Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication

Can Our Group Survive? An Investigation

of the Evolution of Mixed-Mode Groups

Chih-Hui Lai
School of Communication, the University of Akron, 105C Kolbe Hall, Akron, OH 44325
Applying an ecological and evolutionary perspective, this study examines the evolution and the sus-
tainability of mixed-mode groups, a type of voluntary association created and organized online to
interact physically ingeographically defned ways. Meetup.comis a website that facilitates the creation
and coordination of mixed-mode groups. Analysis of interviews with 34 Meetup group organizers
and a longitudinal analysis of 100 randomly selected Meetup groups revealed the evolutionary pro-
cesses at the group and population level, respectively. Specifcally, the ecological factor of population
density, the demographic factor of group age, the groups proft orientation, experience of leadership
change and shared leadership, and external ties played decisive roles in predicting group survival.
Implications of the fndings for theoretical and practical contributions are discussed.
Key words: mixed-mode groups, survival, voluntary associations, mixed modality, social network,
ecology and evolution.
doi:10.1111/jcc4.12075
People are and always have been oriented towards involvement in voluntary organizations (Anderson
1971; Rainie Purcell &Smith 2011). Participation in associational activities has long been linked to posi-
tive outcomes at individual and collective levels such as creation of horizontal social networks and social
capital (Putnam 2000) formation of social ties and occupational diversity (Davis Renzulli & Aldrich
2006) and assimilation of democratic values and attitudes (Hooghe 2003). Voluntary associations are
characterized by volitional involvement and specialization of interest; they are avocational in nature and
are of secondary importance to an individuals daily routine (Warner 1972). To some extent these char-
acteristics highlight the challenges voluntary associations face (e.g relatively limited human and physical
resources) for growth and survival over time (Knoke & Prensky 1984).
Interestingly, usage of information and communication technologies (ICTs) has been shown to
increase the likelihood of individuals belonging to traditional local voluntary groups such as a neigh-
borhood associations, sports leagues, youth groups, churches, or social clubs (Hampton, Lee, & Her,
2011). Technology also contributes to the creation of newforms of voluntary associations, by integrating
physically based and virtual communities of interest (Blanchard & Horan, 1998). Te sustainability of
voluntary associations seems to have bearing on the intersection of online and physical spaces, a topic
that is socially signifcant but has thus far received little scholarly attention.

Accepted by previous editor Maria Bakardjieva

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication (2014) 2014 International Communication Association 1
Compared to face-to-face voluntary associations, groups created online tend towards a lower level
of participation due to easy entry and penalty-free exit. Existing research has treated the growth and
survival of online groups, but focus has mostly been on those groups that communicate and organize
activities online with occasional face-to-face interaction (e.g., Lazar & Preece, 2002; Postmes, Spears,
& Lea, 2000). Given the possibility of linking online groups to physical spaces (Blanchard & Horan,
1998), and the growing pattern of multimodal interpersonal and group behaviors (Baym, 2009), the
investigation of voluntary associations that operate across physical and online spaces has become timely.
Tis study aims to shed light on the sustainability of a particular type of voluntary associationgroups
that are created and organized online to interact physically in geographically defned ways. Considering
their mixed use of communication modalities (e.g., the Internet, face-to-face), diverse orientation (e.g.,
for-proft vs. non-proft, networking, socializing, hobby-based, service), and varying type of structure
(e.g., formal vs. informal, small groups and large organizations), these groups are labeled mixed-mode
groups.
Te term mixed-mode group derives from the concept of mixed-mode relationship (MMR), which
refers to the patternof initiating communicationonline andmoving it ofine for further actionandinter-
action (Walther & Parks, 2002). Examples of websites enabling the development of mixed-mode groups
are Facebook, Craigslist, Twitter, and Meeetup.com. Variations do exist among these mixed-mode group
websites. For instance, an argument could be made that usage of Facebook and Twitter is diverse as com-
pared to Meetup.com, whose primary focus is the creation and organization of groups (based on shared
interests and locations) that meet in a physical space. A Meetup group that engages in rock climbing
activities in the Boston area might serve as an example. To more precisely examine how mixed-mode
groups evolve and traverse online and physical spaces, this study focuses on groups organized
on Meetup.com.
Like traditional voluntary associations, mixed-mode groups are characterized by face-to-face vol-
untary involvement, specialization of interest, and low degree of organization. Further, both types of
voluntary associations tend to be privately organized, avocational in nature, and of secondary impor-
tance to an individuals regular schedule. What distinguishes mixed-mode groups from their traditional
counterpart is the capacity to organize grouping activities across diferent modalities, a capacity which
may help facilitate group outcomes that span online and physical spaces. Additionally, the formation of
mixed-mode groups is driven by a combination of shared interests and locations. In contrast, then, with
traditional online groups, afliation with which is wholly interest-based, mixed-mode group afliation
is contingent upon both common interests and place of residence.
Not surprisingly, mixed-mode groups inherit the vulnerabilities of both voluntary associations and
online groups. For example, the ofen transitory nature of mixed-mode groups increases the likeli-
hood that they will exert only a minimal impact. Hence, examining the sustainability of mixed-mode
groups can help us to identify and formulate solutions to maintain social dynamics through associational
activities in contemporary society. An ecological and evolutionary framework was chosen to illustrate
the evolutionary process of mixed-mode groups, as well as their interaction with their environment
(which can take both online and ofine forms). Te ecological and evolutionary perspective examines
the process of how groups and organizations pursue the goal of ftness through interacting with other
communities and populations, by both developing communication infrastructures and by interacting
with the environment (Hannan & Freeman, 1989; Monge, Heiss, & Margolin, 2008).
In this paper, I frst provide a review of the existing literature on the ecological and evolutionary
perspective inorganizational and voluntary associationcontexts. Tis reviewleads to the development of
several hypotheses and one research question. I then describe the methods and procedures for analyzing
archived data and interviews collected from groups on Meetup.com. Finally, I discuss the results within
the context of advancing evolutionary theories applied to mixed-mode groups.
