Belonging-ness, part II: “Building” Communities

Belonging-ness, part II: “Building” Communities [link to part I]

Might I introduce two dear young friends, Dani and Donny? Dani lives in a starting-to-boom young tech city; Donny is involved in a large, promising network of social innovators. They are both wrestling with challenging questions about “Do I belong?” and “How do I belong?”

How do we know if your community is done building? I recently saw some stunning numbers that were most encouraging (and sobering). The rule of thumb is 90-9-1: 90% mostly lurk, 10% contribute, 1% does the heavy lifting. That makes sense, actually. Dani & Donny should take heart!

Why? The world lives on the Pareto distribution (home of the justifiably famous “80-20” rule.) We all know itand we all forget that it’s everywhere. Any human data is usually a Pareto-like distribution (not quite normal) and often gives invaluable insights including a crucial one here: If most everyone is contributing equally, plan your community’s funeral now. I have friends/colleagues who either study online communities or try to help build them. [Thank you, Sav!] Whether you call them learning communities, communities of practice, or rabid Ohio State football fans, the same dynamics apply. And these days, we’re ALL online communities ;)

But what does that mean to Dani and Donny? Dani is being told that she has to “go along to get along” – that belonging means embracing her “place” in the local hierarchy. Can she belong if she doesn’t go along with the Important People? As for Donny, his organization is concerned with belonging-ness to a fault. The organization must evolve to where pretty much everyone is actively engaging before it can start engaging in its actual social mission. Becoming that one big happy family is the mission of his group. Actually working to advance the social mission is not the way to belong. (I can relate to both – from multiple times in my life.) So what can we advise Dani & Donny?

Lurkers belong: Online communities will always have a small number of people who contribute most (that 80-20 rule) but that means most people will lurk – which doesn’t mean they don’t belong, it’s just that the real action-takers are never more than a small fraction. Belongingness comes in many flavors. To you, belonging might mean being an active connector; to another, what’s important is knowing that you belong! For both Dani and Donny, “belonging-ness” is up to them.

Recently in my world, Brad Feld launched an online community and in 2 weeks it had grown to nearly 3000 people. As Brad and other noted, the numbers mean little; it’s up to us to make it productive. Most checked in on entry and most of them will never post again (but most of those will still faithfully follow the activity.) This got me thinking – this seems true of the successful online communities I know. It also dawned on me that the ones that failed were ones where participation was broad but shallow. That is, if everyone is contributing, that paradoxically is a bad omen. Healthy online communities need to be ok with a few who contribute deeply?

More important, how do we get to a healthy, resilient [online] community? Time to ask the experts!

The stunning numbers I saw were from private (alas) data but were remarkably consistent. If you can get to 5% of your community to be leading contributors, you will survive. However, you will never get to more than 10% sustainably. Getting to 5% isn’t enough, the community must also be supportive. In the prior post and the discussions around it, ”belonging” take different forms. Those lurking belong just as much – if they are supporting the “cause”, why not? Anyway, if you’ve got 5% already taking the lead, quit trying to “build community” and start building on the wins you have. Donny should feel empowered to get to work. Dani should know that she gets to decide where and how she belongs – to not let others dictate that.

Many learning communities/communities of practice have some sort of governance – the data is very clear that governance needs to have a VERY light hand. I belong to communities where leadership is hell-bent to get everyone involved. Not going to happen without sacrificing the very strengths of the community. Again, Donny should realize that building community is not the only way to belong productively.

What builds community building & belongingness? Number one: Don’t try. People self-selected to this community for a reason. The 5% self-select also. Support those emergent voices, quit trying to make “fetch”happen. ;)

Number two: Action. Whether it’s raising a barn or long discussions, a community is a NETWORK. And not a centralized network... a messy one. Hierarchies should be serving the network but it’s hard to get insitutions and power players to run the show.

