Recognition Is A Complex Tool

We have a drive towards self-validation and construct a large portion of our identities from social signals we receive from others. 

A large part of community activity is driven by that self-validation drive. If you run a community where people share knowledge, they're probably doing it less to help and more to get these positive signals from others.

Or, in layman's terms, we spend a lot of time taking actions designed to solicit positive opinions of ourselves from others. We gather these opinions through a range of implicit and explicit signals. 

Offline, we notice signals by what is said, how it's said, the body language of people, how people react to us, and hundreds (perhaps thousands) of other relatively minor details. For example, if someone abruptly ends conversation with you to talk to someone else, that's a signal. If there is an empty chair next to you, that's a signal. If most people in a group are facing you, that's a signal. If someone returns your call quickly (or not at all), that's also a signal. 

Online, the signals are either explicit or non-existent. You either receive positive responses from your contributions to a community, or you don't. All those tiny, crucial, signals we pick up offline are absent online. 

Some tackle this by gamification. But gamification is an incredibly blunt instrument for something as complex as this. We care far less about points than gamification advocates imagine. This is also true of recognition. Recognizing members is a tenet of community managers, but too often recognition is used in its most primitive form i.e. "tell a great member and they're great!!"

So what signals do we need to work on and make more explicit? 

There is no 'one big thing', but hundreds of tiny things. For example, the speed of response to someone's posts, the number of responses, the content and language used in those responses, the calibre of people that respond to contributions, the broader impact that contribution has in the community. 

There are all going to be major signals that members to subconsciously satisfy their drive for self-validation. If you can make these signals a little more explicit, a little more obvious, it should increase the level of activity in the community. 

Comments

[SoyJimmy]

Individual recognition within YouTube communities is a strange tool. It's the community itself who ends up praising the contributor whose effort merits praise. But the community on YouTube is really relegated to a #2 spot on the hierarchy, since it's the channel producer who gets all the praise.

As the community leader I've "rewarded" people by answering their question through video. Obviously the question has to be of value to the community but this action makes a huge statement.

I think one of the best ways of recognizing a members contribution is simply making it more visible to the community.

[Chris Jacob (blogpod.tv)]

You've just given me a great idea for how I can reward the efforts of my not yet existent community. The promise of a permanent "thank you" published to the public for a significant contribution I'll be asking of them.

Donation drives are one place you see recognition - and visibility to the community - encourage higher bids e.g. Kickstarter.