When Collaboration Backfires: The Hidden Dangers of Professional Learning Communities in Higher Education

Written by Dr. Fariha Gul

Academician, Researcher, Consultant

Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) have long been promoted as collaborative spaces where educators come together to share expertise, improve teaching practices, and ultimately enhance student learning (DuFour, 2004). The literature consistently underscores the potential of PLCs to drive meaningful professional development and foster a culture of reflective practice (Stoll et al., 2006; Hord, 1997). Yet, despite the promise they hold, PLCs remain underutilized in many educational contexts—particularly in higher education.

Much of the discourse around the limited adoption of PLCs points to structural or systemic barriers: lack of administrative support, time constraints, or absence of shared vision (Vescio et al., 2008). However, a more complex and less-discussed phenomenon is the transformation of PLCs into politicized power groups that obstruct rather than promote learning. When PLCs deviate from their core pedagogical purpose and evolve into exclusive cliques, they risk becoming toxic spaces that hinder professional growth, marginalize dissenting voices, and reinforce inequities.

The Power Group Paradox

While PLCs are ideally democratic and inclusive, they are vulnerable to the formation of dominant coalitions or informal hierarchies. In such cases, a few assertive members may begin to steer the agenda, influence decision-making, and monopolize access to professional development opportunities. This shift marks the emergence of a “power group,” where collaboration is replaced by coercion, and dialogue turns into domination (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012).

Over time, these power groups can assume the role of gatekeepers of learning—deciding who gets to participate in workshops, conferences, or research projects, and who remains on the margins. They often masquerade as committed collaborators, but in practice, they manipulate the structure of PLCs to consolidate influence, stifle innovation, and suppress diversity of thought.

When PLCs Become Political

In higher education, where academic autonomy and intellectual freedom are critical, the politicization of PLCs can have damaging effects. Instead of serving as engines of pedagogical reform, they may evolve into bureaucratic factions that lobby for personal gain or institutional advantage. This politicization is evident in the informal "cliques" that dominate departmental decisions, control research funding, or manipulate promotion processes under the guise of "collaborative leadership."

As Ball (2003) notes, performativity and managerialism in higher education can encourage competitive rather than collegial cultures. In such environments, PLCs may become battlegrounds where personal ambition overshadows collective growth. The consequences are stark: silencing of critical voices, monopolization of institutional resources, and creation of hostile work cultures that erode trust among faculty.

From Communities of Practice to Communities of Exclusion

When PLCs devolve into exclusive clubs, they no longer serve as platforms for mutual learning but rather as mechanisms of exclusion. The original intention of fostering reflective inquiry is displaced by subtle (or overt) bullying tactics—ridiculing alternative pedagogical approaches, discouraging independent initiatives, and publicly questioning the competence of those who challenge the dominant group. Wenger (1998) emphasized that communities of practice must remain open and evolving; however, when they stagnate into rigid hierarchies, they become antithetical to learning.

Such toxic environments disproportionately affect early-career academics, women, and faculty from marginalized backgrounds who may feel alienated or intimidated by dominant networks. The psychological impact of working within such cultures cannot be overstated—it fosters imposter syndrome, discourages innovation, and accelerates burnout (Cranton, 2006).

Rethinking PLCs in Higher Education

If PLCs are to fulfill their transformative potential in higher education, they must be intentionally designed to resist the formation of power monopolies. This requires:

• Rotational leadership to prevent entrenchment of authority.

• Transparent criteria for resource allocation and opportunity sharing.

• Inclusive membership with active outreach to underrepresented voices.

• Independent evaluation of group processes to identify and address internal biases or toxic dynamics.

• Leadership training that emphasizes ethical facilitation, not just performance metrics.

• Administrators and academic leaders must be vigilant in distinguishing genuine collaboration from coercive collectivism. The health of a PLC should not be measured merely by its longevity or visibility, but by its openness, inclusivity, and impact on actual learning outcomes.

  Conclusion

PLCs offer immense promise for educational transformation—but only when they remain true to their purpose. As with any structure, the risk of distortion and misuse is real. When PLCs turn into politicized power groups, they cease to be communities of learning and instead become barriers to growth and innovation. In higher education, where critical inquiry and academic freedom are paramount, we must remain cautious of collaborative structures that morph into instruments of control. The challenge, then, is not just to create PLCs, but to cultivate cultures that protect their integrity.

References

• Ball, S. J. (2003). The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), 215-228.

• Cranton, P. (2006). Understanding and promoting transformative learning: A guide for educators of adults. Jossey-Bass.

• DuFour, R. (2004). What is a "professional learning community"? Educational Leadership, 61(8), 6–11.

• Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional capital: Transforming teaching in every school. Teachers College Press.

• Hord, S. M. (1997). Professional learning communities: Communities of continuous inquiry and improvement. Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.

• Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M., & Thomas, S. (2006). Professional learning communities: A review of the literature. Journal of Educational Change, 7(4), 221–258.

• Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of professional learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(1), 80–91.

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