Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/11718/11519
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorThomas, Nobin-
dc.contributor.authorVohra, Neharika-
dc.date.accessioned2013-12-03T08:47:23Z-
dc.date.available2013-12-03T08:47:23Z-
dc.date.copyright2013-12-12-
dc.date.issued2013-
dc.identifier.citation3rd Biennial Conference of the Indian Academy of Management (IAM), 2013 held at IIMA during 12-14 December, 2013en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11718/11519-
dc.description.abstractThe extant literature provides evidence that control measures employed in Communities-of-Practice (CoP) have undergone significant changes with the evolution of the concept. When it started as a self-organized group, its members had the freedom to pursue their own interests. Now, CoPs are moving closer towards bureaucratic form of control. The paper argues that it might still be difficult to locate the power base in a CoP, but undercurrents suggest that they have a strong affinity for managements’ interests. The paper also shows that CoPs can be formed intentionally, which is contrary to the common view that they emerge naturally. This seriously limits their autonomy as envisaged by the early proponents of CoP, who believed that closely knit informal groups would enhance situational learning.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherIndian Institute of Management , Ahmedabaden_US
dc.subjectCommunities-of-Practiceen_US
dc.subjectPoweren_US
dc.subjectLegitimate peripheral participationen_US
dc.titleCommunities-of-Practice: Powerful or Powerless?en_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
Appears in Collections:3rd Biennial Conference of the Indian Academy of Management (IAM), 2013



Items in IIMA Institutional Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.