I’ve been part of several online communities for some years now, and one just blew up. From the reasons why, I think that there are lessons to be had that go beyond personal to implications for L&D.
The thing that was critical to the success of the group was trust; you could trust it was safe to share opinions, seek out others’ help, etc. People ‘let it all hang out’, and that was a good thing. While it was risky, it worked because everyone was open and honest. Or so we thought.
Then something happened that broke the trust. What had been safe no longer was. And that undermined the very basis upon which the group had been valuable. If what was said wasn’t safe, the group couldn’t be used to share and learn from.
The bigger implication, of course, is that trust is a critical part of a learning culture, one where the best outcomes come from. And trust is a fragile thing. It only takes one violation to make it hard to rebuild. And if you can’t share, you can’t benefit from working out loud, showing your work, and more. It’s back to the Miranda organization, where anything you say can and will be held against you.
The take-home here is that it’s hard to build a learning culture, and easy to undermine. It takes committed leadership. The upside is of considerable value, but you have to get buy-in, and walk the walk. It’s doable, and even recoverable in many instances, but it won’t happen without work. I’ll suggest that it’s worth it; what say you?
There are many levels to this. 1) group dynamics and implicit/explicit rules of behavior which create/destroy a group 2) having a safe environment to learn which includes failure, interaction with ideas, privacy/confidentiality, and trust 3) online vs. face to face collaboration ( e.g. Is it easier to “break the group rules” or ruin someone’s reputation using technology rather than doing it face to face where you might have to deal with emotions and repercussions personally).
It is hard to bounce back when there is a loss of trust.
I just experienced this phenomenon in a secret facebook group. Part of me was simply fascinated by the dynamics and entire process. The other part of me was just sad.
What I took away was the the importance of trust. I would argue that trusting our community is as fundamental human need as shelter, sustenance, and love.
Clark – this is an important topic. First, I’m sorry that your group has fallen on it’s own sword. It’s hard to see it happening in front of you and know you cannot redirect the flow. Secondly, thank you for sharing your experience. This is definitely a “learning moment” for all of us. In particular, it’s a moment for all to conduct some introspection. How are we positively influencing the communities we are in? Are we in this community for the win-win as opposed to the win-lose (when ego gets the better of us). Perhaps it’s time to look back and understand what drives certain behaviors and adjust. I hope your group can adjust, creating a safe environment is critical for the life a healthy group. Let’s hope it does not turn to finger pointing, or worse fall into the justification trap – “This is our groups personality…everyone should know and accept the behaviors.” or still worse – do/acknowledge nothing. Thank you again for sharing your experience.
On a practical note. A clear framework that allows trust and openness to reign is the Chatham House Rule from the Royal Institute of International Affairs.
It’s a good start as a guiding principle for communities and groups. It’s tried and tested, clear, simple, and used from trans-governmental level down across the world.
http://www.chathamhouse.org/about/chatham-house-rule
I’ve found that if all participants agree to Chatham House Rule guidelines when they join a community/group it gives clarity as to what’s acceptable and what’s not, whether it’s used for a f2f collaboration or for virtual communities.