This is the last in the series about gating and culling.

And the last of the ‘How-To’s of accepting/rejecting/ejecting.

6.  Accountability. Self-Policing. Transparency.

Col, an Aussie Karting guy has predisposed his community towards good behavior by making each member ‘visible’ and knowable to everyone else. He disallows anonymity, which would otherwise be an awfully convenient shield to hide behind when indulging in anti-social behavior.

High functioning communities work because there are mutual expectations, plus consequences for infringing the social norms of behavior. Accountability can only operate successfully if people know who you are. He has also found that the community polices itself, leaving him to focus on the members who are the real contributors. Here’s some excerpts from his post on the Ning Network Creators discussion boards. This is his summary of his Code of Conduct:

I had two goals for Kartbook: 1. That people would behave in a civil, friendly and hopefully FUN manner. (Something which had not generally been the case on the previous forums). 2. That the truth, no matter who it did or didn’t suit for it to be known, would be allowed to be published, and remain unmoderated.

He insisted everyone use their real name, and he created guidelines that “basically said ‘no bullying, no spam, no worries’” and he “refused to delete anything that didn’t contravene those guidelines.”

His Network grew to about a third of all Karters in Australia, much of them active. The community ‘howled out’ any who did not use their real name.

“We see intelligent, sometimes heated but always fair discussion about a huge range of topics relating to karting, and best of all, the majority of the membership THINK before posting a message! Why? Because whatever they say, it’s got their name right next to it, and they KNOW it’s going to stay there, even if they regret it after a cooling off period. Lots of people therefore saw the negative effects of “opening mouth before engaging brain”, and it now happens VERY rarely!

Strange as it may seem, by REFUSING to moderate in all but the most extreme cases, I’ve made the NEED for moderation almost disappear altogether!

Transparency forced accountability. A culture of accountability predisposed the community to self-police, leaving the leader freer to focus on building the network.

7.   Charge a fee

This is a very handy way of making the prospective member pause and consider whether they’re indulging in CJS: Compulsive Joiner Syndrome. It’s a way of making the act of joining real. And it’s an ever so small, but surprisingly effective dissuader of social toxics and trolls: there’s a real cost to being thrown out.

Paul Reader, a member of The Glue Project Community wrote:

“One way of gating that is less threatening and can even be encouraging is to charge a nominal membership fee and providing some benefits that are exclusive to members-such as discounts on cost of social functions or fundraising events.”

Importantly, paying even a small fee can represent the first in a series of investments of time and engagement. Investment can be habit-forming. Each successive act of engagement predisposes members to another as they feel that they’ve put in too much to stop now…also assuming that they’re also getting value form increased involvement.

It’s a key dynamic of the Commitment Curve-a strategy used by movement-makers in the political and cause world. A small enrollment fee can be the first step on the path to making more significant investments such as posting, uploading pictures, showing up at meetings, organizing meetings, becoming member of leadership and so on.

8.  Have courage and kindness…and don’t let it get you down.

I’ve heard this a lot from community leaders. It’s inevitable that you’ll get difficult members. Sometimes they’re trolls or social toxics, and they just have to be smartly dealt with. But most often they’re people who are in the wrong place, or who are going through a tough time. Dealing with these people can bring you down, especially if they are abusive to you. But you have to gird your loins, give them the benefit of the doubt and be firm but kind.

Here’s part of a post from Jen, a Ning Network Creator that sums it all up well. I’ve quoted it at length rather than providing a link, because some of you may not be member of Ning and therefore not have access.

“I’ve learned that a little bit of kindness returned, instead of adding fuel to the fire, goes a looooooong way. Without getting into Psychology 101, since I’m not a trained Therapist, I’ve found these steps are successful in most situations:

Take a deep breath.

Consider the source.

Consider that this person may have a miserable life, and you may be able to add some light to their life, instead of returning their darkness.

Keep it professional, but do show compassion when appropriate.

Don’t answer Trolls.

Don’t take it personal. This is the most important rule, for your success. If you can take a step back, look at the situation from a professional and logical point-of-view, you will almost always succeed.

Know how to recognize a Troll.

Don’t “go off” on people, who are simply in a panic. I’ve seen this over and over, again. I’ll receive a hateful email from a member, who is typically a nice person. Sometimes, and especially when dealing with a person who is passionate about their online “cause”, and/or their online business – - people get a little crazy. It’s all “in the moment”. Most of us are capable of this behavior. I’m certainly guilty of it. Don’t accept abuse. But, when time allows – - do try to give them a chance to vent. Interject kindness and understanding. Typically, if you can do this, the situation will have a happy ending.

And to finish this series about gating and culling, here’s Cheryl’s speech with which she opened her two meetings. It’s kind, clear, firm, inspired and led by the purpose and values of the community. The latter are the inviolable, and unarguable terms of membership, and are extremely useful in defusing the possibility that these kinds of encounters are taken entirely personally.