2 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication (2014) 2014 International Communication Association
The Ecological and Evolutionary Perspective
Understanding the environment in which a social system is embedded is of paramount importance
(Homans, 1950). Towards that goal, one needs to explore how a social organization is infuenced by
the surrounding environment (selection), and how it acquires resources to adapt itself to the environ-
ment (adaptation). Tese two lines of inquiry refect the essence of the ecological and the evolutionary
perspective, respectively, that is, selection and adaptation, which are nowseen as complementary to each
other, and which have been integrated in recent research (Baum & Shipilov, 2006).
A combined approach of ecological and evolutionary perspectives helps to explain how social and
environmental conditions, as well as interaction within and among populations of organizations, infu-
ence organizational founding, failure, and change (Baum&Shipilov, 2006). Specifcally, the mechanisms
of variation, selection, and retention(V-S-R) are integral to organizational change (Aldrich &Ruef, 2006;
Campbell, 1965; McKelvey, 1982). Environmental forces and other organizations are potential sources of
variation that might become challenges and opportunities for the focal organization. Over time, useful
variations might be selected and retained as part of the organizational practices for survival.
According to Baum and Shipilovs (2006) review, current ecological and evolutionary theory and
research address four levels: intraorganizational ecology, demography of organizations, population ecology
of organizations, and community ecology. Intraorganizational ecology focuses on the V-S-R mechanisms
enacted within organizations in the forms of strategic actions, rules, and norms, and explains how these
mechanisms infuence the evolution and change of organizations. Demography of organization investi-
gates the regularity of the rates of organizational founding, change, and failure within populations and
examines how these relate to organizational characteristics. Population ecology looks at the growth and
decline of individual populations and seeks to explain how the vital rates of one population are infu-
enced by factors within the population, interactions with other populations, and environmental changes.
Community ecology examines howthe interaction among a set of populations infuences the persistence
and stability of the community as a whole.
Te ecological and evolutionary perspective has been applied in the context of traditional
face-to-face voluntary associations. McPherson (1983, 1988) proposes an ecological model of afliation
that considers the infuence of environmental factors (e.g., time, physical location, and sociodemo-
graphic variables) on the survival of voluntary organizations. Compared to groups mainly interacting
online, mixed-mode groups are more likely to be subject to infuence from outside the group, and to
interact with the social and physical environment external to the group. With its characteristic systemic
analysis of external and internal infuences on the evolution of an organization or a group, the ecological
and evolutionary perspective is highly suitable for providing a systematic understanding of how groups,
operating across diferent media modalities, evolve over time. Building on Baum and Shipilovs (2006)
discussion and the multilevel feature of evolutionary theory, a set of hypotheses and one research
question have been developed with the aim of examining the ecology and evolution of mixed-mode
groups at group and population levels.
Te Ecological Processes of Groups
At the population level, research has primarily targeted the ecological processes of organizations (e.g.,
niche, density dependence) and the demography of organizations (e.g., age, size) (Baum, 1999). In eco-
logical process terms, niche denotes the notion that organizations and populations possess varied
capacities to acquire resources and exploit these resources from the environment in order to survive
(McKelvey, 1982; McPherson, 1983; Popielarz &Neal, 2007). Te termniche width refers to an organi-
zations variance inresource utilization; a dichotomy of generalists (withwide niche) andspecialists (with
narrow niche) is posited accordingly (Hannan & Freeman, 1977). For example, narrow organizational
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication (2014) 2014 International Communication Association 3
niches have been found to be positively correlated with mortality rates (Dobrev, Kim, & Hannan, 2001).
A second ecological factor is population density. Density dependence theory explains the relationship
between competition and the number of organizations in a population, positing that increased compe-
tition may contribute to failure rates at diferent stages of population development (Hannan &Freeman,
1989; Hannan & Carroll, 1992). Indeed, an elevated intensity of competition has been found between
organizations with similar resource requirements (Hannan & Freeman, 1989; McPherson 1983). For
example, intensity of competition rises between organizations located in the same geographic region
and targeting overlapping customers.
It appears that these two ecological factors (niche width and population density) are germane to the
evolution of mixed-mode groups. Specifcally, one would expect a positive correlation between range of
interests and the likelihood that a mixed-mode group would survive over time, and a negative correla-
tion between competition from other online and mixed-mode groups and the likelihood that it would
survive. Wang, Butler, and Joyces (2006) study represents one of the fewresearch eforts concerning this
area in the online domain. Tey found a high attrition rate in groups that shared a great deal of con-
tent with other groups (cross-posting groups) and that shared a large proportion of their members with
other groups (membership overlap rate). Tese fndings suggest that groups may compete with each
other indirectly in the larger online environment, in turn infuencing the survival of the focal group.
Due to the limited research on the ecology of mixed-mode groups, I made use of existing ecological
and evolutionary work on formal organizations to develop two hypotheses that address the relationship
between these two ecological factors and the survival of mixed-mode groups:
H1: Width of group niche positively afects the survival of mixed-mode groups.
H2: Population density negatively afects the survival of mixed-mode groups such that groups that
experience more competition will have lower rates of survival.
Te Demography of Groups
Parallel to the exploration of ecological factors, research has attempted to uncover the infuence of dif-
ferent organizational traits on organizational survival. For example, the liabilities of smallness (Aldrich
& Auster, 1986) is a well-known demographic prediction that small organizations are, due to the dif-
fculty of acquiring necessary resources for growth and survival, predisposed to failure. Context might
play a role, however; it has been argued that group size has less validity as a predictor of group survival
in the context of mixed-mode groups. On one hand, group size is ofen examined as a factor infuencing
group success in the online group literature. Rothaermel and Sugiyama (2001), for example, argue that
the relationship between a virtual communitys size and its success is curvilinear; up to a certain point,
the incremental addition of new members is positively related to the aggregate value of the commu-
nity. Beyond a certain point, however, this increase dissipates. However, an argument can be made that
because online membership is easy to activate it may be, at least to some extent, deceptive. For example,
a group of 500 members may only have 10 people attending face-to-face meetings regularly. In such
a situation, the association between group size and group survival is tenuous. Given this concern, the
infuence of group size on the survival of mixed-mode groups is not examined as a specifc hypothesis
in this study.
