The Key Determinants of Success for Internal Gamification

Koen Philippaerts, Mick Stallaert, & Sebastian Duyvendak

FACULTY OF ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS

Thesis submitted to obtain the degree of master in management

MASTER IN HET MANAGEMENT

Promoter: Prof. Dr. Croux ChristopheAssistant: Reusens Peter

Academic year 2015-2016

The Key Determinants of Success for Internal GamificationNowadays, managers face serious tasks, problems and challenges that require a fully engaged workforce.

However, it has been found that only thirty percent of employees around the world are engaged in their job.

Gamification –defined as the use of game elements and game-design techniques in non-game contexts- can

increase engagement by fostering employees’ intrinsic motivation. Therefore, the aim of this thesis is to identify

the key determinants for internal gamification to successfully enhance employee engagement. Following a

Ground Theory approach, five semi-structured interviews with gamification experts were analyzed and coded

into categories. Five categories of key determinants that contribute to a successful gamification design emerged:

clear objectives, user-centred approach, context alignment, evolving design and intrinsic motivation. These key

determinants were subsequently assessed by comparing them with the current body of literature on gamification,

resulting in a concise and coherent framework of managerial implications. In addition, this approach allowed to

identify discrepancies between researchers and entrepreneurs regarding their knowledge on gamification.

Koen Philippaerts, Mick Stallaert & Sebastian Duyvedak

Thesis submitted to obtain the degree of master in management

Promoter: Prof. Dr. Croux ChristopheAssistant: Reusens Peter

Academic year 2015-2016

FACULTY OF ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS

MASTER IN HET MANAGEMENT

Click to select a program

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank our promotor Prof. Christophe Croux and PhD researcher Peter Reusens for their valuable feedback and guidance through the process of writing our master thesis.

In addition, we are grateful to Stephen Dale, Maarten Molenaar, Jeroen Van Eeghem, Mario Herger and Esther Oostrom for sharing their expertise and dedicating their time to help us complete this research.

I

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements............................................................................................................. I

General Introduction...........................................................................................................4

1 Literature Study........................................................................................................8

1.1 What is gamification?.....................................................................................81.1.1 History & Terminology..........................................................................81.1.2 Conceptualization of Gamification........................................................91.1.3 Definition breakdown.........................................................................111.1.4 Related Terms...................................................................................15

1.2 Theoretical framework of Gamification........................................................161.2.1 Self-determination theory...................................................................161.2.2 Flow theory........................................................................................191.2.3 Goal-setting theory.............................................................................19

2 Methodology...........................................................................................................21

2.1 Research Design.........................................................................................212.2 Data collection: semi-structured expert interviews.......................................22

2.2.1 Qualitative data..................................................................................222.2.2 Sample of experts..............................................................................222.2.3 Procedure..........................................................................................24

2.3 Data Analysis...............................................................................................242.4 Comparison between the experts and the current scientific literature..........25

3 Results................................................................................................................... 27

4 Discussion..............................................................................................................30

4.1 Clear objectives...........................................................................................304.1.1 Realistic.............................................................................................314.1.2 Appropriate: focus on behaviour........................................................314.1.3 Measurable........................................................................................32

4.2 User centered approach..............................................................................324.2.1 Observation of the targeted employees.............................................334.2.2 Developing player profiles..................................................................35

4.3 Context alignment........................................................................................384.3.1 Branch...............................................................................................394.3.2 Corporate culture...............................................................................39

4.4 Evolving design...........................................................................................404.4.1 Iterative process.................................................................................404.4.2 Long term...........................................................................................40

4.5 Intrinsic Motivation.......................................................................................424.5.1 Game elements..................................................................................424.5.2 Rewards.............................................................................................43

5 Conclusion.............................................................................................................46

5.1 Managerial implications...............................................................................465.2 Discrepancies..............................................................................................485.3 Limitations...................................................................................................49

II

5.4 Recommendations for future research.........................................................50

List of figures.................................................................................................................... 51

List of tables..................................................................................................................... 52

Sources............................................................................................................................ 53

III

General Introduction

As employees have an important impact on a company’s productivity, employee engagement is

considered a critical factor for organizational success (Markos & Sridevi, 2010). High employee

engagement levels cannot only foster the retention of talent and loyalty of customers, but they can also

improve stakeholder value and organizational performance (Lockwood, 2007). Today, managers are

confronted with serious tasks, problems and challenges that require a fully engaged workforce.

However, research from Gallup has pointed out that only thirty percent of employees around the world

are engaged (Zinger, 2014).

Throughout the 20th century enhancing organizational performance by properly structuring and dividing

labour has been one of the main emphases of management theory. However, alongside some

astonishing improvements in science and technology during the last decades of the 20st century, the

nature of people’s jobs has also changed (Pink, 2009). In contemporary society, the demands

organizations place on their employees have clearly evolved. Instead of simply executing tasks,

employees are expected to engage in complex problem solving and to come up with creative ideas.

This increased emphasis on cognitive labour illustrates an evolution from clearly delineated job

contents to much more dynamic jobs. This is especially true in client service organizations, in which

employee engagement and motivation are of crucial importance in driving innovative solutions for the

benefit of the customer (Kumar & Raghavendran, 2015).

Additionally, the needs and desires of the generation entering the labour market today are quite

different from those of the past. The members of the so-called Generation Y differ from previous

generations in their emphasis on independency, self-reliance, entrepreneurial thinking and the need for

flexibility (Martin, 2005). Lockwood (2007) further argues that self-determination and personal

development opportunities have become increasingly important to this generation. At the same time,

however, they also attach great significance to factors such as work-life balance, family, social contacts

and personal fulfillment. Another important evolution is that this new generation of employees is very

tech-savvy, implicating that their view and use of technology is different from those of previous

generations (Martin, 2005; Venkatacharya, Rice & Bezueyehu, 2009).

These developments will undoubtedly have a major impact on the workplace of the future.

Consequently, companies will have no choice but to deal with this trend in order to keep their

employees engaged (Vehns, 2014). This implies that traditional views on fostering employee

engagement, as well as the means by which this could be achieved, might have to be revised

according to the needs and desires of the tech-savvy generation that is entering the workforce today.

Building the proper circumstances and environments are therefore crucial in order to foster motivation,

innovation and engagement (Vehns, 2014). This is exactly what Dan Pink (2009) stressed in his TED

4

talk regarding employee motivation in the 21st century. He argued that rewards and punishments, or

more generally the use of extrinsic motivators, often do not work as motivators for employees

performing contemporary tasks because of the increased importance of conceptual abilities. This

notion, that contingent motivators often do not work, is one of the most robust findings in social

sciences and has also been shown by researchers at the London School of Economics (Cerasoli,

Nicklin & Ford, 2014). Accordingly, Pink (2009) stated the following:

“Experiments about motivation have shown that as long as the task only involved mechanical

skill: the higher the pay, the higher the performance. However, once the task called for even

rudimentary cognitive skill, a larger reward led to poorer performance. […] In the rubble of

economic collapse, too many organizations are making their decisions about talent and people

based on assumptions that are outdated, unexamined and rooted more in folklore than

science. There is a mismatch between what science knows and what business does. If we

repair this mismatch, if we bring our notions of motivation in the 21 st century, we can

strengthen our businesses. For achieving high performance in 21st century tasks, we need a

whole new approach.”

The notion that reward height and performance are proportionally related - implying that higher rewards

go hand in hand with higher performance - appears to be common in business. However, human

performance is contingent upon more factors than just external rewards. In contrast to a traditional

carrot and stick approach, new approaches, aiming at incentivizing employees by tapping into their

intrinsic motivation, should be investigated. Gamification is a current example of a new approach that

potentially resonates very well with the changes in work and culture previously described.

Consequently, the aim of this thesis is to point out the possibility of gamification to bridge the gap

between what science knows about motivation and what is being practiced in business.

Gamification refers to the use of game elements in non-game contexts in order to enhance user

engagement responsive to intrinsic motivation (Werbach & Hunter, 2012). When designed correctly,

gamification can be very successful in making the workplace more productive by motivating employees

to change behaviours, develop new skills and solve problems (Burke, 2013). An example of how

gamification can be successfully implemented within an organization to enhance engagement and

productivity among employees comes from the global consulting and firm Deloitte. Deloitte’s goal was

to motivate its consultants globally to share valuable expertise on their social intranet. Together with

technology company Badgeville they created WhoWhatWhere, a gamified application that was added

to Deloitte’s internal social messaging platform. This application encouraged every consultant to

'check-in' when they met with clients, providing information on what they discussed and where the

meeting took place. This application was gamified in that a reward system was implemented whereby

consultants could earn points for each valid check-in. By earning rewards, each consultant could gain

status along a particular expertise path. This path was reflected on a leaderboard, by which employees

that checked in the most, with a topic or client, could gain social currency within the firm. It was this

5

recognition –being viewed as an expert in certain topics- that motivated participation among the

consultants. The results showed that -by responding to status, expertise and reputation- this gamified

system was an effective tool to enhance collaboration and knowledge sharing within Deloitte.

Furthermore, the achieved engagement led to improved expertise between Deloitte’s consultants

globally, a reduced turnover and a better alignment between the organization and its employees

(Badgeville, 2015).

Today, the cases for using gamification are numerous and growing. For example, SAP uses games to

educate its employees on sustainability; Unilever applies them to training; Hays deploys them to hire

recruiters; and Khan Academy uses it for online education (Zinger, 2014). This broad field of

application enables gamification to support a wide range of goals and to generate many different forms

of benefits. On the other hand, however, this wide range of applicability can cause a lot of difficulties in

designing and implementing gamification. Estimates show that more than 70% of Global 2000

organizations would have employed gamification techniques by 2014. However, the same research

noted that many of those projects would fail because of poor design (Gartner, 2014). Many important

variables such as business objectives, employee characteristics and other factors regarding context

should be taken carefully into consideration when designing gamification. It is the interplay between

these context variables and a gamification design that determines whether the desired outcome is

accomplished or not. This led us to pose the following research question:

R.Q. 1: What are the key determinants of a gamification design that succeeds in motivating employees?

Although the number of papers published on gamification is growing, it still remains a relatively new

and unexplored area (Hamari, Koivisto & Sarsa, 2014). Apart from academic research, much of the

information about gamification can be found on the Internet where many entrepreneurs, consultants

and experts share their insights regarding gamification. However, many important insights might not be

publicly shared because entrepreneurs (especially large consulting firms) enjoy a competitive

advantage by keeping their information private. This potential information asymmetry between

entrepreneurs and the research community regarding gamification led us to pose our second research

question:

R.Q. 2: Is there a gap between what sciences know about successfully implementing gamification and how entrepreneurs are implementing gamification?

In order to answer these research questions this thesis is structured as follows: the first section of this

thesis will provide a clear picture of what gamification is by illustrating its history, definition, related

concepts and theoretical foundations. The previously mentioned example of how Deloitte practiced

gamification will be used here in order to clarify the mentioned concepts. Next, following a Grounded

Theory approach, gathered information from semi-structured interviews with seasoned entrepreneurs

6

will be interpreted and aggregated in order to capture their view on the key determinants of success

regarding gamification. These insights will then be assessed by comparing them with the current body

of literature on gamification. Subsequently, the best and most relevant insights from both perspectives

will be aggregated into a concise and coherent framework in order to answer our first research

question. Doing so enables us to also answer our second research question, which illustrates why this

approach was chosen.

7

1 Literature Study

1.1 What is gamification?

1.1.1 History & Terminology

Although gamification is rather new as a business concept, the foundations on which it is built have a

long history. The use of play to motivate people, enhance learning or change behaviour is something

that has been applied in numerous contexts- from marketing to education to health- and has been

proven successful many times (Kietzmann, McCarty, Pitt, Plangger & Robson, 2015). The fact that

these insights have been around for quite some time now is well illustrated by the following quote from

Mary Poppins, dating from 1964:

"In every job that must be done, there is an element of fun. You find the fun and snap! The

job's a game." (Mary Poppins, 1964)

In the past decades, there were several developments that helped to lay the groundwork for today's

gamification. The first of them was a stream of academic research in the 1980's that explored the

potential of video games for learning. Dr. Thomas W. Malone (1981) for example was one of the first to

find that games, with elements of challenge and curiosity, could motivate children to learn. Since then,

a number of researchers have conducted similar work and provided more evidence that video games

encode powerful knowledge creation and learning mechanisms that relate to all of the existing research

about how people learn (Werbach & Hunter, 2012).

A second movement that fostered the concept of gamification was the Serious Games initiative in

2002. This association was founded by Ben Sawyer and David Rejeski and promoted the use of

games for serious purposes (Sawyer & Rejeski, 2002). Serious games can be defined as “any form of

interactive computer-based game software for one or multiple players to be used on any platform and

that has been developed with the intention to be more than entertainment” (Cody, Ritterfeld, &

Vorderer, 2009). It helped bring together communities in the private, military and academia sector that

were using games and simulations for non-game purposes, such as training (Werbach & Hunter,

2012). A similar set of initiatives was the Games for Change movement, in 2011, that focused on

using games to create social impact (Ramos, 2011). Although these initiatives, involving Serious

Games, differ from today's gamification they contributed to its development and contemporary

understanding.

A third, more recent phenomenon is the advent of social media and mobile and web-based

technologies. This development has changed how people and organizations share, co-create and

tweak their experiences (Kietzmann, Hermkens, McCarthy, & Silvestre, 2011). An important

8

consequence of this is that firms these days can generate and request enormous amounts of data

about people's behaviour and opinions. These insights are of great importance for designing effective

gamified experiences at scale, which subsequently can render new data (Kietzmann, McCarthy, Pitt,

Plangger & Robson, 2015).

The actual term 'gamification' first appeared in 2003 and was coined by Nick Pelling, a British computer

programmer who wanted to promote the gamification of consumer products (Kamasheva, Maksimova,

Valeev & Yagudin, 2015). A few years later Bret Terrill (2008) described 'Game-ification' for the first

time in a blog post. As indicated by the graph below, however, it was not until 2010 that the term

became widespread (Google Trends, 2016).