Cheryl’s speech.

“As I read to you later the terms of use agreement we have drafted so far, please understand that the terms of use is not intended to reject or offend anyone in any way. NONE OF THIS IS PERSONAL. The purpose of the terms of use is to help teach families how to walk the Autism journey one-step at a time, as they should already want to walk for the sake of their own child. The terms of use agreement is to ensure that all members of QCPAC are active and equal participants. The terms of use agreement is the way that QCPAC needs to run to keep its mission. After all, QCPAC IS A PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION although it is not housed in a brick and mortar building yet. .

QCPAC was founded based on creating a community where families of individuals living with Autism could become a part. QCPAC was founded to be these families’ escape from the typical world in which these families felt lost, overwhelmed, and isolated. QCPAC became a place where other individuals walking the same path could go to for comfort, solace, support, education, and training, and of course, fun!

For almost 3 years, QCPAC operated without any set terms because QCPAC assumed that everyone would walk this journey on their own. Nevertheless, what has come to realization of all those involved with the operation of QCPAC, is that some individuals need guidance and systematic direction. As QCPAC begins to move forward, changes must occur.

QCPAC has a mission and with this mission, it is necessary to align members who are willing to walk actively the journey and go the extra mile. Everyone who is on board must be willing to carry the cross that Youla and I carry for our children every day. QCPAC has the potential to be an organization that many families living with Autism can truly benefit. However, strength comes in numbers. Eventually, I will take QCPAC to new heights. By myself, it will take several years. With dedicated, passionate, and ambitious individuals on board, we could all do it together in a few years less.

QCPAC is NOT for everyone. Therefore, everyone is free to go if he feels QCPAC is not for them because they cannot adhere to its terms of use for whatever reason. However, QCPAC will always welcome these individuals back should they decide to return later. Moreover, QCPAC is always willing to work with any individuals and accommodate him as much as it is able as long at the individual is willing and keeps the lines of communication open. We cannot help those who choose not to be helped.

We cannot continue to chase after individuals who disregard our time and our efforts. It is not fair to the other members who are active.

We all have challenges. Life challenges, work challenges, family challenges, marriage challenges. Life would not be life without these challenges. Convenience seldom exists. With Autism in our lives, convenience is next to never. We all have to make sacrifices for the things we truly care about. Truly making time is difficult, but time management is NOT impossible if you have the initiative.

Youla and I along with the QCPAC team are always willing to help individuals attend workshops or outings through means of car-pooling if they have transportation issues. They just have to ask us in advance. Members who attended the first session of this same meeting last Wednesday voiced perhaps rotating baby sitting services among members. The possibilities are endless, but heads must come together to brainstorm. However, we do not know if anyone needs this help if he does not let us know what the issue is. The lines of communication need to remain open in order for the organization to work together as a whole and resolve conflicts if any. Even though we go through different challenges and some more badly than others do, we all walk the same path when it comes down to our children living with Autism.

Although, Autism is highly prevalent, organizations such as QCPAC are still minimal. That is what brought each one of you here in the first place. I know this first hand, because that is why I founded this organization in the first place. Anyone can type in the word, “autism” in a search engine and pull up a million resources. However, how do you know what pertains to your child? How do you know what resources are in your community? How do you know what benefits you can receive for your child? The answer to that is simple…by constantly networking with and immersing yourself with other parents who are living the same lifestyle as you. I have learned along my Autism journey that the parents are the ones who provide the best resources, NOT the professionals. The children depend on their parents to be the project manager of their lives. A life, which includes things like constant therapy, appropriate schools, and qualified physicians are constant projects Even when things go smoothly in these children’s lives, sooner or later the families will hit a bump in that road. QCPAC was founded to be the map to help families stay on track of their journey.

QCPAC is a community that has settled in Queens, New York and is pushing to conquer the vicinity to find other individuals like them. They ARE out there, but everyone must work together in order to keep the community strong, and prosperous. On September 1, changes will go into effect. Some will stay, some will go, and some will be removed, but the remaining, I am confident will be those who believe strongly and act upon the mission of what QCPAC originally stands for. If you are listening and you are the ones who feels that you don’t know how to walk the Autism journey, then I ask you to ask and we will surely show you as best as we can.

This quote describes community and teamwork well, “Teamwork is the ability to work together toward a common vision. The ability to direct individual accomplishments toward organizational objectives. It is the fuel that allows common people to attain uncommon results.”

On a personal note, I honestly do not know my life to be any other way besides QCPAC. The families I have grown close to and have developed relationships with I can honestly say they accept me and my family for what we are. We call each other up on the phone and chat, laugh, cry, and vent about every day life, but especially about Autism. We share ideas and resources. We have each other over for coffee, dinner, and play dates. My typical children as well as my Zariah know their children. We’ve bonded and become like family, and when I founded this organization THAT is what I was looking for.

