To pick one, I like Herzberg's hygiene/motivator theory. The hygiene factor of pay for example is analogous to paying for contributions in an online community. It's the stick and carrot approach that doesn't motivate, only causes temporary movement.
In Herzberg's article in the Harvard Business review in 1968, there are 5 core motivators. These are intrinsic and cause the subject to experience psychological growth. These are the primary causes of job satisfaction, and I believe they apply almost universally to other situations like online communities.
• Achievement
• Recognition for achievement
• The work itself
• Responsibility
• Growth or advancement
Looking at the subsequent sections of the article on job loading and steps to job enrichment, again I can see applications here for encouraging contributions in online communities.
Interpersonal relationships, an aspect addressed by offline meetings, is a hygiene factor. Unless those offline meetings serve to address the motivators bulleted above, I submit their real value is minimal. So it seems very important to not just throw people together to say hello, there needs to be some real strategy and value added to those activities.
Josh Nankivel
http://www.PMStudent.com
I believe the five motivational factors still apply and may even be enhanced by the online community. But the hygiene factors are different because of the virtual nature of online communities. For example, the technology must be stable and work well enough so that it doesn't impede the flow of conversation. Also, the learning curve for using the technology must be low enough to encourage new entrants to the online community to start contributing. And there should be a feeling of openess and inclusiveness (many online communities eventually become dominated by a core group which discourages newcomers).
Bill Brantley
http://eclecticbill.blogspot.com
One part I've been struggling with is the concept of paying people to contribute. Rewarding people with money, awards, etc. might actually be a motivator, but ONLY if those rewards are directly correlated to performance in a specific and transparent way. That correlation also needs to be logical and fair to the body of contributors and potential newcomers.
That said, I'm still a little undecided on whether it's better to pay or not, leaning towards not. You may get more people motivated, but the quality and utility of the content may suffer because you've muddied up the waters of what you are encouraging.
Going back to the original post, the offline meetings are a way to still keep the focus on quality and utility. Additionally, I see 3 of Hertzberg's motivators playing themselves out IF the offline is done right:
1. Recognition - by your peers, face-to-face
2. The work itself - this motivator is reinforced by getting to know others who are also motivated by the work
3. Growth - learning from others you meet, and formal presentations on topics relevant to the community
Josh Nankivel
http://www.PMStudent.com
The general idea is that if the community is "healthy" that people are contributing out of motivations around recognition and altruism and a sense of it being the right thing to do.
]]>There’s an interesting study reported in the February 2007 Communications of the ACM: “Encouraging Participation in Virtual Communities” (Jack Vinson’s written about it as well) The authors, Joon Koh, Young-Gul Kim, Brian Butler... [Read More]
Sheryl Nussbaum-Beach has an excellent piece on "The Art of Building Virtual Communities." The article was posted about a month ago, and the comments have extended the discussion even further. [Read More]