work and learn. NewYork: Conference Board.

Haimila, S. (2001). Shell creates communities of practice. KM World, 19, 1-2.Hayes, N., & Walsham, G. (2000). Competing interpretations of computer supported

cooperative work. Organization, 7(1), 49-67.




Hofstede, G. H. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, insti-tutions and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications.

Hung, D., & Chen, D. (2001). Situated cognition, Vygotskian thought and learningfrom the communities of practice perspective: Implications for the design of Web-based e-learning. Educational Media International, 38(1), 3-12.

Hutchings, K., & Michailova, S. (2004). Facilitating knowledge sharing in Russian andChinese subsidiaries: The role of personal networks and group membership.Journal of Knowledge Management, 8(2), 84-94.

Hwang, A., Francesco, A. M., & Kessler, E. (2003). The relationship between individualism-collectivism, face, and feedback and learning processes in Hong Kong, Singapore, andthe United States. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 34(1), 72-91.

Kurman, J. (2003). Why is self-enhancement low in certain collectivist cultures? Aninvestigation of two competing explanations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,34, 496-510.

Janz, D., & Prasarnphanich, P. (2003). Understanding the antecedents of effective knowl-edge management: the importance of knowledge-centered culture. Decision Sciences,34(2), 351-384.

Jian, G., & Jeffres, L. W. (2006). Understanding employees’ willingness to contribute toshared electronic databases:A three-dimensional framework. Communication Research,33(4), 242-261.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.New York: Cambridge University Press.

McKnight, D. H., Cummings, L. L., & Chervany, N. (1998). Initial trust formation innew organizational relationships. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 473-90.

McLure, M., & Faraj, S. (2000). It is what one does: Why people participate and helpothers in electronic communities of practice. The Journal of Strategic InformationSystems, 9(2-3), 55-173.

McLure-Wasko, M., & Faraj, S. (2005). Why should I share? Examining social capital andknowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 35-57.

Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation.Organization Science, 5, 14-37.

Osterloh, M., & Frey, B. S. (2000). Motivation, knowledge transfer, and organizationalforms. Organization Science, 11(5), 538-550.

Polanyi, M. (1957). The tacit dimension. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.Powers, V. (2004). Virtual communities at Caterpillar foster knowledge sharing.

Training and Development, 58(6), 40-45.Ridings, C., Gefen, D., & Arinze, B. (2002). Some antecedents and effects of trust in

virtual communities. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 11(3-4), 271-295.Rosenberg, M. (2005). Beyond e-learning: Approaches and technologies to enhance

organizational knowledge, learning, and performance. New York: Pfeiffer.Rucker, R. (1999). Maintaining market leadership through learning: How Motorola uses

technology to provide the right knowledge at the right time to its globally dispersedpersonnel. Supervision, 60(9), 3-6.

Scarbrough, H. (2003). Why your employees don’t share what they know. KM Review,6(2), 16-20.

Szulanski, G. (1996). Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of bestpractice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(1), 27-44.




Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, W. K. (2001). A multidisciplinary analysis of thenature, meaning, and measurement of trust. Review of Educational Research, 70(4),547-593.

Vaast, E. (2004). O brother, where are thou? From communities to networks of practicethrough intranet use. Management Communication Quarterly, 18, 5-44.

Van Winkelen, C., & Ramsell, P. (2003). Why aligning value is key to designing com-munities. KM Review, 5(6), 12-18.

Vestal, W. (2006). CoPs in progress: AQPC and Texas Medical Association. KMReview, 9(1), 8-9.

Virtual teams. (n.d.). The free management library. Retrieved May 2, 2008, fromhttp://www.managementhelp.org/grp_skll/virtual/defntion.pdf

Von Wartburg, I., Rost, K., & Teichert, T. (2006). The creation of social and intellectual cap-ital in virtual communities of practice: shaping social structure in virtual communitiesof practice. International Journal of Learning and Change, 1(3), 299-316.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice:A guide to managing knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Alexandre Ardichvili is associate professor at the Department of Work and HumanResource Education at the University of Minnesota. He holds a PhD in human resourcedevelopment and MBA from the University of Minnesota and a PhD in managementfrom the University of Moscow. Alexandre has published an edited book and more than40 peer-reviewed articles and book chapters in the areas of human resource develop-ment, entrepreneurship, and knowledge management. He has done applied research andconsulting on knowledge management and communities of practice with Caterpillar,ADM, and a number of health care organizations and professional services firms.

This refereed journal article is part of an entire issue on collective learning processes.For more information or to read other articles in the issue, see Garavan, T.N., & McCarthy, A.(2008). Collective learning processes and human resource development. [Special issue].Advances in Developing Human Resources, 10(4).


Documents

Learning and Knowledge Sharing in Virtual Communities of Practice: Motivators, Barriers, and Enablers