Recognition is the first lever of motivation at work for 76% of employees. This figure rises to 84% among those under 30 (Harvard Business Review, 2020). But no more than 26% of employed people feel recognized at work (My Happy Job, 2021). But what is this essential " recognition " made of? We take stock.
A notion rich in history and polysemy
At the origins : knowing and remembering what we have in common
To understand the term " recognition ", let's go back to its etymological roots. The Latin recognoscere comes from the verb cognosco (to understand), which in turn comes from nosco (to know). Considering that the prefix re– induces the return to the past and that the prefix co– summons the " do with ", our compound word indicates that in order to recognize something, one must have a shared knowledge of it, well understood by the different parties and know how to look behind oneself together to admit that it is acquired, that it existed.
In other words, the etymology of recognition contains 4 fundamental elements:
- Knowledge
- Understanding
- Sharing
- The Flashback
Since the Middle Ages, an issue of respect
The first occurrences of " recognition " can be found in the writings of the Middle Ages to signify the manifestations of the understanding of belonging to an order (of chivalry, of lordship): recognition is the fact of being perceived as one's rank requires one to be so.
At the same period in history, another connotation of the word arrived, via feudal law. Recognition signed the contractualization of a due, a debt, a commitment to pay/repay. This meaning reaches our contemporary era in the principle of the " acknowledgement of debt ", an act by which a debtor and a creditor agree on the principle and the terms of a debt to be paid.
So here is our notion of recognition, which takes on new key elements:
With the Renaissance, recognition is invested with credibility
We find recognition in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, now enriched by the idea of confession (to recognize is to confess, to admit one's share of responsibility) and a dimension of precision (to recognize places is to examine them in detail, and it is highly strategic when, for example, it is a question of an area over which the army is expected to move).
And that's three more elements:
- Honesty
- Responsibility
- Accuracy
The bourgeois century structured recognition in terms of social capital, with economic effects
It's not over yet! The nineteenth century introduced three new connotations : that of the manifestation of perceived benefits (thank you for this good meal, prepared with carefully cultivated and skilfully cooked products and which delighted my senses in addition to appeasing my hunger), that of filiation (to recognize a child is to grant him rights, especially patrimonial rights, in addition to a name and the inscription in a lineage) and that of the value given to a contribution (the worker intends that his or her work be perceived as a necessary element in the chain of wealth creation and that his or her remuneration reflects this participation).
And four more items in our bag :
- Gratitude
- Legitimation
- Consideration
- Remuneration
The twentieth century made it a management issue
And this time, it's over ? Not quite, since the contemporary era invests in the recognition of several issues of managerial grammar: the employer's concern to attract and retain its employees (by estimating their value on the job market according to their skills, their experience, their results at the time they are recruited but also in terms of development potential), the expectations of the employee beyond the performance of the tasks listed on his or her job description, the taking into account in the evaluation of the relationship of everything that cannot be quantified in strict accounting (contribution to well-being, conviviality, demonstrations of generosity, outpouring of solidarity, etc.).
For a definition at the date of recognition
The polysemy of the term " recognition ", a reflection of its rich journey through the ages, partly explains why we don't all hear the same thing in it. We can nevertheless agree on a general definition of recognition as the fact of making someone exist by giving him a singular place because of both his own qualities and his contributions to the relationship.
Recognition at work : a singularity/participation dynamic in a context of benchmarks
Recognition of others and self-knowledge
Recognition is no longer, as in caste societies or in the days of knights and orders of nobility, a matter of consideration due to status. It is now fundamentally dynamic, according to work in behavioral psychology and transactional analysis. It is even dialectical , say the descendants of Eric Berne, for whom recognition is a process of knowledge and self-control made possible by the signals of attention and interest sent by others.
In other words, I feel recognized when the other person makes the effort to know me and it allows me to increase my knowledge of myself. When I am asked questions about my work, when I am given feedback , when what I have accomplished (with a reward or a punishment), it allows me to better measure who I am... And what I'm worth. Indeed, recognition is directly related to self-esteem. Which means that no, we can't give a damn about the look and opinion of others.
Variations in the value of the gaze
On the other hand, the look and opinion of others does not always have the same value of recognition. Of course, it depends on the self-esteem I have for the other person : if I don't know them, if they don't mean anything to me, if I don't have much consideration for them, their opinion has little impact on my feeling of gratitude.
