Control, Responsibility, and the Evolving Role of Community Management

By Dennis D. McDonald

Questions of control and responsibility often arise when strategizing about the role of social media and social networking in the enterprise.

Questions of control may arise due to management’s concern that adoption of social media and social networking technologies will reduce the control the organization has — or thinks it has — over certain transactions and communications. If  “control” becomes more diffuse and decentralized following introduction of social technologies, the placement of responsibility and ownership for certain decisions and outcomes becomes more complex. 

The existence of such questions is one reason to track ongoing discussions about the emerging role of the “community manager” (e.g., see the Community Managers wiki). In a situation where control and responsibility are evolving, how should you define the role and responsibility of the community manager? (And, given that such roles are evolving, is it perhaps too early to be speaking of “best practices”?)

Perhaps a good place to start is to discuss the kinds of decisions you expect people to make and what ownership and responsibility you want them to accept for those decisions. 

What if your idea of “crowdsourcing” is to use social technologies to gather new ideas about products and services from members or customers. You as the “community manager” then pass these ideas on to the formal departments in your organization that develop those ideas further using processes that don’t involve the original idea sources. Will that be viewed by the original idea sources as a lack of sincerity — or just “business as usual”?

On the other hand, what if your organization establishes social-media-enabled relationships with members, customers, or staff, and these relationships involve group members in an ongoing process where ownership and reponsibility for certain decisions are acknowledged and shared. Will your organization then be able to sustain the level of effort (read: time and money) necessary to encourage and occasionally manage the involvement of the group?

Answers to these questions depend at least partly on management’s current philosophy and the nature of the business, irrespective of the specific social technology. In some cases, (1) the community manager will act as a sensory organ for the organization, listening and interpreting. In other cases, (2) the community manager will actively participate in the transactions and communications that are enabled by the social technologies. In still others, (3) the community manager may take a leadership role and steer or guide the communications that occur, taking into account company policy.

As you move from level 1 to level 2 to level 3, doesn’t it makes sense to give the community manager more authority and responsibility in the organization’s management hierarchy?

Question: as the role of community manager continues to evolve, what factors influence whether the community manager operates at level 1, level 2, or level 3?

Copyright (c) 2008 by Dennis D. McDonald

 

Comments

[Jeff Kitchen]

Great post Dennis. I think that as the control and responsibility evolve so too will the role of the community manager within an organization. To me it seems that the community manager (CM) should be involved in all 3 steps. They should be actively listening, participating where needed by the community and leading discussion as needed by the company. I think you need to act as a filter for both the company to the community and vice-versa.

I do think the nature of the business and managements philosophy have a large impact on the role of the CM. Another factor is the technology being used - the level of engagement may vary depending on whether you are using twitter, have your own community, have a facebook group, etc ... As the number of technologies the CM works with increase so should the sphere of influence within the company. The position of CM I think will evolve to Director of Community, then even perhaps VP of Community - this is where the real level of authority and responsibility come into play.

[Dennis D. McDonald]

Jeff, I think your comment about technology is one that needs to be looked at more, especially as it relates to the level of engagement they make possible.

The more "engagement" there is with the community of interest to the company, the more staff hours will be required to manage that engagement, and thus more expense. In the world of corporate call centers, for example, there is a constant back and forth between the desire to automate transaction handling and the desire to provide more personalized service. Personalized service, obviously, costs more.

What some companies do to get around this when they establish "communities" is to enable customers to help each other which, in theory, reduces demand on staff time.

[Rich Reader]

Level 3 is a luxury for corporate CMs who answer to a huge ownership totem pole that has at least a couple of stakeholders above them. Unless the memberships can influence the direction that the community can take (more often in non-corporate communities), the CMs have only the first two levels. For the CM to inspire the membership, she/he needs to:

* mine the profiles, interests, actions, and activities of the membership to find the target areas of concentration which are most likely to light a fire under the membership

* extract business intelligence for actionable changes that will promote/enable improvements that the community needs most and will support through their actions.

When a corporate CM builds a membership commitment for action, she/he can effectively exert convincing influence up the totem pole.

http://richreader.blogspot.com/