Design for Participation

Mike Arauz's slideshare presentation on "Design for Networks" is brilliant.

Design for Networks

His thinking in the above is only surpassed by his very own post on the same topic.

I'm honored to know Mr. Arauz and pray one day we have real drinks as he keeps tantalizing me with his drink mixing tweets.

Mike's framework brought me back to some earlier blog conversations he had initiated around systems of rewards. ¹

He was exploring game design and behavioral psychology to understand how to create rewards that incent ongoing engagement and even addictive behaviors.  Why we love to play some games for hours on end.

The answer was a very academic approach to "combine unexpected rewards together with reward mechanics that are clear and predictable" to best achieve sustained and steady engagement with our audiences.

What I love about what Mike has done in his latest presentation is he's managed to make a cohesive and powerful argument for relegating "engagement" to it's proper place in the digital landscape - the closet of less important measures. All hail the belittling of engagement!

So in a world where the real game is driving participation, what reward mechanics should we be putting in place?

In "Drive," Daniel Pink outlines the dilemma of external rewards in what he calls motivation 1.0/2.0. ²

"CARROTS AND STICKS: The Seven Deadly Flaws
1. They can extinguish intrinsic motivation.
2. They can diminish performance.
3. They can crush creativity.
4. They can crowd out good behavior.
5. They can encourage cheating, shortcuts, and unethical behavior.
6. They can become addictive.
7. They can foster short-term thinking."

Pink talks about the need to "instead emphasize the elements of deeper motivation - autonomy, mastery, and purpose."  He explores the disconnect between our rewards systems of old which were built around repetitive tasks and the present where people are being challenged to accomplish creative tasks.

Pink cites a study where two Swedish economists tested the effect of incenting people with a monetary reward to donate blood.  The book is full of study and examples galore that show how external rewards often backfire.  In the case above, it led to 20% less people donating than those who were offered no incentive other than doing their social duty. "It tainted an altruistic act and 'crowded out' the intrinsic desire to do something good."

How many contests are plagued by contest hounds who care nothing about the contest, brand or issues at hand?

Interestingly, when a reward is money for a charity, the negative impact to motivation can be avoided (if done properly.)

All of this made me once again question whether the campaigns we build truly reflect the proper motivational or reward structures.  And if we are building systems that drive participation, fueling the intrinsic motivators will be critical to creating systems that have higher levels of participation and more importantly that will self sustaining.

All of this caused me to pencil this slide together.  It's rough and likely anything but complete but it captured some of my thoughts.

   

I thought I would close with my favorite quote from Pink's Drive as it points to the opportunity at hand.

"Human beings have an innate inner drive to be autonomous, self-determined, and connected to one another.  And when that drive is liberated, people achieve more and live richer lives."

Footnotes:

1. Dummies Guide to Behavioral Psychology and Engagement, Craphammer.ca
2. Daniel Pink, "Drive", Riverhead Books, 2009

Comments

[Stuart Foster]

No one makes me feel dumber then Mike Arauz.

Dude just gets it on another level.

Shared with the peeps here at Mullen (possibly again).

[Sean Howard]

LOL.

I hear you on the intimidation/thinking front!!! ;)

[Luc Debaisieux]

Sean,
Brilliant presentation! I like the integration of the context and of values. Thanks for sharing.

[Sean Howard]

Hey Luc!!!

Its been too long! Thanks for the comment, man!

[Mike Arauz]

Sean!

Love your build on this. These motivational forces are a critical component of most of what we do. And the more that we can clarify and better articulate what those are and how they work, the better.

I was poking around McKinsey's process recently, and one of the things they like to do is called the MECE method: Mutually Exclusive Comprehensively Exhaustive. Basically break down the components of a problem until you've addressed everything without redundancies.

Eventually, that's what we're working towards with a list of motivational ingredients.

Consider the External/Intrinsic a regular addition to how I think about this now.

[Sean Howard]

Dude.

I laid awake last night thinking about MECE and work excited and jazzed. Thank you!

And I love the thinking you are doing and look forward to future collaborations!