1.1.2 Conceptualization of Gamification

As the concept became more and more popular, the need for a proper definition grew. Both

consultancy firms and academics started to define gamification, albeit often differing in terminology and

emphasis. It appears that definitions that have risen out of professional contexts, coined by

consultants and managers, tend to be more practically focused on client benefits (Esther Oostrom,

2014). Gabe Zichermann (2011), business owner and one of gamification's earliest and most

passionate supporters, for instance defines it as:

“the process of using game thinking and game mechanics to solve problems and engage

users”

Bunchball (2010), a company that offers engagement technology powered by gamification, describes it

extensively on its website as:

“the process of taking something that already exists – a website, an enterprise application, an

online community – and integrating game mechanics into it to motivate participation,

engagement, and loyalty....it takes the data-driven techniques that game designers use to

engage players, and applies them to non-game experiences to motivate actions that add value

to your business.”

9

Figure 1: Use of the term gamification (Google Trends)

Both definitions are similar in that they stress the process of using game mechanics as a means to

attain engagement among users. Zichermann’s (2011) definition seems rather broad and unspecific,

which is not necessarily a bad thing considering the various ways and contexts in which gamification

can be implemented. Nevertheless, by neglecting context as a whole, it could be argued that this

definition could be applied to actual gaming contexts. However, in our opinion gamification should be

clearly distinguished from actual games. Bunchball (2010) on the other hand seems to specify

gamification’s purpose as motivating actions that add value to your business. As opposed to

Zichermann’s description, Bunchball may be too narrow in its focus since gamification’s reach extends

beyond merely business contexts. Moreover, by mentioning “a website, an enterprise application, an

online community”, Bunchball tends to imply that gamification’s character and practice is inherently

digital. However, in our opinion the use of gamification should not be limited to digital designs.

In academic literature, the number of definitions and the difference between them seem less

prominent. The first definition that appeared in academic context was introduced by Deterding et al.

(2011), who described gamification as:

"the use of game design elements in non-game contexts"

This definition was later adopted by Werbach & Hunter (2012), who presented it slightly different:

"the use of game elements and game-design techniques in non-game contexts"

An alternative effort to define gamification in academic context was made by Huotari and Hamari

(2011). They have opted to approach gamification from a service marketing perspective and define it

as follows:

"service packaging where a core service is enhanced by a rules-based service system that

provides feedback and interaction mechanisms to the user with an aim to facilitate and support

the users’ overall value creation.”

This definition differs from those of Deterding and Werbach in several ways (Deterding et al., 2011).

First, by centralizing a 'rule-based service system', the definition seems applicable to almost every

interactive system, thereby extending beyond what can be considered a game or a gamified system.

Moreover, Huotari and Hamari (2011) tend to describe gamification from a service perspective while

focusing on creating an experience but ignoring the actual methods to do so (Deterding et al., 2011).

To this day, it seems that there is no universally accepted definition. Gamification can therefore be

regarded as a 'cumbersome' word that doesn't capture the phenomenon in every aspect (Werbach &

Hunter, 2012). Nevertheless, there are some general components that keep showing up in the

literature on gamification. In our opinion, Werbach’s definition seems to clearly state these

fundamental components and will therefore be the working definition throughout this thesis.

10

1.1.3 Definition breakdown

Gamification: the use of game elements and game-design techniques in non-game contexts (Werbach & Hunter, 2012).

In order to incorporate Werbach's definition of gamification, one must have a proper understanding of

the three main aspects out of which it consists: game elements, game-design techniques and non-

game contexts. Hence, each of these three main aspects will be discussed respectively in the following

section.

A. Game Elements

Game elements are used to encourage the player to engage with the game and are therefore the key

concepts of gamification (Reeves, 2014). Werbach (2012) states that game elements can be

perceived as a toolkit for building a game. In a game of checkers, for instance, the game elements

include 'the pieces, the notion of capturing pieces by jumping and turning a piece that reaches the last

row of the board into a king' (Werbach & Hunter, 2012). It is important to notice that gamification is not

about building a full-fledged game (Werbach & Hunter, 2012). Gamification differs from regular

entertainment and Serious Games in that it merely uses some elements of games and embeds them in

activities that are not themselves games (Deterding, Dixon, Khaled & Nacke, 2011). In the case of

Deloitte’s WhoWhatWhere application for example, the game elements include the possibility to ‘check-

in’, the points that could be earned and the leaderboard that allowed players to be recognized as

experts. Deloitte’s example proves that it is possible to engage employees by implementing only some

parts of games without actually creating one. Because it operates at the level of elements, gamification

appears to be a far more flexible approach for tackling real life business problems than the use of

actual games (Werbach & Hunter, 2012).

B. Game Design Techniques

The second part of the definition, game design techniques, refers to the way in which the game

elements are combined to create an overall gamified experience that is larger than the sum of these

parts (Werbach, 2012). This implies that gamification goes further than merely applying some game

elements, such as a point system, within an organization in order to tackle a business problem.

Imagine giving each employee some points whenever they successfully perform a certain task. In this

case it seems likely that employees would soon be bored with accumulating points and eventually

would abandon the gamified system. After all, there seems no ‘point’ in gaining points without a

specific goal or purpose. Hence, in order to truly engage players, a game designer should use proper

techniques to combine several elements into a meaningful and challenging experience. Indeed, game

design techniques are those aspects of games that make them fun, challenging and addicting

(Werbach, 2012). In Deloitte’s case for example, the point system was designed to structure each

consultant’s progress along a particular expertise path with multiple levels. By structuring the progress

11

into different expertise levels with increasing difficulty, this design stayed challenging and succeeded in

keeping the consultants engaged.

These game design techniques are not limited to game-based technology and vary strongly in levels of

abstraction. Deterding et al. (2011), for example, found that five levels of game design techniques can

be distinguished. Interface design patterns, such as badges and leaderboards; game design

mechanics, such as time constraints and limited resources; game design principles and heuristics,

such as enduring play and clear goals; game models, for example challenge, fantasy or curiosity; and

game design methods, such as playtesting and play-centric design (Deterding et al., 2011). Like with

game elements, the use of game design techniques in gamification is not intended to create a full

game but rather to borrow some techniques from the whole game-ecology in order to reach a specific

goal that extends beyond the purpose of gaming itself (Deterding et al., 2011). Knowing how to use

game-design techniques to integrate certain game elements in a meaningful way can be seen as a

difficult process that requires trial and error. As Werbach (2012) points out correctly, there are no

standard formulas or step-by-step instructions for using game design techniques:

"Game design is a bit of science, a bit of art, and a lot of hard-won experience... just like strategic

leadership, managing a team, or creating a killer marketing campaign."

C. Non-Game Contexts

The third aspect of the definition, non-game contexts, refers to the fact that gamification operates in

real life situations that are not themselves games (Werbach & Hunter, 2012). This component clearly

sets gamification apart from the game universe but at the same time does not specify the context in

which it should function. The acknowledgement of motivation as an important driver of human

behaviour has led to the potential of gamification as a solution for very diverse behavioural problems.

Deterding et al. (2011) share this view and suggest that gamification should not be limited to specific

usage contexts, purposes or scenarios. They argue that there is no clear advantage in doing so and

simultaneously refer to the ambiguity of the discourse on Serious Games that authors initially tied to

the specific goal of education and learning. Indeed, gamification can be found in diverse areas such as

sustainability, health and wellness, personal development, finance, education and training, innovation

management, employee performance or customer engagement (Burke, 2013; Groh, 2012)

However, it is possible to identify three broad non-game contexts in which gamification can be applied,

i.e., external, behaviour change and internal (Werbach & Hunter, 2012). These non-game contexts are

by no means intended to limit the use of gamification to a specific context; they merely provide a

relevant frame of reference in order to distinguish examples of gamification according to their target

group.

12

First, external gamification focuses on stakeholders outside the organization itself, particularly

customers or prospective customers. In this context, gamification is typically steered by marketing

objectives and functions as a tool for improving the relationships between the business and its

customers. Common objectives for external gamification involve increased engagement, stronger

loyalty and eventually higher profits (Werbach & Hunter, 2012). As Werbach (2012) points out:

"gamification adds a richer toolkit to understand and stimulate customer motivation".

A second non-game context for using gamification is to incite behaviour-change among a population or

in a society. In general, behaviour-change gamification involves encouraging people to perform new

habits that can produce desirable societal outcomes. Examples of these outcomes include better

financial decisions, lower medical expenses or less obesity in a society (Werbach & Hunter, 2012). In

other words, this is using gamification to motivate people to better themselves and their surroundings.

For this reason, behaviour-change gamification is often implemented or supported by governments and

non-profit organizations. However, these programs can also serve private benefits. A San Francisco-

based start-up named Keas for example, attempts to promote employee health and wellness in

enterprises and incorporates health related quizzes into a team-based game that includes levels,

strategy and a leaderboard.  By turning health and wellness into a game-like experience, the company

succeeds in enhancing healthy behaviour among employees.  Apart from the societal advantages of

better health, companies that have used Keas’ gamified application also reported to have experienced

private benefits for the company itself.  For example, their employees developed a more positive

attitude towards their employers and said they felt more productive at work (Werbach & Hunter, 2012).

Apart from external and behaviour-change gamification, internal gamification is the final non-game

context in which game elements and game design techniques can be applied. Internal gamification

refers to the implementation of a gamified system within an organization. This form is also known as

enterprise gamification, although its effectiveness is not limited to large enterprises (Werbach & Hunter,

2012). Organizations, regardless of size or structure, can use gamification internally in order to

improve business results by way of engaging their own employees. By applying gamified systems

within the existing structure, a company can improve productivity, encourage innovation and enhance

camaraderie (Werbach & Hunter, 2012). There are two attributes that set internal gamification apart

from other types. First, the players that engage in the gamified experience are already members of a

defined community i.e. the company. This implies that they share similar frames of references within

the organization such as status and the corporate culture. The second characteristic of internal

gamification is directly connected with the first and implies that "the motivational dynamics of

gamification must interact with the firm’s existing management and reward structures” (Werbach &

Hunter, 2012).

Internal gamification usually targets employees in order to increase their engagement or to make

business processes more efficient. Research by Saks (2006) has shown that high levels of employee

13

engagement can have impactful implications for managers. Increased employee engagement has for

example been associated with organizational commitment and organizational citizenship, which in turn

could reduce employee’s intentions to quit (Saks, 2006). Moreover, increased employee engagement

could lead to higher levels of customer satisfaction (Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002). The latter is

especially relevant in service industries according to the concept of the service-profit-chain, which links

employee satisfaction to higher levels of productivity, increased customer loyalty and profitability

(Sasser, Schlesinger & Heskett, 1997). These findings support the notion that it is in the interest of

managers to enhance employee engagement through internal gamification.

Additional support for the managerial relevance of internal gamification can be found in a study

performed by El-Khuffash (2012). The goal of this study was to create a database of relevant

gamification examples and categorize them according to industry, desired outcome, target group,

primary problem solved, etc. Figure 2 below provides convincing support to the notion that the value of

internal gamification has been picked up in the entrepreneurial community, where 82% of gamified

systems focused on this aspect. Additionally, figure 3 clearly supports the possibility of internal

gamification to enhance employee engagement.

14

Figure 2: Desired outcomes by different industries (El-Khuffash, 2012)

As pointed out in the introduction of this thesis, we aim to investigate the possibility of gamification to

bridge the gap between what science knows and what business does. Having indicated the potential of

gamification to enhance employee’s motivation and engagement, this thesis will therefore focus on

determining the key success factors for internal gamification.

1.1.4 Related Terms

Ever since gamification made its entrance into academic and professional context, a lot of confusion

and critique about the term has emerged (Deterding et al., 2011). This controversy is fostered by a lot

of concepts that are seemingly related but can greatly differ in meaning and implementation. Besides

explaining what gamification is, it seems therefore equally important to point out what gamification is

not. What should be clear by now is that gamification is not about video games, the game industry or

virtual worlds. It is not about advergames or edutainment nor is it about the Internet or digital business

(Werbach & Hunter, 2012). There are, however, some concepts in which the distinction from

gamification is less clear.

One concept that can be easily confused with gamification is that of Serious Games. As mentioned

before, Serious Games can be defined as "any form of interactive computer-based game software for

one or multiple players to be used on any platform and that has been developed with the intention to be

more than entertainment" (Cody et al., 2009). As the military, for example, uses games to train their

soldiers by simulating the battlefield, businesses can also use games as training tools for corporate

situations or for hiring new employees. Food chain Domino’s for example, developed a game called

Pizza Hero that challenged players to virtually compose and cook pizzas (El-Khuffash, 2014). Players

that scored the highest, in terms of accuracy and speed, were directed to apply to work at Domino’s

(Zichermann & Linder, 2013). Although Domino’s pizza game, like gamification, opts to solve a real-life

15

Figure 3: Primary problem solved by different industries (El-Khuffash, 2012)

business problem (hiring employees), this is an example of a Serious Game and it should therefore be

distinguished from gamification. The difference lies in the fact that Pizza Hero is a full-fledged game

whereas gamification only involves certain game elements and game design techniques. Moreover,

the definition of Serious Games stresses the use of computer-based game software. Gamification, on

the other hand, should not be limited to digital contexts alone.

Another concept that gained attention since the previous decade and seems related to gamification is

Game-based Learning. Game-based Learning can be thought of as a sub-branch of Serious Games

and sets learning outcomes as its primary goal (Corti, 2006). Corti (2006) stresses that Game-based

Learning can be a useful tool to develop new skills and knowledge in business context. By simulating

an environment, system or role-play scenario, employees can experience something that might be too

costly or risky in the real world (Corti, 2006). However, Game-based Learning differs from gamification

in that it operates in a safe environment and has no impact on reality, whereas gamification is designed

to have immediate effects on it (Vehns, 2014).

