Concealing Communities Within the Crowd

Organizational Visibility

This dimension draws from research on organizational identity, branding, image, legitimacy, and reputation to consider the degree to which an organization’s identity is recognized by various audiences. Many organizations seek to make themselves highly visible and recognizable to compete for members and customers (Schultz, Hatch, & Larsen, 2000) and maintain their legitimacy by the public (Veil, Sellnow, & Petrun, 2012). This is achieved by the degree to which identity information about the organization—logos, slogans, mission statements, contact information, signage, and leadership—is withheld or advertised by the organization. While organizations that are recognizable tend to share this information and seek credit for their activities, anonymous organizations act to conceal such information and may seek deniability of their actions. In addition, a single organization may have several identities that it differentially expresses or conceals from various audiences.

Businesses that create crowd-based platforms are often well-known for-profit entities (e.g., Amazon) that provide clear identity information about the organization. By contrast, the crowds contributing to these platforms are theorized to have limited leadership, hierarchy, or formal organization (Bimber et al., 2012), suggesting that crowds may lack an organizational identity to be made (in)visible. However, firms may choose to make certain sub-units within the crowd less visible to the general public. Organizations can conceal their various crowd management practices, such as special benefits or access to proprietary information through technical features available only to select members (e.g., private forums, invite-only events). For example, online crowds organized through the communicative affordances designed into a technology (Bimber et al., 2012), call attention to how differential access to communication channels and interface design might actually contribute to concealing aspects of an organization’s identity.

Organizational Identification

The second dimension reflects the extent to which

organizational members actively express a sense of connection to, affiliation with, and/or oneness with the organization . . . [and] becomes another way in which the identity of the organization is revealed or concealed through talk and other behaviors of its members. (Scott, 2013, p. 89)

Here, Scott clarifies two critical aspects of identification for examining hidden organizations: the importance of considering communicative/behavioral manifestations of identification and how identifications are situated in social interactions. A communicative/behavioral view examines the rhetorical strategies used to create a sense of connection with an organization (e.g., acknowledging membership, sharing contact information, wearing logos, defending the organization, using “we” statements, and stating organizational values and mission; see Scott, Corman, & Cheney, 1998).

Contrary to what we know about more transparent organizations, expressions of identification are potentially more complicated in hidden organizations where “members may show loyalty and identification though an absence of communication” (Scott, 2013, p. 64) or even denying membership altogether. Closely tied to this is the perspective that identifications are situated in activities and contexts, emphasizing that the expression of member identification is influenced by both the audience and situated activities associated with these identifications. (Scott & Stephens, 2009). Thus, organizational identification can be understood as the degree to which members express identification or remain silent about their membership (e.g., failing to acknowledge membership, limited information sharing, lack of nonverbal displays, etc.). Organizations can be concealed from outsiders when members engage in silent forms of identification. Expression of membership identification emerges as a challenge for crowd-based collectives because members typically choose to conceal their identity (Cox, 2011), which can undermine the perceived legitimacy of their contributions by the public. This suggests that members of many crowds often choose to remain silent about their membership by remaining anonymous and emphasizes the need for businesses harnessing the crowd to strategically encourage the membership identifications of participants.

Relevant Audiences

Finally, the dimension of relevant audience recognizes that appropriate expressions of organizational visibility and member identification differ depending on the audience—It may be desirable to express/conceal these from some audiences, but not others. An organization and its members with a primarily mass/public audience may attempt to promote or conceal itself broadly to the general public. However, an organization and its members with primarily local/limited audiences tend to focus their identity communication efforts to more immediate others, such as a community, family, and friends. Considering relevant audiences highlights the need to examine the multiple identities of the organization and members that may be expressed/concealed to various audiences (Scott et al., 1998). Predominately, crowd-based collectives harnessed by businesses produce content that is widely used by the public (e.g., reviews). By contrast, little is known about more local audiences to which members of these crowds may conceal or reveal themselves.