But it depends even more on the value of the other person that I perceive in a given context: I can feel more recognized by the testimonies of an individual who enjoys a strong legitimacy in the environment in which I evolve (even if it is a person I do not like, or even to whom I do not necessarily recognize the qualities that earn him or her legitimacy) than by the gaze of a person I perceive as little considered by the environment (even if I appreciate it a lot).
This perceived legitimacy also depends on the perceived value of the environment that gives legitimacy : I may feel unrecognized when a legitimate person values me if the authorities who grant them legitimacy themselves have little credit (for example, I receive very positive feedback from the highly honored director of an organization... But it turns out that this organization doesn't have a great reputation, that it's very uninfluential, or even that it has so little value that it's more disqualifying for me to be associated with it than it gives me a sense of existing).
In summary, the value of the signs of recognition depends on a whole system of landmarks. As a result, it is not only the result of a manager's ability to give feedback or to carry out an evaluation of the work done, but is part of a whole chain of consideration.
Recognition/belonging cousinage
This inclusion in a whole chain of consideration means that recognition and belonging are always close cousins. I need to be recognized in a universe that I recognize as mine or the one I want to belong to. From there, all the dynamics at play in the feeling of belonging are put in place, and especially the singularity/sharing dialectic .
I want to be seen as I am (and I never feel recognized when I am "wronged ", when I am underestimated or overestimated, when I am caricatured, when I am reduced to stereotypes or when I am treated with prejudice). I also want this asserted " being oneself " to be acting in the collective, I want to participate, I want to perceive my influence or at least feel that my presence or absence makes a difference.
Recognition capital: a resource for individual and collective development
Of the fungibility of recognition
It is not enough for me to be considered in my uniqueness and included in the collective to obtain the satisfactions of recognition. However, the expression of my personal value and my contribution to the common project must be fungible. In other words, that the recognition felt is transformed into capital that is itself transferable into tangible and intangible assets...
A bit like a work of art that I own, whose price I know (in awareness of the variations it can undergo) and which allows me to approach the present by perceiving the benefits of its possession (contemplating it in my living room, having the pride of having bought it at the right time — which testifies to my taste and my flair, not a bad observation to strengthen one's self-confidence — belonging to a certain social class identifiable both for one's economic and cultural capital...) as well as looking to the future (knowing that I can pawn it or sell it, for example, in case of hard times or if I need cash to make another investment).
Where recognition intersects the extrinsic and intrinsic functions of work
Recognition must therefore materialize. At work, we immediately think of remuneration to materialize recognition. This is what social psychologist Marie Jahoda calls the extrinsic function of work. This extrinsic function includes the salary and bonuses, but also the set of benefits that can be directly legible in the rational calculation of the interest to be sacrificed of one's time and energy in return for a package of working conditions.
Marie Jahoda also highlights intrinsic functions, which relate to all the factors of fulfilment at work, from the social link it offers to the opportunities for learning and progression it represents, including the temporal structure it provides as well as a frame of reference and elements of identity construction.
Recognition requires to materialize on both levels, the extrinsic and the intrinsic. It is based on the tangible aspect of promotions, raises and other benefits granted as a reward for a job well done, objectives achieved, challenges accepted...
It is also based on the quality of relationships and the feeling of existing, of being heard, of being taken into account, of being legitimate, of being part of the duration and intensity of a bond that is getting stronger.
Trust as a driving force for recognition
Also, recognition induces trust.
The one we grant, because as an employee, we know that we are considered and projected into the work environment. The recognition I receive helps me to have confidence in my future in the structure.
The confidence we inspire is also linked to recognition. I am all the more reliable when I am satisfied with the recognition I receive.
I have a more loyal soul and a more sincere temperament, the most honest postures and the most committed attitudes when I am recognized, says Jean-Jacques Rousseau, comforted by numerous studies indicating that under equivalent working conditions, free-riding behaviour (which we would today call " quiet quitting ") and signs of disengagement, Or even acts of secession (resignation) or betrayal are much rarer in work environments where individuals are valued and attention is paid to the expression of their frustrations.
Basically, if you want someone to trust you, inspire confidence, mobilize by your side and remain loyal to you, never say to them again " only cemeteries are full of irreplaceables ", " CVs like yours, I have a whole pile " or even " It's your problem if you have a deception complex" or " prove yourself and we'll see if I want to trust you." Instead, start by expressing your gratitude.
