Please login or join to subscribe to this thread
the last 3 you mention are local/national communities and yes, they are valuable as they can reflect local needs. Beyond what PMI Chapters could do.
Women and Blacks may get a benefit out of meeting people with seemingly similar problems (and hopefully solutions). Some PMI Chapters (and national PM associations) have CoPs or committees for those and other sub-interests, PMI once featured Special Interest Groups, which mainly did great work to nurture PM related sub-interests. IPMA still has these and they are doing great work.
Communities need good governance and rudimentary governance often leads to in-fights, politics, conflicts of interest and stress for the volunteers. So it is simpler to have a sub-community under a working governance than to create something new, if the leaders of both are humble and show less ego. My experience.
Communities of specific types of people are adequate to share common points of view, common experiences, and situations. But global general communities, that consider all human beings, are certainly the best form of propitiating inclusion, interacting with all persons, regarding its age, ethnicity, nationality, or disability condition.
Remember than simply focusing on commonalities is not sufficient. Beyond our commonalities, we have differences. These differences are usually where people struggle with each other.
Excellent point on the importance of good governance as a conflict of interest, infighting, and political intervention is indeed very common.
Looking at different circumstances if you can give examples wherever possible. When would it be better to create a sub-community versus when it is better to create a new one?
my experiences are with the 10+ communities of a Chapter I led 1998-2005, PMI themselves, in particular with the SIGs and refugee-supporting communities here in Germany, partly under a church.
Would say 80% of communities fail. Reasons I have seen that community leadership is too much occupied by the purpose of the community (e.g. PMO, risk mgmt, etc) and neglects that a community has to grow and feeds from volunteers giving (to the purpose AND the community). Which means to communicate, attract new people and develop/nurture champions. A few champions may become role models and draw followership. Then growth will happen.
Those community leaders are rare, they need to be humble (set aside their ego) and empathetic (listeners not talking SMEs) and good mentors nurturing others).
The supporting organization also can destroy sub-communities, if they cannot let loose from a command and control style. The PMI SIGs were an example. The IS SIG, Risk SIG and some more had 10.000s of members globally, most had a good reputation and drew world experts and also gathered some funds for conferences. But they needed to stay independent, otherwise the champions go elsewhere.
Maybe a segment of the general global communities believes feels neglected and is given enough attention so there is the creation of these new communities that target problems that is unique to them.
Profound point Stéphane. It is true that many focus on what they have in commonalities but humans are diverse and it would come with many differences that many don't account for. Maybe in the struggles of differences is where we could derive the most learnings from.
Please login or join to reply