i don’t have access to this article but sounds great.

ref:
A Sounding Board for the Self: Virtual Community as Ideology, by Matei, Sorin Adam, Journal of Technical Writing & Communication; 2005, Vol. 35 Issue 4, p345-365, 21p

abstract:
Claims about the emergence of a new type of social aggregation–”virtual community”–cover a type of ideological discourse about social interactions. The main cultural resource fueling this ideology is the counterculture and its social project. Virtual community, both as a discursive and as a social practice, is a culmination rather than a resolution of the modern conflict between community and individuality. Presenting virtual community as a panacea for modern social tensions, especially that between individualistic and communitarian ideals, hides from sight not only some of the negative aspects of on-line social life (cliquish behavior and incivility) but also the role played by communication technology in fragmenting modern society.

i think communities can be used very effectively to promote a product – IF you do it correctly. here’s an article concerning how NOT to do it.

did nvidia hire actors to promote their products?

Nielsen study highlights growing power of online communities

Nielsen//NetRatings has reported that almost 1.8bn web pages are viewed each month in member community sites (that’s 57m pages every day). It sounds like the study was UK specific. PDF press release of the research here

WOW. that’s a pretty amazing number.

i’ve read 2 flow books now, first the good business one, then finding flow: the psychology of engagement with everyday life which is the reverse to the published timeline (2003 and 1997).

flow is the concept of enjoying what you do and thus getting lost in it. that sense or feeling that everything is right in the world and you can experience flow in any aspect of your life.

IMO, finding flow wasn’t as interesting or detailed as good business. it’s a smaller book and hence a quicker read but if you want a better understanding of flow, read good business. it concentrates more on the idea of ‘happiness’ and ways you can create flow for your product, business, employees and self.

there was one bit of research mentioned in the finding flow book which drew my attention. a 1984 study by csikszentmihalyi and larson showed friendships ‘offer both the most emotionally rewarding contexts in the immediate present, and the greatest opportunities for developing one’s potential in the long run’. the authors then say ‘contemporary life, however, is not very suitable for sustaining friendships’ because of americans ‘geographical and social mobility’ and how we ‘reshuffle’ friendships based on our situation. for example, as we move from job to job or city to city or university to university, we change our friends. they state ‘lack of true friends is often the main complaint of people confronting an emotional crisis in the second half of life’.

i’m definitely a ‘shuffler’ in this is sense. i switch jobs, i have multiple degrees, i’ve moved cities and countries, meet people while traveling and develop friendships online. i have never thought of this as a problem (except i would love some better friend management technologies) and in fact, think this has greatly enriched my life.

this contrasts to what i have experienced in australia. here people have a circle of friends who have they made when they were quite young (elementary/jr high level) and they continue that friendship forever (ok, maybe not forever but you get the idea). australians travel a lot but they don’t seem to be as mobile in other ways. my impression is people stay in the same job longer. they don’t go away to university but attend uni in the same place (or nearby) to where they grew up. quite often they will go overseas for their working holiday but afterwards they come back to the same circle of friends and live in the same area.

it would be very interesting to see some research comparing flow or at least satisfaction of friendship/life using these differences in american/australian culture.

also, there was one bit in good business that i take exception to.

‘In a large organisation it is frequently difficult for a leader to have an accurate sense of the company’s affairs because reports are often afraid to be candid about problems. The head of a large multinational corporation employs the following strategy to keep the lines of communication and feedback open:’

i agree with this statement but i had to read the following quote a couple times to make sure i was really reading this correctly. remember, this is a quote to illustrate how to keep feedback and communication open in a large organisation.

Two weeks ago, I spent one entire week – five days – travelling to seven different cities and having meetings with employees. I talked to two to three hundred employees twice a day – different employees – for maybe an hour, giving them my views and then leaving an hour and half for them to ask me any questions they had. That’s how you keep your finger on the pulse.
… I’ve got to get out there and be with customers and be with employees and be in the field and watch what goes on and provide motivation. Last week I was in asia all week. The same thing. I was visiting our staff, visiting out plants, showing an interest in what they’re doing. That’s how you do it. You don’t do it sitting here.

i think, perhaps, this person has their heart in the right place. you do need to talk to your staff and show an interest in what they’re doing. what struck me as odd was the way this person went about doing it.

now math has never been my strong suit but if you spend 5 days in 7 cities, that’s less than a day per city. if you are talking to 200-300 employees twice a day (so 400-600 a day), that would equate to a minute per employee (10 hour day, 60 minutes per hour is 600 minutes). obviously this isn’t what was happening … they were in a group setting… but it’s interesting to look at the numbers this way. the person says they left 90 minutes per group to let the group ask questions of (after an hour of their presentation). again, obviously not what was happening but interesting to look at the numbers … 90 minutes divided by 200 people leaves everyone 45 seconds. 300 people get 30 seconds each – not including the leader’s reply.

while the leader in this quote was hoping for feedback and open communication, i doubt they were receiving much of it. IMO there needs to be more personalised communication to encourage the honest, open communication leaders would hope to have with employees. somehow i doubt these 200-300 person forums brought out in the open any issues and created the message that the company/leader was really concerned with problems/issues.

and that (to use an aussie phrase) gives me the shits.

new research is out showing brainstorming in groups just doesn’t work. we’re more creative when we’re alone because we individually feel we are failing when we don’t produce ideas. when we are in a group we can still feel productive (collectively) when the individual isn’t making any contributions at all. the research also suggests people think they work better in groups because of ‘memory confusion’ (taking ownership of other group member’s ideas as your own) and ‘social comparison’ (we see others in the group struggling to create ideas).

brainstorming in virtual teams is a bit different than f2f. you can’t pull everyone into a room, give them donuts and soda and expect to walk out of the room with a list of (good & bad) ideas. you can try it… group whiteboards, conference calls, group IM (all synchronous) but i’ve found it drags and doesn’t have the same excitement and ability to feed off of each other you find in f2f teams.

so this research is very interesting for virtual teams where you spend lots of time away from your team mates and (hopefully) have time for idea generation. using asynchronous technologies to brainstorm, i think you feel that pressure to contribute more than when you’re f2f and still collectively feel productive.

as there’s a record of idea generation, memory confusion levels are probably a little bit lower but i don’t think they disappear. after all, this type of memory confusion is what helps to raise our team identity (we created this cool idea) if it’s not used in a me,me,me way.

i’d love to see how the social comparison idea works in virtual team brainstorming since you’re not going to see the struggle to create. After all, your team members could be on the phone or replying to emails or whatever… they might not be struggling at all, even with a synchronous technology.

research details:
Nijstad, B.A., Stroebe, W. & Lodewijkx, H.F.M. (2006). The illusion of group productivity: A reduction of failures explanation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 31-48.