1.2 Theoretical framework of Gamification

This section investigates how individual game elements can enhance or inhibit motivation of individuals

in organizations. Researchers have found empirical evidence for the rise of motivation and

performance due to gamification applications. However, other researchers found a detrimental effect of

gamification on motivation and performance (Hanus & Fox, 2015). These findings could indicate that

managers should be careful when applying game mechanisms and game dynamics. Therefore, it could

be argued that practitioners need a more profound theoretical background on the psychological

mechanisms and dynamics of individual game elements to attain the desired outcomes of their

organization. Few researchers have experimentally investigated the relationship between individual

game elements and motivational outcomes (Mekler, Brühlmann, Tuch, & Opwis, 2015). However, three

theories can offer a foundation for understanding the motivational benefits of gamification: the self-

determination theory, goal setting theory and flow theory.

1.2.1 Self-determination theory.

One theory that provides insight in the different kinds of motivation that people are driven by is the Self-

determination theory. Ryan and Deci (2000) argue that motivation “concerns energy, direction,

persistence and equifinality” and leads to a higher performance of individuals. In 1999, Deci, Koestner,

and Ryan found a negative effect of certain types of rewards (e.g. financial rewards or verbal feedback)

on people's motivation. This study led to the development of a new theoretical framework on

motivation: the self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Ryan et al. (2012) described self-

determination as an authentic form of self-regulation in line with the true self. The Self-determination

theory proposes three needs that should be fulfilled to attain intrinsic motivation that leads to personal

16

growth and well-being: perceived competence, perceived autonomy and perceived relatedness

(Deterding, 2014; Pe-Than, Goh, & Lee, 2014).

Some researchers have treated motivation as a dual concept: intrinsic motivation versus extrinsic

motivation. However, motivation should be viewed on a continuum. Gagné and Deci (2005)

differentiated between three main types of motivation: amotivation, extrinsic motivation and intrinsic

motivation. Table 1 offers an overview of the different types of motivation according to Gagné and Deci

(2005).

Table 1: Different types of motivation (Wikimedia Commons; Gagné and Deci, 2005)

Motivation Type

Intrinsic Motivation Extrinsic Motivation Amotivation

Motivation SourceInternal source of

motivation:

motivated for

reasons such as

interest, enjoyment,

pleasure and

satisfaction.

External source of

motivation: motivated

for reasons such as to

gain a reward or avoid

punishment.

Absence of

motivation: not

motivated to

engage in or

continue goal

directed behavior

due to lack of

motivation.

Motivated Behaviour

Example

Writing a thesis out

of curiosity and

willingness to learn

Writing a thesis just

because he or she

needs points to finish a

master program

Not motivated to

write a thesis

The most extreme form, “intrinsic motivation”, occurs when employees engage in a game solely

because of the enjoyable nature of the game. In addition, people could be motivated by extrinsic and

intrinsic elements at the same time. To illustrate this with an example: a student might be highly

motivated to finish his or her thesis out of curiosity and willingness to learn (intrinsic). However, at the

same time, this student might also be motivated by the fear of having to sacrifice his summer vacation

(extrinsic). This example indicates that extrinsic motivation refers to performing behaviours as a

17

consequence of a separable outcome, whereas intrinsic motivation refers to performing an activity

because of the interesting or enjoyable nature of the activity (Mekler et al., 2015). Therefore, intrinsic

motivation can be defined as “the inherent tendency to seek out novelty and challenges, to extend and

exercise one’s capabilities, to explore and to learn” (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 70). Mekler et al. (2015)

argued that both extrinsic and intrinsic motivation could enhance the performance and engagement of

individuals and groups. However, only intrinsic motivation led to psychological well-being, enhanced

creativity and an increase in the quality of effort of individuals (Mekler et al., 2015).

Ryan et al. (2006) argued that playing games is enjoyable and intrinsically satisfying. Internal

gamification uses both intrinsic and extrinsic motivators to guide actions and behaviours of employees

(Lander et al., 2015). To capture the relation between the self-determination theory and gamification

we investigate how competence, autonomy and relatedness are related to game elements.

Need for Competence. Competence can be defined as developing skills over time. However, it is the

perceived competence that is important in evaluating gamification. Providing the player with real-time

feedback such as points, levels and progression paths allows him to track and thus perceive his

progression. When game elements offer useful information regarding the performance of players they

will contribute to a higher sense of perceived competence (Przybylski, Rigby, & Ryan, 2010). However,

it is important to emphasize that game elements that provide feedback should not become stand-alone

goals, but rather play a supporting role in fulfilling an intrinsic need for competence. If the latter is

satisfied, employees should then be capable of guiding their future actions based on this received

feedback, possibly resulting in higher performance.

Need for Autonomy. Researchers argued that perceived competence is closely linked to the need for

autonomy as players want to be in the driving seat while progressing in the game. Implementing game

elements that hand out rewards as informational feedback (rather than to control behaviour) and

provide non-controlling instructions could therefore increase perceived autonomy (Ryan et al., 2006).

Besides a sense of autonomy within a gamified system itself, players also want to control when, how

and how long to play without any external social or material pressures (Deterding et al., 2011).

Consequently, allowing the player to make their own choices and to incorporate their personal

preferences could lead to higher user engagement and thus to more highly motivated employees.

Need for Relatedness. The third intrinsic motivator is the longing for relatedness with others. When

people commonly participate in a system that attaches meaning to their actions, they will also share a

common frame of reference and will therefore feel related to each other (Ryan & Deci, 2000).

Regarding internal gamification, it should be mentioned that employees are already part of the same

community, i.e. the company. This implies that a certain amount of relatedness among employees

already exists within an enterprise, which could further be nurtured by the proper use of game

elements. Enabling employees to socially interact, to share their achievements or their progression

path, are examples of how gamification could tap into this intrinsic need for relatedness.

18

1.2.2 Flow theory

Another theoretical concept that seems relevant within the context of gamification is 'flow'. In an

attempt to explain the psychological determinants of happiness, Csikszentmihalyi (1990) proposed a

theory of motivation based on the phenomenon of 'flow'. Csikszentmohalyi (1990) states that people

who are highly motivated can reach a 'state of flow', which he defines as follows:

“the state in which people are so involved in an activity that nothing else seems to

matter; the experience itself is so enjoyable that people will do it even at great cost, for the

sheer sake of doing it” (p.4)

In flow theory, nine conditions that can foster a state of flow are presented. Each of these nine-

conditions can be explained by and linked to gamification (Csikszentmohalyi, 1990). First, “challenge-

skill balance” refers to the level of difficulty in a game. The challenges in a game should be set at the

individual skill level of employees. This means that it could become frustrating for employees when

they do not succeed in the game while trying hard. Secondly, “action-awareness merging” means that

employees in a flow state report that they perceive the situation as spontaneous. Thirdly, one of the

most important dimensions is to have clear goals. This will be further discussed in the goal setting

theory. Fourthly, concentration on the task seems crucial, as irrelevant information cannot disturb the

flow state. This implies that game design is crucial as it should keep the focus on the specific goals of

the organization. Fifthly, employees should have a sense of control in the game. As mentioned before,

free choices and personal preferences lead to higher user engagement. Sixth, when people attain a

state of flow, a total absorption in the activity itself occurs. The loss of self-consciousness is a

consequence as employees are not concentrated on evaluating themselves or others. Seventh, when

employees experience flow, the perception of time changes. Time seems to fly due to the enjoyment of

the task. Eight, the autotelic experience means that the experience is rewarding in itself. Finally,

offering clear feedback is crucial to guide future actions.

1.2.3 Goal-setting theory

The final theory that applies well to the motivational dynamics of gamification is the goal setting theory

by Latham & Locke. The goal setting theory argues that setting goals is motivating as it focuses

attention on goals and leads to increasing effort and persistence (Latham & Locke, 1991). Locke and

Latham (2002) found that motivation was most likely to raise when specific and difficult but attainable

goals were proposed. According to Landers and Callan (2011) gamification contains three forms of

goals: badges, levels and progress bars. More specifically, the relationship between goals and

performance could be determined by four moderators: goal commitment, feedback, task complexity

and situational constraints (Locke & Latham, 2006). These four moderators could offer a deeper insight

into why gamification could enhance the motivation of employees (Landers & Landers, 2015). First,

goal commitment means that employees should be committed to the proposed goals. How do

19

employees become committed to specific goals in gamification applications? Most games use points,

levels and leaderboards and the overall game design to motivate employees to play. Secondly,

feedback moderates the relation between goals and performance. The goal setting theory argues that

achieving badges (goals) should be accompanied by some sort of feedback to maximize the chance of

good performance. Thirdly, task complexity implies that goals should be difficult but attainable. Finally,

situational constraints are elements that influence goal completion.

20

2 Methodology

The purpose of this research is to determine key success factors by comparing relevant information

from gamification experts to the current scientific literature. Five semi-structured interview were

performed and analyzed. By applying the principles and guidelines of the Grounded Theory (Corbin &

Strauss, 1990), five main categories were determined that could impact the successful implementation

of gamification. Finally, these categories and relevant concepts were compared with the current

scientific literature. The used methods allowed the researchers to point out gaps between what science

knows on gamification and how businesses implement gamification.

2.1 Research Design

The research design of this thesis is built upon the Grounded Theory (Corbin & Strauss, 1990). This

theory offers a framework for qualitative research that provides enlightenment of gamification in a

realistic and grounded manner (Field & Morse, 1985). More specifically, Grounded Theory starts with a

bottom-up exploration and research on a social or psychological phenomenon instead of investigating

a theory. It has been argued that Grounded Theory is especially useful when investigating a relatively

new concept such as gamification. The purpose of our research is to describe and theoretically explain

the topic at hand by investigating a set of related concepts and categories in a qualitative manner

(Corbin & Strauss, 1990). The Grounded Theory can be applied to different forms of qualitative

methods. In this research, 5 semi-structured interviews with experts were performed to provide an

accurate answer to the previously proposed research questions.

The Grounded Theory proposes two key principles that guide the data collection and analysis. First, it

argues that all social phenomena are continuously changing. This point of view is reflected in the

research methods in which changing processes can directly influence the collected data. Secondly, it

argues that the choices people make are neither strictly deterministic nor nondeterministic. This implies

that people are able to make choices based on their perceptions. To summarize these principles, the

Grounded Theory proposes an interactionist perspective in which actors respond to a changing

environment and the consequences of their actions (Corbin & Strauss, 1990).

As mentioned before, the interactionist perspective is reflected in the procedures for the qualitative

data collection and data analysis. First, the phase of data collection is interrelated to the data analysis.

This means that early analysis of data can guide the selection of future data collection. In this research,

concepts or information gained in early interviews with experts could be used to gain more specific

information from the following interviews with experts. In general, it allows a more natural way of

gaining in-depth knowledge or information on gamification. In addition, this procedure allows us to deal

with new and salient information and allows for the important information of experts to be used as soon

21

as it is perceived. The second guideline of the Grounded Theory concerns the major units of analysis:

concepts on gamification. According to Corbin and Strauss (1990), the combination of incidents, events

and activities that were mentioned by experts could be labeled as different concepts. These concepts

on gamification gain importance in this research when different experts state their importance. In a third

phase, these concepts can be grouped in more abstract categories. These categories can finally lead

to the development of a theory or theoretical substantiated argument on gamification.

2.2 Data collection: semi-structured expert interviews

2.2.1 Qualitative data

This research uses semi-structured expert interviews as the main source of qualitative data.

Researchers have reported advantages related to both semi-structured interviews and expert

interviews (Bogner, Menz, & Littig, 2009). First, a semi-structured interview allows experts to propose

and discuss new concepts (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009). This is vital in light of the Grounded

Theory approach: researchers learn and develop concepts and categories based on (new) arguments

of practitioners and experts. Secondly, semi-structured interviews offer the researchers a framework for

the interviews at hand. This is important because of the comparability and reliability between different

researchers.

2.2.2 Sample of experts

Selecting the right experts is vital in the Grounded Theory approach as they are valuable qualitative

sources that possess privileged knowledge and information on gamification. The content and meaning

of the term “expert” has been discussed by many researchers (Dexter, 1970; Meuser & Nagel, 1991).

This research defines “experts” in line with Meuser and Nagel (1991): “an individual who engages in

the development or implementation regarding to a specific topic”. It has been argued that expert

knowledge consists of three dimensions (Meuser & Nagel, 1991). First, technical knowledge refers to

specific and detailed information on a specific topic. In our research, the first dimension refers to

experts with profound theoretical knowledge on gamification. The second dimension consists of the in-

depth awareness of routines or “process knowledge” that an expert is involved in. To this dimension

belong experts who have implemented or used gamification in organizations. Lastly, explanatory

knowledge consists of the understandings of rules and beliefs. Most of the experts in this research

belong to more than one of the dimensions of expert knowledge.

One of the most important criteria for selecting experts was that he or she had a clear connection with

internal gamification. This means that the expert was either involved in the design, implementation or

controlling phase of a gamified application in an organization or that the expert had an in depth

22

knowledge of internal gamification. All participants were found on the Internet based on the relevance

of their professional work and were contacted by mail. Table 2 offers an overview and description of

the selected experts in this research.

Table 2: Description of the selected experts (Linkedin)

EXPERT FUNCTION EXPERTISE ON GAMIFICATION DIMENSION OF EXPERT KNOWLEDGE

Mario Herger

CEO at Enterprise Garage Consultancy

Wrote two books on gamification: "Enterprise Gamification - Engaging people by letting them have fun". His second book, "Gamification at Work - Designing Engaging Business Software", is the first book about gamification in enterprises.

Technical and process knowledge

Maarten Molenaar

Senior Game Designer at Frisse Blikken/Conference Speaker

At Frisseblikken, Maarten is a game designer who comes up with game-based solutions for organizations with modern challenges. He beliefs that the power of gamification can be used to support employees in their jobs, create change within organizations, engage customers with your company or can be a proper tool in any other situation in which engagement or behavior change plays a role. In a previous job, Maarten was lead gamification & service designer at Rabobank Netherlands.