In combining these three dimensions, Scott (2013) presents a sophisticated framework for examining the (in)visibility practices of organizations and their members. Specifically, organizations can be classified as ranging from transparent to shaded to shadowed to dark, each of which has implications for the operation of the organization, motivations for (in)visibility, and socialization processes of new members (Scott, 2013). This framework allows for a more nuanced understanding and comparison of different types of organizations based on the (in)visibility of organizational and member identities. A focus on identity makes this a particularly well-suited framework for investigating crowd-based collectives where businesses promote the legitimacy of content produced by anonymous crowd workers, manage the public reputation of the collective, and compete with other organizations for an audience. Moreover, the optional anonymity often granted to participants in the crowd may aid in the concealing of hidden organizations. The present study draws from the three dimensions of this framework to investigate the following research questions:

Participants

There were 17 participants in this study consisting of 7 non-Elite users of Yelp, 7 Elite Squad members, and 3 former Elite Squad members (11 women, 6 men). Nearly all participants resided within Mayberry—a mid-sized city in the Southeast United States; however, one former Elite Squad member was living in the Northeast. An interview with the CM was requested, but declined on account of organizational policy. Participants had written between zero and several thousand reviews and had been participating on Yelp for between 1 month and more than 8 years. Mayberry is a pseudonym and other names have been anonymized to protect confidentiality.

Procedures

Interview participants were recruited through a combination of targeted and snowball sampling (Biernacki & Waldorf, 1981) to maximize the variation of experience with the Elite Squad. During the course of this study, the researcher conducted participant observation as an active member of the Elite Squad in Mayberry for 2 years. Potential interview participants were contacted during Elite events and through social media. After each interview, participants were asked to recommend other people who might offer alternative perspectives. Interviews were conducted through a flexible guide that could be adapted to the varied experience and expertise of participants with regard to the Elite Squad (Lindlof & Taylor, 2010). The interview protocol asked participants about their perceptions of Yelp and the Elite Squad, their experiences writing reviews and attending events, and their use of the website. Example questions included “How did you find out about the Elite Squad?” and “What role does the Elite Squad play in Yelp?” Most interviews (14) were conducted face-to-face in local restaurants with 3 being conducted through Skype or telephone. Interviews averaged 60 min (range = 8-120 min), for a total of 17.25 hr of recorded audio and 257 single-spaced transcription pages. The study also draws from official organizational documents containing information about Yelp and the Elite Squad (Yelp FAQ, Content Guidelines, Annual Report, code of conduct, etc.) to provide insight as to how Yelp constructs and communicates its organization identity. These documents totaled 56 single-spaced pages.

All interviews were transcribed by the researcher and imported into Nvivo10, along with organizational documents and memos. The analysis began with coding guided by—but not limited to—sensitizing concepts (Charmaz, 2006). This involved coding for instances when interviewees’ comments, organizational documents, and memos embodied concepts from the literature informing the dimensions of the hidden organization framework. Examples of these initial codes include unknown purpose of Elite, lack of socialization, and recruiting members. Following the constant comparison technique (Corbin & Strauss, 1990), coding was refined into broader categories such as limited knowledge of Elite identity (which encompasses unclear criteria for membership, lack of socialization, and recruiting members). The analysis also considered the connection between these categories and various audiences (e.g., concealed from public, expressed to friends, etc.). The data were then reread and coded for additional occurrences and negative cases.

Interviews continued until analysis revealed only repetition of categories, indicating that theoretical saturation was reached (Patton, 1990). To validate the findings, member checks were conducted with users of Yelp, members of the Elite Squad, and non-Elite reviewers. Among casual users of Yelp and non-Elite reviewers, there was near universal surprise regarding the existence of the Elite Squad and general agreement that this unit lacked visibility. There was also agreement among Elite members regarding the findings, which sometimes elicited contemplation regarding their own role in Yelp and the purpose of the Elite Squad.

Limited Information

A predominant theme emerging from the data was the limited information available to both non-Elites and Elites concerning the nature and purpose of the Elite Squad. Overwhelmingly, non-Elite reviewers expressed confusion and uncertainty when asked about the Elite Squad. For example, Portia responded, “I’ve never heard of that.” By contrast, Elaine had seen the digital Elite badges and explained that “my understanding is it’s just someone who writes quality reviews. I think quantity plays some kind of factor in it.” This suggests that the digital Elite badges, if they are noticed, are perceived as some kind of automated achievement rather than being associated with membership in a specific offline organization.

