On Potential Situations and Possible Temptations
Strategy as Community Thinking
The original blogpost can be found in German here & is translated thanks to the support of Jessica Hodgkiss.
In his award speech at this year’s Golden Blogger Award, Sascha Lobo stressed the power of feedback channels and noted the value of interacting with his community. Therefore, platforms — one of the most successful business models of digital space — can be likened to digital DNA.
Today, I’d like to challenge your perception. I want to invite you, dear reader to consider a new way of understanding and applying strategy, even in times of crises, by considering it a chance for bold experimentation. I myself have conducted extensive research on this topic over the last six months and now invite you to join me on this venture. The following is an excerpt from my paper written for the course “What is Strategy Today — and Tomorrow?” at the Berlin University of the Arts’ Communication in Social and Economic Contexts Programme.
I wish you a joyful reading experience and look forward to your feedback — any thoughts, suggestions or questions you may have! Please comment below, tweet @diewahremona or select your favorite communication channel on www.simoneorgel.com
tl;dr
According to François Jullien, strategy can be defined as identifying situations and the potential they offer. Digitalisation may constitute a potential situation. It’s not enough to simply understand digitalisation as purely technical. Economic activities are always embedded in social context (Cova, 1997). The potential that digitalisation offers in the current Corona crises is evident. We need digital substitutes. Not measurable at the present point in time, we can assume that the long-term effects caused by the Corona pandemic will be far-reaching.
For us to understand and harness digitalisation’s full potential we must consider various factors, among them society’s desire for community — a place of social orientation and a feeling of belonging. As an indispensable medium, the Internet can be viewed as society’s communicative backbone, enabling everyday life to continue as usual, leading to the conclusion that mutualisation today is increasingly web-based (Deterding 2008, p. 115).
Communication experts are above all community managers, usually and often exclusively based in marketing. With their expertise we can develop organisational strategy with intriguing results. In my paper I attempt to do just that by answering the question: how can we understand and apply strategy in communities by combining organisational strategies with experience from the field of community building?
The Long Read: Strategy Today and Tomorrow
No Purpose. No Coincidence. No Wonder.
Let’s forget for one moment what we know of targets or models and instead consider what the French philosopher and sinologist François Jullien’s says. His work “Treatise on effectivenes” [“Über die Wirksamkeit”], published in 1999, marks the beginning of the Western world’s critical examination of strategic concepts. Jullien states that China’s understanding of strategy allows individuals to recognize their own blind spots: our own thinking is so familiar that we no longer perceive it — we no longer see ourselves (Jullien 1999, p.13).
Our European understanding of strategy goes back to ancient Greek philosophy within which “strategy” emerged from the Greek “stratos” (army) and “agein” (to lead) (Welge / Al-Laham, 2001). This school of thought inspired the leading military theorist of his time, Carl von Clausewitz (1780–1831) whose work is still highly influential today, e.g. reflected in a Brand Eins edition. Strategy searches for an ideal (eidos) goal (telos) that must be reached by implementing the most effective measures. As a rule: the better the measures, the higher the chance of success. Using a model and a plan, players should then be able to achieve an ideal that may or may not differ from reality. It is precisely this approach that Jullien questions. While society has indeed achieved technical success, subjecting nature to its will, Jullien asks if human situations and relationships can be managed by means of this approach. Can this model’s effectiveness that we observe at the production level (poiesis) also succeed in practice (1999, p. 16).
In his analysis, Jullien highlights the importance of human relationship management as an obvious element of strategy by placing it at the forefront. I ask you, dear reader to change your perspective by following suit and focusing on this point of reference and its implications for understanding strategy. But first, let’s take a closer look at what alternatives Jullien proposes when human relationships can’t be managed according to an ideal, which seems to be the case in our complex world today.
Process, Maturity, Smartness: Supporting Factors and Potential Situations
„[…]ich beginne den Kampf erst dann, wenn er bereits geschlagen ist; wenn ich also bereits gesiegt habe. Das ist die Hauptregel der chinesischen Strategie. Wenn die Frucht noch nicht reif ist, begünstige ich die Reifung und erzwinge nichts; aber wenn sie reif ist, wenn sie bereit ist, zu fallen, brauche ich sie nur noch zu pflücken“ (Jullien, 2006, S.44)
China’s strategic thinking replaces the concept of a model by the concept of “maturity”, and in turn ideal and model with “situation” and “potential” (Jullien, 2012). When we regard strategic thinking as process, we can detect Confucius’s spirit at work: the journey (tao) is the reward. However, neither plan nor model and certainly no target are of any help here. In this case, strategic action refers rather to the ability of effectively analysing and recognising the impact of a situation by being vigilant and acting on smartness (metis), using the “situation potential” to one’s own advantage. Smartness implies finding “supporting” factors in a given situation in order for them to carry (porter) you through (Jullien, 2006, p. 21).