Technical and process knowledge

Esther Oostroom

Manager Work and Media at Aegon Nederland

In 2014 Esther wrote a thesis on gamification: 'Gamification: the engagement game'. With this thesis she won the Andreas Award for Innovation in Corporate Communication. In addition, she developed and introduced Speeljetoekomst.nu in 2012. This digital platform used Gamification in order to motivate people to learn about their financial futures. In 2013 this online platform was rewarded with two Red Dot awards: Best of Best in interaction design and the Grand Prix in communication design.  

Technical and process knowledge

Jeroen Van Eeghem

Operation Manager at Vision Deloitte

Jeroen develops and implements gamification applications in different organizations with a main focus on learning applications.

Process knowledge

Steve Dale Owner/Founder of Collabor8now Ltd

Steve Dale published two articles on gamification: “Gamification: Making work fun, or making fun of work?” and “Gamification: Managing Information”. In addition, He’s working on Knowledge Management and Information Management, but focussed on the relation between people (users), technology and business processes.

Technical and process knowledge

23

2.2.3 Procedure

The semi-structured expert interviews were performed by the three researchers. All the interviews were

performed on Skype in English or Dutch and were based on a specific list of topics on gamification.

The duration of all interviews was between 35 and 60 minutes. The recordings of each interview were

transcribed literally. All experts allowed us to use the gathered data for our research objectives.

2.3 Data Analysis

In this research, expert interviews were coded in line with the procedures proposed by the Grounded

Theory (Corbin, & Strauss, 1990). Three forms of coding were applied:

1. Open coding

2. Axial coding

3. Selective coding

First, open coding refers to the interpretive and analytic breakdown of received data. Incidents, events

and activities were labeled separately between interviewers and compared. The discussion between

the three interviewers led to the development of conceptual labels. For example, “feedback” and

“organizational culture” were two concepts that could label some incidents, events and activities in the

first interviews. In addition, categories of concepts were developed. For example, “organizational

culture” seemed to belong to the category “context alignment” of gamification applications within

organizations. One of the advantages of the Grounded Theory is that these concepts and categories

become the basis for new and in depth observations in following expert interviews. The phase of open

coding can be perceived as descriptive. It supports the researchers to become more aware of the

different dimensions of the research topic. Another advantage of open coding is that subjective and

bias is limited as the three researchers constantly discussed and compared categories and concepts

(Corbin, & Strauss, 1990).

Secondly, the process of axial coding refers to the process of further developing categories. More

specific, axial coding led, in this research, to hierarchical relationships between groups of concepts.

This enabled the development of five main categories and many subcategories. These categories were

at any moment verified or adapted based on new information or data received through continued

expert interviews.

Finally, selective coding refers to the development of a “core” category that relates to all categories and

subcategories (Corbin, & Strauss, 1990). In addition, relationships between the major categories were

investigated and described.

24

2.4 Comparison between the experts and the current scientific literature

In a next phase, the core categories and concepts mentioned by the experts were compared to the

current scientific literature. Despite the fact that gamification is still trendy and often unknown, the

academic interest keeps growing. However, it could be argued that a large amount of scientific articles

is describing the phenomenon rather than investigating it. The comparison between what experts and

the scientific literature knows on successfully implementing gamification is valuable for both managers

and future scientific research. This method allowed identifying gaps between what sciences know on

gamification and what business practices. Table 3 gives an overview of the concepts that were

mentioned in by the experts in the semi-structured interviews.

25

Table 3: Overview of the main categories and concepts mentioned in the expert interviews

Interviews*

Categories & Concepts 1 2 3 4 5

1. Clear Objective

Realistic

Appropriate

Focus on behavior

Measurable

2. User Centered Approach

Observation of the users

Employee differences

3. Context alignment

Supportive environment

Branch

Corporate culture

4. Evolving design

Iterative process

Long term

5. Intrinsic motivation

Game elements

Extrinsic rewards

Intrinsic rewards * 1= Esther Oostrom 2= Jeroen Van Eeghem 3= Steve Dale 4= Maarten Molenaar 5= Mario Herger

26

3 Results

This section explores the key determinants of a successful gamification design. In this regard,

participants were asked about their experience in designing and implementing gamified systems. The

posed questions gauged the expert’s successes and failures with gamification, as well as the potential

influence of several context variables such as business environment, corporate culture and employee

traits.

Table 4: Clear objectives and associated concepts

Associated concepts Explanation

Realistic Pitfalls: overoptimistic due to novelty; biased

success criteria

Focus on behavior Gamification = solution? Focus on human

(machine) interaction

Measurable Measure target behaviour: source of data;

metrics for success

Every expert stressed the importance of setting clear objectives before starting a gamification project.

Table 4 indicates the related concepts that emerged from the interviews. Two participants emphasized

that these objectives should be realistic and deemed optimism and bias among managers important

reasons for an unsuccessful gamification design (Herger, & Dale, 2016). Another important insight

coming from the interviews was that gamification is no cure-all solution but that it is only suited for

problems that involve behaviour. Hence, the objectives should specifically target those behaviours

that the gamified system intends to modify. Finally, most of the experts considered the measurability of

the objectives a preliminary requirement of a successful gamification design (Herger, Oostrom, &

Molenaar, 2016).

Table 5: User-centered approach and associated concepts

Associated concepts Explanation

Observation of the users Know your players, draw profiles

Employee differences Traits; demographics (age, gender)

Another key determinant of successful gamification design is that it should be user-centered. Every

expert mentioned that a gamification designer should follow a user-centered approach in order to

27

succeed. As table 5 indicates, two concepts regarding user-centered approach could be defined. It

appears that each gamification design begins with a thorough understanding of its future users; the

employees. Mario Herger (2016) for instance said: “know your audience, knowing your players is the

most important thing in designing gamification”. The participants agreed unanimously that observation

of the users within the organizational context is essential to reach such an understanding. The use of

‘prefab’ gamification systems that are not tailored to the firm’s employees was even considered one of

the main risks of implementing gamification. According to the experts, the main goal of observation is

to reveal the differences between the employees. The participants mentioned two clusters of

differences -traits and demographics- that should both be taken into account when designing a

gamified system.

Table 6: Context alignment and associated concepts

Associated concepts Explanation

Supportive environment Gamification as part of an integrated strategy

Branch Competitiveness

Corporate culture Fear of being exposed, conservative mindset

The third category that was detected in almost every expert’s answer is context alignment. The majority

of the experts expressed that a gamification design can only be effective if it is well aligned with the

context in which it is implemented. Table 6 provides an overview of the different concepts that

emerged with regard to context: supporting environment, branch and corporate culture. According to

the experts, gamification has to be supported by the larger business environment. Furthermore, two

participants mentioned that the corporate culture of an organization plays a significant role in

determining whether gamification is a proper solution. Finally, three experts stated that a gamification

design should take into account the characteristics of the firm’s branch.

Table 7: Evolving design and associated concepts

Associated concepts Explanation

Iterative process Trial-error; adapt design based on data

measurement

Long Term Risk of being gamed; stay meaningful

28

The fourth major category that emerged from the expert’s answers is evolving design. Almost every

participant stated that a gamification design should be constantly evolving in order to succeed in the

long run. Table 7 provides two concepts that are related to an evolving design. The experts mentioned

that gamification should stay meaningful in order to generate actual behavioural change among its

users in the long run. Two participants even warned that a static game design risks ending up being

gamed by its users. Finally, the iterative nature of the designing process and the crucial function of

data were also acknowledged by several experts.

Table 8: Intrinsic motivation and associated concepts

Associated concepts Explanation

Game elements

Extrinsic rewards Points, badges, feedback

Intrinsic rewards Recognition, autonomy, fun, meaningful

choices, mastery, fun

Finally, all of the participants stated that a successful gamification design is one that intrinsically

motivates employees. Table 8 indicates which game elements were discussed in the interviews with

regard to intrinsic motivation. To achieve intrinsic motivation, the gamification design should consist of

game elements that trigger the players to engage in the desired behaviour. The game elements that

were discussed the most were rewards, of which two sorts emerged; extrinsic rewards and intrinsic

rewards. Most of the experts agreed that the ultimate success of gamification flows from the presence

of intrinsically rewarding experiences. In this regard, three out of five participants mentioned a sense of

autonomy, recognition and fun as successful intrinsic rewards. In addition, two out of five participants

stated that being able to make meaningful choices is also an essential intrinsic motivator. In respect to

extrinsic rewards on the other hand, the expert’s opinions seemed rather divided. Most participants

stated that extrinsic rewards, such as points and badges, could trigger intrinsic motivation among

employees in the short run. In the long run however, these extrinsic rewards should always be

supported by and combined with intrinsically rewarding experiences.

29

4 Discussion

This section will discuss the results in light of the academic literature in order to provide a coherent

framework for successful gamification. The comparison of the results with academic literature will also

enable us to reveal potential discrepancies between the knowledge in professional and academic

context regarding gamification. The figure below provides a visual overview of the results previously

described.

4.1 Clear objectives

When designing a gamified system, it seems crucial to start with clear objectives. According to the

experts, defining the purpose and desired outcome serves as guidance for how to design and

implement gamification and is therefore crucial to its success. The experts’ views regarding clear

objectives appears to be in line with the academic literature. Werbach (2012) for instance, states that

each gamified system should have specific performance goals, such as improving employee

engagement and productivity. According to the experts, clear objectives should be realistic,

measurable and focus on behaviour in order to be successfully translated into an effective gamification

design.

30

Figure 4: Key determinants of a successful gamification design

4.1.1 Realistic

First, the experts argued that unrealistic goals are one of the main explanations for an unsuccessful

gamification project. It appears that the success of gamification corresponds, to a great extent, to what

is expected beforehand. As with every other management technique, gamification is no magic, cure-all

solution. In Steve Dale’s (2016) experience, the novelty of gamification is accompanied with a certain

naivety among managers about its potential, which may often result in unrealistic expectations. By

being overly optimistic while neglecting gamification’s complexity, managers may fail to implement

gamification effectively.

The interviews seem to provide evidence for another negative consequence of setting overoptimistic

goals. Because the success of a gamified project is evaluated in light of predetermined objectives,

unrealistic goals may lead managers to misguidedly consider gamification unsuccessful, causing them

to abandon the system too soon. This may, in part, be an explanation for the great percentage of failed

gamification projects described in academic literature. Research by Gartner (2014) for example,

suggests that 80 percent of current gamified applications will fail to meet business objectives. Expert

Mario Herger (2016) however, nuances these numbers by recognizing the relative nature of success as

follows:

“So and what does it mean successful or not successful? If you are going for changing

engagement with 500 percent, then you will probably fail. So make a realistic prediction.”

The two pitfalls described above seem to stress the importance of being realistic when determining the

objectives of a gamification within an organization. It might therefore be advisable to managers not to

be misguided by the “bells and whistles” of gamification but instead to consult research in order to set

realistic business objectives.

4.1.2 Appropriate: focus on behaviour

An important insight that most of the experts shared is that gamification is not suited for every problem

or challenge. Mario Herger (2016) states that gamification is only appropriate for problems that involve

some sort of behaviour:

“Every problem where human interaction or human-machine interaction happens is a potential

candidate for gamification”.

By clearly defining the problem, a game designer can therefore quickly determine whether gamification

is an appropriate solution. If the identified problem involves behaviour and gamification is found to be a

suitable solution, the objectives should clearly include all of the behaviours the gamified system intends

to modify.

31

This behavioural focus of gamification appears to be well reflected in academic research. Leeson

(2013), for example, suggests that when designing gamification the objectives should focus on the

behaviours you want your employees to adopt. Researchers from the Incentive Research Foundation

(IRF) confirm this view and state that each objective consists of many specific behaviours that all

should be understood and specified in order for gamification to be designed appropriately. If your

objective is to increase productivity for example, a game designer should list in detail all of the different

behaviours that employees engage in to improve their productivity, such as education or using new

tools (Welbourn & Schlachter, 2014). Furthermore, these target behaviours need to be specific and

concrete and should promote the predetermined business objectives, although this relationship could

be indirect (Werbach & Hunter, 2012).

4.1.3 Measurable

Finally, most of the experts argued that, in order to maximize the success of a gamification project,

objectives should be measurable.

“A game designer should only set objectives that are measurable.” (Esther Oostrom, 2016)

Being able to measure the targeted behaviours among employees enables managers to learn how

employees interact with the system. As Oostrom (2016) mentioned, this data provides a valuable

source of information that managers can use to assess the success of a gamification design and

identify possible areas for improvement.

The academic literature confirms this view and deems the measurability of objectives a key

determinant for a successful gamification design. Werbach & Hunter (2012), for instance, state that

objectives should be accompanied with certain metrics of success that allow managers to translate

behaviours into quantifiable results. These numbers may or may not be transparent to the players and

are used to generate feedback. Furthermore, Davey et al. (2015) argued that organizations should

define measurable key performance indicators (KPI's) in order to measure the return on investment of

the gamified application. The key performance indicators of internal gamification consist of the

engagement of employees and the efficiency of business processes. By defining measurable

objectives, gamification designers can build in frequent and more efficient measurements to analyze

how engaged their employees are at a specific moment. In addition, this data may also be used to

determine whether employees are obeying the rules within the gamified system (Robson et al., 2015).

4.2 User centered approach

When clear goals and objectives are determined, managers and game designers should start to know

their audience before designing the game. One of the experts, Maarten Molenaar (2016), argued that

32

not adapting the game to the target group was the most important reason that gamification failed in

organizations. This section shows that a user centered approach is vital because of both demographic

differences and differences in traits among employees. More specifically, time and resources should be

invested to analyze the targeted audience before designing a gamified application. Palmer, Lunceford

and Patton (2011) defined the goal of observing employees as follows:

“The goal is not to “game” or manipulate your target audiences, but rather to mesh behavioural

science with social technologies to increase the interaction and engagement with audiences.”

(p. 67)

At the end, two models that categorize employees in different player types are discussed based on the

experiences of experts in real organizational settings.

