Transforming Army Learning through Communities of Practice

Abstract

THE ARMY TRAINING and Leader Development Panel's (ATLDP's) Officer Study Report identified numerous challenges that the Army is addressing as it transforms to the Objective Force. The report called on the Army to establish new systems, models, and procedures from the best of existing programs to develop leaders for full spectrum operations.1 As one of its responses, the Army is developing a digital Warrior Knowledge Network (WKN) to support leader development. The WKN will be a web-based knowledge system that provides Army leaders and soldiers with tailored, timely, and relevant knowledge and information. The dominant structure of the WKN will be online communities of practice (COPs) that provide a powerful new model for knowledge sharing and learning. This article defines COPs and overviews their enormous potential for the Army, especially in the areas of leader development, doctrine, and culture.2 It is not an overstatement to say that COPs have the potential to transform the way the Army does business, helping it to become a knowledge-based learning organization that is even more able to educate and train its leaders, develop its doctrine, and inspire commitment from its people.3 Theory and Practice Although COPs have always existed, the Internet has enabled them to become exponentially more powerful. COPs are voluntary associations of people bound together by a shared passion for a particular practice.4 They are self-selected groups whose members come together to help each other by sharing professional knowledge, stories, ideas, and tools. Such communities seem to form naturally. For example, in antiquity, artisans formed corporations, and in the Middle Ages, tradesmen formed guilds.5 In the U.S. Army, recurring officers' calls and lunchtime discussions often foster small COPs. COPs are not defined by how their members communicate, which may be through journals, conferences, informal meetings, list serves, bulletin boards, and any other forms of communication. Rather, COPs are defined by conversations, relationships, and a spirit of collaboration that develop via various means of communication. The CompanyCommand.com website has become a functional COP for military company-level commanders.6 Visitors to the site are drawn by their shared passion for command. On the site, former and experienced company commanders share their command-related stories, ideas, and tools with current and future commanders. Commanders who have a question or problem can post it, inviting other members of the community-many of whom have helpful knowledge on the topic-to offer advice. Like an officers' call at the club, the website is a forum for leaders to informally share knowledge.7 Participants tell stories, offer and debate ideas, and look for guidance. There is no gatekeeper of knowledge. In this marketplace of ideas, everyone is free to speak, yet all are expected to use their own judgment to assess the quality of what they hear. In some respects, online conversations can elicit more candor than face-to-face communications do. Speaking without attribution, participants are more likely to offer unconventional ideas and say what they really think at the moment. I can ask questions in this forum that are somewhat taboo within my own organization... [and] can get realworld answers from experienced officers who are not in my rating chain, one captain wrote to CompanyCommand.com. Participants find themselves assessing their hidden assumptions and ways of thinking when they air their ideas and receive feedback that challenges their thinking. Anonymity forces participants to focus on the quality of the ideas presented rather than on distractions such as their contributor's rank, position, or appearance. Another important and unique advantage of online discussions is that they are not constrained by time and space. Participants can engage in asynchronous discussions with fellow practitioners around the world, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 12 citations exist upstream.