Te infuence of other organizational traits on organizational survival may, however, be applicable to
mixed-mode groups. For example, the liability of newness (Freeman, Carroll, & Hannan, 1983) and the
liability of adolescence (Fichman & Levinthal, 1991) suggest that younger organizations fail more ofen
than their more-established counterparts due to an inability to build a solid resource base necessary for
4 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication (2014) 2014 International Communication Association
growth and survival. Fernandez (2008) studied traditional voluntary associations, and found that the
majority of Spanish voluntary associations in Madrid closed due to mission completion and resource
insufciency (human and physical). Chambr and Fatts (2002) study on nonproft AIDS organizations
also found that new organizations closed due to the inability to secure stable funding sources, as well as
lack of experience. Wollebk (2009) reported that not-for-proft voluntary associations are more likely
than for-proft and well-organized organizations to rely on emotional attachment of members and low
cost of continued activity, both of which may prevent easy organizational disbanding. I propose two
hypotheses that examine the positive relationships between these two demographic factors (age and
nonproft orientation) and group survival.
H3: Older mixed-mode groups are more likely than younger groups to survive.
H4: Not-for-proft orientation positively afects the survival of mixed-mode groups.
Group survival may also hinge on relational aspects such as leadership and confguration of net-
works. Compared to traditional voluntary associations, mixed-mode groups are easier to create and
organize online. Yet in order to survive over time, groups may need a fexible and enduring leadership
structure that can help themadapt to change, either within or outside the group. Such fexibility and sus-
tainability may be represented through shared leadership and leadership change, which have been found
to be positively related to organizational outcomes and organizational survival (see, for example, Mehra,
Smith, Dixon, & Robertson, 2006; Rowe, Cannella, Rankin, & Gorman, 2005). Specifcally, shared lead-
ership refects the advantage of enhancing member commitment and contributing resources to the group
(Carson, Tesluk, &Marrone, 2007) while leadershipchange is consideredanefort by groups to learnhow
to adapt themselves to the environment (Tushman & Rosenkopf, 1996). Te next hypothesis examines
the positive relationship between these two leadership factors and group survival.
H5: Leadership factors afect the survival of mixed-mode groups such that groups with shared
leadership and the experience of leadership change are more likely to survive than those who do
not experience shared leadership and leadership change.
Embeddness and Survival
Survival advantages for organizations alsoaccrue fromanother relational factor: institutional embedded-
ness. Embeddedness is the notion that economic actions of individuals and organizations are embedded
in social relations, and that this network of social relations among organizations afects the operation
of each organization involved in the network (Granovetter, 1985; Uzzi, 1999). Such ties to the environ-
ment can provide organizations with legitimacy and access to resources (Baum & Oliver, 1991, 1992;
Baum, Calabrese, & Silverman, 2000). External ties have also been examined in the context of voluntary
association. For example, Fernandez (2008) found that those Spanish voluntary associations which were
embedded in collaborative networks of both dense and weak ties to the rest of the nonproft organiza-
tions in the same feld (i.e., those possessing social capital) survived longer than those with less social
capital (i.e., organizations without direct connections to other nonprofts). Similarly, Wollebks (2009)
study showed the positive efects of external ties (e.g., linkage with outside funding sources, contact with
a municipality, and cooperation with other organizations) on the survival of voluntary organizations. On
the basis of these few empirical studies on embeddedness and survival of voluntary associations placed
in non-U.S. contexts, the last hypothesis is proposed:
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication (2014) 2014 International Communication Association 5
H6: External ties positively afect the survival of mixed-mode groups.
In response to the call for identifying V-S-R mechanisms at diferent levels of analysis (groups, orga-
nizations, populations, community) (Monge &Contractor, 2003; Monge &Poole, 2008), I pose a general
research question:
RQ: What are the evolutionary processes of mixed-mode groups in the form of V-S-R mechanisms
at (a) the group and (b) the population level?
Methods
Te research site of this study was Meetup.com, an organization designed to facilitate the formation and
coordination of mixed-mode groups. Meetup.com fts the needs of this study because it is the largest
network of local voluntary groups inthe world(over 140,000 local groups, 15 millionusers), andbecause,
unlike similar services such as Craigslist and Facebook, it contains a complete history of group structures
and activities, both online and ofine. Te data were drawn from a longitudinal analysis of 100 random
Meetup groups over 18 months of observation and in-depth interviews conducted with 34 Meetup group
organizers. Te choice of these two sources of data refects the cross-level conceptualization enabled in
the ecological and evolutionary perspective. Organizers account of their groups provided insight into
the evolution of individual groups while archived data of 100 groups helped explain the change of a
population of groups over time.
Data Collection and Analysis: Archived Group Data
A random sample of 100 Meetup groups was retrieved with the assistance of the research unit of
Meetup.com and was observed over an 18-month follow-up period from 1 August 2009 to 1 February
2011.
1
On the webpage of each Meetup group, basic information about the group is listed, including
group description, group topics, time of creation, membership size, organizer and/or assistant orga-
nizers, number and details of group events (e.g., content of activities, locations, cooperating groups
or organizations). Related to RQ(b) and six hypotheses, operationalizations of the key variables are
detailed as follows.
Group niche was measured by member requirements. Referencing Baum and Singhs (1994) defni-
tion of organizational niche based on the ages of children that day care centers are licensed to enroll,
member requirements were used to measure the niche of a Meetup group. Agroup was coded 1 (narrow
niche) if it had specifc demographic requirements (i.e., gender, age, marital status, ethnicity and race,
language), professional orientation (i.e., occupation, professional status) and others (i.e., specifc social
roles), and coded 2 (wider niche) if no requirements existed. Eforts were made to review the group
description and group events to determine the proft orientation of a group. If the group sold products
associated with the organizers own business (e.g., dancing class, coaching services, PRtraining services),
then this group was coded as for-proft (code =1). Otherwise, it was coded as not-for-proft (code =2).
Leadership change was examined on the basis of the bio page of the group organizer. If the time
he/she was listed as organizer difered from the time the group was created, the group was coded as
experiencing leadership change (code =2). Otherwise, a group was coded as without leadership change
(code =1). Leadership team was measured by going over the information listed under the organizer
section of each Meetup group. If only the organizer was listed, then the group was coded as without a
leadership team (code =1). If a number of organizers, assistant organizers and/or event organizers were
listed, it was coded as having a leadership team (code =2).