I don’t want my life to be without Youla, Lisa, or Lina, or Fran because the life I had before them was much, much too lonely.

I hope that each of you listening will continue to be a part of this community. Thank you.”

In this sequence of posts about how to gate and cull, we’ve looked at the first tool you can use: your purpose or ideology to accept/reject/eject people.

Now we’ll look at #2 through #5: Use Rules,  Approve membership, Cultural Sieve and Like-get-like.

2.  Have rules and enforce them consistently and fairly.

Codes of Conduct in most communities tend to establish the very basic norms of civility and expectations of engagement.

When I asked a selection of community organizers what 5 pieces of advice they would give to newbies almost all included having Codes of Conduct. Here are some of the responses:

-Set very clear guidelines to your network and then stick to them. If you compromise you will pay for it. Treat everybody the same

-Be just but firm: If you have a Code of Conduct or some posting guidelines, stick to ‘em like it’s your job!! It’s important to be consistent and for members to feel safe and treated fairly. No favorites allowed!

-Post clear rules about spamming, fighting, trolling, etc, and don’t feel even the slightest twinkle of guilt about banning people who cross the line.

Jeff, in a response to my question about whether all communities should be gated, wrote the following on the community part of this site. Clearly, he puts having an active membership as a key plank of his Network:

“Good question. We already impose such a feature on our network.  In our TOS we clearly state that if a member does not contribute and/or sign in to their profile within a 90 day period their profile will be taken offline.

There is always the option to re-instate their profile. However, it is stressed and followed up with a quick reminder that their profile has been inactive and basically on the chopping block if they don’t answer our message within a 48 hour period. This keeps dead profiles off the network and allow the NC [Ning Network Creator] to concentrate on those who are actively contributing to the network.

Many new community organizers feel queasy about establishing rules of any kind. But most discover that not everyone understands the need to be civil or engaged. They quickly realize that you have to establish basic minimums of behavior. And this is best done at the foundation of the community. It’s much harder to grandfather them in when the need to have a Code becomes acute.

3.  Approve membership

“At first I thought this would be “just the worst thing on the planet,

LOL”. Turns out, it’s really not bad at all. It only takes a few minutes to look over a

member’s submitted page, and approve or disapprove. This has cut down on nasty

spammers and spambots, around 95%.”

This is from a Ning Network Creator and she’s talking about keeping out spammers. She’s making the time-consuming effort to review every ‘application’. She considers it a sound investment in time versus handling the fallout that Toxics and Trolls cause.

There are, of course, much more comprehensive ways to winnow out potential mistakes and let through only those who are likely to be high-functioning members. The strongest of communities…those that generate cult-like attraction and loyalty…are extremely careful about who belongs and they invest heavily in the ‘recruitment’ process.

They’ll use the ideology, and the following two tools to ensure consistency with the organization’s goals.

4.  Have a Cultural Sieve

Scott Heiferman, Founder and CEO of Meetup would half-jokingly, half seriously, would pull a photo out of his wallet of a Chihuahua Meetup Group, pastel polyester-panted women and all, and show it to a potential company recruit. If they snickered, he wouldn’t hire them.

“When I showed it to people, I was looking to see if they’d smile at the beauty, laugh at the absurdity, smile at the potential… and bonus points for a tear.” Scott Heiferman.

Meetup is about reviving local community and it has a profound belief in the transformational power of groups. The company is on a social mission. They want a real local group available everywhere for people when they need it, because “groups have the power to improve lives and change the world”.

The people who work at Meetup HQ are there primarily for that reason (we know, because we survey ourselves twice a year). The company has a Manifesto, and a culture document (that’s now used as a cultural sieve since Scott had his wallet…and photo…stolen) and expects whoever works there to be a high-functioning member of its own community. That means that there is total buy-in to the Manifesto and values. Here’s an excerpt from the Culture Statement that shows why sneering can’t be tolerated:

‘We love that our members want to have fun…or fundamentally change the world. Or both. We admire these people who tell their stories, expose their vulnerabilities, fear that people think they’re freaks (let’s remember that we’re all freaky one way or another).

We cheer this multitude of ordinary people who are crazy enough to meet complete strangers and fearless enough to start a Meetup Group. Never underestimate or under value what it takes to do what they do. Meetup Culture Statement.

Interestingly, when we wrote this Culture Statement, we also reiterated the importance of self-organization and decentralization…the key principals behind the Meetup’s Ideology and platform: that people should be enabled and inspired to self-organize into communities, groups and networks.

But what dawned on us once we’d written it, was that we weren’t applying that principal to our own internal community. Instead we had decision-making was hierarchical and centralized. We were shocked to see that we had a traditional corporate structure predicated on control. The Culture Statement was a mirror to ourselves, and we weren’t looking as good as we thought we were.

