Globalizing Communities of Practice for Leadership in Results-Based Public Management

Many international development practitioners think communities of practice (COP) provide a collaborative leadership approach to public sector management reform. COPs mobilize social learning and facilitate the exchange of... [ view full abstract ]

Many international development practitioners think communities of practice (COP) provide a collaborative leadership approach to public sector management reform. COPs mobilize social learning and facilitate the exchange of tacit knowledge among practitioners toward a common purpose. COPs improve organizational performance by catalyzing innovation, ownership and responsiveness. Their value depends largely on feedback loops for learning, both in terms of technical content (e.g. outcome-based budgeting) and knowledge of how dynamic COPs are designed, implemented and evaluated. However, few COPs have been examined in a rigorous and systematic way, limiting our understanding of their effectiveness.

In 2006, the Asia-Pacific Community of Practice on Managing for Development Results was launched by the Asian Development Bank, the World Bank, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and eleven developing country partners. It rapidly grew to become a vibrant and innovative social learning platform for leading government officials, development practitioners, and academics striving to implement results-based public management in the region. Within the year, it had hundreds of members and was replicated in Africa.

Using the case study method, this paper will document lessons from the two COPs (in Asia and Africa). These CoPs had similar objectives however, they were implemented in very different contexts. The paper will compare and contrast what the COPs achieved over the decade, their success and failures. It will also explore answers to questions such as: 1) How did the give-and-take of leaders and core member contribute to learning and membership?; 2) How did formalization of activities by development partners’ affect membership?; 3) How did funding levels affect outcomes? 4) And, do CoPs have an expiry date? It concludes with suggestions for future research on better measuring the value and attribution of results to COPs.