Community management is like cholesterol

Summary :we’re still fare from being done with discussions on enterprise community management. More complex to implement that it seemed, this kind of system did not always keep its promises and results range from the best to the worse to such an extent that some start to wonder if it’s really worth. Among poorly managed plans and doubts on the very role of community managers, many organizations are still in a state of uncertainty. In the end it’s all about the project and operational alignment. There are two kind of community management systems : those that are the consequence of a project and integrate communities into the operating modes and those who are the result of the attention paid to the existence of communities without any will to leverage them to create value (or only with words). When community management has no other reason to exist that the existence of communities it becomes useless. When it’s the result of an ambition to turn the community potential into an asset that can be leveraged, it can lead to awesome results.

There are still a lot of discussions and questionings on internal community management. After the “everything is a community” era that caused the rise of armies of community managers and the “community manager : bullshit of the year” era that logically came after when the limits of the system were reached as well as those of its implementation by, at best, idealists or, at worse, sorcerer’s apprentices, organizations seem to be lost.

Community management logics are an undisputable potential for organizations when wisely used but are not the solution to every problem and, despite of their apparent simplicity, need a lot of specific skills. This explain that after the times of overexpectations came the time of disappointment.

First, we have to distinguish between discussions related to community management and community managers. If community management approaches are necessary, lots of questions remains about community managers, their role and profile. There’s no doubt community managers will stay for long to manage external communities, things are different when talking about internal communities.

As a matter of fact it’s logical to think that, in a couple of years, community management skills will be part of everyone’s toolbox and there will be no more need for specific people. I fully subscribe to this point of view. But, unlike some people, I won’t pretend that managers will become community managers or, at least, not in an exclusive way. If it’s an unavoidable evolution of managers skills, methods and way of doing their job, it’s far from being enough. Managers have to set objectives, have also have a right to give orders and have to be able take disciplinary actions, what is not a part of a community manager role. They’ll have to combine both dimensions, what won’t be easy at all.

Then we have to keep in mind that there is no consensus on the level at which community managers should operate. A wide range of situations exists, from the senior manager in charge of managing a global system to the recently graduated person in charge of having the field and making some noise. The consequence is that there were lots of attempts to formalize different responsibility levels, with community managers, social media directors etc… Another big mistake was made in France where “management” was often translated into animation what causes that, with the same job title, lots of different profiles can be found.

That said, let’s come back to the concern that worries many organizations because of the varying results that can be observed here and there : is community management worth, are benefits worth the effort, or should organizations let communities live, die (and even not come to life) by themselves ?

The answer can be summed up in one analogy : community management is the corporate cholesterol.

[Read more...]

33 things to know about those who make your online social spaces live

I wrote a lot about community management these last month for a simple reason: there’s so much confusion about a topic that’s said being strategic that heading for disaster and throwing the baby with the bathwater is a really actual risk. But by dint of thinking about it again and again, it seems to me that some guidelines are slowly emerging.

• That’s not because there are social medias in the workplace and that employees use them to do their work that the person in charge of managing their use is a community manager.

• A group of people doing things and interacting through social is not necessarily a community or a social network.

• A corporate social media strategy has to be driven at several levels which are often embodied by different people who have specific roles, responsabilities and objectives. These individual works has to be coordinated and articulated.

• Ca n’est pas parce qu’il y a échange entre des individus en utilisant les médias sociaux qu’on à affaire à des communautés. Ni à des réseaux sociaux d’ailleurs.

So, here’s a few things to know about all these players…

[Read more...]

The community management bible is now online

State of Community ManagementYou may have noticed that I’m often skeptical when talking about community management. Not because I don’t believe in it but because its importance and role are so impressive that it must not be led astray or neglected.

When talking about community management, internal and external, there are risks and constraints to take into consideration not to waste its potential. Many things (and sometimes rubbish) can be read about it and think there is a real risk for the concept to be thrown away because of too much charlatanism.

In my opinion, some things have to be kept in mind :

- Community management is not the answer to every organization problem, either with employees or with a wider ecosystem. But it’s a way to make new things or to do in a new and more effective way things that used to be made in an unappropriate fashion. In short it allows to explore new fields of value which we’re not aware of the extent. It’s also something that has to articulate with the rest of the organization.