2
6 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication (2014) 2014 International Communication Association
Acontent analysis of each group event formed the basis of the evaluation of external ties. In the event
section, if a group mentioned contacts outside of the group, such as other Meetup or non-Meetup groups
as part of the group event, other organizations listed as the sponsor or the recipient of the event, or guest
speakers invited from outside for group event, the group was coded as with external ties (code =2).
Otherwise, it was coded as without external ties (code =1). Tese diferent external ties were further
coded into 22 types of organizations and groups, which will also be used in the analysis reported later.
3
A high degree of interrater reliability was attained for coding these fve variables, with Cohens Kappa
ranging from 0.85 to 0.97. Last, population density was obtained by recording the number of Meetup
groups within a radius of 25 miles (Density I) and 10 miles (Density II) using the search function on
Meetup.com. Tese two distances represent the default search parameters on Meetup.com. Te two vari-
ables were analyzed afer being log-normalized to better approximate a normal distribution.
Geographic factors in the forms of urban proximity, residential density, and population change have
been found to be linked to growth and survival of voluntary associations (see, for example, McPherson,
1988; Wollebk, 2009). Hence, local populationsize andresidential mobility were includedas the control
variables. Using the locationinwhicha Meetup groupis listed(e.g., Boston, MA), informationabout local
population size and residential mobility was retrieved from U.S. Census Bureaus online database (i.e.,
2009 estimate and 20052009 community survey).
4
To test the hypotheses, Cox regression analysis was
used.
5
Group survival was the censoring variable that indicates whether the group is still alive at the end
of the study (1 =No, 0 =Yes).
Data Collection and Analysis: Interviews
Among the 34 participating organizers, 14 group organizers were selected from 100 randomly sam-
pled groups, which were provided by the research unit of Meetup.com. All of the organizers of these
100 groups were contacted through the contact function of Meetup.com, but only 14 organizers were
followed up and participated in the interview. In addition to the random sample, interviews were con-
ducted with another 20 group organizers who were selected through purposive sampling.
6
Interviews,
which were semistructured and conducted mainly over the phone, ranged in length from14 to 114 min-
utes (M=39.67, SD=22.04). Te initial interviews took place fromJuly 2009 through January 2010, but
10 organizers were followed up through July 2011 afer observing conspicuous group development (e.g.,
group closure, spin-of groups).
All of the 30 audio-recorded interviews were transcribed. Te transcripts, including the four inter-
views that were not audio-recorded, were entered in ATLAS ti and analyzed through a series of coding
processes (Strauss & Corbin, 1990).
7
Note that because interviews were conducted mostly following the
order and structure of the questions as listed in the protocol, the decisions of where to code and which
codes to apply were relatively straightforward, and so were the comparisons of interviewees responses
under diferent categories.
8
RQ(a) was answered through the query tool provided by the ATLAS. ti com-
puter program, which searched the entire corpus for the sentences and paragraphs of quotes that had
been coded with the established categories.
Results
Te Evolutionary Process of Meetup Population
Afer 18 months of observation, 46 out of 100 Meetup groups were found to have closed down. Tat is, 46
groups were uncensored (experienced the target event, group closure) while the rest were right-censored
(did not experience the target event). Tis percentage of censoring (54%) was considered acceptable
in ensuring reasonable statistical power (Singer & Willett, 1991). Since all of the 100 groups were
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication (2014) 2014 International Communication Association 7
Table 1 Results From Cox Analysis
Model 1 Model 2
B Sig. Exp(B) B Sig. Exp(B)
Local Population Size .077 .615 .926 .025 .908 1.025
Residential Mobility .020 .349 1.021 .037 .160 1.037
Density I (log)

.953 .058 2.592

Density II (log) .724 .120 .485
Member Requirements .197 .607 1.218
Non-Proft Orientation 1.614 .000 .199
External Ties 1.935 .000 .144
Leadership Team 1.094 .028 .335
Leadership Change (lagged)

1.455 .001 .233

2 log-likelihood 326.369 257.978
G
2
68.391 .000
Note. Signifcant predictors and their coefcients are identifed in boldface.
Te positive B coefcient (with odds ratios above 1) implies an increase in the probability of group
closure. G
2
refers to the value of chi-square change from Model 1 (with locale and residential mobility
only) to Model 2, in this case, G
2
=68.391, p =.000, R
2
=1 - e^((68.391) /100) =0.495, indicating the
strength of association between the set of covariates and survival time (Allison, 1995). Allison, P. D.
(1995). Survival analysis using the SAS system: A practical guide. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.

Te relationship between population density and group survival was a directional hypothesis, hence
the coefcient was signifcant at p =.058 (2-tailed signifcance).

Leadership change was transformed with a lagged form to avoid the problem of simultaneity.
observed as intact cases, no lef-censoring occurred. Among the 46 groups that closed down, 38 groups
(82.6%) were aged one year or younger. A signifcant age diference was found between ongoing groups
(M=40.91, SD=22.06) and defunct groups (M=15.04, SD=11.67) (t(83) =7.48, p <.001); H3 was
thus supported, suggesting that older groups had a greater likelihood of survival than younger groups.
To test the rest of the hypotheses, all the variables were entered in the Cox regression model. Te
results revealed that the number of other Meetup groups existing within a radius of 25 miles (H2)
(B=.953, p =.058), with a not-for-proft orientation (H4) (B=1.614, p <.001), leadership team
(B=1.094, p <.05), the experience of leadership change (H5) (B=1.455, p <.01), and external
ties (H6) (B=1.935, p <.001) signifcantly infuenced group survival (see Table 1). In other words,
proximity to other Meetup groups increased the probability of group closure. On the other hand, a
not-for proft orientation, the existence of a leadership team with the experience of leadership change,
and possession of external ties reduced the probability of group closure. Member requirement was
not a signifcant predictor of survival time (H1) (B=.197, p >.10). Hence, all hypotheses, with the
single exception of H1, were supported. Due to space limitations, the survival function (a graphical
representation of the cumulative survival distribution) is not shown in the paper. Based on the survival
function, at the mean of the predictors, the survival rates of a group at 1-year, 2-year, and 3-year
thresholds were 88%, 73%, and 65%, respectively.
