My two cents on communities vs. networks
Why both are totally fine, but calling one the other leads to problems
Communities vs. Networks
I’ve been thinking a lot about the nature of communities vs. networks lately (or, I should probably say, again). I’ve experienced both, and I’ve experienced both writ small and large. But what I’ve also experienced a lot of over the years, is people and organizations that say they want one but are really only up for the challenge of building and maintaining the other.
Building and maintaining either is hard work, and you make your life harder if you attach nomenclature to your marketing, but not to your processes.
So what’s my take? Well, I can start by disclosing that I’m a community-builder, so I might have a tiny little preference for communities over networks. You don’t need to tell me if you figure that out is all I’m saying :)
If I was being extremely reductive (and possibly controversial) I’d say networks are transactional and hierarchical, while communities are relational. The motivations that drive support in the former are based, therefore, on the idea of mutual exchange of value, while the motivations that drive support in the latter are based more on the idea of a virtuous circle. Or perhaps a stone soup concept.
Let’s use a scenario to explore how this might look in real life.
Scenario: You’re working on a new project. Like any new project, you would benefit from support, participation, amplification, etc.
The network effect:
The reveal: You may want to unveil your project to a network only when you’re confident it’s ready for external attention. Sure, you might have reached out to some particular experts in the network early, asking for specific feedback or advice, and you may certainly want to give early access to the network as a whole. But you know first impressions mean a lot, so you want it to be in great shape when you share it to a network.
The ask and the expectation: If this network is designed to help promote and amplify member activities, you have a reasonable expectation that if you provide a concise promotional “package.” i.e. links, images, language, then many members of the network will feel an obligation to share. Every network member acknowledges that one of the reasons everyone is there is to get their turn to ask for support, and offer their support in turn when asked. This is a reason people join networks…to give and to get, ask and offer, and the healthiest networks are a source of tangible, productive support for its members.
The caveat: In many networks there is also a hierarchy amongst its members. Some are higher in the food chain, so to speak…maybe they have higher positions, are more prominent, have larger followings. If you go in expecting that every network member will share equally freely or frequently, you may get disappointed when you discover there is actually a sort of invisible “rank.”
The value of networks: It is implicit in networks that the concept of mutual value exchange means that you should contribute to the uplift of others in close ratio to how often you ask for uplift from others. Being a network member who only does drive-by favor-asking without being there for other members will violate the ethos of just about any network. Even so, certain network members’ contributions may be given more weight because of where they are in the hierarchy mentioned above. Is this a conscious equation that’s transparent to all? Nope, but if you’ve operated within networks, you’ve seen it in action.
What this means for network managers: For a manager of a network, this invisible equation is something you should manage to. How do you avoid school cafeteria syndrome? How do you encourage the right exchange of behaviors, while setting the right expectations for those behaviors? A network needs clear rules of engagement. A definition of what it means to be a good network member. And a structure for taking feedback. I would suggest that networks are a more top-down style of structure. Any manager of a network should be open to and considerate of the feedback from members of the network, but just as a network administrator configures the settings for an IT network, so too does the administrator of a people network.
The community effect
The reveal: A community ideally feels like a safer place to share your journey along the way to being ready to launch your project. Your community may know both the concept and your passion for it, and the frustrations you’ve encountered. They’ve been a sounding board, and some community members are likely part of your informal advisory board, if not your formal one. There is a reasonable expectation that you can share the tough stuff under the concept of the “cone of silence.” This comfort level and expectation is often because you feel that you know and are known by more people in a community.
The ask and the expectation: Oddly enough, you may want to have less expectation that, in a community, if you make an explicit ask for a particular kind of amplification or support then everyone will hop to and do exactly as requested. Not because of hierarchy, but because transaction is not the purpose of community. Rather, your community is more likely to share and support because they feel like they’ve been a part of the journey, because they are giving a very personal stamp of approval to the project, and when they do share they are less likely to repeat some packaged marketing messaging you’ve provided for ease of use; they are more likely to personalize and customize to fit how they like to share and communicate and how they feel about you. And people in community will also know that the community is held together by how members collectively support one another, not by how each individual supports each other individual. People support in different ways, not cookie-cutter ways.
The caveat: Of course, community members may perfectly understand the concept of a “mush pot” of support and a highly individualized version of support that is not transactionally-based, and still be disappointed or feel let down. In general, I do believe members of a community earn more grace from one another for a perceived inequality of response or support, because community members may know more about what’s going on in a fellow member’s personal space, or may understand why some projects are less in another member’s wheelhouse.