Unexpectedly, even Elite Squad members described having limited information about this group prior to membership. When asked about his knowledge of the Elite Squad before he joined, John said, “I would say that it’s not advertised very well. I knew about them, that there were Elites. But I didn’t know how to become one or what they did or anything like that.” For some, this lack of information persisted even after becoming a member; for example, Katy said, “I didn’t really know what it was, so honestly, the first year I didn’t even go to any of the events or anything. I didn’t really know what my status really meant even.” Despite accepting an invitation to join the Elite Squad, members like Katy were not provided with sufficient information about the organization, its identity, and its events. It was not until another member encouraged her to attend an Elite Squad Event that she learned about this offline organization connected to Yelp. This theme illustrates that through limiting available information about the Elite Squad, Yelp is able to conceal the visibility to both the public and even members.

Restricted Communication Channels

Two types of restricted communication channels were identified as playing an important role in concealing the Elite Squad. First, Elite-related communications (e.g., calendar of events) occur through a restricted webpage accessible only to Elite Squad members. By organizing Elite events through this channel, Yelp can hide the activities of this sub-organization from non-members. Underscoring the effectiveness of this practice, a former Elite member—who would occasionally work at Elite events—described how difficult it was to obtain information about Elite Squad events after she left the squad:

I don’t get any emails or anything. It’s funny because I know what it’s like to be Elite and now I don’t even get information. I am supposed to go some of these events because [the CM] hired me, but then I don’t know any information because I don’t get any of the emails . . . and sometimes [the CM] forgets that I don’t know the information, so I’m like, “What time? Where is it? Where am I going?” And sometimes I won’t know the dress code. So I really don’t know . . . So you’re not in the club at all if you are not Elite.

This passage demonstrates how restricted communication limits the visibility of the Elite Squad even to those hired to work at their events, suggesting that its visibility would also be hidden from the public. It also alludes to the ephemeral nature of the organization’s “location”—As events occur at different businesses each month, there is no permanent physical presence (e.g., office) for the Elite Squad. In restricting access to the changing locations of Elite Squad events, Yelp is able to further limit the visibility of the Elite Squad from the general public and other Yelp reviewers.

The local CM also served to restrict communication, acting as a gatekeeper between the Elite Squad and the rest of Yelp. For example, one Elite member who stopped contributing reviews received an email from the CM stating, “Just wanted to let you know that I got a note from our Elite Council mentioning you hadn’t written a review in a while . . . I hope you can come back to us!” However, when asked who they would contact in the organization above the CM in the event of an emergency or a grievance, Tegel said, “Yeah, ahhh, wow. That’s a really good question because no, I wouldn’t know how to do it,” and Hayley simply stated, “I wouldn’t know who to complain to . . . I do feel some helplessness in the community sometimes in terms of . . . we don’t really have that much of a voice.” Even a paid assistant to the CM explained that “all of my stuff for Yelp, it goes through [the CM], so I wouldn’t know how to reach out.” Using the CM as a gatekeeper limits the ability of Elite Squad members to contact those higher in the organization or learn about the organization beyond their local squad. This consequently limited their knowledge of the rest of the organization, its purpose, its leadership, and the nature of the Elite Council.

Concealed Through Community

The analysis revealed two organizational identities associated with the Elite Squad—one identity that was readily visible to the Elites themselves and another identity that was more concealed from the Elites. The first was the locally recognized Elite Squad-as-community identity, which aligns with organizational messages. This is where Elite Squad members are described as “the true heart of the Yelp community” and “a local authority and role model for the Yelp community” that has “got a lot of sway in the community” and should welcome “new members and watch out for your community” (“Yelp Elite Squad,” n.d.). However, a second more obscure organizational identity associated with the Elite Squad emerged from the data analysis. The Elite Squad-as-business identity, a distinct sub-organization within the larger Yelp hierarchy, was a sharp contrast with the community identity promoted by Yelp CMs and the official documents used to recruit new Elite members. The Elite Squad-as-business identity positioned the unit as one that receives orders from those higher in the organization; furthermore, members play a valuable role in the business operations of Yelp and are managed by paid employees of the organization. This second identity was so well concealed from Elites that many expressed difficulty initially conceiving of the Elite Squad-as-business identity. While this emerged frequently across interviews, the following truncated exchange with Tegel exemplifies this theme:

Similarly, this framing was sufficiently powerful that Hayley—who had applied for the position of CM, but was not chosen—explains that,

Even though I tried to get a [CM] job there, I didn’t think of it as a business or an organization . . . Man, I never thought about it from a business point of view before. I think that [Elites] definitely love the community and for me it’s so engrained. But it’s definitely a business and you do forget . . . I see myself not as a volunteer for them in a business way, but I certainly . . . I hate to say the word cog, you know what I mean. But I’m a part. I’m a part of their plan.

