Local Community Building Funnel and Activities - EA Geneva

By konrad @ 2018-08-09T08:22 (+20)

 

1. Intro

While other groups might find their local reality to differ substantially, we (the EA Geneva team) hope to convey some useful general insights by sharing what our community building efforts look like nowadays, and why. 

Our experience comes from three years of building up:

  1. A small local community next to our studies (2015-2017); and
  2. An increasingly diverse association with full-time staff since July 2017.

This first post is structured as follows:

  1. Intro
  2. The engagement funnel
  3. Activity details
  4. Sub-communities

2. The engagement funnel

This post documents our current model of building a local EA community.

Our funnel captures the essential activities that have shown promise in fostering people’s journey into EA. We have not reached our current ideal design, though, and will likely make changes to it in the future.

Generally, the funnel serves two goals:

2.1 - Key models for community tactics

As highlighted through the craft is not the community, actually causing externally verifiable impact often feels like it interferes with serving the internal needs of the group, especially when starting out. Developing explicit models of our key audiences and their paths through the funnel has helped us to work out a somewhat balanced two-pronged, goal-driven approach.

Our key audiences are:

We try to identify valuable modes of engagement to contribute to people’s development depending on their

We see three general development stages that our activities have to serve:

  1. Attraction: attracting people with high impact potential;
  2. Education: developing their knowledge and skills; and
  3. Engagement: consolidating their paths to contribution.

They theoretically appear to be sequenced but we found they are tightly interrelated in practice. Most of our activities nowadays serve more than one stage, as you will see below.

In parallel, two meta activities are part of our community building:

Local coordination is the subject of post 4 in this series. Global integration deserves an entirely separate discussion.

2.2 - Segmenting the community

To keep segments relevant yet simple, we decided on three concentric circles:

  1. Public: anyone (potentially) interested;
  2. Member: individuals having completed our introduction workshop; and
  3. Core: individuals having completed our advanced workshop.

One can join the member segment without a workshop if two core members, after a 1-on-1 each, judge that one has demonstrated full knowledge of the subjects of the intro curriculum. We do not currently plan to make such exceptions for the advanced workshop.

To realise our community’s potential, the funnel is thought to actively drive people towards

  1. A better understanding of the world and EA;
  2. Growing engagement and responsibilities within the community; and
  3. Increasing access to resources, activities and infrastructure.

We expect this way of escalating asks and rewards to result in more meaningful activities for all segments and to motivate people to move further down the funnel. The key drivers from segment to segment are the workshops.

2.3 - The minimum viable funnel

Thinking back to the beginnings of EA Geneva, we expect that we would have learned a lot faster if we had exclusively focused on building up the core activities that we, today, perceive as the backbone of the funnel.

Especially in the beginning, meaningfully broadening the range of our activities proved difficult and most of it seems to have been a waste of time in hindsight. Developing the capacity to maintain this core funnel structure would have:

From the start, 1-on-1s seem among the most effective ways to identify potential core members, address doubts, establish common knowledge, and develop someone’s mode of contribution.

To build the knowledge, experience and skills necessary to run public workshops, we think it can be useful to start off by using the themed socials to study the subjects of the curricula of the intro workshop and advanced workshop (linked in the descriptions below). Depending on what the core group feels comfortable with, these exploratory sessions could be public, invite-only or somewhere in-between. For very small groups, the curricula could also be content of 1-on-1s.

Upon sign up to an intro workshop, sending out EA reading recommendations helps us to further automate selection with two main purposes:

Presenting the group, its goals, its activities, and its principles explicitly at the beginning of each public event also helps people to identify with the group - or not; motivates new contributors; and solidifies the group identity.

To complement these key efforts, explicitly making the time for regular self-improvement group meetings to work on the core members’ personal development helps to set the tone for the broader community culture. Proactively sharing and discussing feedback on room for personal improvements, group dynamics and organisational optimisation has proven invaluable to us as individuals, as a team, and for the community. For us, these sessions will stay invite-only to preserve the necessary intimacy needed to work on personal bottlenecks together.

3. Activity details

These are all the activities that we are currently organising as parts of our funnel:

Below, we detail them out. Priorities might change according to various considerations, among them:

  1. Evolving activities: some formats (can/should) change with the maturity of a group (e.g. introduction workshops: from self-study to public-facing workshop); and
  2. Group-dependent activities: adaptations based on e.g. specialities, needs, interests, and local strategy.