4.2.1 Observation of the targeted employees

Employees experience gamified applications differently because they react differently towards rewards,

competition, challenges and social interactions. Whereas some employees may thrive on receiving

points and competition with others, other players may become demotivated because they like to

collaborate in a team and interact with others. The meaningfulness of an internal game is thus

determined by the adaptation to the targeted employees. Observing employees will result in a design

strategy concerning questions such as: what game elements will be implemented? How long will it be

applied? What kinds of rewards are suitable for the employees? Both the experts and scientific

literature stressed the importance of “knowing your audience”. However, they differed in the way

player profiles were developed.

According to the experts, many organizations use non-adapted, “prefabricated” games that do not

succeed. These applications fail because employees differ in what motivates and demotivates them, in

how they experience the game and in what makes them happy. For example, Steve Dale argued that

managers “have to recognize that there are different people and what intrigues one type of person may

not intrigue the other”. Similar to the experts, previous scientific research found that employees

interact in different manners and for different reasons with gamification applications (Hamari et al.,

2014).

Another advantage of observing employees is that this process renders data that provides valuable

insights. As the interviews pointed out, data plays a key role in the user-centered approach that

gamification should implement. It seems that people analytics find their way in organizations. In “the

new organization: different by design”, Deloitte described people analytics as follows:

“the use of people-related data to improve and inform all types of management, business, and

HR decisions throughout the company” (p. 87)

33

The key of people analytics is that managers can make better decisions by “listening” more profoundly

to employees through the use of data. Managers can use data to understand how individual employees

and teams behave in the organization. In addition, the gamified application can be adapted through the

analysis of the engagement of different age groups or gender. For example, when older employees are

less engaged, game designers could adapt communication to this group or develop challenges that are

more relevant to this group.

In the following section, three aspects that could influence the experience of employees are discussed:

age, gender and team versus individual.

A. Gender

Steve Dale (2016) noticed that women like gamification techniques more than men. According to

Esther Oostrom (2016), gender differences can be brought back to differences in motivations. Whereas

men are more likely to be motivated by external factors, women are more likely to be intrinsically

motivated. In addition, Oostrom noticed that women are looking for more social motivators like

appreciation and acknowledgment in their work. Similarly, researchers have found that women report

greater social benefits when using gamified applications (Koivisto &Hamari, 2014). Thus the experts

and scientific literature seems to agree that organizations need to consider gender differences when

designing gamified applications. Specifically, women like to overcome challenges by working together

and by interacting. The experts and the literature argue that men could benefit from competitive

elements like leaderboards, point, badges and different levels.

B. Age

Some researchers argued that people of different ages might like computer or video games equally.

More specific, 67 percent of American households play digital games (Miller, 2012). Do these results

indicate that the age of employees within an organizational setting should not be taken into account

when developing an internal gamification design?

The experts did not find any significant demographic differences in terms of age. For example, Esther

Oostrom (2016) argued that age does not necessarily impact the game experience when clear goals

are clearly stated and when the game is meaningful. Therefore, all ages can benefit from gamified

solutions. In contrast to the experts, the scientific literature did find a major influence of age on the

gamified experience. For instance, Koivisto et al. (2014) found that the ease of use declined with older

employees. Similarly, researchers argued that whereas young employees are familiar with gamification

concepts, older employees would perhaps need additional information and guidance (Sims, 2015). This

perspective is in line with Macdonald (2014) who argued that age groups would feel left behind when

they lack modern game literacy or game experience. Moreover, Macdonald claimed that it could lead to

low morale and low engagement in the future (Macdonald, 2014). However, the experts in our research

34

argued that the scientific research seems to focus only on the digital application of gamification.

However, older employees should not necessary lag behind when gamified applications are not digital.

C. Teams vs. individuals

One of the experts argued that the collective experience of teams could be important in the creation of

a game. The competition between different departments can stimulate teams positively. Again, this is

dependent on the context of the organization. In line with the experts, researchers found a significant

difference between an individual or team targeted gamification design. For example, one organization

changed from individual competition to team-level competition within the game because of the low

engagement of individuals. After this change, the engagement and participation in the game rose from

five percent to ninety percent (Korolov, 2012).

4.2.2 Developing player profiles

Previously, it was argued that managers and game designers should “know their audience”. More

specific, they need to consider differences between employees in motivations caused by gender, age

or team versus individual effects. However, it seems unrealistic that managers and game designers

can adapt games to the individual level of every employee. For this reason, groups of players can be

segmented into broader player types or player profiles based on their motivations, player styles and

preferences in games (Deterding et al., 2011). In this regard, the experts in our research mentioned

the player types of Bartle and those created by Amy Jo Kim. In this section, a clear gap could be

noticed between what science knows and what business does concerning gamification's player types.

One of the most recognized models on player types in the current scientific literature has been created

by Richard Bartle (1996). He differentiated between 4 player types based on the direction of their

pleasure (action versus interaction) and players’ orientation (player orientated versus world orientated):

achievers, explorers, socializers and killers. In his article “Hearts, clubs, diamonds, spades: Player who

suit MUDs”, Bartle compares these player types to symbols of playing cards. Figure 5 illustrates the

different player types and comparison with the symbols of playing cards.

Achievers “Diamonds” Bartle (1996) argued that achievers enjoy a game when they concur

challenging goals. More specific, achievers are focused on rising levels by

gathering points in the game. Achievers are looking for action and are focused

on their individual development in the game. They are proud with the formal

status in a game (Bartle, 1996). Applied to gamification, achievers benefit from

well-developed levels, challenges and feedback.

Explorers “Spades” Explorers seek for information on the mechanisms of the game itself. Bartle

(1996) argues that they interact intensely with the game by trying to find

35

interesting features and by figuring out how the game works. Players of this

type becomes proud when they achieve an 'expert status' within the game and

usually have a lot of knowledge on different features. Managers and game

designers can adapt a gamified solution to explorers by focusing on different

progression paths and a variety of possible meaningful choices as this

stimulates explorers in their game experience.

Socializers “Hearts” The socializers find pleasure in a game by interacting with other players. The

game is perceived as a means to interact with other people. Socializers benefit

from gamified applications that allow them to interact and achieve goals in

group. Bartle (1996) argues that socializers become proud of the friendship

and contacts they build while playing the game. When developing a gamified

application for socializers, there should be many opportunities to interact and

meet other players.

Killers “Clubs” Bartle (1996) found that killers are thrilled by action and defeating others.

Applied to gamification, these players seek a competitive game environment

with leaderboards and competitive challenges. Killers take pride in gaining a

strong reputation in the game.

Another important model concerning player types was developed by Amy Jo Kim (2010). Kim (2010)

adapted Bartle’s model to a gamification context instead of to the MUDs game. Kim argued that four

“social engagement verbs”, presented in figure 6, could capture differences between players: compete,

collaborate, explore and express (Kim, 2010). First, "compete" is similar to the achiever player type of

36

Figure 5: Bartle’s player types (Bartle, 1996)

Bartle and refers to people who are motivated to reach goals and rise levels when competing to others.

Secondly, "collaborate" category includes players that are motivated by collective activities as they lead

to situations in which people can win together (Kim, 2010). This verb is similar to the socializer player

type of Bartle. Thirdly and identical to the explorer player type of Bartle, the "explore" category refers to

players who thrive on having information access and knowledge (Kim, 2010). Finally, "express" refers

to the self-expression of players. Kim (2010) argues that some players are motivated by expressing

themselves and by being creative.

Both the player types from Bartle (1996) and the social engagement verbs of Kim (2010) provide a

framework that could be used to deal with large differences in motivation and pleasure between

employees. However, the experts in this research were not convinced by the simplification of both

models. It seems that practitioners use more detailed models to analyze player types.

Maarten Molenaar (2016), for example, argues that gamified applications are too often designed based

on one of the player types of Bartle or Kim. When Molenaar (2016) creates player types, however, he

takes four other aspects into account. First, he recognizes the importance of demographic

characteristics, such as the age of employees, their gender and their education. Secondly, Molenaar

(2016) tries to find out what motivates individuals in the group. Thirdly, triggers that could stimulate and

engage the players are determined. Finally, Molenaar (2016) tries to find out the triggers that lead

employees to quit with the gamified applications. Based on those four main questions, he tries to

create player profiles that can lead to the design of a gamified solution. Similarly, Mario Herger (2016)

argued that the player types of Bartle are too simplistic. Herger argues that only 1 percent of

37

Figure 6: Kim’s social engagement verbs (Kim, 2012)

employees could be categorized as “killers”. In addition, competition has an adverse effect on what we

want to achieve when using gamification. Mario Herger argues that while Bartle has two dimensions,

he uses more than twelve dimensions to create player profiles.

To conclude, the experts argued that the existing models on player types might be too simplistic and

that practitioners in business settings can use more sophisticated ways to determine player types and

player profiles within an organization. It can be argued that managers and game designers should

invest time and resources into observing the targeted employees, determining the main differences and

creating player profiles based on data gathered from the observation. For example, Mario Herger sits

together with employees for approximately two weeks to determine their profile and then adapts the

gamified system to the different player types that emerged.

4.3 Context alignment

Another topic mentioned by the experts was the alignment of gamification with the organization. For

example, Steve Dale argued that points, awards and badges can only work when they are strategically

aligned with other business objectives and procedures. Similarly, other experts mentioned the

importance of a supportive environment. The scientific literature agrees that the organizational context

might be a vital antecedent for successfully implementing gamification (Hamari et al., 2014). For

example, gamification can only succeed when the game design is strategically aligned with the present

information systems and business workflows. Mario Herger (2016) stated that gamification should only

be considered a suitable solution for behavioral problems. In this regard, Maarten Molenaar (2016)

added that it is quite difficult to sustainably change human behavior because people tend to relapse

into their habits. He further mentioned that changing behaviors in the long run will almost always fail

when the context, in which the gamified project is embedded, is not supportive.

“Imagine you want to motivate your employees to use the stairs more often. You can design a

whole gamified system around this activity by rewarding employees for doing so. However, it is

equally important to create a supportive environment. For example, you can promote the

importance of daily exercise by handing out information and make the elevator a little bit

slower”. (Maarten Molenaar)

More specifically, rewards that are attached to gamification should be aligned with the current

compensation and benefits strategies within an organization. Otherwise, rewards could distort the

intended context (Deterding, Björk, Nacke, Dixon, & Lawley, 2013). However, when managers are

aware of the impact that the organizational context could have on a gamified application, they can take

this into account when designing the application (Richards, Thompson, & Graham, 2014).

38

4.3.1 Branch

With regard to branch, our experts did not perceive significant differences. Mario Herger (2016), for

example, countered the belief that employees in sales are more competitive. Furthermore, Steve Dale

(2016) argued that gamification could work in different branches and industries. The fact that the

success of gamification was not considered dependent on the branch or industry in which the firm

operates does not seem surprising. When combining a user-centered approach while at the same time

aligning the gamified design with the organizational context, gamification could be successful in every

organizational context. Accordingly, Mario Herger (2016) stated the success or failure of a gamification

project only depends on how well the system is designed.

4.3.2 Corporate culture

Although, as mentioned above, the success or failure of a gamification project seems more depended

on its design then on the context in which it operates, some experts recognized that some

organizational cultures will be more suitable for gamification then others. Steve Dale (2016), for

instance, argued that some organizational cultures are more appropriate for testing gamified

applications, whereas other cultures might be more resistant to experimenting with gamified systems.

In addition, it was argued that some cultures could inhibit employees from engaging in gamified

application due to an overemphasis on control and standardization. Similarly, researchers found that

large organizations are often risk averted, leading to low levels of innovation and creativity (Kumar et

al., 2015). Accordingly, Esther Oostrom (2016) argued that gamification can be difficult in a more

traditional and hierarchical organization. Oostrom further added that the organizational culture should

be carefully assessed to determine whether or not an organization is ready to implement gamification.

Regarding the success of gamified application in the long term, the literature suggests that culture

could have an important influence. For example, Denning (2011) claimed that:

“new processes like gamification may appear to make progress for a while, but eventually the

interlocking elements of the organizational culture take over and the change is inexorably

drawn back into the existing organizational culture.”

This statement resonates very well with the previous statement from Maarten Molenaar who indicated

that behavioral change should be supported by the entire environment, including the prevailing

coporate culture, in which gamification is implemented. Although many respondents indicated that

some organizational cultures might be more willing to experiment with gamification, none of the

respondents specifically described the characteristics of such cultures. Research by Warmelink (2011)

on the characteristics of playful organizations did specify some crucial elements that foster the

application of innovative ideas such as gamification. According to Warmelink (2011), organizations that

value the principles of equivalence and meritocracy, i.e. offering employees equal opportunities for

growth and social recognition, could be considered a more appropriate environment for gamification.

39

These values align with game elements that also apply the value of meritocracy by immediately

affording players with points for doing something well and subsequently communicate the points to all

other players.

4.4 Evolving design

According to the experts, a gamification design should keep evolving in order to have positive effects.

As Stephen Dale pointed out: “if you keep things exactly the same, it isn’t a game. So you have to

continually evolve and change the strategy”. It appears that designing a gamified system should be

considered an on-going process rather than a one-time job that is finished after implementation. The

experts stressed that gamification should change in order to stay meaningful to its users, especially in

the long run. As the following quote points out, this view accords with academic research:

“Once the gamified experience is under way, managers must remember that in order for the

experience to remain engaging to any player type, as well as for the experience to continue to

meet organizational goals, adjusting and transitioning the experience is key” (Robson et al.,

2015).

4.4.1 Iterative process

Many participants mentioned the iterative character of a gamification designing process. Maarten

Molenaar (2016) states that each gamification project involves certain assumptions that should be

tested as soon and as frequently as possible. As mentioned before, the data that results from the

employees participating in the gamified experience serves as an extremely valuable indicator of the

project’s efficacy. By constantly analyzing this data, managers can determine what is working or not,

make adjustments, formulate new assumptions and so on. The cyclical nature of this process enables

managers to quickly apply the insights gathered from data in order to maximize success.

