Leadership Is Over-Engagement by Leaders Seen as Desperation? (2 Viewers)

[InMyOpinion]

Hey lovely members of Administrata! I’ve been wondering and thinking to myself—can forum leaders overdo it when it comes to engagement? Is there such a thing as too much involvement or too many posts? Some might say that if a leader is constantly in the spotlight, replying to every post, or being overly active, it could come off as desperate for attention or control.

But, on the flip side, some people believe that active leadership shows commitment and dedication to the community. So, where’s the line between being engaged and crossing into over-engagement?

For me, I feel like balance is key. Leaders should be involved enough to guide and support but not so much that it feels like they’re taking over the conversation or stifling other members' voices. However, there can be such thing as too many posts if the admins posts aren't adding value to the forum. And there can also be such thing as too much involvement when the admin is trying to micromanage the moderators.

What do you think? Is there a point where a leader’s over-engagement starts to look like desperation? Or does more involvement always equal better leadership?

 

[CTS]

My latest site is very new. Months. On that I feel leaders should be the brunt of the posts and should be available to all members.

After your membership begins to grow, and subsequent threads and posts become predominantly by the membership, leaders posts become less and less as the members post amongst themselves .

There may be a pivitol time where the need to respond as a leader becomes more of a want.

 

[InMyOpinion]

My latest site is very new. Months. On that I feel leaders should be the brunt of the posts and should be available to all members.

After your membership begins to grow, and subsequent threads and posts become predominantly by the membership, leaders posts become less and less as the members post amongst themselves .

There may be a pivitol time where the need to respond as a leader becomes more of a want.

That is a very true observation that I didn't really think of. As a forum community grows and flourishes the administrator doesn't have to post as often for the forum to continue to be active, it's more whether or not they want to keep posting.

Very good observation @CTS

 

[Ravenfreak]

I don't believe it screams desperation. I think it's a good thing that staff is posting daily, it shows that they care for their community but I don't see desperation. Unless if the quality of the content they were posting was a bit lacking, maybe one line posts then I could possibly see it as desperation to keep the forum alive. Even then, as long as one person is engaging in conversations is the community 100% dead? It's only dead when there are no longer conversations, the staff and members have abandoned it and it lies dormant. That's how I see it anyways.

 

[Bawse]

I always comment/engage if I have anything of value to add to the posts. I try to have a good balance/ratio with how much I post, and posts by my members.

 

[Cpvr]

I don’t see over-engagement as desperation at all , I see it as a sign that the owner is passionate about their project and genuinely enjoys being part of the community.

When a forum owner is actively contributing and leading by example, it sets the tone for the whole community. That kind of involvement can actually motivate other members to step up and participate more because they see the owner isn’t just managing from the sidelines, they’re right there in the trenches with everyone else.

At the end of the day, a forum is a reflection of its leadership. If the owner is having fun and engaging with the content, that energy becomes contagious.

 

[fdk]

It really depends for me on what we're meaning by "over-engagement". If I log on to a forum and see that the latest ten posts were all made by the admin of the site, that's a subtle signal to me that the community likely isn't very active.

Naturally, it'll be the kind of site I'll gravitate away from, just because I tend to check the new/latest posts section for a gauge on the activity of a site. I have no problem with admins being a bit contributor to their forum overall - in fact, on almost all forums I'm a member of, the admin(s) have the highest post count of anyone on the forum - and that's fine. That's to be expected over a significant period of time - but I always like to say that, once a site reaches a certain size, a good admin should be "seen" but relatively infrequently "heard", as such.

 

[Kaynil]

I came here ready to ask OP to define "over engagement" for them, because it seems like we all can be having different ideas. Then I found out it was posted as a question itself, so the purpose of the thread then is for us to define what could be that point and if we could reach it. I am probably going to be against the grain here and say that I think there can be a point when leaders can over do it.

Now, to clarify, I agree with what most people are saying in the thread and I am not counting that as over-engagement. For example that when a forum is getting the ball rolling it is pretty natural that a lot of new content and replies will be from the staff. It is just logical that if you are interested you have to put effort. So of course, if only the staff is there at the time, they have to be the ones keeping the community alive. Joining a new community and seeing the admin name everywhere is not what I'd consider by itself over-engagement. In fact not doing it is the best way to see your community go no where. We all started that way.

For me when an engagement felt excessive was when the admin didn't seem to have a sense of boundaries. You love the theme, you love the niche, you love the threads and it all looks really cool and active and then you get this admin being pushy and disrespectful in the way they engage with the new members.

Some stuff I recall happening more than once:

• Being made moderator within the same day of joining for no reason or merit and then demanding I do stuff for them. --- Erm, you can't force engagement like that.
• DMing me (as a reg. member) and ask me why I hadn't post in X days, but not out of concern for me just to gauge my 'excuse' and tell me what average of posts I should be able to do a day. --- I'll be the one deciding how to spend my time, thank you very much.
• - Almost daily trying to guilt trip me into inviting more people and voting for their banner in those rank-towers websites. --- I don't mind being asked for a favour or a public thread to let us know that's a way to help but harassing and guilt tripping your member base that's a different thing.
• Overruling moderators in public for abso-freakin'-lutely no reason.
  Calling out people for not replying to a casual conversation thread they were tagged in like is this big deal.

Like, sure, they care for the website and are trying to make it grow but that is just one of the fastest ways to scare people off and get a terrible reputation not just for your site but for yourself as admin. I know I have seen threads of people saying that won't join any community made for X person because of past experiences. That is for me what would look very desperate for attention or control.


TL;DR: I consider over-engagement when you do it to the point where you lose respect for your community and rest of your staff. Specially if you are trying to force that engagement instead of just keep it respectful and use positive reinforcement rather than manipulative tactics to get your growth.