I was once quite active in PSL, moreso than most. I never held a board position. But apart from attending events, as I mentioned, I was asked to join the advisory board and did so even though I had concerns from the onset about my participation. Beyond the single group advisory call that ever happened, I spoke privately with many members of the board and the community, and both former presidents. In particular, I had a very hopeful conversation with Jameson right when he took office. I am particularly disappointed that he never fulfilled his goals and became a casualty of his own story.

I’ve also fielded a number of inquiries in the last year about what could be done to improve things, from people who themselves believed things had become unhinged and they wanted to help. Some took that back to PSL. Others decided to take things into their own hands and start new initiatives, out of similar frustration to me.

I tried, believe me. And in spite of what you’re probably reacting to as a critical post, I wouldn’t be writing about this if I didn’t care. I don’t waste time on things I don’t care about.

At the end, I unsubscribed from the listserv some time ago after coming to terms with the fact that I was overall unsatisfied with the results of my participation.  

From the sounds of the discussion last night, I might just have been ahead of the curve. 

Frankly, I planned on attending last night. Something in my personal life led me to decide that my time was better spent with a person who I care about. In reading through the comments and discussion that made it to the public forums, I’m fairly confident I would have just left more frustrated, and this post would’ve been one of disappointment rather than one of hope.

Please realize that: this post is critical, but if you step outside of yourself for a moment, you’ll realize that the overall story is a very positive one for Philadelphia. That’s the only story that matters. 

I’ve been to a couple PSL events as of late, and they mostly struck me as the same as any networking group. The event will have a speaker, who may or may not be interesting or relevant; there’s some free food, and maybe I’ll strike up a conversation with the person next to me where we both pitch our company/idea to a brick wall.

Sometimes there’s a speaker that really inspires you, and sometimes you talk to someone in the community that you can help/can help you.

It seems to me that this isn’t really a PSL problem as much as it is an “organized group capacity” problem. When the ratio of interested to practicing goes up, all of the practicing people will start to move on to the next thing, or just lose interest entirely.

The reason I want things like PSL to exist is to have a place where I can go to meet new people, but also, almost more importantly, to meet up with people I recognize from the community as leaders. These people I may not know closely, but are consistent in their participation, and I can count on them to, well, lead. The problem here is that these types of people show up and don’t gain much from the group. There needs to be a bilateral transfer of value if you want to retain real leaders.

One way this could be achieved is to identify some members of the community as leaders. Have some kind of criteria that has to be met to be deemed a “leader.” And when you become a leader, there should be some responsibility to justify your title by presenting what you have done to help the community at each meeting. This could be difficult to pull off, but pretty awesome if they did. The key is honing in on what the real leaders want and making sure they derive value from the community.

…Also, n00bs must wear hats designating them as such.

Totally agreed on the “this isn’t unique to PSL” point. This is a common pattern, hence pointing out the SXSW example. I can think of many other places this became a problem.

I also agree that the value proposition is mismatched. I’ve classified this as an imbalance between “has” and “needs”. The PSL community members, as you point out, tend to have far less to give than they need to take. This is the nature of starting an early stage company. This rears its head in the struggle for event volunteers as well. People want, but don’t have to give…yet. This disenfranchises supporters (as I did with me), and will continue to until the balance begins to return.

This is one of the reasons we’re careful not to include job board materials or help recruiters at Indy Hall. When Indy Hall becomes a place where people expect that they can get work – instead of get work DONE – our has/needs balance is disrupted.

On the converse, we work to actively help members help themselves. Our successful members lead new members by example, and new members learn that contributions are rewarded with praise and kudos from other community members – not praise and kudos from me. It happens very naturally, and as such, is sustainable. No extrinsic motivators necessary.

The problem with your “nametag” solution is that it’s more of the same. Who’s a leader, and to whom? Even presenting your work is subjective. And then there’s the measure of motivation – are they leading to get the nametag and be deemed a leader by the self-designated leaders, or because simply because they are leaders? 

The best leaders I know of in Philadelphia are reluctant leaders, quiet leaders, who’d never wear a badge if you gave it to them. We don’t need more people scrambling for “leader” nametags. You can see where that got us this time.