In the academic context, only a few researchers mention the importance of an iterative process when

designing gamification. Ruhi (2015), for example, states that an effective design begins with proper

planning and cyclical improvements based on system testing and user feedback. Although some

research mentions the iterative character of designing gamification, this focus seems less pronounced

within the academic context.

4.4.2 Long term

As the interviewees pointed out, the extent to which a gamified system should change and evolve is

largely dependent on the term of implementation. According to experts, static gamification designs may

generate some positive results in the short run but will soon become ineffective. According to Maarten

40

Molenaar (2016) gamification, if not changing substantially, cannot be effective longer than two or three

weeks. An important explanation for this was provided by expert Steve Dale (2016) who suggested that

a fixed gamification design risks being gamed by its users. This view was also confirmed and explained

by Mario Herger (2016) who stated that, although a simple and unchanging gamification design might

generate some positive outcomes at first, employees will eventually seek shortcuts to receive the

rewards present in quick and easy ways, while neglecting the actual quality of their work. In this case,

as employees will stop performing the targeted behaviour as soon as the rewards are removed,

gamification has the exact opposite effect.

In other words, when gamification is expected to be implemented for a longer period, an evolving

design seems required. It is argued that gamification should stay meaningful if it wants to effectuate

long-lasting behaviour change among employees (Maarten Molenaar, 2016). The academic literature

seems to agree with this point of view and provides a deeper understanding as regards to which

features a gamification design should contain to keep employees interested. First, the system’s content

should be up-to-date, innovative and exciting to the users. In addition, the tasks that are promoted

within the design should be of a suitable difficulty level so that employees stay properly challenged

(Vehns, 2014). Research by Fels & Seaborn (2015) suggests that the difficulty level of completing

challenges and obtaining rewards should not be constant. Instead, gamification should feature

rewards that are scalable. By presenting low initial barriers to entry that yield greater rewards in

exchange for completing more complex and involved challenges, employees can be motivated to keep

trying harder (Fels & Seaborn, 2015). In this regard, Werbach & Hunter (2012) mention the concept of

‘progression stairs’, a term that reflects the fact that a successful game experience evolves, with an

escalating level of challenges, as users move through it. This increasing difficulty should not be

completely linear, but instead should increase at variable rates. The illustration below clearly indicates

this varying difficulty between different levels.

41

Figure 7: Progression stairs (Werbach & Hunter, 2012)

These insights can be linked to Csikszentmohalyi’s 'flow theory' that was earlier described in the

theoretical framework of gamification. Csikszentmohalyi (1990) suggests that in order to reach a state

of flow, the difficulty of a game should be in balance with the individual skill level of employees. If

challenges are too easy, users might lose their interest. On the other hand, challenges that are too

difficult might result in frustration among employees that try hard but are unable to succeed. In either

case, employees will eventually abandon the system and gamification will ultimately fail.

4.5 Intrinsic Motivation

As fostering employee engagement by tapping into intrinsic motivation is the ultimate goal of internal

gamification, appealing to intrinsic motivation inevitably is the final key to achieving success (Ruhi,

2015). Gamification, as well as more traditional incentive programs, both use motivators to achieve

their goal, i.e. engaging employees. However, in traditional incentive programs extrinsic motivators are

typically used to directly influence behaviour, whereas gamification uses extrinsic motivators as an

intermediate step to foster intrinsic motivation. Although gamification is ultimately designed for tapping

into intrinsic motivation, the importance of extrinsic motivators should not be neglected. In the literature

reviewed, gamification is consistently positioned as a tool that may be used to facilitate extrinsic and

intrinsic motivation to accomplish specific tasks through the selective use of game elements (Seaborn

& Fels, 2015). In order for a gamified system to successfully engage employees it is therefore

fundamental to select the right combination of game elements.

4.5.1 Game elements

According to Ruhi (2015), designers need to ensure engagement by implementing game elements that

make the gamified experience entertaining, challenging and rewarding. As previously pointed out, in

the interviews as well as in the literature, it is crucial to consider employees’ motivational differences in

order to properly select an effective combination of game elements. In line with the Self-Determination

Theory, researchers have further argued that it is important to visibly link actions and achievements to

make scoring and winning transparent to the end users (Ruhi, 2015; Ryan & Deci, 2000). The latter

can intrinsically motivate users in different ways according to which player category of primary

motivation that user belongs. For example, users that are primarily motivated by their need for

competence will be motivated by receiving extensive feedback about their actions, whereas users that

are primarily motivated by their need for relatedness will be spurred to take action due to participation

in a common leader board. This example also illustrates the interrelatedness between the need for a

user-centred approach and an approach that taps into intrinsic motivation.

42

4.5.2 Rewards

Researchers have argued that gamified work processes may be most successful if they are informed

by psychological theories that focus on motivation and rewards (Baranowski, Baranowski, Thompson &

Buday, 2012; Brox, Fernandez-Lugue & Tollefsen, 2011). Of the game elements that were discussed

during the interviews, rewards were mentioned the most. This emphasis on rewards can also be found

in the literature in which the adoption of new initiatives has been shown to increase by the use of virtual

or real rewards (Dominguez et al., 2013; Perryer, Scott-Ladd & Leighton, 2012; Werbach & Hunter,

2012; Whitton, 2012;). Furthermore, rewards can be distinguished according to their appeal to intrinsic

and/or extrinsic motivation (Werbach & Hunter, 2012, ). The best way to explain the relationship

between extrinsic and intrinsic rewards is that extrinsic rewards are exchangeable, whereas intrinsic

rewards can be understood as the experienced consequence of receiving these extrinsic rewards. For

example, positive feedback is an extrinsic reward that opens up the possibility for the employee to

satisfy certain intrinsic needs. Accordingly, positive feedback can generate feelings of recognition and

mastery, which could result in perceiving work as fun. However, when extrinsic rewards do not succeed

in arousing feelings that satisfy employees’ intrinsic needs, the gamified system has failed to meet its

ultimate objective; engaging employees by appealing to their intrinsic motivation. Therefore, the most

important task of a gamification designer is to maximize the possibility of game elements to arouse

intrinsically satisfying emotions such as recognition, autonomy, mastery and pleasure. Mario Herger

(2016) has clearly explained the role of extrinsic motivators in relation to intrinsic motivation by stating

that:

“Make it less about extrinsic rewards like points. […] The extrinsic motivators are more used in

order to keep track on how well you’re doing with your intrinsic motivators”

When applying this statement to points, it should be understood as follows; obtaining points should not

become a goal in itself, but rather be a means of tracking how well you have progressed in your skills.

Maarten Molenaar (2016) further illustrates this with a personal example:

“One morning I was jogging in the Canadian Rocky Mountains, which probably was the most

beautiful run in my whole life. However, just before I wanted to start, I noticed that I had

forgotten my Nike Fuel Band, which usually measures my performance. Somehow this led me

to believe that the run I was just about to start was meaningless, which is of course ridiculous.

So yes, the risk of undermining intrinsic motivation by the use of extrinsic rewards certainly

exists.”

This condition, that extrinsic motivators should play a supportive role to intrinsic motivations, stresses

what gamification design is ultimately about, and can be applied to all sorts of reward types such as

badges or verbal feedback. Although most interviewees understood the importance of this condition,

additional nuances are made in the academic literature.

43

One of the most important and interesting discussions on gamification revolves around the relationship

between external rewards and intrinsic motivation. A meta-analysis of 128 studies by Deci, Koestner

and Ryan (1999) showed that engagement-contingent, completion-contingent and performance-

contingent rewards significantly undermined intrinsic motivation, as did all tangible rewards and all

expected rewards. Overemphasizing the relationship between actions and rewards could therefore

undermine the intrinsic motivation that was initially present. In this case, the extrinsic reward does not

merely play the role of supporting intrinsic motivation but rather overshadows intrinsic motivation.

However, the latter is only true when there is an intrinsic motivation for action to begin with (Deci,

Koestner & Ryan, 2000). These nuances were not highlighted during the interviews and provide

important additions to the notion that extrinsic rewards are necessary, but that they should be used in a

thoughtful manner. Because previous research has found that extrinsic motivators could undermine

intrinsic motivation, it seems necessary to point out how this pitfall could be avoided.

First of all, overemphasizing the relationship between actions and rewards only results in undermining

intrinsic motivation when there is intrinsic motivation for action to begin with (Deci, Koestner & Ryan,

2001) For example, behaviours that are perceived as inherently dull or unpleasant in most cases do

not arouse any intrinsic motivation, meaning that in this case extrinsic motivators cannot appeal to

intrinsic motivation. Secondly, as a manager it is important to understand that the expectedness of any

reward can undermine the positive effect on intrinsic motivation. Research has shown that even

intangible rewards such as positive feedback lose their benefits as soon as they have become

predictable (Deci, Koestner & Ryan, 1999). On the other hand, however, this implies that unexpected

rewards are appropriate to use, meaning that extrinsic rewards can be effective as long as they are

allocated in an unpredictable manner.

Another way to prevent potential negative effects of gamification on intrinsic motivation is to design a

gamified system that does not depend on external rewards (Kim, 2015). Important for managers to

consider are the three intrinsic needs identified by Ryan and Deci’s Self Determination Theory: the

need for autonomy, the need for competence and the need for relatedness (Deci, Koestner & Ryan,

1999). Regarding the need for competence, a gamified system can put more emphasis on providing

employees with recognition for their achievements (Herger, 2016; Molenaar, 2016). Besides a more

traditional approach that hands out points or badges in order to recognize certain achievements, an

alternative approach might consist of rewarding the employee by giving him more autonomy.

Practically, this could imply that an employee will receive increased freedom of choice to set his own

goals, or receive access to more detailed information to keep track of his progression. In turn, this can

also minimize the potential of the controlling aspects of rewards and, at the same time, can strengthen

their competence-affirming aspects (Kim, 2015) This example illustrates how a thoroughly designed

gamified system can appeal to multiple intrinsic needs without having to rely heavily on extrinsic

rewards.

44

Finally, it is important to understand how previously mentioned key determinants of success for

gamification contribute to maximizing the possibility of game elements to arouse intrinsically satisfying

emotions such as fun, autonomy, recognition and competence. Extensive knowledge of your

employees makes it easier to align their individual goals with goals of the organization (Kim, 2015). As

a result, many external motivators that otherwise might have been necessary, would become

superfluous because employees will already be acting in line with their own endeavors. Additionally,

this user-centred approach enables the gamification designer to emphasize the most relevant intrinsic

needs in agreement with diverse player types. Although a gamified system could prove to be very

effective in tapping into intrinsic motivation in the beginning, an evolving design is vital in order to

remain appealing to employees. Furthermore, implementing gamification in an enterprise leaves the

manager no choice but to consider the corporate structure, corporate culture as well as existing reward

structures. Aligning the gamified system with the corporate context is therefore an important condition

in order to prevent potential conflicts. For example, when providing increasing autonomy for achieving

certain objectives, it could be important to assure that executives retain their hierarchical superiority in

relation to lower level employees. Furthermore, identifying realistic, measureable and appropriate

objectives at the beginning of a gamified project allows the manager to appropriately reward

employees for succeeding in the proposed goals. Finally, the data generated by the observation and

later by the interaction of the employees with the gamified system, seems to play a fundamental role in

each phase of every gamification project. It enables managers to learn from the players, to identify

areas for improvement and to adapt the gamified system constantly in order to maximize success.

45

5 Conclusion

In the introduction, some important changes in contemporary society and associated problems for

managers were highlighted. On one hand, technological advances have shifted the balance from

clearly delineated job contents to much more dynamic jobs (Pink, 2009). Today, employees are

expected to engage in complex problem solving and to come up with creative ideas for diverse sets of

problems. On the other hand, the new Generation Y that enters the workforce, differs from previous

generations in their emphasis on themes like self-determination, flexibility and independency (Martin,

2005). In this regard, extrinsic motivators are becoming increasingly ineffective in motivating

employees performing 21st century tasks (Pink, 2009). This research provided additional support for

gamification as a successful strategy to tackle these contemporary problems by fostering employees’

intrinsic motivation.

5.1 Managerial implications

Extensive analyses of the information gathered from semi-structured interviews enabled us to derive

meaningful concepts that subsequently could be aggregated into five main categories: clear objectives,

user-centred approach, evolving design, context alignment and intrinsic motivation. By assessing these

five categories against the current body of literature on gamification, we then were able to formulate a

concise and coherent framework of five determinants for successfully implementing gamification.

Furthermore, this approach also enabled us to identify some gaps between what science knows about

gamification and what is being practiced by entrepreneurs. Although most of the experts’ insights were

validated by the literature, some useful additions have been made. For gamification to successfully

address the contemporary problems that businesses face nowadays, we advise managers to take the

following suggestions carefully into consideration.

First, managers should start each gamification project with clear objectives in mind. In this regard, it

might therefore be advisable to managers not to be misguided by superficial success stories of

gamification but instead to consult research in order to set realistic and measurable business

objectives. Each objective should further consist of many specific behaviours that all should be

understood and specified in order for gamification to be designed appropriately.

Second, after having identified the desired objectives, managers should acquire a thorough

understanding of the target audience before designing gamification. Throughout this thesis,

understanding motivational differences between employees has consistently been pointed out as one

of the most important key determinants of success for gamification. Only by investing time and

resources in observing demographic and motivational differences among employees, an effective and

user-centered strategy can be designed. Managers should figure out what motivates their employees

46

and select an effective combination of game elements accordingly. Regarding employees that are

primarily motivated by their need for competence, game elements that provide detailed feedback about

progression and achievements should be selected. Furthermore, when employees also value their

sense of relatedness to others, game elements that allow employees to compare their results with

others should be added.

Third, besides taking individual differences among employees into account, managers should also

consider the structural and cultural characteristics of the company. The selected game elements can

only be effective when strategically aligned with other business objectives and procedures.