Taking into consideration Jullien’s ideas so far, let’s take a look at the issue of what strategy means for tomorrow by examining the potential of the present situation, thus identifying its inherent determinants.
Key Factors: Communities
Communities are one of the three main features of the digital world (I have elaborated on this topic here). Dennis Eick (2004, p. 29) also highlights the importance of communities in the digital age. Humans are social beings; internet technology along with social network technology are based on connections between virtual identities, thus extending our social structures to the net.
For everything that takes place on the internet there is a culture that shapes the respective community. Both Deterding (2008) and Harrari (2019) illustrate the fact that a separation of online and offline in technically highly advanced societies no longer seems appropriate. It might well be that we will no longer distinguish between virtual and face-to-face meetings in the foreseeable future. In fact, for some net-savvy groups this is already the case today. For our daily lives this would mean interacting at the threshold; communities would no longer be referred to as either real-time or virtual, but simply as communities (Deterding 2008, p. 30).
In the digital age, communities serve as key factors in potential situations — digitally or analogue. However, not every interaction between individuals will result in a community, let alone provide strategic benefits. Groups are not automatically communities, nor do individuals necessarily form a group. Rather, we’re looking at something in between. As Abels describes, groups surface in public consciousness when society seems too large, too remote or too anonymous for the individual to comprehend. Groups may also appear where individuals feel overwhelmed (2009, p. 243).
There are various types of groups that differ in their respective composition, relationship or function. The following serve as examples:
nities which may benefit from strategic thinking (p. 16 f.):
- Primary groups (intimate connections between members as found in families, for instance) or secondary groups (concerning voluntary memberships);
- A formal or informal group;
- Feature groups as constructed by statistics also count as groups.
In sociology, the term “community” describes a social group. To be considered a group — no matter what kind — Hitzler et al (2008, p. 10) propose five criteria:
(1) Differentiation from others, or rather “othering”;
(2) A sense of belonging (togetherness) resulting from any circumstances;
(3) A common interest in or concern of any kind shared by community members;
(4) A value of any kind recognised by community members;
(5) Any kind of interaction (time) accessible to community members.
According to Deterding (2008), virtual communities differ in only one area: While Hitzler et al consider “othering” a factor, Deterding (2008, p. 118 f.) refers to individuals interacting via one or more media hubs online.
Time for Temptation
How we connect as a community has changed throughout the course of history. In many parts of the world, an individual’s decision to leave a community no longer leads to death. No stakes will burn when a person leaves a religious community; no life support ends when a woman terminates a marriage. While traditional communities generally display a wide range of sanctions and structures that aim to establish and maintain transparent orderly internal-external relationships, the same principle doesn’t seem to apply (or at least much less so) to post-traditional communities (Hitzler 2008, p.17).
Even if affiliation has become somewhat more volatile, humans are zoon politika, “social, political beings”, meaning a strong desire for community remains, which Hitzler (2008, p.18) interprets as a “response” to general social insecurity.
With commitment no longer a prerequisite to form communities, the nature of affiliation changes: Communities can no longer require individuals to become affiliated. They may, however, tempt the individual into affiliation (Hitzler 1999). Temptation primarily occurs when the individuals addressed consider the social events on offer as “worth experiencing” (Hitzler 1999, p.17 f.).
Community in the Context of Organisations
According to Mitroff (1983, after Liebl 2000), relationships with various stakeholders form an organisation. Stakeholders are all those who consider themselves to be stakeholders, internal as well as external. But even if stakeholders and communities share a common interest, this doesn’t mean that an organisation’s stakeholders constitute a community. The difference here lies in the relationship quality or, according to Cova (1997) in the link quality which may be of a different nature entirely. However, the elements that constitute a community would be a single quality. Purely monetary values are another quality entirely.