Does, then, the evolutionary process of Meetup groups at the population level refect the V-S-R
mechanisms (RQb)? Te above-noted results suggest that it does. Specifcally, variations were observed
to occur in diferent dimensions, including group niche, population density, group age, group type,
8 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication (2014) 2014 International Communication Association
Figure 1 Two-mode external networks of survival groups. Te red circles are the Meetup groups that
survived at the end of observation and the blue boxes represent diferent types of external ties that sur-
viving groups had connections with.
leadership factors, and network confgurations. Over time, older and not-for-proft groups living
under low-population density, surviving with a leadership team with an experience of leadership
change, and maintaining external ties with other groups or organizations (be they inside or outside
the population of Meetup groups), were more likely to be selected and retained within the population
of Meetup groups. A visualization was drawn using NetDraw (Figure 1), which illustrated that local
businesses were the most-cited source of external ties by surviving groups, followed by local nonproft
organizations, national and international nonproft organizations, and local voluntary organizations.
Within Meetup.com, groups with goals such as socializing, pursuit of hobbies, and sports and recreation
were common targets for collaboration.
Te Evolutionary Process of Meetup Groups
Analysis of interview data revealed the evolutionary processes of groups (RQa). Specifcally, the V-S-R
mechanisms were represented in diferent aspects of internal group processes as well as external inter-
action with the environment. When a group was frst created, organizers focused mainly on recruitment
and advertising; the strategies they used included a combination of traditional word-of-mouth and
unique online search afordances. For example, an organizer of a philosophy group (MDTinkGroup
1) described his multimodal advertising eforts:
I know when I talk with them, they, of course, I tell them about my group and a lot of groups and a
lot of people join, cause we do some cool things. So, just pretty much, other than the Meetup page,
Ive talked to people at other Meetup groups.
As groups developed, the strategies that organizers found initially useful might be selected and
retained as part of organizing routines, or subjected to later modifcations. Te organizer of a walk
group (MIWalkGroup) mentioned that instead of actively contacting prospective members through
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication (2014) 2014 International Communication Association 9
numerous e-mails, she later relied on the search function provided on Meetup.com to do the work
for her to attract members. It appears that the technological afordances of search engines played a
pivotal role in determining the niche a group could occupy in the population. Te organizer of a social
philosophy group (OHTinkGroup) mentioned the efect of online search engine functionality on the
growth of the group:
And the bigger we get, the easier it is to search us. Because more and more people talk
about the group, then they fnd Meetup and they keep using words that will pull out
for a search engine. And that makes it easier for people to then fnd our group through
these words that they use. Tey dont even realize theyre doing it.
Diferent organizing structures took shape, depending on the nature of group topic. In groups with
focused activities (e.g., concert going or rock climbing), help from assistant organizers was minimal,
since the organizer could easily handle the planning and organizing work. In groups whose activities
were diverse (e.g., social groups), organizers used the expertise of their assistant organizers in a variety
of ways. If no help was available from inside the group, organizers would solicit help from their per-
sonal networks, such as workplace colleagues or friends, at least to generate ideas for events. It is worth
mentioning that among the 34 participating organizers, 17 were not the originators of their groups. Yet,
thanks to the selected and retained strategies, those groups were able to sustain themselves with routine
self-organizing accomplished by several assistant organizers, even when the organizer lef.
It seems that the personal relationships that were observed to develop among members might have
served as a motivation for members to continue participating in group activity. As some organizers
pointed out, though, these relationships sometimes led to a shif of communication and activity away
fromthe grouplevel to a smaller andmore private level these members no longer attendedgroupmeet-
ings. In response to this issue, organizers sometimes created subgroup activities. For example, members
of a womens social group (ORWSocialGroup) organized among themselves a separate dancing Meetup
group. Te organizer of a language group (CAESLGroup) witnessed this pattern in her group, but she
chose to refrain from responding to it.
Organizers reported that they were well received in local venues, and some groups were actively
sought out by local businesses. It was not uncommon for local establishments to reserve meeting space
for groups or provide them with group discounts. An organizer of a new technology group (COTech-
Group) had local businesses that reached him through Meetup.com serve as group sponsors. Relation-
ships with these businesses varied in nature; depending on the group, the connection might turn out to
be a one-time business transaction, with no deeper ties cultivated.
Certain groups organized joint events with other Meetup groups on the basis of direct mutual ties.
Tat is, if multiple Meetup groups shared organizers or assistant organizers, these individuals would
either cross-post events on both groups pages or organize events together. Locale and characteristics of
the group also played a part in the initiation and implementation of joint events. For example, an orga-
nizer of a classics book club (MIBookGroup) mentioned that she was welcomed by the local community
and was contacted by local organizations (e.g., the library). Another organizer of an adventure group
(MIADGroup) described her personal links with other local cultural groups that facilitated intergroup
links:
I go to the tabling events that all the clubs and organizations have every year, which is
how I found them. And then because theyre closer to my age and they are just as
active and basically invited them to some of the meetups, or we do our own thing with
them.
10 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication (2014) 2014 International Communication Association
In sum, fndings from the interviews suggest that Meetup group organizers engaged in V-S-R pro-
cesses at diferent stages of group development to build and strengthen the ftness of the group. At the
group-formation stage, online and ofine recruitment eforts were made; later, connections for logis-
tic arrangements were built both within and outside of the group. In turn, these connections resulted
in various advantages and disadvantages: group transition as a result of leadership change, formation of
subgroup activities and/or spin-of groups due to the development of personal relationships, joint events
with other groups, and interaction with local communities.
