Understanding Online Community Effectiveness: The Efficacy of Integrating Group Development and Social Capital Theories

A major challenge in fostering online communities is developing and sustaining communities. This paper integrates social capital and group development theories in order to derive a framework that seeks to explain why some online communities prosper, while others decline and perish. Four facets of social capital – network structure, identification, obligations, and shared vision – are proposed to moderate the relationship between online community development, developmental processes, and effectiveness. It is suggested that online communities who lack a common stock of social capital are more inclined to follow the stage model of group development. In contrast, online communities that have optimal levels of social capital are more likely to follow the punctuated equilibrium model of group development. The paper concludes with implications for theory and practice.

[1]  Joseph E. McGrath,et al.  Time matters in groups , 1990 .

[2]  Eric T. G. Wang,et al.  Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual communities: An integration of social capital and social cognitive theories , 2006, Decis. Support Syst..

[3]  C. Gersick.  Time and Transition in Work Teams: Toward a New Model of Group Development , 1988 .

[4]  M. E. Shaw.  Some effects of problem complexity upon problem solution efficiency in different communication nets. , 1954, Journal of experimental psychology.

[5]  Holly Arrow,et al.  Time, Change, and Development , 2004 .

[6]  J. Keith Murnighan,et al.  Phases, deadlines, and the bargaining process , 1994 .

[7]  Harold Guetzkow,et al.  The Impact of Certain Communication Nets Upon Organization and Performance in Task-Oriented Groups , 1955 .

[8]  Raymond T. Sparrowe,et al.  Social Networks and the Performance of Individuals and Groups , 2001 .

[9]  B. Kogut,et al.  Social Capital, Structural Holes and the Formation of an Industry Network , 1997 .

[10]  L. Psychol.  Informal Social Communication , 1950 .

[11]  Richard A. Guzzo,et al.  Teams in organizations: recent research on performance and effectiveness. , 1996, Annual review of psychology.

[12]  Wenpin Tsai,et al.  Social networks and organizations , 2003 .

[13]  Morten T. Hansen,et al.  The Search-Transfer Problem: The Role of Weak Ties in Sharing Knowledge across Organization Subunits , 1999 .

[14]  H. Leavitt.  Some effects of certain communication patterns on group performance. , 1951, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[15]  S. Borgatti,et al.  The Network Paradigm in Organizational Research: A Review and Typology , 2003 .

[16]  B. Tuckman,et al.  Stages of Small-Group Development Revisited , 1977 .

[17]  P. Adler,et al.  Social Capital: Prospects for a New Concept , 2002 .

[18]  R. Bostrom,et al.  Group Development (I): A Review and Synthesis of Development Models , 1997 .

[19]  Ezra W. Zuckerman,et al.  Networks, Diversity, and Productivity: The Social Capital of Corporate R&D Teams , 2001 .

[20]  Steven B. Andrews,et al.  Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition , 1995, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[21]  Marko Čupić,et al.  Online communities – Designing Usability, Supporting Sociability , 2003 .

[22]  B. Tuckman.  DEVELOPMENTAL SEQUENCE IN SMALL GROUPS. , 1965, Psychological bulletin.

[23]  Alex Bavelas,et al.  Communication Patterns in Task‐Oriented Groups , 1950 .

[24]  B. B. Morgan,et al.  An Analysis of Team Evolution and Maturation , 1993 .

[25]  J. Coleman.  Foundations of Social Theory , 1990 .

[26]  S. Seashore,et al.  Group Cohesiveness in the Industrial Work Group. , 1955 .

[27]  Robert P. Bostrom,et al.  Group Development (II): Implications for GSS Research and Practice , 1997 .

[28]  Julie M. Duck,et al.  Punctuated Equilibrium and Linear Progression: Toward a New Understanding of Group Development , 2003 .

[29]  Stuart Hall,et al.  Questions of Cultural Identity , 1996 .

[30]  Paul S. Goodman,et al.  Understanding groups in organizations. , 1987 .

[31]  Holly Arrow,et al.  Small Groups as Complex Systems: Formation, Coordination, Development, and Adaptation , 2000 .

[32]  Jenny Preece,et al.  Online Communities: Designing Usability and Supporting Sociability , 2000 .

[33]  J. Coleman,et al.  Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital , 1988, American Journal of Sociology.

[34]  E. Sundstrom,et al.  Work teams: Applications and effectiveness. , 1990 .

[35]  S. Gould,et al.  Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism , 1972 .

[36]  C. Gersick.  MARKING TIME: PREDICTABLE TRANSITIONS IN TASK GROUPS , 1989 .

[37]  Eric L. Lesser.  Knowledge and Social Capital: Foundations and Applications , 2000 .

[38]  S. Ghoshal,et al.  Social Capital, Intellectual Capital, and the Organizational Advantage , 1998 .

[39]  L. H.,et al.  Communication Networks , 1936, Nature.

[40]  S. Ghoshal,et al.  Social Capital and Value Creation: The Role of Intrafirm Networks , 1998 .

[41]  Samer Faraj,et al.  Why Should I Share? Examining Social Capital and Knowledge Contribution in Electronic Networks of Practice , 2005, MIS Q..

[42]  S. Kozlowski,et al.  Work Groups and Teams in Organizations , 2003 .

[43]  Peter P. Groenewegen,et al.  Social networks and performance. , 2006 .

[44]  E. Salas,et al.  A Framework for Developing Team Performance Measures in Training , 1997 .

[45]  Jaclyn M. Jensen,et al.  Developing adaptive teams: A theory of dynamic team leadership , 2009 .

[46]  R. Putnam.  Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital , 1995, The City Reader.

[47]  S. Borgatti,et al.  The Network Paradigm in Organizational Research: A Review and Typology , 2003 .

[48]  D. Harrison,et al.  TIES, LEADERS, AND TIME IN TEAMS: STRONG INFERENCE ABOUT NETWORK STRUCTURE'S EFFECTS ON TEAM VIABILITY AND PERFORMANCE , 2006 .

[49]  D. Swanson.  In Good Company: How Social Capital Makes Organizations Work , 2001 .

[50]  Philip J. Runkel,et al.  Stages of Group Development: An Empirical Test of Tuckman's Hypothesis , 1971 .