Once we realized this we went through what amounts to a revolution…of not just our working practices, but of those in business generally. I’ll write more about this in later posts because it’s instructive about the power of rigorously applying a community’s ideology to itself. In the meantime, check out the article that Business Week wrote about our adventure.

Some highly qualified job candidates were repelled by the new environment we had created. And we didn’t hire them. And some existing employees self-ejected. This was exactly the outcome we wanted. Good skills weren’t enough. There had to be a cultural fit. And that means total buy-in to the ideology, values and behavioral norms of a community, which in this case was within an Ideologically-driven company.

5.  Like-get-Like

For cult-like groups and societies like the Masons, fraternities, groovy urban clubs and some companies, you can use the ‘like-get-like’ strategy.

Peer recruitment can pre-empt problems by using existing members to target, win and ‘pre-approve’ recruits.

Existing members are the most likely means of identifying others who will align with the values and aims of the community. And of course there’s some accountability involved to make it real…a mistake can create blowback on the referrer.

When I worked at a branding company we produced a card for the first few employees of jetBlue (we were helping launch the airline) to hand out to people whom they thought would meet the tough criteria to be a member of the jetBlue ‘crew’ (all employees are crew members, including the people who clean the planes). JetBlue only hired ‘virgins’, those who hadn’t been soiled by previous experience in the poisonous airline industry. They handed the card to those they thought clearly enjoyed other people and who had strong social skills, whether they were serving behind the Starbucks counter someone they met at a party.

Of course this was well before the multitude of online tools now available to community leaders to inspire existing members to recruit people like themselves. That being said, good old-fashioned real-world like-get-like tools can still work.

Steve Ressler who runs Govloop, a twenty three thousand strong online community for innovators in government, uses a charmingly quaint offline device to recruit the right kind of members. It’s a lanyard: a ribbon from which people can string their government ID cards. They have several slogans printed on them, of which “Bureaucrats need not apply” is typical. These are worn proudly by existing members and often provoke conversations with prime prospects who are curious about the kind of organization that would be populated by such people. Steve has run Google ads and done PR in an attempt to recruit, but instead has found the lanyard and other like-get-like techniques have yielded better quality members.

Next I’ll post the last three tools you can use to gate and cull.

We’ve covered Why and Who you should reject and eject in the previous two posts. Now we’ll talk about the difficult job of how to do it.

In the case of culling, the general rule here is respectfully, kindly and keeping the rest of the community informed about why the person is removed.  In the case of rejecting a potential member, again, respectfully and explaining why.

Those are the general rules. Here are some specific tools you can use to ensure you get and keep the right members, and lose and reject the wrong ones.

1. Use your Mission/Worldview/Creed/Ideology/Purpose/Values
2. Have Rules and use them consistently and fairly
3. Approve Membership
4. Use a ‘Cultural Sieve’
5. Have a Like-get-Like Strategy
6. Accountability. Self-Policing. Transparency
7. Charge a Fee.
8. Have Courage and Be Kind…and don’t let it get you down.

In this post I’ll talk about the first. In the next two posts, I’ll cover the rest.

1.  Use your Mission/Worldview/Creed/Ideology/Purpose…whatever you call your founding idea and values.

During the very early days the founder of Ebay, Pierre Omidyar, wrote over a weekend what amounted to be the community’s ideology. Its origin was frustration. He found himself sucked into refereeing disputes between buyers and sellers that took valuable time away from building the site. He wrote what he believed the ebay community should value, implicitly who belonged and who didn’t, how to behave and what constituted infringement.

‘eBay is a community that encourages open and honest communication among all its members. Our community is guided by five fundamental values:

* We believe people are basically good.

* We believe everyone has something to contribute.

* We believe that an honest, open environment can bring out the best in people.

* We recognize and respect everyone as a unique individual.

* We encourage you to treat others the way you want to be treated.

eBay is firmly committed to these principles. And we believe that community members should also honor them—whether buying, selling, or chatting with eBay friends.’

Note he describes ebay as a community, not a marketplace , and he articulates several of the classic norms of community behavior, including reciprocity.

Ebay’s business model only works if there’s a republic of trust (at least before the advent of PayPal). The buyer has to trust that the seller’s item is as advertised, and that it will be shipped. The seller has to trust that they’ll get payed.

Interestingly, social trust is used by most sociologists as the key measure of social capital in any neighborhood or society (social capital is a concept that is used to measure the number and quality of social connections and interactions within any society or network).

It was therefore critical to elevate trust as the social currency of the community. The truly brilliant innovation (that removed Pierre’s need for direct involvement in disputes) is that he ‘operationalized’ the ideology by creating one of the first and most effective reputation engines. Members could rate each other according to how much they trusted each other after each transaction. You could attract more transactions as you improved your trust-based status.

In effect, he put a value on good citizenship.