Discussion
Applying an ecological and evolutionary perspective to understand the growth, survival, and disbanding
of mixed-mode groups, this study extends the existing evolutionary research, which mainly treats formal
and well-structured organizations, to the domain of technology-mediated voluntary associations. Tere
are similarities between the ecological and evolutionary processes of mixed-mode groups and those that
have been previously studied. For example, results of age-dependence and group survival are consistent
with the prediction of liability of newness as explored in work and traditional face-to-face voluntary
organizations (e.g., Fernandez, 2008; Hager, Galaskiewicz, &Larson, 2004). Te positive efects of shared
leadership and leadership change on survival of mixed-mode groups are also reported in existing studies
on work organizations (e.g., Carson et al., 2007; Mehra et al., 2006; Rowe et al., 2005).
Consistent with research demonstrating the usefulness of institutional embeddedness and interor-
ganizational linkages for organizational survival (Baum et al., 2000; Selle & ymyr, 1992), this studys
fndings point to the key role played by external ties in the growth and survival of mixed-mode groups
at group and population levels. Specifcally, the network visualization shown in Figure 1 demonstrates
that Meetup groups tend to have interorganizational links with other Meetup groups as well as with local
organizations; these links can provide sources of networking and collaboration and contribute to group
survival. Similarly, analysis of the interview data also suggests that group organizers engage in diferent
ways to build and strengthen their ftness over time through cooperation with other Meetup groups, as
well as by interacting with local establishments and the community. Tis study enriches the ecological
and evolutionary perspective by considering the technological afordances of mixed-mode commu-
nication and organizing. Tat is, the environment of those Meetup groups can take both online and
ofine forms, from which groups build and maintain their communication infrastructures and acquire
resources for operation.
In fact, the result of a nonsignifcant efect of group niches (measured by member requirements
for group topics) on survival raises the question of the applicability of the measures used in existing
ecological and evolutionary research to mixed-mode groups. Niche refers to the varied capacities that
organizations or populations possess to procure resources and exploit these resources in the environ-
ment (McKelvey, 1982; McPherson, 1983; Popielarz & Neal, 2007). Future research is needed to provide
a more fne-grained conceptual and methodological approach to investigating the multimodal resource
environment of mixed-mode groups. For example, search engines were commonly mentioned by inter-
viewed organizers as a useful mechanismfor deciding howgroups attract potential members. It suggests
that niches of a mixed-mode group may be better measured by group topics as well as the online search-
able range within which a group can recruit members.
Te advantage of the ecological and evolutionary perspective is its ability to explain phenomena
using the same theoretical process at diferent levels (Monge et al., 2008). Te cross-level conceptualiza-
tion also allows for the investigation of V-S-R processes enacted within and outside the organization
(Aldrich & Ruef, 2006; Monge et al., 2011a). Interview data revealed that Meetup group organizers
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication (2014) 2014 International Communication Association 11
were involved with diferent aspects of group development, including recruitment, leadership issues,
and choice and location of activities. In other words, group organizers play a pivotal role in infuencing
the internal evolutionary process of the group. Indeed, as Miner (1994) points out, an organizational
managers job is to monitor how the evolutionary processes at the higher level afect the whole organi-
zation, and to infuence the internal evolutionary process. Te behavior of the Meetup group organizers
under study exemplifed this description.
In response to a call for more eforts to make the level of analysis as explicit and inclusive as possible
(Monge & Contractor, 2003), this study used a mixed approach of interviews and archived group data,
which aforded me the ability to articulate which level of the ecosystem is being investigated. Regarding
group disbanding, cost was a major reason singled out by a number of participating organizers leading
to the decision for group closure. For example, two organizers (NJPRGroup & NMChannelingGroup)
explained that they closed their groups on Meetup.com because they did not fnd a Meetup presence
helped achieve their set goals to recruit newmembers to their existing business activities. Another orga-
nizer of a sports watching group (COSportsGroup) mentioned that her group migrated to Facebook,
another population of mixed-mode groups, because it costs nothing, whereas she paid the subscription
fees to Meetup.com as the single organizer of her group. Te traits of these less ft individual groups
may together refect the niche attributes at the population level of Meetup.com. It can be argued that
Meetup.comis carving out its macropopulation niche and coexists with other free-of-charge populations
of mixed-mode groups, such as Facebook and BigTent, in the larger environment. Further, the selection
event of group closure on Meetup.com and group creation in another population can be described as
a cross-level V-S-R process, because the selection at the lower group level refects the adaptations and
transformations at the higher level of populations (Monge et al., 2011b).
On the basis of this multilevel conceptualization of evolutionary processes, future research might
examine how diferent populations of mixed-mode groups interact with each other in the form of com-
mensalism; that is, howorganizations or groups fromsimilar populations engage in competition and/or
cooperation with one another (Aldrich & Ruef, 2006; Monge & Contractor, 2003). Another avenue of
inquiry might be the phenomenon of group migration among similar (e.g., from Meetup.com to Face-
book) or dissimilar populations (i.e. from Meetup.com to a business networking website) as this would
provide insight into the evolutionary dynamic at group, population, and community levels.
Conclusion
Tis study is limited in three ways. First, analyses from interviews and archived data did not difer-
entiate the reasons for group decline and closure; caution should thus be used when interpreting the
results. Second, because the study drewon interviews with group organizers using Meetup.com, fndings
may be biased, as the participating organizers were likely to be successful organizers. Extra eforts were
made, however, to prompt the organizers to share their thoughts about the less active groups they orga-
nized. Tird, the evolution of Meetup groups may not adequately represent the general phenomenon of
mixed-mode groups. Future research would do well to encompass diferent populations of mixed-mode
groups.
Despite these shortcomings, this study makes a major contribution to the understanding of the sus-
tainability of mixed-mode groups by viewing the issue through an ecological and evolutionary lens.
Overall, the results of this study are convergent with existing research on organizational ecology and
evolution, suggesting that factors such as population density, group age, proft orientation, leadership,
and external links are vital to predicting the survival of mixed-mode groups. Te cross-level conceptu-
alization allows for interpretation that the V-S-R processes can take place across group and population
12 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication (2014) 2014 International Communication Association
levels. Most importantly, considering technological afordances of mixed-mode communication and
organizing, this study sheds light on the role of technology in facilitating the organization of voluntary
associations in diferent phases of evolution, such as the efortless accomplishment of online recruitment
and the initiation of collaboration with other groups and organizations, be they online or ofine. Te
growing use of the Internet for face-to-face and geographically-defned grouping activities demands that
the phenomenon of mixed-mode groups will both garner attention and spur future research.