No better way to build a community than by tangible action. I belong to one community that is painfully obsessed with getting everyone to know each other at the expese of taking the bold actions that are both feasible and desirable (and, yes, viable). We have lost so many damned good people because of this. We have so much low-hanging fruit. [Interesting dynamic that also speaks to innovation/intrapreneurship... the actions that did happen were all rogue, no support before and no recognition after. If I’m talking to a company, it’s those projects that tell me there’s a spark. And if management fails to support the rogue projects... start planning the funeral.[i] ]

Number three: Online communities are ecosystems – complex, dynamic, interconnected adaptive systems (a mouthful, I know, but it’s critical.) That means you can manage them either top-down by trying to establish enabling conditions and try to control the trajectory of development OR bottom-up where activity emerges from the participants.The metaphor is apt: Communities are not farms to be developed but rainforests to explore! Everything we know about ecosystems screams “bottom up.” Dani should take heart – her community will either find its way to bottom-up or fall short. She can help make the difference by being a true connector and not a selfish gatekeeper.

Yet in many online communities, leadership wants to mold activity to fit their expectations. Maybe the three oldest insights from studying management & leadership are: (1) Managing >>> Control; (2) You can’t dictate both ends and means, pick one; (3) Emergent activity always trumps intended strategy.[ii] For online communities, that means actively building a community is a fool’s errand unless you focus on tangible activity. Tangible activity tends to be emergent; trying to force creative people into boxes won’t work. (One company I know had a beautiful process for proposing and vetting new projects. Everybody filled out the same form so all would be on an equal footing. Anyone who went rogue was ignored, no matter how successful. Oops.. that company is now dead.) And for heaven’s sake, don’t ignore bold, successful action just because it doesn’t look like what you want. Dani should look for those who are trying to make her world safe for disruption.

Number four (finally!): That means your 5% are connectors – but the right kind. Ask yourself: If your online community is sponsored/ supported by someone, who are the ‘connectors’ who guard access to information versus who are the connectors who proactively connect community members? Who is transparent verus who want to control the process (even the best intentions)? As an entrepreneurship development guy, I love the term liaison-animateur. It’s not enough to connect, we need to be proactive and go the extra mile to connect people to each other and to resources. Ask yourself: Ever ask a question that gets a weasely answer or get shut down? That’s not a connector, that’s a gatekeeper. If someone’s remotely a gatekeeper, keep them away from the community.

I suddenly realized that my young friends, Dani & Donny, have the same problem. Both of them have a gatekeeper problem.

Dani’s is more obvious – she’s being told to kowtow to the gatekeepers even though ultimately gatekeepers are the barrier to the community reaching its potential. (Feld IS right; you have to work bottom-up, listening to the Danis.)

Meanwhile, Donny is a red dot (below) who can’t take action without permission of the yellows. Remember that the yellows believe they are entitled, whether by job title or status. Donny should keep going rogue but find other rebels and build enough social capital that he can get around the gatekeeper. Dani should keep connecting professionally and proactively and she too will build social capital. (Of course, if Dani’s or Donny’s name was Richard Branson, the gatekeepers would fall over themselves to take credit for Sir Richard coming to town, lol.)

Bottom line for growing communities that foster belongingness:

1)     Only 5% or so will emerge as leading voices – that’s a feature not a bug.

2)     Once there, quit pushing. You have a healthy community.

3)     STOP even the hint of micromanaging. Community leadership rests totally with the participants, not the Official People.

4)     Encourage bold action, even if it doesn’t fit your ‘model’ (Emergence>>Intent)

5)     The 5% will likely not be those who leadership intended or wants. Humans with common passions won’t be a cross-section of the 100%. But the 5% is rarely a clique –the ticket is that shared passion.

6)     Leadership can have a glorious grand vision but they must not try to dictate how to community gets there. (If you must constrain the tactics, eg, legalities, then you must not also constrain the vision.

7)     If you must be a strong leader in an online community, visibly model bold action. Just as important, go the extra mile to support great ideas that emerge. (Thank you, Ayman & Christina & Anika & Jeff & Jessica & Chad & CJ & Alistair & Diane & Andrea & others like my message board pals - you taught me this one.)

8)     As a famous football coach once said, “You win with people.” It is staggering to see what anyone can do with the right tools and the right community AND if you get out of their way!

So... How can I help your community?

 Norris

[i] Being a little organizationally illegitimate can be a powerful motivator…early on. ;) But the organization must soon embrace winning projects. And at the early stage, ANY action is a “win.”

[ii] Does your community have frequent connecting “offline”? If all conversation happens on the official forum, start planning the funeral.