DEVELOPMENT OF A COMPUTER CONFERENCING MODERATOR EDITORIAL TEAM
by Griff Wigley

Introduction
============

Computer conferencing literature abounds with articles on the role of the moderator. But little has been written on the development of a team of moderators which functions as the editorial component of a computer conferencing network. On MIX (the McGraw-Hill Information Exchange for educators) moderators ARE the editorial team, as concerned and invested in the development of the whole network as they are in the success of their own particular conferences. Here's what we've done to develop the skills of individuals to work as a team.

Recruitment
===========

Like many networks, MIX recruits moderators among its subscribers. This is not only convenient, but it has proven vastly more reliable than face-to-face recruiting. It's too difficult otherwise to predict a person's online personality, habits and reliability. Potential MIX moderators are either selected from the group of hosts (previous subscribers given free time in exchange for welcoming newcomers) or they are first asked to be hosts for a few months so we can watch their interactions with others.

A team of moderators is then assigned to interview the candidate via e-mail, with carbon copies of all exchanges sent to the editor. Not only does this provide more information about the candidates, it gives the candidates a better understanding of who we are and of the level of commitment expected if they join the moderator team. It also reinforces ownership among the moderators; they help make the decision about who joins them and whether that person will contribute as they do.

Compensation
============

Like many startup networks, we initially gave moderators free time in exchange for moderating conferences. Most were new to conferencing and were delighted with this arrangement. During the second year, we paid each moderator a monthly stipend, allowing a more formal contractual arrangement with each of them. As online traffic increased and more conferences were needed, it became clear that moderator interest and energy were quite variable from month to month and that a different compensation system was needed.

The moderators were adamantly opposed to being paid on a commission basis as is commonplace on other commercial networks. There was considerable fear that commissions would create a competitive atmosphere which would destroy the team feeling we had developed. For example, whenever moderators prepare to open a new conference, they post an invitation in the moderators conference asking for help in designing it. Typically, a half dozen or more colleagues respond. We needed a compensation plan which would not be a disincentive to this kind of activity. In January 1988, moderators began receiving a monthly retainer fee for participating in the moderators' conference, plus a flat fee for each "task" they perform each month. Moderating a conference is considered a task, as is preparing to open a conference, helping another moderator design a conference, writing an article or proposal, hosting newcomers, monitoring the system during off hours, preparing for an upcoming presentation and so on.

The advantage of this approach is that it allows moderators to be paid more equitably based on their desired workload from month to month. Yet it does not diminish their interest and incentive to see other moderators' conferences succeed. This arrangement promotes continued development of the "editorial moderator team" which, given a small editorial staff, is crucial to determining overall direction of MIX's online content. This "lean" operation clearly has contributed to creating a sense of ownership among the moderators. They share the common vision that MIX can play an important role in education, and they know that its success or failure depends heavily on them. Our arrangement is distinctly different from being hired" by a corporation and paid a flat rate or commission to perform a task. As long as moderator compensation keeps increasing commensurate with the success of the network, we will probably continue this approach.

Professional Development and Supervision
========================================

Because ours is a small and growing network, we must develop our moderators in ways that can impact both editorial and marketing. For example, we pay the travel and expenses for MIX moderators to make presentations about educational telecommunications at national conventions. Writing and speaking on their current interest areas promotes individual professional growth while giving MIX additional exposure.

We pay the online fees for moderators to explore other networks. This broadens their experience and interest areas, increasing their ability to criticize and improve MIX. It also expands their circle of contacts, which in turn enhances awareness of MIX.

We bring all the moderators together once a year for a three-day evaluation and planning session affectionately known as the "blowout." The overall editorial direction for the year is established, based on our collective observations of the failures and successes of the previous year. But more importantly, the blowout is an important part of the development of the group. Face-to-face celebrating, social activities, and opportunities to relate to individuals in a different context from the online work environment add immeasurably to the richness of our relationships to each other.

We do not do any moderator training in a formal sense. We do have moderating guidelines and a collection of articles on moderating skills (many of them from back issues of NETWEAVER) which people are expected to read. But it is basically a self-directed learning environment.

We have recently added the expectation that each moderator submit a short evaluation and planning statement every 6 months. This includes a review of their overall performance from the previous period, a goal related to one of their tasks, a goal relating to their professional development as a moderator, and any optional plans for promotion, making presentations at other conferences, using other electronic networks, writing for magazines or journals and the like.

Next Steps
==========

Having worked with the moderators on the wording of their planning statements,.we then informally observe, teach and give feedback on their performance by e-mail, phone and face-to-face. This level of individual supervision is a needed additional step to create a working environment which allows for individual growth within a team framework. We will also need to develop a process for each individual to receive feedback from the entire team, not just the editor. Every individual's work on the system involves at least one other moderator, frequently several. So it's critically important for moderators to receive their peers' observations if the feedback is to be of high quality.

Conclusion
==========

While this paper defines nothing new in the way of team development, individual motivation and professional development in a traditional work environment, it confirms the premise that such a an environment can indeed exist electronically. Look for an update on the process next year.

----------
Griff Wigley is editor of MIX, an electronic computer communications network for education, now two years old. It serves educators at primary, secondary and vocational levels. He can be reached at (800) 622-6310, in MN and outside the U.S. at (612) 829-8200, as gwigley on MIX and BIX, and 72007,24 on CompuServe. Mailing address: EMS/McGraw-Hill, 9855 West 78th St., Eden Prairie, MN 55344.