Acknowledgements
Te author wouldlike to thank James Katz, Marya Doerfel, Jennifer Gibbs, andtwo anonymous reviewers
for their most helpful comments and invaluable feedback on the earlier drafs of this manuscript
Notes
1 Tese 100 groups were randomly selected from the database of all the ongoing groups listed under
Meetup.com when the request was made.
2 Te assumption that groups coded with no leadership team had no leadership team before was based
on a pilot study observing another 12 Meetup groups over 8 months.
3 Groups and organizations involved in group events were defned as external ties. In total, 22 types of
external ties were identifed, including academic organization, local business,
state/national/international business, individuals, media organization, Meetup social group, Meetup
art and entertainment group, Meetup business and career group, Meetup cultures and languages
group, Meetup education group, Meetup hobbies group, Meetup parenting and family group, Meetup
religion and beliefs group, Meetup sports and recreation group, local non-proft organization, state
non-proft organization, national/international non-proft organization, political organization,
public agency, local voluntary organization, state voluntary organization, and national/international
voluntary organization.
4 Local population size was further classifed based on the four categories of metropolitan statistical
areas (MSAs) (http://www.census.gov/population/www/metroareas/mastand.html), that is, Level A
MSAs corresponding with 1 million or more local population, Level B MSAs with 250,000 to
999,999, Level C MSAs with 100,000 to 249,999, and Level D MSAs with less than 100,000. Te
locale data related to the 100 random groups represent 42% of Level D MSAs, 18% of Level C, 23%
of Level B, and 17% of Level A.
5 External ties, leadership team and leadership change (in lagged form) variables were analyzed as
covariates representing state in the Cox regression model. Tese variables were meant to indicate
whether a group has ever experienced the target event, that is, whether a group has constructed an
external tie, has shared leadership, or has experienced leadership change over the course of group
development. Tus they were not recorded at various points in time. Two assumptions related to Cox
regression analysis were tested. First, squared multiple correlations (SMC) were conducted to check
for evidence of multicollinearity. No SMC exceeded the recommended threshold of .90 (Tabachnick
& Fidell, 2001); thus it was concluded that the variables under study were nonredundant. Te
assumption of proportional hazards required in the Cox regression model was also tested by adding
to the model interaction of time with all the variables, and then assessing the efect of these
interactions (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). None of the covariates signifcantly interacted with time.
Hence, it was considered that the assumption of proportionality was not violated. Tabachnick, B. G.,
& Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4
th
ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication (2014) 2014 International Communication Association 13
6 Please refer to the authors other paper for more details about the implementation of purposive
sampling and details about these interviewed groups. Lai, C. H. (2014). Understanding the
evolution of bona fde mixed-mode groups: An example of Meetup groups.First Monday, 19(1).
Available at: http://frstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/4681/3810
7 In addition to the 30 interviews, three other interviews were completed via email upon the
participants request, and one face-to-face interview was performed without the use of the recording
device due to ambient interruptions.
8 Te interview protocol and the coding categories are available upon request.
References
Anderson, R. T. (1971). Voluntary associations in history. American Anthropologist, 73(1), 209222.
Aldrich, H. E., & Auster, E. R. (1986). Even dwarfs started small: Liabilities of age and size and their
strategic implications. Research in Organizational Behavior, 8, 165198.
Aldrich, H. E., & Ruef, M. (2006). Organizations evolving (2nd ed.). London, UK: Sage.
Baum, J. A. C. (1999). Organizational ecology. In S. R. Clegg & C. Hardy (Eds.), Studying organization
theory and method (pp. 71108). London: Sage.
Baum, J. A. C., Calabrese, T., & Silverman, B. S. (2000). Dont go it alone: Alliance network
composition and startups performance in Canadian biotechnology. Strategic Management Journal,
21(3), 267294.
Baum, J. A. C., & Oliver, C. (1991). Institutional linkages and organizational mortality, Administrative
Science Quarterly, 36, 187218.
Baum, J. A. C., & Oliver, C. (1992). Institutional embeddedness and the dynamics of organizational
populations. American Sociological Review, 57(4), 540559.
Baum, J. A. C., & Shipilov, A. V. (2006). Ecological approaches to organizations. In S. R. Clegg, C.
Hardy, W. Nord, & T. Lawrence (Eds.), Sage handbook for organization studies (pp. 55110).
London: Sage Publications
Baum, J. A. C., & Singh, J. V. (1994). Organizational niche overlap and the dynamics of organizational
founding. Organization Science, 5, 483501.
Baym, N. K. (2009). A call for grounding in the face of blurred boundaries. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 14, 720723.
Blanchard, A., & Horan, T. (1998). Virtual communities and social capital. Social science computer
review, 16(3), 293307.
Campbell, D. T. (1965). Variation and selective retention in socio-cultural evolution. In H. R.
Barringer, G. I. Blanksten, & R. W. Mack (Eds.), Social change in developing areas: A
reinterpretation of evolutionary theory (pp. 1948). Cambridge, MA: Schenkman.
Carson, J. B., Tesluk, P. E., & Marrone, J. A. (2007). Shared leadership in teams: An investigation of
antecedent conditions and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 12171234.
Chambr, S. M., & Fatt, N. (2002). Beyond the liability of newness: Nonproft organizations in an
emerging policy domain. Nonproft and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 31, 502524.
Davis, A. E., Renzulli, L. A., & Aldrich, H. E. (2006). Mixing or matching? Te infuence of voluntary
associations on the occupational diversity and density of small business owners networks. Work
and Occupations, 33, 4272.
Dobrev, S. D., Kim, T.-Y., & Hannan, M. T. (2001). Dynamics of niche width and resource partitioning.
Te American Journal of Sociology, 106(5), 12991337.
Fernandez, J. J. (2008). Causes of dissolutions among Spanish nonproft associations. Nonproft and
Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 37, 113137.
14 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication (2014) 2014 International Communication Association
Fichman, M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1991). Honeymoons and the liability of adolescence: A new
perspective on duration dependence in social and organizational relationships. Academy of
Management Review, 16, 442468.