Why to Invest in Temptation
Bringing communities to life has many benefits: Communities can serve as benchmarks to organisations, as early warning systems for strategic decisions. A sense of belonging to an organisation could mean a clear competitive advantage. Furthermore, decisions based on user demands can extend freedom and enable bold moves. Wir vs. Virus Hackathon demonstrate that opportunities such as open innovation or open strategy processes, iteration loops or knowledge transfer are only possible when based on communities. Reillier et al (2017, p. 46) state that by providing optimal interaction spaces, communities become prerequisites for platforms which in turn can be considered the most prominent manifestations of digital business models.
Whether a community is successful depends entirely on how community members who initiate, manage and participate in group activities define the term success, says Kim (2001, p.21). Kim also clarifies that members as well as founders or initiators of a community must be able to identify a return on investment.
Even though success depends on the initiators’ interpretation, as described above, Kim identifies a basic “social framework” that promotes the creation of lasting communities which may benefit from strategic thinking (p. 16 f.):
- Objectives (why and to whom is the community available?)
- Flexible, expandable meeting places (assembly point for the purpose of community)
- Member profiles (building trust, relationships)
- Different member roles
- Powerful leadership programme (community management)
- Appropriate etiquette (community values)
- Regular events (for the purpose of strengthening relationships)
- Integration of rituals (see point 7)
- Facilitating exchange between members (sub groups)
Kim emphasises different member types (see Fig. 1), distinguishing between visitors, newcomers, members, leaders and seniors and assigning important roles to each when building and maintaining community. As visitors aren’t part of the community at this stage, they must first undergo a membership ritual. Kim differentiates between two types of community members: those with leadership responsibilities (leaders and seniors) and those without (newcomers and members).
When applying Kim’s ideas to an organisation, we can liken stakeholders to visitors. Therefore, all tempting opportunities would focus on becoming a newcomer, which includes an associated membership ritual. The question arises as to why a consideration of stakeholders as visitors is more productive than the stakeholder concept itself — a concept widely criticised for its vagueness and applicability (see Liebl, 2000).
Applying Kim’s logic, the organisation wouldn’t select its visitors but would rather provide and maintain the best possible feedback channels in order to tempt visitors into participating and becoming members. Maintaining feedback channels also enables a better understanding and response to community needs based on the group’s feedback. In this respect, an organisation’s leadership programme would address internal stakeholders as well as external groups, such as customers, if they actively engage within the community. The value of existing members is evident in the senior roles. As former employees they may be invited to participate in an organisation’s community even beyond their employment.
(Interim) Conclusion
Building on the above reflections, strategy can be viewed as thinking in terms of communities, as creating tempting opportunities where communities are more than the sum of their members. For this purpose, technology offers an adaptable infrastructure while today’s social zeitgeist along with digital culture offers potential benefits.
Sources [in German]:
Abels, H. (2009) Einführung in die Soziologie. Band 2: Die Individuen in ihrer Gesellschaft. (4. Aufl.) Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.
Cova, B. (1997). Community and consumption. Towards a definition of the “linking value” of product or services. European Journal of Marketing 31,3/4
Deterding, S. (2008). Posttraditionale Gemeinschaften. Theoretische und ethnografische Erkundungen. In R. Hitzler [Hrsg.], A. Honer, M. Pfaden hauer, Posttraditionale Gemeinschaften. Theoretische und ethnografische Erkundungen. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. S. 115–131
Hitzler, R.; Honer, A.; Pfadenhauer, M. (2008). Posttraditionale Gemeinschaf ten. Theoretische und ethnografische Erkundungen. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Jullien, F. (1999). Über die Wirksamkeit. Merve Verlag, Berlin.
Jullien, F. (12.12.2012). Symposium „Wirksamkeit von Interventionen“ 04 Francois Jullien. [Electoinic Version]. Abgerufen am 12.01.2019
via https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQbvPnO6kWU
Kim, A.J. (2001) Community Building. Strategien für den Aufbau erfolgreicher Web-Communitites. Bonn: Galileo Press
Liebl, F. (2000). Auf und Ab des Gemeinwohlmotivs: Stakeholder vs. Share holder. [Electronic Version]. Abgerufen am 17.02.2020 via http://gwk. udk-berlin.de/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Liebl_2000_Gemeinwohl.pdf
Reillier, B. & Reillier, L. C. (2017). Platform Strategy: How to Unlock the Power of Communities and Networks to Grow Your Business. New York: Routledge.
