Back in 2016 and 2018, I mused about how community and organization intertwine—two different “regimes” of social participation that can support or hobble each other. I’ve been curious: does that framework still hold up?

A dive into some current research suggests the answer is mostly yes, with some important refinements.

The core framework has held up

The basic distinctions I drew between organizational logic (formal roles, legal structure, contracted relationships) and community logic (negotiated roles, social fabric, evolved relationships) keep showing up in academic research. McEvily, Soda, and Tortoriello’s influential synthesis distinguishes structures based on formally defined roles from those based on repeated patterns of interaction—essentially the same distinction.[^1]

The Wenger-Trayners’ 2020 book Learning to Make a Difference explicitly maintains that communities of practice remain informal, emergent, and voluntary even when operating within formal organizations.[^2] Research on communities of practice in contexts as different as the German military and medical education confirms that self-organized community practitioners exist in genuine tension with hierarchically imposed formal structures.[^3]

So the tension is real. It’s not going away.

The mutual support/hobbling dynamic is well documented

My central claim—that community and organization can support and augment each other, or can hobble each other—turns out to be perhaps the most strongly confirmed proposition.

On the support side: McKinsey’s work on informal networks found they mobilize talent and knowledge across the enterprise and help explain superior performance at companies like ExxonMobil and GE.[^4] More recent research documents how informal networks enhance trust and belonging and serve as mechanisms for employee voice.

On the hobbling side: The same McKinsey research warns that informal networks can fly under management’s radar and elude control, adding complexity and muddling roles. Informal influencers often differ from formal leaders, and key hub members can undermine networks if they become overloaded or hoard knowledge.

My anecdote about the church organist Gladys—where informal community networks defeated formal organizational decision-making—resonates with current findings about the gap between formal hierarchies and actual influence patterns.

What’s new since 2018

Several developments extend rather than contradict the framework:

From communities to landscapes. The Wenger-Trayners’ “Landscapes of Practice” framework shifts focus from single communities to complex systems of multiple interrelated communities.[^5] We don’t navigate one community-organization interface but many simultaneously. They introduce “systems conveners” as leaders who enable learning across these landscapes.

Value creation gets operationalized. The Wenger-Trayners’ seven cycles of value creation—immediate, potential, applied, realized, reframing, enabling, strategic—provide metrics that were absent from my descriptive framework. This addresses a gap practitioners have long struggled with: how to demonstrate community value in organizational terms.[^2]

Network analysis tools mature. Rob Cross’s work and tools like organizational network analysis (ONA) have made the informal-formal divergence empirically visible in ways that weren’t available in 2016. Research now routinely documents that 15-20% of employees in most organizations are “collaboratively overloaded” and that network patterns differ substantially from formal hierarchical structures.[^6]

Hybrid organizations emerge as a category. Recent research explicitly theorizes organizations that combine formal and informal elements, requiring what scholars call “hybridization work”—meaning work, boundary work, and identity work—by leaders navigating the tension.

What the pandemic revealed

When physical proximity disappeared, the informal community aspects that had been invisible suddenly became conspicuously absent. Gallup’s 2024 research documents what they call “The Great Detachment”—only 30% of employees now feel connected to their company’s mission or purpose, a record low.[^7]

Remote informal communication fulfills largely the same functions as face-to-face but is often less spontaneous, more siloed. The risk is increased isolation and narrower collaboration networks.

This confirms my intuition that the community-organization relationship requires active stewardship, not just emergence. Deliberate attention to community-building practices can partially compensate for lost informal interaction—but it takes work.

Where I was too pessimistic

I concluded in 2018 that there’s “no formula for balancing community and organization. You have to be there.” Current research suggests more actionable guidance exists than I acknowledged.

The German military study identified “enabling leadership” as critical for mediating between formal administrative control and self-organized community innovation.[^3] Complexity Leadership Theory distinguishes administrative, enabling, and adaptive leadership functions. Various playbooks and guides offer concrete recommendations for bridging formal and informal interests.

The most significant refinement may be shifting from “no formula” to “enabling leadership”—recognizing that skilled individuals can deliberately navigate and shape community-organization dynamics rather than merely observing them.

What this means practically

For organizational sponsors: Invest real resources. Appoint enabling sponsors. Create facilitation infrastructure. Accept that communities will define their own purpose. Measure value creation across multiple dimensions rather than demanding immediate ROI.

For community members: Take stewardship seriously. Help newcomers gain legitimate access to core practitioners. Contribute to psychological safety. Carry learning across boundaries between your communities. Engage constructively with organizational stakeholders rather than treating them as adversaries.

The core insight is that both sides need to move from implicit assumptions to explicit negotiation about expectations, resources, and boundaries. The community-organization interface isn’t something to merely observe—it’s something to deliberately design and continuously renegotiate.

The dual-regime framework isn’t just descriptive but prescriptive, pointing toward deliberate design choices that can strengthen rather than strain the community-organization interface.

---

References

[^1]: McEvily, B., Soda, G., & Tortoriello, M. (2014). More formally: Rediscovering the missing link between formal organization and informal social structure. Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 299-345. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2014.885252 

[^2]: Wenger-Trayner, E., & Wenger-Trayner, B. (2020). Learning to Make a Difference: Value Creation in Social Learning Spaces. Cambridge University Press.

[^3]: Schulte, B., Andresen, F., & Koller, H. (2020). Exploring the embeddedness of an informal community of practice within a formal organizational context: A case study in the German military. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 27(2), 153-179. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051819833382 

[^4]: Bryan, L. L., & Zanini, M. (2007). Harnessing the power of informal employee networks. McKinsey Quarterly. https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/people-and-organizational-performance/our-insights/harnessing-the-power-of-informal-employee-networks 

[^5]: Wenger-Trayner, E., Fenton-O’Creevy, M., Hutchinson, S., Kubiak, C., & Wenger-Trayner, B. (Eds.). (2014). Learning in Landscapes of Practice: Boundaries, Identity, and Knowledgeability in Practice-Based Learning. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315777122 

[^6]: Cross, R. (2021). Beyond Collaboration Overload: How to Work Smarter, Get Ahead, and Restore Your Well-Being. Harvard Business Review Press. See also: Cross, R., & Gray, P. (2021). Optimizing return-to-office strategies with organizational network analysis. MIT Sloan Management Review. https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/optimizing-return-to-office-strategies-with-organizational-network-analysis/ 

[^7]: Wigert, B., & Tatel, C. (2024). The Great Detachment: Why employees feel stuck. Gallup Workplace. https://www.gallup.com/workplace/653711/great-detachment-why-employees-feel-stuck.aspx 

Tags: organizational context, reflections