- it’s a more serious business than a “noise-maker” or “energizer” job. Those who’ll read the excellent Social Networking for business will discover an great mindmap of the responsabilities that belong to the role that should make the awae of the complexity and the richness of the role.

I don’t know how things are doing in other countries (in fact I do…and that what’s scares me) but the fact that, in France, the fact that community management is often a job for young employees or even interns is really worrying. My opinion made one of my readers angry once (on the french version of this post I almost was insulted by someone telling me that youngs were better community managers than experimented peple, that they had the mindset, the 2.0 attitude and knew the tools but posts like this one  [fr] makes me think I’m right (for non french speaking people, in this post the author was discussing the fact community management positions often were junior ones and often poorly paid while it’s said being so strategic…).

The good news is that lots of people are taking it very seriously and share enough things in an ongoing improvement approach that they could build a corpus of knowledge and best practices related to community management. The second good news is that they decided to share it with us in a report than can be downloaded for free : “The State of Community management report“.

In such a technical and human matter, there can’t be any magical recipe. On the other hand there are things that have to be taken into account to work one’s strategy and operating model out. Then, it has to be turned into faction, what need adaptation to each particular context. At this point, feedbacks from those who faced similar situations are key. That’s what the Community Roundtable offers in its report :

- know what we’re talking about

- know the challenges that have to be faced

- have “food for thought” to face them and be successful in one’s context.

This may be seem quite simple but the value is impressive for both community managers (even experienced) and organization who want to define their strategy, hire the right person and need insights to carry on. When tackling such a challenge, better try to understand its complexity first instead of trying anything and say “if only I had known…..”

Enjoy your reading !

Sometimes you need a community manager. Sometimes a manager is enough…

Among the the fundamental and trendy issues about enterprise 2.0, it’s impossible not to mention this one : what does making a community work and live takes ? According to many enterprises, that’s what make their “enterprise 2.0″ projects succeed or fail. As short and simple it is, this question brings two strategic issues about which going astray is easy for people who always choose the easiest way or are abused by those who tell them they only have to jump on the bandwagon while things have to be meticulously prepared prior to anything.

First, we’re talking about making a community live, animating, emceeing it. Whatever the verb we us it, the purpose is clear : bringing life and energy to something that don’t have it. And when one try to answer objectively “why is there no life in the community”, in 90% case the answer is : people are not interested, they have no interest, it does not make any sense for sense. So the purpose of emceeing is make people understand that the community matters and to “put some oxygen into the bowl”, hoping one or two fished will start dancing. If not, the only solution is to change members and bring people for whom it really makes sense. This is difficult for many reasons : companies want to mobilize people they identified rather than those who would really like to be involved, so building a community that is not built upon the org-chart or (worse) that is made of exernal people is conceptually impossible.

Second, we’re taling about communities. Communities are places where practices, knowledge, informaiton are exchanged and has not to be confused with workgroups which are operational entities. A human entity can be both at the same time, but most of times, inside organizations, it’s one or the other. Groups know that they have to do, to deliver, and that’s why they exist. Groups exist because they have operational purposes. Communities exchange to learn, groups exchange to execute (even if there a learning dimension in the background routine). The group is a manager’s reponsability, the manager being responsible for objective’s achievement. Communties can be handled by external people who is an expert, a skilled communicator while groups only react to hierarchical hierarchy (even if expertise matters in the background).

Do you guess where I’m driving at ?

[Read more...]

Community management is about business, not claptrap

I recently bumped into a post putting community managers on their guards : if they can’t demonstrate / deliver any ROI they may face very hard times in a near future.

In the one hand I share the idea according to which, “external” community management (that is not the same thing as community management for internal teams), despite many famous successes, is not that fruitful. But I’m far from thinking community managers are responsible for that.

We are forced to assume that when goals are not achieved, the guys at the end of the chain are often the only to be blamed. But statistics show that, generally, when something goes wrong, it’s not individuals that are responsible, nor any external cause, but the system in 90% cases. I don’t think that these figures that date back to Deming’s work in the 80s have changed since then.

I think that the problem is not the community manager himself, even if this new kind of job, still not well defined yet, isn’t given to the right people at the beginning (but it’s also the system’s responsability to identify the right people and make them improve their skills), but very definition of community management.

[Read more...]