The value of communities: It’s pretty typical for people to talk about “bringing your whole self” to work spaces these days, but in backchannel conversations, most of us admit that we’re not bringing anywhere close to our whole selves there. A network with strong guidelines certainly may feel less buttoned-up than one’s personal workplace, but a community has the capacity to come closest to being a place for your whole self. Communities, in general, feel less hierarchical. Communities, in general, also run into more gray areas and porous boundaries.
What this means for community managers: Communities also need guidelines, ones that are shared and that will be enforced equitably. For a manager of a community, the coming together of whole selves and gray areas can create clashes and conflict. Guidelines are in place to help community managers referee any such conflicts. Often, however, communities feature a more collaborative structure. Any manager of a community should not only be open to and considerate of the feedback from members of that community, they should be responsive and transparent in answer to member questions and comments. Think of the feedback loop as a constant circle, neither broadcast, nor a simple ask and answer. Command and control is not a leadership style that generates and maintains thriving community. Do many communities have management and do they absolutely have ultimate control over community guidelines and moderation and enforcement issues? Yes, but the cycle of feedback and response will feel different in a true community. There are even communities that exist without a manager per se, where decision-making is collaborative and consensus-built. Such communities probably work in sizes of fewer than 50 members or so, after which it can get dicey.
Why does it matter which you call it? Because words have meanings, and meaning sets expectations, and expectations (met vs. unmet) determine satisfaction.
So. Am I pedantic or on point? Is this semantics or spot on? Would you define the differences, well, differently? I’m dying to know.
What else is going on?
The Op-Ed Page podcast
Episode 99 of The Op-Ed Page podcast is about one of my favorite subjects: How to be a responsible participant in online discussion, in this particular case, via fact checking.
You may remember my last newsletter was about the building blocks of a position or argument. Using that as a jumping off point, I urge, really plead with, folks to make fact-checking the foundation upon which to assemble those blocks. I also give a very specific real example from last week: Two stories two friends shared. Both stories were horrible, each about a different “side” of the Israel-Hamas War. I walk through how I tried to fact check the stories, what I found out, and what I decided to do…share or not share. I hope it’s helpful to see my process in action. Because I don’t just try to establish of a story is true, but also if…in context…it is important and helpful to share it.
I think John Oliver (quite unsurprisingly) does a very good job of sharing stories with appropriate context in way that is helpful, not just inflammatory, in his most recent episode. He takes something a lot of people are saying almost casually and really digs in. I highly recommend you watch this. It’s important to note that I wouldn’t frame things like he does 100%. There were a couple of things I didn’t agree with 100%. But we don’t need to align 100% to be able to understand and appreciate one another’s arguments.
Please take a listen both to john and to my podcast, and if you enjoy the podcast I would appreciate a share and a subscribe and a review.
TikToks this month
I got back on my TikTok game with both book reviews, some political commentary, and even a Broadway show review. In particular, given everything going on in the world, I wanted to share two books I read one after the other that are by and about the indigenous peoples of the United States. Braiding Sweetgrass in particular is a mesmerizing listen if you go the audiobook route. A beautiful meditation on Science and Nature, what we know and what we do not know about the natural world. Truly a beautiful read.
Tiktok failed to load.Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser
Out in the world
Two different podcasts were released in the past couple of weeks where I was the guest. Considering both podcasts have a midlife focus, it’s interesting that these were relatively different conversations. Both awesome.
The first is my time spent with
, she of the “You’re Not Too Fucking Old” tagline. Yes, you are correct, I just had her as a guest on my podcast a few weeks ago, and now I’m a guest on hers. You can hear all about my #BuffyLifeLessons philosophy, among other things like the evolution of ambition and authenticity in midlife. It was quite a number of weeks between when we recorded and when it went live, so I listened to remember what I said (hello midlife, I guess!). And I was entertained, if I do say so myself.
The second is my time spent with
and on their podcast. This conversation featured more conversation about my background, about BlogHer and the evolution of the social media space (and my disillusionment with digital utopianism). I also just might have gone on an epic rant about the current tension between employers and employees in the NOW of work. It’s a conversation that goes a lot of different places, including menopause and caregiving.
I hope if you listen to either of the above podcasts you will give them a like, a share, a subscribe…I know I’m asking for those things all the time for my podcast, so I gotta sk for theirs!!
That’s it for today. Until next time, please leave a comment and let me know your thoughts on any or all of the above. This is basically my blog now! And as always, I appreciate a share of this newsletter or my podcast.
If I can help you break through the things that keep you stuck (or if you are intrigued by the idea of securing my fractional leadership for your initiative), set up your first introductory 30-minute consult for free by booking it in my Calendly. And you can always check out my new LinkedIn Learning Course, Telling Stories That Stick, a 57-minute course on crafting your stories for different audiences (media, investors, prospects, hiring managers) and ensuring those stories stick…and convey exactly what you hope to convey.