Several of the eBay-ers I interviewed even viewed their rating within the eBay community as a badge of rectitude within the larger culture. There’s no reason not to. It mirrors Judeo-Christian doctrine…but with a metric attached!

The purpose of a purpose

One of the benefits of having a coherent vision, values, and code of behavior is that it is a template that allows fast decision making about who to reject and eject (among other things). Do they buy into the goals of the group? Do they share the same values? Did they infringe the contracted standards of behavior?

Not only does it make for faster decision-making, it makes for buy-in by the rest of the community to your decision. You can point to the ideology and say “they weren’t living it”. And you can use it to have a less subjective conversation with the person you’re rejecting or ejecting: “this is the contract we all live by. You broke it here, here and here”.

Using the Purpose as a measure for membership

This is exactly what Cheryl, who runs the Queens County Parents Autism Coalition, Inc. Meetup Group used to cull passengers and flakes from her group.

This, plus a retelling of the moving story of why she started the group became standard against which compliance would be assessed.

For Cheryl, flakes and passengers were a big issue. Passivity wasn’t just an annoyance. It couldn’t be tolerated for the reasons mentioned in an earlier post in this series: it undermined the purpose of the group because value was only generated by the degree to which members shared knowledge and practical help. And in particular, it eroded the morale and energy of those valuable members who did share information and help.

Cheryl sent out an email that essentially blew the whistle:

”Major changes are coming to QCPAC where some members will stay, some will leave, and most will be removed. These changes are necessary in order to align members with the mission of QCPAC. Up until now we have only had a handful of contributors. QCPAC is a community not just a resource. We cannot display “autism awareness and support” proudly if we don’t walk the walk.”

She had two meetings (on a weeknight and weekend to ensure everyone could come) and solicited input to a proposed a ‘terms of use’ for membership. “It’s like a contract a guess. It says what we’re going to do and what we expect them to do in response and they have to sign it. And if they don’t’ we have to remove them.”

Cheryl and her team modified the mission of the group to be more explicit about the fact that it was a community, and that it was dependent on the contributions and passion of its members for it to work: ‘Members of this community are immensely dedicated, passionate, and involved as one community in the vision that their child deserves a place in this world. We welcome new members who will be just as dedicated and involved’

There were three basic expectations or rules. Even the most vociferous objectors in the meetings (who, interestingly, were the ones who contributed the least) had to admit they were fair:

• Attendance. Members had to show up. The basic minimum was six events a year (not unreasonable given that Cheryl organized an average of four per month)

• Participation. Members had to post on the boards at least once a week. The boards were a key source of facts and practical help. If you didn’t share your knowledge and support, then the group couldn’t fulfill its mission.

• Membership Fees. The people who administer the non-profit are volunteers. No-one receives a salary. But basic costs needed to be covered so the group charges an annual fee of $40.

Some said they couldn’t comply and would return when they could. One woman said that she was offended that she was being treated this way, to which Cheryl responded by saying that she was offended at the way she had been treated all these years:

“We’re just like you. If anyone should be offended it should be us. We’re mothers like you, we don’t get paid. We’ve been doing this for 3 years. We want this organization to move forward, and we can’t do that if everybody’s not on the same page.”

Cheryl’s speech with which she kicked of each meeting is worth reading in full. For an amateur organizer, I think she handled the situation in a very professional way. I’ve reprinted it with her permission at the end of this post.

All of this happened a few months ago, so Cheryl is still assessing whether it worked. But so far she is pleased. The membership numbers are more or less the same, but the population of the group is now more engaged.

The restatement of the Vision and values crystallized to members and non-members alike the benefits and costs of membership. It articulated the expectations of behavior and essentially asked you if you were up for them. It was clear about who should belong, and who shouldn’t. It suggested that if you’re not comfortable with the ‘price’ of membership, then start or find a group where you might be.

In the next post we’ll take a look at Rules and Approving Membership.

This is the second post about the controversial subject of gating and culling.

The first post discussed why you should gate and cull. This one covers who you should gate and cull,  and what they do to deserve it.

Here are some of the key characters who can both undermine the community’s core purpose, as well as its operation.

Who should you reject and eject?

I’ve seen five categories:

1. Spammers: abusers of access.
2. Social Toxics (including Trolls): abusers of social norms of behavior.
3. Flakes: abusers of expectation.
4. Non-believers: abusers of purpose and values.
5. Passengers: abusers of mutuality

What do they do that’s so bad?

1. Spammers.

These are the people that abuse access. They pitch to a membership that’s not signed up for being pitched at. Spammers may have joined for that reason. Or they’ve become members with the best of intentions, but can’t resist the juicy ‘captive audience’ they’ve happened upon.

Julia’s tough about these people. She ran two Meetup groups in Southern California: a social group for Fibromyalgia sufferers, and one for Dutch-speakers.

