The idea is that organizations give managers 3-5 problems to solve; however, managers do not solve the problems. It is the responsibility of the managers to purposefully create communities of practice to solve the problems and managers are evaluated not only by the ability of their communities of practice to solve problems but also by the effect the managers have on their followers (i.e., the leaders and members of their communities of practice). The managers can “recruit” employees to take part in the communities of practice or employees can come forward based on interests thereby facilitating talent deployment. The manager is also held accountable for reducing hierarchy and distributing leadership in the communities of practice.

The idea produces a tension. It is proposed that organizations can purposefully create communities of practice and leaders can intentionally establish them for organizational advantage by integrating them into formal management structures with specific goals, accountability, and executive oversight to ensure they are contributing to the organization and operating efficiently. However, some argue that the idea of a community of practice is in opposition to the “prescriptive ambition to manage communities of practice for improved performance” (Probst & Borzillo, 2008, p. 336) and that controlling communities of practice for purposes of improving performance “displaces the emancipatory aspirations of the original notion [of a community of practice]” (Swan, Scarbrough & Robertson, 2002, p. 478).

I believe the managers have to manage this tension through much of what is espoused via moonshots especially in organizational environments that are not conducive to communities of practice. To appreciate the role of the managers and understand how they are held accountable I suggest that leadership effectiveness is understood by leaders’ effects on followers using the social identity theory of leadership, which takes into account the role of shared group membership of leader and follower and recognizes that leadership is enacted in the context of a social system.

It is recommended that managers will be effective in the purposeful creation of communities of practice by facilitating both collective self-construal and perceptions of efficacy among those responsible for communities of practice and the members using person-oriented and task-oriented behaviors. There are three approaches to produce collective self-construal and perceptions of efficacy for their communities of practice. First, managers should use direct forms of leadership characterized by interaction to display prototypical and group-oriented attitudes and behaviors and, thus, engender collective self-construal. For example, they should interact with the communities of practice to experiment, learn, and progress – what can be described as a direct form of leadership characterized by interaction. Second, they should use person-oriented behaviors at the group level to facilitate perceptions of empowerment. Third, they should use person-oriented and task-oriented behaviors at the organizational level to facilitate perceptions of support. It is through the latter two approaches that perceptions of efficacy will be facilitated.