These passages illustrate a powerful way that Yelp conceals the visibility of the Elite Squad-as-business identity from its own members—through organizational messages that construct the Elite Squad as “community.” These Elite Squad-as-community and Elite Squad-as-business identities appear in tension—As members consider their participation as a part of the business operations of Yelp, the authenticity of the community identity is questioned. Moreover, this suggests that even within the Elite Squad there is an organizational identity that is largely concealed from members—a hidden organization within a hidden organization.

To summarize, the analysis reveals that a lack of information and restricted channels of communication helped conceal the nature and function of Yelp’s Elite Squad from the general public. More surprisingly, the analysis also revealed that Elite members themselves frequently lacked full knowledge of the Elite Squad’s identity—particularly as it pertained to its operations as a sub-unit within the larger organization. Members did not have access to those higher in the organization and lacked knowledge of the organization’s leadership. Instead, framing the Elite Squad as “community” acted to conceal the Elite Squad as a part of the business operations of Yelp.

Public Profiles: Required Expressions Versus Desired Anonymity

The primary interface between reviewers on Yelp and the general public is through their online user profile, aspects of which are placed alongside the business reviews they produce. Yelp reviewers have the option to remain somewhat anonymous when constructing a profile by choosing not to submit a photo or using a fake name. Reviewers can also choose to submit accurate personal information (name, photo, location, etc.) to the branded website, thereby publically affiliating with Yelp. While regular reviewers can remain anonymous, Yelp requires all Elite Squad reviewers to use their real names and post a real photo to their user profile.

The importance of publically identifying with Yelp is underscored by the policy that if a member changes his or her name “your Elite badge will be temporarily removed pending evaluation by the Yelp Elite Squad Council . . . Changes that appear to confuse or hide your identity will result in the loss of your Elite status” (“Can Elite Yelpers Change Their User Name?” n.d.). Yelp further instructs members to add rich content on their profile page to “let people know who you are and what makes you tick. Users want to read reviews from people they know and trust (not those with profiles that are empty or laced with inappropriate content)” (“Yelp Content Guidelines,” n.d.).

These identity requirements were a source of tension for some Elite Squad members, who cited both a preference for privacy and concerns over being accused of libel by business owners. All but two Elite members expressed discomfort with the real name and photo policy. For example, Hayley said, “To be honest, that makes me feel slightly uncomfortable. Because I don’t like it being so public.” Another member, Ash, describes his unsuccessful attempt to circumvent this by providing an obscured photo of himself:

My first pictures before I was Elite were a lot more anonymous . . . And then they said it had to be a real picture of you. So then I had a picture of me looking out at the ocean, but it’s from behind. Then when I started going, “Ok I want to be Elite” . . . it needs to be a real picture that shows your face. And I’m like, “Oh man” because I like to hide in the background. I don’t want people to really know who I am. So I had to search and find pictures that were not a close-up of my face . . . I can’t hide in the shadows so much.

Members also expressed concern that providing their real name and photo might somehow be used against them in a libel lawsuit. For example, Alecia—a former Elite member—said, “I have an old photo of myself now, not how I really look . . . and I don’t write negative things because I’m scared . . . I am worried about people. They write such mean things and then it’s your real name. That could be libel.” Similarly Ash explains that,

I pay very close attention that what I write is fact . . . I think people should be aware that what they say on Yelp is public . . . People should be aware that, no, Yelp is not going to come to your defense when you say bad things about a business. You’re on your own. And when they show up to Yelp with a subpoena that I need you to tell me who Ash is. They’re going to say, “Oh Ash is so and so.”

The concern of libel is not unfounded, as Yelp has in the past been subpoenaed to reveal the identities of its reviewers (Howell & Swarts, 2014).

Although members described discomfort with these public expressions of identification, they ultimately complied to join the Elite Squad. As a consequence of this affiliation, however, these members also described changing the content and ratings of their reviews. For example, Katy explains that,

Before, I didn’t filter as much, and I didn’t have my actual name and picture on there. But when you become Elite, an actual picture has to be up there, so I know that clients could see it. My supervisor saw it . . . I am more careful of the words I use and how I talk about it.