“I’ve four main rules. One of them is that you’re not allowed to sell anything, period. Some of the girls started selling stuff since they joined. They go “Oh how wonderful, I have this whole potential client base here for my magic juice that’s going to cure everybody.” And I’ve had to kick them out of the group because they’ve refused to stop selling to members.”

Intrusive behavior that’s inconsistent with the purpose or norms of the community constitutes abuse. If the group is about selling and buying magic juice, then fine. If not, stop, or find a group where that is the purpose.

For Andy The Chicken Whisperer the individual he was forced to deal with was not selling stuff, he was selling ideas.

Andy was dubbed the Chicken Whisperer after he launched a network of Backyard Poultry Meetup Groups. He now has two books, a radio show and 38 Meetup Groups internationally that cater to people who want to learn how to raise poultry in the suburbs.

Andy delegates, which allows him to adopt the role of ‘guru’ and guiding light of the mini-movement. But every now and then he has to step in for some hands-on management.

The person that demanded his involvement was quite senior: an ‘Assistant Organizer’ of a Meetup Group.

“And I always have to keep an eye on him, or assign one or two people if I can’t always have an eye on him. I have to remind him to stay on topic. If we’re talking about vaccines for chickens, he’ll turn it into the corrupt CDC giving vaccines to 11 year olds to prevent cervical cancer that they would’nt have got if they weren’t sluts to begin with.

He’ll turn it into a conspiracy theory, anti-government rant, and he’ll really go over the top and make people uncomfortable. And I have to go over to him and say, this is a chicken meeting and I appreciate your views, but we want to keep the subject related to chickens. He doesn’t really have social skills. I don’t’ have to ban him, I just have to keep him on a short leash.

2. Social Toxics (including trolls).

Social toxics are the people like the obnoxious guy in Caterina Fake’s book group. They have poor to zero social skills. They’ve not necessarily joined with the intention to disrupt (unlike Trolls). Sometimes these people can’t help themselves…it’s just the way they’re made. In any event, they have to be managed, neutralized or removed for the sake of the group’s survival.

Trolls are a different matter. Where social toxics may or may not be deliberate about destruction, Trolls are. They tend to derive malign pleasure from upsetting the fragile ecosystem of the group.  They seek to provoke anger and dissent in online by inflaming noxious debate and encouraging personal (online) assaults.

Social toxics and trolls don’t tend to constitute a large population within a community. But their influence is disproportionate to their numbers. Almost every organizer has told me in a voice loaded with bitter experience that when encountered, they have had to deal with them with speed and resolution.

3. Flakes.

Flakes take a while to emerge. They’re the ones that promise to host an event, or do a leaflet campaign, or sign a speaker, or post on a blog, or even just show up…but don’t.

Flakes are not just annoying. They can become a major drag on the community because:

a) Stuff doesn’t’ get done. Not following through obviously handicaps the community in reaching its goals.

b) It erodes the morale of the group

The latter is a more significant that you might imagine. They create a disappointment that’s deflating and a sense of injustice that can undermine the high-functioning members of the group. There’s a ‘fair trade’ dynamic that operates in most groups. People will play their part  (taking on roles and responsibilities) because they feel others will play theirs. Mutualism is the signature of strong communities. And collectively, progress is made.

c) They’re a time-suck.

They take time to chase. If you find that you’re on the phone, emailing or showing up at the person’s house to check on whether they’ve done something, it’s not worth it. Demote them, because they’re taking too much of your energy and distract from you concentrating on those who can make a real difference in the network.

For groups that meet face-to-face, the no-show-flakes can be a big issue. You might have booked a venue for a hundred, paid a deposit, but only forty show up. A Meetup organizer in Northern California told me he would book limos or buses for wine-tasting tours to the Sonoma and Napa valleys based on the number of Yes RSVP’s only to see that half would show up. This made the cost for all the others higher, aggravating the active members.

4. Non-believers.

The cult-like organizations I examined…which included religious cults, companies, sororities, fan-clubs, religious groups, the Marines and hundreds more…had cultures that were palpably strong. Those cultures were informed by coherent beliefs, big visions of how the world should be and lines drawn in the sand about what was important and what wasn’t: values.

These were universally known and bought-into by all. And, critically, lived by all. The leadership of these organizations credited the clarity of the worldview and the homogeneity of its believing membership as key instruments of their organizations’ success.

Collins and Porras wrote one of the most influential and best selling business books of all time: Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies. They examined the core reasons behind the long-term success of (the few that qualified) American Corporations. Visionary was their term for those organizations that succeeded due largely  to their commitment to big goals and differentiating values that seldom, if ever, changed. In their chapter on cult-like cultures (a key ingredient) they write:

“Visionary does not mean soft and undisciplined. Quite the contrary. Because visionary companies have such clarity about who they are, what they’re about and what they’re trying to achieve, they tend to not have much room for people unwilling or unsuited to their demanding standards.”

