Community Theories

Community Theories. As I write this article, Talent Communities are finally making the corporate rounds. Enterprise is catching on folks! Yay! It’s just what we always wanted. Talent communities are on everyone’s lips, being talked about by the biggest and brightest and still, those of us who’ve done the work, seen the scorching failures and perceived the value in not just communities but talent communities, are trying desperately to define, what precisely we MEAN.

As in the past two articles, I’m not ready to get into it yet. I just got back from speaking in San Francisco at the Social Recruiting Strategies Conference (put on by rockstar group GSMI) and while there, I did talking about the whos, whats, wheres and whys of TCs, not to mention some pretty good hows (if I don’t say so myself). But again, the questions thrown back at me from educated, intelligent people in the space revealed a misunderstanding or at best, vague understanding of what a community really was. And once again, I was unable to do better than “all of the above”. As a consultant, a vendor, a writer and a speaker, I believe that we owe these people better than that. Hence, all the commas :)

So today, I want to talk about community theories:

1) Reciprocation Theory: IMHO, this is one of the most underrated theories in all of community development. It’s pretty simple (like most theories). It states that in order for people to be a part of your community (donating time, attention span, participation bandwidth) they need to feel like they’re getting value. YOU, as the community manager (or similar) have to provide content, conversation, benefits, value, etc.

This plays out in the communities I’ve managed or had a hand in creating. Things that create value for participants:

Online Chats: The ability to raise one’s profile in a semi-closed forum, participate on an ad-hoc basis.

Chapters: A localization of the broader group, this can give people the ability again to raise their profile, connect with others and build on the credibility the group has as a whole.

Content: With more and more folks trying to build a personal brand, allowing people to “publish” and raise their awareness within the community is huge. Of course, compensation cannot be left out of this equation, whether it is through promotion, discounts or actual pay for posts.

Certifications: Many professional communities or skill based communities have this down to a veritable art form.

Acknowledgement: Again, highly underrated. People like to see their name/face/work highlighted. It makes them happy and valued. “Thank You” goes a long way for a community management team. Ditto for commenting or sharing their post, work, comment, etc.

Camaraderie: People are interested in identifying with a group (for the most part). You can see this as people “tip deals” in Groupon or on sites like Gawker, where frequent commenters seem to recognize one another. A community manager can move this forward by creating links between members who seem like-minded.

2) Consistency Theory: This theory states that once a person becomes active in a community, they are more likely to come back again and again. It makes a sense, most of us tend to be creatures of habit. Community managers can help by making their communities great places to be, welcoming everyone who comes in in a timely and consistent manner and finally, by using tools like email, social, and personal contact to remind members of why they come to the community in the first place.

3) Social Validation Theory: “I wanna be where my friends are.” This theory states that but in a way more science-y way. If a community is acceptable to one’s colleagues, friends, etc., it is more likely to enjoy significant growth in that circle. It’s part of the reason that every time you join a new network, you have the option to “find your friends” via Facebook, Gmail or any other tool that contains a crawl-able address book.However, community members can take it one step further and ask who else in the entrenched member’s circle may benefit from being part of the network. This is a theory I’d like to look at closer when we talk about talent communities specifically.

There has long been talk that talent communities MUST HAVE a component that allows talent to talk to other talent on the outside. I think the Social Validation Theory supports that intrinsic need. However, when combined with the still very prevalent competitive spirit that surrounds applying for jobs this may force the transition to internal and external workers, rather than friends with similar skill sets. (This could begin to change soon, but will not happen quickly.)

 

 

Last time I started writing, it was titled “Why Communities Matter“. Again, I’d like to reiterate that I am not yet even starting to delve into the whole talent community debate. It’s important for me to step back and see just where this whole discussion came from before throwing it back in the buzzword soup.

Communities used to be limited by geographical proximity. If you were close to a community, you were kind of in it, for better or worse and when you moved away, you kept tenuous ties but were no longer part of that community.

As we ventured online, user groups became a sort of wavery, online mirror of what communities looked like in real life, with the exception of the anonymity factor (yes I just named it that). Whether you were using Prodigy, America Online or Newsgroup, you could generally be anonymous. While this is an older article, it credits a 1984 user group called The Well as being one of the first to encourage the use of real names.

The ability to go online and share your view points with the seeming protection of anonymity gave rise to and abundance of vitriol and exaggeration, still seen today on virtually any Youtube video ever posted

Community Diagram Thingy
In my mind’s eye, I see this as kids racing through a candy store…blindfolded. MySpace and AOL were the stars of this generation, teaching generations how to behave or misbehave online. But these tools were beginning to be used by groups of people, schools, universities, military spouses to generate ties that were stronger and that stretched over longer distances than before.