Freeman, J. H., Carroll, G. R., & Hannan, M. T. (1983). Te liability of newness: Age dependence in
organizational death rates, American Sociological Review, 48, 692710.
Granovetter, M. S. (1985). Economic action and social structure: Te problem of embeddedness.
American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481510.
Hager, M. A., Galaskiewicz, J., & Larson, J. A. (2004). Structural embeddedness and the liability of
newness among nonproft organizations. Public Management Review, 6(2), 159188.
Hampton, K. N., Lee, C-J., & Her, E. J. (2011). How new media afords network diversity: Direct and
mediated access to social capital through participation in local social settings. New Media &
Society, 13(7), 10311049.
Hannan, M.T., & Carroll, G. R. (1992). Dynamics of organizational populations: Density, competition,
and legitimation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. H. (1977). Te population ecology of organizations. American Journal of
Sociology, 82, 92964.
Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1989). Organizational ecology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Homans, G. C. (1950). Te human group. New York: Harcourt, Brace.
Hooghe, M. (2003). Participation in voluntary associations and value indicators: Te efect of current
and previous participation experiences. Nonproft and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 32, 4769.
Knoke, D., & Prensky, D. (1984). What relevance do organization theories have for voluntary
associations? Social Science Quarterly, 65, 320.
Lazar, J., & Preece, J. (2002). Social considerations in online communities: Usability, sociability, and
success factors. In H. van Oostendorp (Ed.), Cognition in a digital world (pp. 127152 ). Mahwah:
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. Publisher.
McKelvey, B. (1982). Organizational systematics. Berkeley: University California Press.
McPherson, J. M. (1983). An ecology of afliation. American Sociological Review, 48(4), 519532.
McPherson, J. M. (1988). A theory of voluntary organization. In C. Milofsky (Ed.), Community
organizations: Studies in resource mobilization and exchange (pp. 4276). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Mehra, A., Smith, B., Dixon, A., & Robertson, B. (2006). Distributed leadership in teams: Te network
of leadership perceptions and team performance. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 232245.
Miner, A. S. (1994). Seeking adaptive advantage: Evolutionary theory and managerial action. In J. A. C.
Baum & J. V. Singh (Eds.), Evolutionary dynamics of organizations (pp. 7689). New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Monge, P. R., & Contractor, N. S. (2003). Teories of communication networks. Oxford: University Press.
Monge, P. R., Heiss, B. R., & Margolin, D. (2008). Communication network evolution in organizational
communities. Communication Teory, 18, 449477.
Monge, P., Lee, S., Fulk, J., Frank, L. B., Margolin, D., Schultz, C., . . .Weber, M. (2011a). Evolutionary
and ecological models for organizational communication. In V. Miller, M. S. Poole, D. R. Seibold &
Associates (Eds.), Advancing research in organizational communication through qualitative
methodology, Management Communication Quarterly, 25(1), 2634.
Monge, P., Lee, S., Fulk, J., Weber, M., Shen, C., Schultz, C., . . . Frank, L. B. (2011b). Research methods
for studying evolutionary and ecological processes in organizational communication. Management
Communication Quarterly, 25(2), 211251.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication (2014) 2014 International Communication Association 15
Monge, P. R., & Poole, M. S. (2008). Te evolution of organizational communication. Journal of
Communication, 58(4), 679692.
Popielarz, P. A., & Neal, Z. P. (2007). Te niche as a theoretical tool. Annual Review of Sociology, 33,
6584.
Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (2000). Te formation of group norms in computer-mediated
communication. Human Communication Research, 26(3), 341371.
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: Te collapse and revival of American community. New York:
Simon & Schuster.
Rainie, L., Purcell, K., & Smith, A. (2011). Te social side of the internet. Pew Internet & American Life
Project. Retrieved January 25, 2011, from
http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2011/Te-Social-Side-of-the-Internet.aspx
Rothaermel, F. T., & Sugiyama, S. (2001). Virtual internet communities and commercial success:
Individual and community-level theory grounded in the atypical case of TimeZone.com. Journal of
Management, 27(3), 297312.
Rowe W., Cannella, A., Rankin, D., & Gorman, D. (2005). Leader succession and organizational
performance: Integrating the common-sense, ritual scapegoating, and vicious-circle succession
theories. Te Leadership Quarterly, 16, 197219.
Selle, P., & ymyr, B. (1992). Explaining changes in the population of voluntary organizations: Te
roles of aggregate and individual level data. Nonproft and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 21(2),
147179.
Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (1991). Modeling the days of our lives: Using survival analysis when
designing and analyzing longitudinal studies of duration and the timing of events. Psychological
Bulletin, 110, 268290.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Tousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tushman, M. L., & Rosenkopf, L. (1996). Executive succession, strategic reorientation and performance
growth: A longitudinal study in the US cement industry. Management Science, 42(7), 939953.
Uzzi, B. (1999). Embeddedness in the making of fnancial capital: How social relations and networks
beneft frms seeking fnance. American Sociological Review, 64, 481505.
Walther, J. B., & Parks, M. R. (2002). Cues fltered out, cues fltered in: Computer mediated
communication and relationships. In M. L. Knapp, J. A. Daly & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Te handbook
of interpersonal communication (3rd ed., pp. 529563). Tousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wang, X., Butler, B., & Joyce, E. (2006). An ecological perspective on online communities. In
Proceedings of Academy of Management (pp. I1I6). New York: Academy of Management.
Warner, W. K. (1972). Major conceptual elements of voluntary associations. In D. H. Smith, R. D.
Reddy, & B. R. Baldwin (Ed.), Voluntary action research: 1972 (pp. 7180). Lexington, Mass:
Lexington Books.
Wollebk, D. (2009). Survival in local voluntary associations. Nonproft Management and Leadership,
19, 267284.
About the Author
Chih-Hui Lai (PhD, Rutgers University) is an Assistant Professor in the School of Communication at the
University of Akron. Her research interests focus on the intersection of technology use, organizational
communication, and voluntary groups.
Address: School of Communication, the University of Akron, 105C Kolbe Hall, Akron, OH 44325.
E-mail: chihhui@uakron.edu
16 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication (2014) 2014 International Communication Association