Similarly, Stefani—a reviewer trying to become Elite—said that a real name and photo “creates a sense of accountability. You’re attaching your identity to these reviews, so it makes you feel like you need to be more balanced.”

It might initially be considered counter-intuitive that Yelp would require members of a hidden organization to publically express their identification. However, previous research has found that when online information is presented alongside source identity cues—such as names and photos—it is deemed more credible (e.g., Metzger, 2007). Moreover, Xu (2014) found that source identity cues even enhanced the credibility of the website hosting this information. This may be a strategy to de-anonymize some of its crowd workers in effort to manage the public identity and reputation of Yelp. Although the Elite badge appears on the profile of squad members, the general lack of awareness and knowledge about these badges, as demonstrated through the analysis of Research Question 1, indicates that the public would likely associate a member’s “Elite” title with Yelp in general and not as a sign of an individual’s identification with a separate sub-unit within the larger organization.

Local Friends and Family: Yelp Identity Versus Elite Squad Identity

The second tension involved determining whether to express a Yelp and/or Elite Squad identity to local audiences of friends and family. Interview participants reported revealing their Elite identity to friends and family for the purpose of recruiting new members, which Yelp facilitates through allowing members to invite a +1 guest to events. All Elite interviewees described using events to recruit new members, and several were themselves recruited this way. For example, Tegel explains, “My friend became Elite and then she let me be her +1 to an event, so I was able to learn about the community.” Similarly, John explained,

I got lots of people involved in Yelp. Since we sometimes have up to two guests, I’d just invite someone I know . . . I was like, “Hey you wanna go?” And they were like, “Oh, this is so cool! I’m going to start Yelping!”

These passages demonstrate that through the practice of allowing guests to attend events, Yelp encourages Elites to acknowledge and even promote their membership in the Elite Squad to friends and family.

However, the analysis also revealed that while Elites recruited new members through these special events, it was often Yelp—and not the Elite Squad itself—that served as a primary identification target. For example, members described being “Yelp-like” (Wyatt), conducting themselves in a “Yelpy kind of way” (Katy), striving to be “role models for other Yelpers” (Tegel), and viewing themselves as “an ambassador for Yelp” (Ash). Hayley explained that, “I think that you kinda are a representative of the Mayberry Yelp group and community . . . I always tell people about Yelp. They kinda make fun of me for it, but I don’t care.” These passages illustrate clear expressions of member identification among members of the Elite Squad; however, the targets of these expressions are often Yelp rather than the Elite Squad itself.

Further analysis suggests that lack of knowledge about the Elite Squad may contribute to members favoring Yelp as the target of their identifications. For example, members were uncertain of the requirements for being selected for the Elite Squad. When asked about this, Ash responded, “I have no idea. Supposedly there is a committee of people back in San Francisco that evaluate your reviews . . . I have heard all sorts of things. I have no idea actual facts.” This is reinforced by Yelp not disclosing specific criteria for being selected, explaining they look for authenticity, contribution, connection and “a certain je ne sais quoi when reviewing Elite candidates . . . we know it when we see it” (“Yelp Elite Squad,” n.d.). To fully express identification, members need to have sufficient knowledge of the organization’s identity to share. In lacking this knowledge, members adopted a more silent form of identification, which acted to communicatively conceal the Elite Squad. By contrast, information about Yelp and its mission is widely recognized and more certain—It is a place where “you can also get reviews on other types of businesses as well” (Katy). In managing the tensions of which identity(ies) to express, members appear to take the path of least uncertainty.

Local Businesses: Conceal Elite Membership Versus Express Elite Membership

A final tension surrounding member identification emerged when considering local businesses as a relevant audience for member identification. Businesses are key organizational stakeholders for Yelp, as they pay for advertising and underwrite the cost of many Elite events (“Yelp’s Online Reviewing Mafia,” 2011). The analysis shows that Elite members received contradictory messages about how to demonstrate their Yelp identification in public—They were instructed not to disclose their membership to local businesses to receive special treatment in their daily life. However, they were also encouraged to attend Elite Squad Events hosted by these same local businesses at which they would receive special treatment.