1-on-1 meetings

Themed Socials

Introduction Workshop

Advanced Workshop

Working groups

Community socials and discussion dinners

Targeted talks and co-organised events

4. Sub-communities

We see sub-communities as a subset of the fractal that is our local group, which is a subset of the fractal that is the global community. We are still unsure about the best conditions to start these but think that any community above some critical mass of active core members will likely benefit from regrouping.

Examples

Self-improvement for world-improvement community

A slightly special sub-community that we think deserves more attention, is a self-improvement community. This means, expanding the exclusive self-improvement group(s) to the entire community. From where we are standing, it looks like the only way the EA community will have long-lasting impact, or will itself last the test of time, is if people find a tribe within it. Self-care, cultivating compassion and applied rationality, we hope, might help to build a basis that does not just create further in-group vs. out-group dynamics.

Co-written by Nora Ammann and Konrad Seifert.

undefined @ 2018-08-09T22:30 (+5)

I think this is quite useful, thanks for posting it publicly.

Based on CZEA experience, this seems similar to what we converged at - basically

An interesting difference seem to be in the approach to workshops, where we have not much tried something small (~8h - and it was more a series of talks than a workshop) but we tried Fri-Sun retreat.

undefined @ 2018-08-19T16:20 (+1)

Thanks for posting this! I like the model you have proposed. It seems like your group hosts many events throughout the year, and I am curious about a few statistics to help calibrate the usefulness of this model to EA Madison: 1) Size of public events 2) Number of members 3) Number of people in the core 4) Frequency of events

We have a smaller group (roughly 6 - 10 regular attendees) that can attract larger numbers for Giving Games, and I am trying to determine how we can grow it into a larger group with more regular events like you describe.

undefined @ 2018-08-20T10:27 (+1)

Hey Josh, Relevant question, thanks!

1) Our public meetups attract 15-30 people, varying with the theme. Sometimes there are a lot of newbies/random people.

2) We currently have 83 members, our growth seems likely to continue at ~20ppl/quarter but we expect only 20-50% to become regulars and only around 10-30% to become actively involved beyond attending a meetup here and there. We currently don't have data on how many people really stay around for more than a year - we have now introduced an annual member status renewal.

3) As we will run our first advanced workshop next week, this number is currently at 15 only (people actively involved whom we know have the knowledge already). We expect it to go up 2-4 fold until the end of this year and then grow more linearly.

4) We have:

  • 1 public and 1 non-public themed social each month
  • During semesters, monthly intro and advanced workshops
  • One of our student groups has weekly meetups during semesters and runs an intro seminar
  • We aim for monthly discussion dinners, this is less fixed though
  • We meet monthly with our self-improvement group and have bi-weekly open individual debugging/training/planning/gettingshitdone sessions
  • 1-on-1s are usually at around 1-3/week per FTE, but there are weeks with double that in Fall and Spring
  • Sub-communities and working groups have had similar monthly rhythms so far (hard to say because we only properly started those in May)
  • We seem to have a co-organised introductory event once a quarter
markus_over @ 2019-09-01T10:11 (+1)

Hi Konrad,

given your comment is now a year old, could you very briefly provide an update of whether anything significantly changed since then (maybe there are some updates to how you run EA Geneva that wouldn't justify an entire new post, but are still noteworthy)?

Also I'd be interested to know how close the growth assumptions were, and whether your member count and advanced workshop participation went up roughly as you expected.

This whole post seems very valuable by the way, so thank you!

konrad @ 2021-02-22T16:59 (+2)

Hi Markus, only just saw this, sorry! 

Might still be helpful: you can find somewhat more extensive answers in our annual reports.

In short:

We have quite good engagement data now, since starting a zulip chat server, allowing better tracking of activity. We have stopped running individual workshops and replaced them with a standardized intro seminar series and a personalized fellowship program.

The core group of heavily-involved individuals is still growing: >30 people now, which is more than double what we had at the time of the previous comment. With 10-20 core members a year leaving, we have to have 20-30 new core members each year to keep up the growth, which is within the bounds of my growth projections for the most engaged member segment (people who join our fellowship). 

I suspect growth will start stagnating in 0.5-2 years and deepening engagement will remain the main focus of staff, as it has been more and more so for the past ~1.5 years. This is because the community size is becoming more self-sustaining, due to a critical mass of people who provide organic outreach and retention.