Gamification should always aim to resonate with existing business processes instead of creating a

disruptive effect. In this regard, managers can avoid potential conflicts by aligning the objectives and

game elements set out in the gamified system with the existing business objectives and procedures. In

addition, rewards that can be earned in the gamified system should be considered thoughtfully to

ensure compatibility with current compensation and benefit strategies. In this way, the manager can

maximize the possibility of a synergetic interplay between the selected game elements, employee

characteristics and the organizational context.

Fourth, managers should understand that for a gamified system to be sustainable, it should be

constantly evolving. This evolving character of gamification should be reflected on two levels: the

designing process and the game experience itself. On the level of the designing process, gamification

should never be perceived as a completely finished product. Instead, the designing process should be

characterized by the continuous reiteration of the use of data in order to improve the system through

trial-error and playtesting. Managers should keep developing and testing new assumptions about their

employees’ reactions to different incentives. The cyclical nature of this process enables managers to

quickly apply the insights gathered from data in order to maximize the gamification's success in the

long run. In addition, gamification should also be evolving on the level of the gamified experience itself.

The tasks that are promoted within the design should be of a suitable difficulty level for employees to

stay properly challenged, thereby creating possibilities for satisfying the intrinsic need for competence

and for reaching a state of flow (Deci, Koestner & Ryan, 1999; Csikszentmohalyi, 1990). This

implicates that a gamified experience should start relatively easy in order to facilitate the onboarding

process for employees. While monitoring employees’ progression through data, new and more difficult

challenges can then be added to the gamified application. Furthermore, managers should also feature

rewards that are scalable. By presenting low initial barriers to entry that yields greater rewards in

exchange for completing more complex challenges, employees can be motivated to constantly improve

their performance (Fels & Seaborn, 2015). To conclude, the importance of an evolving design on both

levels should not be underestimated. Even when a simple and unchanging design might generate

positive outcomes at first, it has to evolve in order to stay meaningful, exciting and engaging (Herger,

2016; Molenaar, 2016). In this regard, we advise managers to perceive gamification as a way to learn

47

as much as possible about their employees, to subsequently apply that knowledge and finally to

assess whether they have drawn the right conclusions.

Fifth, all of the previously mentioned key determinants contribute to achieving the ultimate objective of

gamification, i.e. motivating employees by tapping into their intrinsic motivation (Werbach & Hunter,

2012). Therefore, the most important task of a gamification designer is to maximize the possibility of

game elements to arouse intrinsically satisfying emotions such as recognition, autonomy, mastery and

pleasure. Only by taking motivational differences among employees into account, as well as the

organizational context, managers can be able to select an effective combination of game elements that

sustainably enhances employee engagement. We therefore advise managers to inform themselves by

psychological theories focused on motivation and rewards before designing gamification. The best way

to explain the relationship between extrinsic and intrinsic rewards is that extrinsic rewards are

exchangeable, whereas intrinsic rewards can be understood as the experienced consequence of

receiving these extrinsic rewards. Managers should understand that positive feedback, points, badges

or other rewards should merely function as a means for arousing intrinsically satisfying feelings, such

as recognition, mastery, relatedness and pleasure. It is crucial for managers to recognize this

relationship, i.e. that extrinsic motivators should play a supportive role to intrinsic motivators rather than

becoming stand-alone goals. If the latter would be true, extrinsic motivators could have potential

negative effects on intrinsic motivation, and would therefore undermine the entire gamified approach.

Consequently, we would advise managers to design gamification that does not fully depend on

extrinsic rewards such as points or badges. Instead, rewards such as acquiring more autonomy,

feedback or social status would be more suitable to appeal to the intrinsic needs for competence,

autonomy and relatedness.

5.2 Discrepancies

Regarding our second research question, we attempted to point out discrepancies between the current

body of literature and the insights gathered from entrepreneurs. In general, most of the gathered

insights matched the literature very well. For example, both sources emphasized the importance of a

user-centered approach in combination with an evolving design. Nevertheless, some discrepancies

were found regarding the segmentation of employees in different player types as well as the specifics

of an evolving design. The experts appeared to have more extensive knowledge in these areas. The

academic literature on the other hand, seemed to provide more detailed information about the

relationship between extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivation.

The areas in which the literature and entrepreneurs differentiated are quite interesting. Areas in which

entrepreneurs had more extensive knowledge are characterized by the use of data as a valuable

source for drawing conclusions. In constructing player types, comprehensive data about employees is

required in order to segment employees into detailed categories of primary motivations. Employees

48

generate large amounts of data by interacting with gamified systems, thereby contributing to the

development of detailed player types. In scientific research, however, it is much more difficult to

generate the same amount of data in an experimental setup. Regarding the importance of an evolving

gamification design, the same logic applies. Here, comprehensive user data is required to enable

gamification designers to constantly tweak the design for it to stay meaningful, relevant and engaging.

Again, researchers have significantly less data at their disposal, which could explain the appointed

discrepancy between researchers and entrepreneurs in their emphasis on the importance of an

evolving design.

Conversely, the area where the literature provided more extensive information can be characterized by

the benefits of an experimental setting. As previously mentioned, more detailed knowledge about the

relationship between extrinsic motivators and intrinsic motivation emerged from the literature. Findings

such as the potential negative effect of engagement-contingent, completion-contingent and

performance-contingent rewards on intrinsic motivation require an experimental setting in which the

influence of all other variables is controlled. Therefore, it is not surprising that scientists excel in their

knowledge about causal relations between different variables.

5.3 Limitations

The results of this thesis should be interpreted in light of following limitations. One limitation to this

research lies in the relatively short period this thesis was written. Although we managed to conduct five

relevant interviews that were a great success in terms of the data they generated, a larger sample size

could have provided us with even more useful insights. Furthermore, most of the gathered insights did

not conflict each other and matched the literature really well. At first sight this might be a sign that the

notion entrepreneurs have of gamification is converging with the understanding of the research

community on this topic. Nevertheless, a larger sample size could have uncovered more conflicting

notions of gamification within the entrepreneurial community as well between the research community

and entrepreneurs. In addition, the qualitative nature of the study and the way experts on gamification

were selected do not allow us to present our findings as views that are commonly shared in the entire

entrepreneurial community. However, we did attempt to select experts who are considered opinion

leaders in the field of gamification. In this regard, it could be reasoned that the selected experts could

have a significant impact on other entrepreneurs who have only just begun to delve into the subject of

gamification, thereby possibly extending their view to other entrepreneurs.

Another limitation flows from the way the interviews were conducted. Face to face interviews via Skype

do not exclude the possibility of having biased respondents’ answers by posing questions in a certain

fashion or sequence. This might have caused some answers to be influenced by answers provided on

previous questions. Furthermore, we cannot exclude the possibility of interviewer bias in interpreting

and coding respondents’ answers. However, it should be mentioned that these risks were minimized by

49

posing open-ended questions in an unprejudiced manner, guided by a standardized interview

guideline. In addition, every coded interview was passed on to another researcher to evaluate the

concepts that were identified. Concepts and categories that led to answering our first research question

were only considered final by mutual agreement after extensive elaboration and evaluation.

5.4 Recommendations for future research

Gamification is an interdisciplinary subject in which various scientific disciplines are interrelated. Many

concepts and theories from psychology, sociology, human resource management, performance

management, innovation management, human computer interaction and game design contribute to the

understanding of designing and implementing gamification. On one hand, this makes gamification a

very complex concept that is difficult to grasp from a single perspective. On the other hand, however,

this makes gamification a very interesting subject that might appeal to researchers with very diverse

educational backgrounds. Regarding future research, we suggest that cooperation between various

scientific disciplines could unite and balance their perspectives, thereby contributing to the

development of gamification as commonly acknowledged and mature concept. Besides an

interdisciplinary cooperation within the research community, we suggest cooperation between

entrepreneurs and researchers as well. Researchers appeared to have more extensive knowledge in

areas that benefit from an experimental setup, whereas entrepreneurs excelled in knowledge derived

from large amounts of data. To bridge this gap between scientists and entrepreneurs regarding the

successful implementation of gamification, it appears that they should meet each other half way.

Complementing their knowledge and experience could make the workplace of the future a better place,

for the benefit of employees and the strength of our businesses.

50

List of figures

Figure 1: Use of the term gamification (Google Trends).....................................................9

Figure 2: Desired outcomes by different industries (El-Khuffash, 2012)…………………...14

Figure 3: Primary problem solved by different industries (El-Khuffash, 2012) ……………15

Figure 4: Key determinants of a successful gamification design……………………………30

Figure 5: Bartle’s player types (Bartle, 1996) …………………………………………….…..36

Figure 6: Kim’s social engagement verbs (Kim, 2012)……………………………………….37

Figure 7: Progression stairs (Werbach & Hunter, 2012) …………………………………….41

51

List of tables

Table 1: Different types of motivation (Wikimedia Commons; Gagné and Deci, 2005)………..17

Table 2: Description of the selected experts (Linkedin)…………………....................................23

Table 3: Overview of the main categories and concepts mentioned in the expert interviews…26

Table 4: Clear objectives and associated concepts ……………………………………………….27

Table 5: User-centered approach and associated concepts………………………………….…..27

Table 6: Context alignment and associated concepts…….……………………………………….28

Table 7: Evolving design and associated concepts…………….………………………………….28

Table 8: Evolving design and associated concepts…………….………………………………….29

52

Sources

Baranowski, T., Baranowski, J., Thompson, D., & Buday, R. (2011). Behavioral science in video games

for children's diet and physical activity change: key research needs. Journal of diabetes

science and technology, 5(2), 229-233.

Bartle, R. (1996). Hearts, clubs, diamonds, spades: Players who suit MUDs.Journal of MUD

research, 1(1), 19.

Bogner, A., Littig, B., & Menz, W. (Eds.). (2009). Interviewing experts (pp. 43-80). Basingstoke:

Palgrave Macmillan.

Brox, E., Fernandez-Luque, L., & Tøllefsen, T. (2011). Healthy gaming–video game design to promote

health. Appl Clin Inf, 2, 128-142.

Bunchball. (2010). An Introduction to the Use of Game Dynamics to Influence Behavior.

Burke, B. (2013). The gamification of business. www. forbes. com/sites/gartnergroup/2013/01/21/the-

gamification-of-buisness/ [Accessed on 19/02/2016].

Cerasoli, C. P., Nicklin, J. M., & Ford, M. T. (2014). Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic incentives jointly

predict performance: A 40-year meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 980.

Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative

criteria. Qualitative sociology, 13(1), 3-21.

Corti, K. (2006). Games-based Learning; a serious business application. Informe de

PixelLearning, 34(6), 1-20.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). The domain of creativity.

Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the

effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological bulletin, 125(6), 627.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The" what" and" why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-

determination of behavior. Psychological inquiry,11(4), 227-268.

Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (2001). Extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivation in education:

Reconsidered once again. Review of educational research, 71(1), 1-27.

53

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2012). Motivation, personality, and development within embedded social

contexts: An overview of self-determination theory. The Oxford handbook of human

motivation, 85-107.

Denning, S. (2011). How do you change an organizational culture? Forbes Magazine.

Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). From game design elements to

gamefulness: defining gamification. In Proceedings of the 15th international academic

MindTrek conference: Envisioning future media environments (pp. 9-15). ACM.

Deterding, S., Björk, S. L., Nacke, L. E., Dixon, D., & Lawley, E. (2013, April). Designing gamification:

creating gameful and playful experiences. In CHI'13 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in

Computing Systems (pp. 3263-3266). ACM.

Deterding, S. (2014). Eudaimonic design, or: Six invitations to rethink gamification.

Dexter, Lewis Anthony, ed. 1970. Elite and Specialized Interviewing. Evanston, IL: North- western

University Press.

Domínguez, A., Saenz-de-Navarrete, J., De-Marcos, L., Fernández-Sanz, L., Pagés, C., & Martínez-

Herráiz, J. J. (2013). Gamifying learning experiences: Practical implications and

outcomes. Computers & Education, 63, 380-392.

El-Khuffash, A. (2012). Gamification. Erişim Tarihi, 25, 2014.

Field, P. A., & Morse, J. M. (1985). Nursing research: The application of qualitative approaches.

Chapman and Hall.

Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self‐determination theory and work motivation. Journal of

Organizational behavior, 26(4), 331-362.

Gartner, Inc. (2014). Gamification: Engagement Strategies for Business and IT. [Online]

Available at: http://www.gartner.com/technology/research/gamification/ [Accessed 19/02/2016]

Hanus, M. D., & Fox, J. (2015). Assessing the effects of gamification in the classroom: A

longitudinal study on intrinsic motivation, social comparison, satisfaction, effort and

academic performance. Computers & Education, 80, 152-161.

Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Sarsa, H. (2014, January). Does gamification work?--a literature review of

empirical studies on gamification. In System Sciences (HICSS), 2014 47th Hawaii International

Conference on (pp. 3025-3034). IEEE.

54

Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between employee

satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: a meta-analysis. Journal of

applied psychology, 87(2), 268.

Huotari, K., & Hamari, J. (2012, October). Defining gamification: a service marketing perspective.

In Proceeding of the 16th International Academic MindTrek Conference (pp. 17-22). ACM.

Kamasheva, A. V., Valeev, E. R., Yagudin, R. K., & Maksimova, K. R. (2015). Usage of gamification

theory for increase motivation of employees.Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 6(1

S3), 77.

Kietzmann, J. H., Hermkens, K., McCarthy, I. P., & Silvestre, B. S. (2011). Social media? Get serious!

Understanding the functional building blocks of social media. Business horizons, 54(3), 241-

251.

Kim, B. (2015). Designing Gamification in the Right Way. Library Technology Reports, 51(2), 29-35.

Amy Jo Kim (2010), “Designing the Player Journey”, Retrieved From

http://www.slideshare.net/amyjokim/gami_cation-101-designthe-player-journey

Koivisto, J., & Hamari, J. (2014). Demographic differences in perceived benefits from gamification.

Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 179-188.

Korolov, M. (2012). Gamification of the Enterprise. Network World, 9(2012), 31-33.