If Elite reviewers receive special treatment because of their special Yelp status, the credibility of their reviews (and perhaps the whole website) might be compromised in the eyes of the public. Alternatively, demanding special treatment or threatening businesses with negative reviews (e.g., McKeever, 2012) may sour relationships between Yelp and the local businesses that pay for advertising. To that end, Yelp actively encourages Elite Squad members to suppress their special organizational identities through a series of behavioral guidelines, among which is, “Good Elites don’t demand special treatment or try to intimidate business owners with their Elite status.” The interview data illustrated that these organizational messages were an effective way of accomplishing this goal. For example, when asked if Elite Squad members asked about her duties as an Elite Squad member, Katy explained that Elites should “handle the places that you go to with respect, so not to expect special treatment.” Ash echoed this, saying that Elites should “not put Yelp in a difficult position of walking into a restaurant and saying ‘I’m a Yelp Elite, I want really good treatment.’ I don’t. I like to be as anonymous as possible.” By concealing their identities as Elite members from the businesses they frequented, these individuals helped preserve the image of Yelp as an objective review website and also limited potential bias in the reviews they produced.

It seems contradictory, then, that special treatment from businesses is precisely what occurs at Elite events. Shane explained that, “for nothing at all basically you go get dressed up and party with your friends and get drunk and full on all this awesome stuff . . . you feel special.” Revealing one’s Elite membership to a business becomes an expected and acceptable behavior when framed as a reward for participation and when organized by the CM. The interview data revealed that this arrangement created an internal conflict among Elite Squad members. Katy explained that, “It is like when you get those gifts from charities. You feel that you like got this free food and this free alcohol so now I have to review because they gave me this stuff.” While Yelp explicitly discourages members from reviewing businesses based on these Elite events, it may be unreasonable to expect reviewers to forget about special treatment they received when they return for a follow-up evaluation.

In unpacking this further, it surfaced that members would often return to these businesses for the purpose of officially reviewing them. For example, Ash said, “We had the ‘Yelp Drinks Week’ at Currant and I heard about Currant’s Sunday brunch, so I’ve been back to Currant for that. And having been to Currant, I’ve now reviewed Currant.” In addition to reviews, members would also share the experience of the special Elite events to those in their social network. For example, Stefani said,

I think [businesses] are trying to give everyone the best experience possible. So that you write a favorable review and maybe pass on the word to people that you know . . . I’ve mentioned that I had a good experience at various restaurants or bowling alleys in passing.

Elite events emerge as an opportunity for local businesses to market directly to an influential group of reviewers, who, in turn, may generate buzz about these businesses through word of mouth and reviews.

In summary, this section investigated how and to which audiences the Elite Squad members expressed and concealed their identity(ies). Through situating identification within three key audiences—the public, local friends and family, and local businesses—the analysis revealed that Yelp carefully manages when and to whom members express their identity. The findings present three tensions that emerged from the data related to expressing identification to these audiences. First, Yelp requires that members—often begrudgingly—provide their real name and photo on their online profile, thereby publically affiliating themselves with Yelp but not necessarily the Elite Squad. Second, members are encouraged to acknowledge their membership by recruiting friends and family; however, in lacking full knowledge about the Elite Squad, these identification efforts manifested communicatively as targeting Yelp. Finally, members are paradoxically discouraged from revealing their identity to local businesses, unless it has been specifically brokered by the CM.

In addition, the analysis provides insight as to the motivations and consequences of Yelp’s management of member identifications. In publically affiliating with Yelp, members expressed being more cautious and accountable for their reviews. Local expressions of membership to friends and family not only included aspects of the Elite Squad but also foregrounded Yelp as the target of these identifications—thereby maintaining a degree of secrecy around the Elite Squad. Finally, Yelp is able to mobilize targeted advertising (via word of mouth and reviews) of local businesses through brokering when and to whom members of the Elite Squad express their identity.

Theoretical Implications

The study provides several theoretical implications for both hidden organizations and crowd-based platforms. First, the findings extend Scott’s (2013) framework by identifying the use of framing (Fairhurst & Putnam, 2004) to discursively conceal the visibility of an organization from its members. Framing an organization as a local community limits how members conceive of and talk about the organization, allowing them to express identification and share information in a way that maintains the invisibility of certain organizational identities. This conceals these organizational identities not only from outsiders but also from members themselves. In addition, the use of framing also revealed how a hidden organizational identity can operate within a hidden organization, suggesting Scott’s framework can also be extended to include the possibility for these complex organizational arrangements.