As people began to see the internet as a place for professional discourse and even social interaction, as opposed to a giant library, weblogs and media sites became communities in and of themselves. Like spoke to like, and vast numbers of people congregated under a banner they had a hand in creating.

Fast forward past Terminator 2 and The Net, until we see entering stage left the big three, the undeniable stars of the current day community. Facebook obviously, centered once again around the proximity premise, with the original service being used within universities and then primarily for college students. Compare that with the behemoth social network that itself is a platform for thousands of communities centered around the benign (Tide, Oreos), the career oriented (BranchOut, Work4Labs), the ironic (Protesting Facebook Change) and the professional.

Twitter, has contributed to the online community platform, if for the sole reason of evening out the playing field of digital media for a little while. While it’s less community and more distribution service, it’s still a powerful service for brands, individuals and yes communities, who use the service to bolster conversation via the use of hashtags. While a seemingly insignificant part of the conversation, twitter chats are actually much more powerful than most people realize and share some of the same social loyalty based characteristics as ye olde tyme radio shows, which is why many of them have a radio component (internet based of course) that run alongside them. Same time, same channel, identifying call letters. These are all behaviors we understand and are familiar with, whether we used them to tune into a “fireside chat”, watch Family Ties every week or are LOST devotees. Traditional media taught us how. The exception being that it combines media we consume with media we participate in, underscoring that feeling of community.

LinkedIn. Most HR pros/recruiters would say this was where they first started building community. Here’s how it worked back in the day. You had a group of business contacts, recruiters and sales pros had more than most (stacks of business cards because stacks of contacts), you could share articles and job openings with your friends but that was about it until….groups. Groups made it so that anyone could create, manage and moderate a large group of people from a professional standpoint and because the platform was new, create almost instant “expert” status. Enterprising recruiters used in particular to turn candidate databases into “talent pools” that they could connect with on a regular basis and even begin to educate. Communities around companies, professional associations, disciplines, causes and localities sprang up by the hundreds, some numbering in the hundreds of thousands.

When I started building communities, ning was big, as was kickstarter. Now we seem to be having some trouble defining community. Maybe we’re having trouble redefining it. When something that comprises part of the definition suddenly becomes untrue or now needs a qualifier to make it true (as in locality or proximity now not necessarily a part of the definition of community or needing the qualifier of online to make this exception), it seems to spark a debate or underline the importance of semantics.

The history of online communities is one that shows a shifting line in the sand, with parts of it obliterated by the new waves of innovation that come crashing to shore, quicker and quicker now. This is by no means a comprehensive or heavily researched account. But as I said, I am looking to get my thoughts together on communities and what they mean to marketing, HR and other disciplines.

You gotta start somewhere.

 

Value Unused = Waste

I don't know why this guy is in her small closet. Weird.

This morning I was reading an article in Motor Trend about joining the mesh that got me thinking. The title equation was:

Value Unused = Waste

Obviously the author Frank Markus was not talking about human resources but he might as well have been (Fun fact: did you know that many of us only use our cars 8% of the time?)

How often do you hear frustrations from HR Professionals about their sourcing and recruiting needs? Have you ever asked what sort of CRM they’ve built into their database AKA Applicant Tracking System to improve their cost per hire? Usually you get a blank stare or the equivalent phone silence. Here are 5 reasons to shop your ATS or build a community or CRM system to help you do so:

1) You paid for the system. Okay maybe you didn’t. Maybe your predecessor bought the system, maybe you’re stuck with something that’s not the system of your choice. But your company purchased this system, with all its bells and whistles, for you to use. It likely wasn’t cheap (or maybe it was) but even if it was a free system, company resources and man hours went into implementation. Bottom line? A system that COSTS money and isn’t being used for more than a catch all is waste.

2) You paid to get people IN there. Job postings are rarely free, career sites can cost thousands, slick employment brands don’t grow on trees. You get it right? For every person that gets dumped into the black hole of an ATS, there is a cost associated with that. Don’t know what your ads, SEO, PPC and frontline campaigns are costing? You’ve got a metrics problem (go talk to Chris Hoyt or Dwane Lay). There’s rarely a free lunch in life and there’s an even rarer free candidate.

3) Consumer brand ad nauseum. Maybe I can’t convince you that a terrible candidate experience costs your HR department money, but I bet I can convince your CFO that it’s costing $$ when it comes to end-consumers. If you work in a B2C company this is a no-brainer. Give me a bad experience in any capacity and I will think less of your brand overall (unless you make Oreos, they are sacrosanct.) Avoid at all costs, leaving prospective employees and BUYERS (oh yes, if not today, then tomorrow or next year) to languish in a purgatory of uncertainty. Give them a reason to talk about you in a positive light. In an era where CPH is loads higher than cost per prospective buyer (save a few select industries) your marketing department will thank you for not wasting that prospect for them.