For visionary companies read any organization, community, group or network that has a differentiating ideology at their core.

I found that without exception, communities that generated commitment had a clear Purpose and Values and a membership that was totally bought into them. Those that didn’t buy-in, and didn’t live the creed, were politely asked to leave and find organizations that were more aligned with their values. More often, these people would self-eject, because they didn’t feel ‘at home’. They didn’t belong in the most fundamental way: on the basis of values. They weren’t amongst ‘like-others.’

Porras and Collins quote one of their researchers who had been examining the likes of Walmart, Procter and Gamble, Johnson and Johnson and HP:

“Joining these companies reminds me of joining an extremely tight-knit group or society. And if you don’t fit, you’d better not join. If you’re willing to really buy in and dedicate yourself to what the company stands for, then you’ll be very satisfied and productive-probably couldn’t be happier. If not, however, you’ll probably flounder, feel miserable and out-of-place, and eventually leave-ejected like a virus. It’s binary: You’re either in or out, and there seems to be no middle ground. It’s almost cult-like”.

When I was a partner in a marketing agency that helped launch jetBlue, a senior exectutive told me a story to illustrate their commitment to the company values and how that commitment was manifested by the values’ rigorous application to who they hire and fire, and now they train.

A highly promising flight attendant trainee was a high-performer in every respect. However, when he muffed a procedure during a mid-course test he asked a more senior employee to cover for him. The individual was fired not because of the mistake (that could be trained) but because the company values of transparency and trust had been abused. They said goodbye to a promising employee because that individual compromised the organization’s creed.

So why is this important?

It goes to the core of a successful community. Having a ‘believing’ membership:

a)    Predisposes the organization to reach its goals because its members are not just aligned with them, but motivated by them to do more.

b)   Avoids stalling debates about “why are we here, what are we about”. These tedious debates interrupt progress.

c)    Potential recruits will see a coherent community and make a more accurate decision whether it is for them or not.

d)   Members will have a clearer picture of whom they should recruit (are they one of us?) thus minimizing future difficulties for both the leader and member if it’s not working out.

And most importantly, there will be all the key characteristics of the most sticky communities:

• There will be solidarity and fluid action around shared values and aims.

• There will be bonding founded on identification with both the organization and fellow members at the most profoundly important level of worldview and values.

• There will be a sense of safety (see glue ingredient # 4) that enables self-actualization, a critical ‘gift’ of successful groups.

In other words, there will be a sense of belonging and meaning that the most successful communities are able to generate.

The clarity of creed and homogeneity of a believing membership is arguably more important for some communities than others. For vision and values-driven communities (like visionary companies, some military organizations, non-profits, Unions, political parties, movements, cult brands like Harley and of course religious organizations) it is critical. For others, such as social groups, perhaps less so. But these tend to be in the minority. Every organization should be conscious of why they exist and the values they live by, and ensure its membership aligns with them.

5. Passengers

These people are not active detractors, they’re just not active.

Why should this be a problem?

For many communities it isn’t.

Beyond you having an inflated sense of your real community’s size, members who contribute little or not at all aren’t necessarily detrimental to the experience of the rest. Perhaps some of those members have joined, stuff has happened in their lives that prevents them from fully participating, but they expect to in the future. Or they’re getting value from the community by reading posts and downloading information and newsletters. Whilst a fully active membership is likely to increase the value to all, a partially inactive one does not necessarily undermine the experience for everyone.

Except where the community is predicated on mutuality.

In these cases the community only really functions optimally when all are playing an equally active role. This can be especially true of support, networking and social groups where the experience of all is dependant on the participation of all.

Cheryl has had to confront this issue. She’s an ‘accidental leader’. But one that has learnt quickly to take some of the tough decisions that more experienced organizers would find intimidating. She never intended to start and lead a Meetup Group of parents of autistic children, but when other sources of support failed her (online resources and government agencies) she decided that the only real source of help was going to come from parents in her situation. Peer support was likely to yield not only the most relevant sources of information, but also the emotional reinforcement that would get her through the week.

This a support group in the true sense of the word. Without each member contributing advice based on their experience, and without them sharing medical and practical help they’ve uncovered, the group’s purpose is compromised.

“We’re all families dealing with a tragedy. I started the group so that we could all come together as a community and learn from each other about how to adapt to this new life. People have learned that the best help they can get is from other parents.”

The trouble was, many people were joining, not contributing, and just taking. There was little sense of mutualism. Critically, beyond starving the collective knowledge of the group and limiting the resources for support and care, it demoralized the ones who were doing all the work. This was an especially dangerous problem. There were five key people who organized events, raised money, and communicated with the group.

Because of exhaustion and a growing sense of injustice, these ‘gems’ were feeling like they should scale back their own valuable contributions.