Second, the findings show that membership identification with the same audience can be dynamic and contingent on the situated activities of organizational members. Members were found to both express and suppress identification with the Elite Squad to local business depending on whether it was sanctioned through an official Elite event. This reinforces the importance of considering not just the relevant audiences of membership expression, but also the activities in which these expressions are situated—what Scott et al. (1998) call the activity-identification relationship. The hidden organizational framework could be extended to more explicitly consider the contextual conditions and activities in which members are encouraged or discouraged to express membership identification. Moreover, this presents a dynamic view of hidden organizations, in which there may be periods where (in)visibility is more or less critical. For example, sororities in the National Panhellenic Conference require members to observe a period of strict silence during recruitment each year, in which they are forbidden from revealing their sorority affiliation or even speaking to any prospective member (Bradford, 2014). This suggests that some organizations may move fluidly through various degrees of transparency to achieve their goals.

Third, these findings speak to Stohl’s (2014) call to investigate the new kinds of identities and memberships associated with online crowds. Far from the egalitarian and decentralized participation often expected in the crowd, this study reveals that some members are carefully managed by hidden organizations. Moreover, identities of these members were found to be in tension. In theorizing about crowd-based collectives, attention to the influence of hidden presences needs to be considered. In addition, the inequalities of participation and influence in crowd-based projects observed by Shaw and Hill (2014) suggest that powerful members in the crowd may not simply emerge, but might be the result of strategic efforts by unknown entities to cultivate these members.

Practical Implications

This study also has practical implications for organizations that seek to harness crowd-based collectives. Specifically, it speaks of the need to carefully frame and manage the identities of volunteer crowd workers. Although volunteers are often studied in the context of non-profit organizations (e.g., Kramer, Lewis, & Gossett, 2013), crowd-based labor often financially and/or strategically benefits a for-profit business. A tension emerging from this arrangement was seen in the findings concerning “being a member of a community” versus “being a cog for a corporation.” This suggests that it would benefit managers to strategically frame participation of volunteer crowd workers in a manner that distances, or even conceals, itself from the business side of its operations—although it must be noted that such a decision should be made while considering the ethics of the situation. As businesses continue to harness crowds to accomplish their needs via a free labor force (Malone et al., 2010), careful attention to the framing of participation and membership is needed.

A second practical implication for businesses seeking to harness the crowd is to foster local offline communities for volunteers. Participants expressed a deep commitment to their local community and enjoyed the interactions with their peers. Indeed, social interaction is one of the motivations for volunteerism (Clary & Snyder, 1999), so creating an offline community may be useful in maintaining and promoting motivated crowd workers. Already, other crowd-based platforms appear to be emulating Yelp’s Elite Squad, such as the recent addition of City Guides to Google+ Local (Perez, 2015).

Future Research

This study provides avenues for future research on hidden organizations and crowd-based collectives. Most predominantly, membership identifications in this hidden organization were found to be in tension—even contradictory. Future research might investigate the impact of these multiple identifications, how they are managed, and the extent to which they are contextually expressed. This suggests that crowd work in hidden organizations may be a compelling context in which to investigate nested identities (Meisenbach & Kramer, 2014), multiple identities, disidentification, and schizo-identification (Dukerich, Kramer, & Parks, 1998). This study also revealed that (in)visibilities of hidden organizations and their members are dynamic and can be brokered for strategic purposes. Future studies may examine the conditions under which an organization may either encourage or suppress member identification or organizational visibility. The concept of brokerage in network analysis (e.g., Fernandez & Gould, 1994) may be a useful analytic tool for investigating such patterns of (in)visibility in organizations and their members. Likewise, the value that can be created and leveraged through brokering (in)invisibilities is an area in need of further scholarly attention.

Finally, careful attention is needed to understand the tendency for influential oligarchies in the crowd to form over time (Shaw & Hill, 2014). This study suggests that these oligarchies might be actively cultivated and harnessed to serve the purpose of a hidden organization. Future research may draw on elite theory (Savage & Williams, 2008) to better understand the development and role of these influential members.

In conclusion, this study reports on organizational identities and member identifications within the hidden Yelp Elite Squad. The results identify the organizing practices used by a hidden organization to conceal its identity and that of its members, while also speaking to the tensions of identification experienced by members of these organizations. At the same time, the project advances knowledge of crowd workers and how they make sense of their participation. Finally, this study advances our understanding of hidden organizations by revealing the sometimes dynamic nature of organizational transparency and how the (in)visibility of member identifications can be brokered to achieve organizational goals.