4) Rejection doesn’t have to hurt. Okay maybe it will hurt a little bit, like that one time in band camp when Tom said he liked me but he really liked Stephanie and it was pretty awful when I found them holding hands. But candidate rejection doesn’t have to be reminiscent of the tuba player that broke your heart. Because as companies create more effective learning solutions and social networks provide a fresh stream of real-time data, yesterday’s “not right now” candidate can be tomorrow’s star hire. Manage the process properly (i.e. Don’t waste the opportunity to reach out even if she’s not perfect for the role) and they’ll take that call tomorrow.

5) Mo money, mo problems. Sure you want to use your budget so it doesn’t shrink, but I bet you can think of something better to use it on then the same evergreen req or posting software. You how budget divas always tell you to shop in your own closet? Well, I’m telling you to shop in your own ATS, you’d be amazed at what’s in there. Seem too daunting? Find a company (cough) that can help you make the most of it, helping you not only sort and engage but track your best source of hires so that when you get your shiny budget next year, you have a good idea of how to allocate it.

I’ll leave with another quote from the article, this one from Lisa Gansky:

In the future, access trumps ownership.”

We’re already seeing a shift in that direction with tools like OneWire, JobScore, BeKnown and Branchout. But what I suggest to you is that right now? You have both ownership of that data and nearly unlimited access, along with tools that can help you optimize it. So USE it!

the freaking room is on fire

Change is promoted, encouraged, fought for, and touted quite often.

Until someone tries to actually EFFECT change. See that’s where it all gets a little painful for some folks. Because let’s face it, things aren’t really that bad, not for most people reading this blog, certainly not here in Omaha, Nebraska. So change is nice and cozy to talk about in front of the fire, but when the embers start catching the rug on fire, people freak out because the FREAKING ROOM IS ON FIRE!

This is bad because:

-it threatens our safety

-it changes our environment

-it leaves us without clear boundaries

And that should and does scare a lot of people. I was recently at TruLondon in…London speaking with some pretty smart people and I heard stuff.

- Some of the brightest minds in our field come from a business discipline other than HR or Recruiting. Their fresh perspective and unwillingness to spout jargon gave them access to resources not typically allotted to an HR pro. And sometimes the ideas that are formed in that mind or on that team doesn’t really jibe with the recruiting and HR community, which has expanded to include vendors now but…

- Community does not mean the same thing to all people. Some view it as a threat. Others a glorified database. Still others a one sided, expectation laden relationship. Me? I take it at face value. And I think there are others who agree with me. During a debate on privacy online, Kevin Wheeler stated “Who grew up in a small town?” Several people raised their hands. He then followed up with: “And what was your expectation of privacy in that small town?” Posed thus, the answer was, of course ‘NONE!’ Community rules have stayed the same, but the geography is different, the tools are more sophisticated and the data travels real-time. Yes, there are motives for establishing community that are commercial. Hasn’t that always been true? But even as we make that correlation to the past….

- We get nervous when we have nothing to compare to. Our current situation (like or not) is dissimilar to anything in recent history. Even the rate of change is much MUCH larger. So many would like to compare this rapid fire acceleration to the industrial revolution or the telephone but the comparison does not make it so. We are learning and adapting at a much faster rate than predicted even ten years ago. This scares the living daylights out of institutions that have sat at the top of the heap for a even comparatively short time. For those who have existed longer, it has the terrifying sound of a death knell. So we move on to…

- Band-Aids. I touched on this a little bit after my coverage of HR Demo Show. Basically, a band-aid is a product that is designed on an already crumbling foundation. It’s very attractive to those with deep roots into the crumbly foundation, because it offers a way out. However, it’s very unattractive to those who have designed a solution or a plan for TODAY’S problem and thus need the freedom of movement to begin to attack some of those issues without the “ties that bind” it to respectability. It’s easy to dismiss something that doesn’t “race to the bottom” in terms of cost, production time, patches and the like. Something that dares to shoot for where the puck is, is a dangerous animal indeed. I mean that is simply…

- Reality, Hon. Oh reality. The slow, sad dirge of reality that says, you must rate this way. SAYS WHO? “Well it just doesn’t work!” and why not? Because the tool is faulty or because you’ve given a sophisticated drill to someone with no power outlet? A hammer to a baby? How can the environment or the user become more sophisticated save through trial and error? If reality says that this new and innovative idea must fit into the faulty, broken infrastructure that’s been handed to us, why should we accept that?

Just curious.

Blog at WordPress.com.
Theme: Esquire by Matthew Buchanan.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,314 other followers