“We started feeling some kind of resentment. All these people claimed they’re going to do this and do that, and that they needed this kind of help, but when it comes time to ask them to put in what we give, basically an equal amount of participation, we give you so you give back, they don’t do it. We’ve experienced that people come on board, they get all the resources and then they leave….they take advantage. That’s not how it’s supposed to work.”

The group played an incredibly important role in her and other key members’ families’ survival. She would not jeopardize it for the sake of members who weren’t prepared to share.

Despite being an ‘accidental leader’ with no experience of leadership prior to founding the group, what she did next struck me as a very wise and fair in the face of a difficult and potentially inflammatory issue (as we’ll see in the ‘how’ section below.) In short, she redefined the terms of membership to require basic minimums of participation. If existing members could not commit to these basic minimums, they had to leave (but would always be welcomed back when they could commit).

Julia, who had had a lot of experience running groups professionally, is quite clear how much she hates passive members, even in a social group:

“We have a lot of joiners in society today. I think it’s important for a community builder to realize that getting people to commit to participating is important. With the Fibro group I’m actually quite hard-assed about it. If you don’t participate, I will actually throw you out of the group. Our group is about getting together and participating and if you don’t want to do that this isn’t the group for you. By me pushing them they’ve pushed themselves.”

In the next post we’ll look at how you gate and cull these kinds of members.

Should all Communities be Gated?

Should some members be Culled?

This is the first of three posts that covers a controversial, but I believe absolutely necessary responsibility of any community leader: be clear about why and who you should accept-reject-eject. And act on it with resolution.

The last thing you think about when you start an online or offline community is turning people away and throwing people out. You’re in an expansive mode. You want to recruit, recruit, recruit! Everyone’s welcome. Please join…and stay!

But within a few months almost every organizer realizes that gating and culling is a necessary, albeit unpleasant part of the job.

It’s one of the first things that Caterina Fake (co-founder of Flickr and Hunch-see previous interviews on this blog) mentioned when I asked her what characterized high-functioning communities. They need rules of behavior, and they need oversight:

“They [a socially toxic member] can actually destroy a community. For example, I belonged to a flourishing book club, and everybody was very engaged and enjoyed the group.  It was a great book group.

And at one point, somebody had invited a friend of theirs to join, and this person became this sort of obnoxious know-it-all. He started jumping in when other people were talking and correcting them and basically just being very offensive.

And within two meetings, the book club, which had flourished for two years previously, within two meetings of the introduction of this guy, who nobody stepped forward to get rid of – completely disbanded.

It was tragic because nobody had the cojones to say, “Thank you.  Please don’t come again.”

You need to be the watchdog, the guardian, the den mother. For the sake of the rest of the community, you have to be cruel to be kind (actually, you don’t have to be cruel, but we’ll cover that later.)

So, should every community demand a sort of ‘contract’ for entry: ‘you can join if you commit to our purpose, our values and you promise to contribute’?
Should every community have an ‘airlock’, where new members have to prove their value? Sort of a probation period during which new recruits prove that they’re not disruptive?

I’ve found that this is (not surprisingly) a contentious subject. But it’s one that has inevitably arisen in my conversations with community organizers:

“And it’s difficult, but that’s the reality of being a community leader.  It’s not just the fun of bringing people together. You have to be the HR manager and be prepared to correct, scold or fire people.” Julia: Meetup Organizer.

So,

Why should you do this?

Who should you reject and eject?

What specific behavior demands correction?

How do you do it?

Why should you do this?

Because it goes to the very heart of what a community is and how it functions.

Beyond a collection of people who hold things in common (the Oxford English Dictionary definition of ‘community’), people join communities to share beliefs, to further a cause, or to fight for rights. They join because they need support to face a crisis. Or to learn how to become an entrepreneur. They join to pursue a hobby, find a passion or find more friends. They join to belong and believe and find meaning.

All of this demands fellow members that have the same needs, the same hopes, passions, beliefs and interests and values. Members of strong communities share an identity. Without alignment with each other on these such of basic criteria, the community will lack integrity.

People won’t join and they won’t stay if its purpose and values are not clearly defined, and if its membership doesn’t live them. If a diffuse membership compromises the goals or values of the group, then why join or stay?

Community Boundaries

In other words, boundaries need to be drawn. Who belongs and who doesn’t’ needs to be clear. Behavior that is consistent with achieving the goals of the group needs to be declared and rewarded, as should behavior that’s contrary be outlawed.

The second key reason why there should be discrimination about membership and its behavior is that the wrong kind of member and the wrong kind of behavior can badly affect the day to day functioning of the community. They can suck time, upset people, betray trust and generally be a drag on the community’s progress.

At the end of the day there are right members and wrong members. These posts will focus on identifying the latter and proposes ideas about how to deal with them. I’d love to hear yours.

In the next two posts on this subjects we’ll cover:

Who should you reject and eject?

What do they do that’s so bad?

How do you do it?