Kumar, H., & Raghavendran, S. (2015). Gamification, the finer art: fostering creativity and employee

engagement. Journal of Business Strategy, 36(6), 3-12.

Landers, R. N., & Callan, R. C. (2011). Casual social games as serious games: The psychology of

gamification in undergraduate education and employee training. In Serious games and

edutainment applications (pp. 399-423). Springer London.

Landers, R. N., & Landers, A. K. (2015). An Empirical Test of the Theory of Gamified Learning The

Effect of Leaderboards on Time-on-Task and Academic Performance. Simulation & Gaming,

1046878114563662

Latham, G. P., & Locke, E. A. (1991). Self-regulation through goal setting. Organizational behavior and

human decision processes, 50(2), 212-247.

Leeson, C. (2013). Driving KM Behaviors and Adoption through Gamification.KM World, 22(4), 10-20.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task

motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American psychologist,57(9), 705.

55

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2006). New directions in goal-setting theory. Current directions in

psychological science, 15(5), 265-268.

Lockwood, N. R., 2007. Leveraging Employee Engagement for Competitive Advantage: HR's

Strategic Role. 2007 SHRM Research Quarterly, pp. 1-12.

MacDonald, N. (2014). Is gamification right for your business? Training & Development, 41(3), 18.

Markos, S., & Sridevi, M. S. (2010). Employee engagement: The key to improving

performance. International Journal of Business and Management,5(12), 89.

Martin, C. A. (2005). From high maintenance to high productivity: What managers need to know about

Generation Y. Industrial and commercial training,37(1), 39-44.

Mekler, E. D., Brühlmann, F., Tuch, A. N., & Opwis, K. (2015). Towards understanding the effects of

individual gamification elements on intrinsic motivation and performance. Computers in

Human Behavior.

Meuser, M., & Nagel, U. (1991). Expertlnneninterviews—vielfach erprobt, wenig bedacht (pp. 441-471).

VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

Miller, K. (2012). Playing along: Digital games, YouTube, and virtual performance. Oxford University

Press.

Oostrom E. (2014). Thesis: Gamification, the engagement game.

Palmer, D., Lunceford, S., Patton, AJ (2012). The engagement economy: How gamification is

reshaping businesses. Deloitte Review, 11, 20.

Pink, D. (2009). http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation?language=nl [accessed

18/02/2016].

Pe-Than, E. P. P., Goh, D. H. L., & Lee, C. S. (2014). Making work fun: Investigating antecedents of

perceived enjoyment in human computation games for information sharing. Computers in

Human Behavior, 39, 88-99.

Perryer, C., Scott-Ladd, B., & Leighton, C. (2012). Gamification: implications for workplace intrinsic

motivation in the 21st century. AFBE J, 371-381.

Przybylski, A. K., Rigby, C. S., & Ryan, R. M. (2010). A motivational model of video game

engagement. Review of general psychology, 14(2), 154

Ramos, J. (2011). About Games for Change. Games for Change.

56

Reeves, J. (2014). The gamification of social problems; Designing serious games for use in child abuse

and neglect.

Richards, C., Thompson, C. W., & Graham, N. (2014, October). Beyond designing for motivation: the

importance of context in gamification. InProceedings of the first ACM SIGCHI annual

symposium on Computer-human interaction in play (pp. 217-226). ACM.

Ritterfeld, U., Cody, M., & Vorderer, P. (Eds.). (2009). Serious games: Mechanisms and effects.

Routledge.

Robson, K., Plangger, K., Kietzmann, J. H., McCarthy, I., & Pitt, L. (2015). Is it all a game?

Understanding the principles of gamification. Business Horizons,58(4), 411-420.

Ruhi, U. (2015). Level Up Your Strategy: Towards a Descriptive Framework for Meaningful Enterprise

Gamification. Technology Innovation Management Review.

Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of managerial

psychology, 21(7), 600-619.

Sasser, W. E., Schlesinger, L. A., & Heskett, J. L. (1997). Service profit chain. Simon and Schuster.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Understanding research philosophies and

approaches. Research Methods for Business Students, 4, 106-135.

Sawyer, B., & Rejeski, D. (2002). Serious games: Improving public policy through game-based

learning and simulation.

Seaborn, K., & Fels, D. I. (2015). Gamification in theory and action: A survey. International Journal of

Human-Computer Studies, 74, 14-31.

Sims, S. (2015). Gamification: Does age matter? Behavior Lab Badgeville.

Vehns, M. (2014). The application of gamification in sales. Signature, 30.

Venkatacharya, P., Rice, S., & Bezuayehu, L. (2009). Designing for the next generation: Generation-y

expectations. In Human Interface and the Management of Information. Designing Information

Environments (pp. 190-196). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Wakelam, E., Jefferies, A., Davey, N., & Sun, Y. (2015, October). The Potential for Using Artificial

Intelligence Techniques to Improve e-Learning Systems. InEuropean Conference on e-

Learning (p. 762). Academic Conferences International Limited.

57

Warmelink, H. J. G. (2011). Towards a playful organization ideal-type: Values of a playful

organizational culture. In Think Design Play; proceedings of the 5th DIGRA conference, Utrecht (The

Netherlands), 14-17 Sept., 2011. Digital Games Research Association.

Welbourn, T., & Schlachter, S. (2014). The “Wildfire” That Is Employee Engagement. The Incentive

Research Foundation.

Werbach, K., & Hunter, D. (2012). For the win: How game thinking can revolutionize your business.

Wharton Digital Press.

Whitton, N. (2012). The Place of Game-Based Learning in an Age of Austerity.Electronic Journal of e-

Learning, 10(2), 249-256.

Zichermann, G., & Cunningham, C. (2011). Gamification by design: Implementing game mechanics in

web and mobile apps. " O'Reilly Media, Inc.".

Zinger, D. (2014). http://www.davidzinger.com/tag/gamification/ [accessed 16/02/2016].

58

Case study by Mick Stallaert

Case Study 1: Gallup’s work with a leading call centre in the US, employing 8,500 operators and

serving one million customers, powerfully demonstrates how customer service ratings influence

customer attrition and how disengaged call centre operators cost organisations millions of dollars. In a

customer engagement partnership with this call centre, customers were asked to rate their

experiences. Where customers rated their experience as “much worse than expected”, this equated to

a loss of 15% of customers – equating to $4,500,000 of business. Gallup then worked out how many

calls the most disengaged customers had to make to resolve their query. Customers who rated the

service as “much worse than expected” had to make three calls to resolve their query, while those who

rated the service as “much better than expected” only made 1.3 calls. The average cost per call was

worked out at $10, which means that a disengaged operator costs the company an additional $17 per

disengaged customer.

How do you as a call centre manager begin to address this shortfall?

The following case study attempts to motivate the use of gamification in organizations. Secondly, it

offers a clear perspective on how managers could lead the successful design of a gamification project.

But first things first: why should a manager use gamification to solve specific problems in a call center?

Internal gamification -when applied successfully- can lead to an increase in engagement of a

workforce. More specific, employee engagement leads to organizational commitment, organizational

citizenship, higher retention and most important higher levels of customer satisfaction (Saks, 2006;

Harter et al., 2002). Furthermore, researchers found that an increase of five percent in customer

retention could increase profits by more than 25 (Reichheld & Sasser, 1996). Consequently, this call

center should increase the employee engagement in order to fulfill their customer’s desires and

expectations.

The top management of this call center could however argue that gamification is not the only solution

that could address the stated problems. For example, investing in a virtual call center (work-from-

home) or hiring more call center agents could also be a valid solution to increase business results.

However, gamification is appropriate in this context because of the problematic job of a call center

agent. On the one hand, call centers are looking for skilled operators who are very communicative and

often technical. On the other hand, the job itself encompasses low variation, low autonomy and often a

high workload. In addition, call center operators often meat unfriendly customers. In light of these facts,

gamification appears to be the best suitable solution because of its emphasis on recognition (e.g.

badges), autonomy (e.g. meaningful choices) and the higher efforts employees are willing to put in their

daily work. Managers could also look at what has been done in the branch of call centers. For example,

LiveOps applied gamification in their call center. By applying gamification, 72 percent of employees

59

voluntarily completed trainings and customer service levels increased 9 percent. At Snowflow, the

average handle time in the call center increased with 5 percent and the quality of their calls with 13

percent after implementing gamification.

After deciding that gamification could be appropriate to address these challenges, a manager should

set realistic and measurable performance goals. First, a manager should propose realistic business

goals. In this case, the main problem a manager needs to address is the detrimental customer

experience. More specific, a customer became unhappy when he or she had to make 3 calls before

their problem was solved, whereas a customer who only needed 1.3 calls was happy. Hence, a

realistic goal is to reduce unsatisfied customers by limiting the times they need to call to 1.3 times.

Secondly the manager ought to define key performance indicators (KPI’s). In this case, employee

engagement and skill development are measurable objectives. Both KPI’s contribute to an increase in

the accuracy and quickness of call handling by operators. The gamified application should build in

elements that measure these KPI’s frequently. Nowadays call centers emphasize on data to analyze

the performance of their employees. This data can easily be used in the gamified application.

Before the manager and game designer can create a gamified application, the manager needs to align

the proposed goals with a user centered approach and with the specific organizational context. First, a

manager should know his audience. According to experts and the scientific literature, gender could

play an important role in the design of a gamified solution. Unfortunately, this case does not report on

employee differences in the organization. However, in the context of call centers, a potential difference

can be noticed between “inbound” and “outbound” call center agents. Whereas “inbound” operators

receive questions or problems from clients, “outbound” operators call clients to discuss new products or

services. These different groups might possibly need a different approach to gamification. In addition,

the game designer could classify employees in different player types. By doing this, a game designer

could decide on what game elements should be or not be implemented. Secondly, a manager should

keep in his mind the context of an organization. It’s clear that the gamified application should be

aligned with the currently existing processes and information systems. For example, the rewards built

in the gamified application need to be aligned with the overall compensation and benefits policy of the

organization.

Next, a gamified design will be proposed. It should be noticed that the implemented game elements

and game mechanisms are determined based on the available information in the case. This design will

show that gamification does not have to be a full-fledged game and that the use of some basic

elements could increase engagement of employees.

As mentioned before, call center agents are often not recognized for the work they perform. The core

of the proposed gamified application is that agents can earn different badges. These badges can be

gained by completing challenges. It’s important that these challenges are realistic and focused on

specific behaviors. For example, a manager could argue that the customer satisfaction should be the

60

goal. However, customers could have a bad day what in turn could lead to not gaining a badge by the

call center agent. This could be detrimental when trying to improve the engagement. Another possible

goal is the amount of customer calls an agent handles. However by using this goal, the quality of the

calls might decline. For the basic and simple badges, the challenges are easy in order to create low

barriers to entry. For example, an agent should follow an internal communication training or reach a

basic customer satisfaction level. Badges on a more difficult level will contain different challenges that

should be completed in order to gain the badge (e.g. to reach the badge “Expert communicator”, an

agent should complete two of these three challenges: join a communication training, reach customer

satisfaction of 80% and handling 5 calls an hour) The call center agent can both expand his badges

(gaining new ones) or improve his current badges (from basic level to moderate level).

These badges and main metrics can continuously be checked at the personal online page of an

employee. The figure1 below illustrates an example of an individual page of a call agent.

Secondly, all employees who have reached new badges are congratulated on a large screen in the hall

of the building so that all other call center agents can see their improvements. In addition, the screen

presents a leaderboard of teams who have gained the most (new) badges in the last two weeks.

Employees can also find an overview of all employees and their badges in the gamified application as

illustrated in the figure2 below.

1 Retrieved from: http://image.slidesharecdn.com/playvoxslideshareesp-140611214735-phpapp01/95/gamification-para-call-centers-2-638.jpg?cb=1402523343

2 Retrieved from: https://www.ladesk.com/features/rewards-badges/

61

So how could this simple design of badges lead to an increase in engagement and satisfied

customers? First, call center agents receive recognition for the work they perform. Secondly, the

gamified application and (not) gaining badges offers direct feedback on how the agent performs. For

example, when an agent does not reach the badge “customer relation expert”, he receives feedback on

what behaviors he should perform to reach the batch in a next attempt. Thirdly, the goal setting theory

argues that by setting goals (gaining a specific badge) employees will become more persistent and will

increase their efforts (Latham & Locke, 1991). This increase in effort could directly lead to qualitative

(better call handling) and quantitative (more calls handled) call handling improvements. Fourthly, by

creating a community of people that compete (between teams) and collaborate (in teams) employees

will become intrinsically motivated to gain these badges. In addition, best performers and best

performing teams will influence other agents by having badges.

In order to create an intense experience for the call center, it is vital to frequently adapt the challenges,

and create new badges. Steve Dale argued in our research: “If you keep things exactly the same, it

isn’t a game”. The manager and designer should meet regularly to make sure the application works

optimal. They could look at different items:

1. How is the system of badges/challenges working?

2. What challenges are too difficult?

3. How often are employees looking at the challenges and badges?

In addition, the manager should look carefully for new initiatives to keep the gamified application

meaningful.

Additional reference

Reichheld, F. F., & Sasser, J. (1996). Zero defections: quality come to services, Harvard Bussines

Review 68 (5), 105-111.

62

Case Study by Koen Philippaerts (r0363465)

Case Study 1: Gallup’s work with a leading call centre in the US, employing 8,500 operators and

serving one million customers, powerfully demonstrates how customer service ratings influence

customer attrition and how disengaged call centre operators cost organisations millions of dollars. In a

customer engagement partnership with this call centre, customers were asked to rate their

experiences. Where customers rated their experience as “much worse than expected”, this equated to

a loss of 15% of customers – equating to $4,500,000 of business. Gallup then worked out how many

calls the most disengaged customers had to make to resolve their query. Customers who rated the

service as “much worse than expected” had to make three calls to resolve their query, while those who

rated the service as “much better than expected” only made 1.3 calls. The average cost per call was

worked out at $10, which means that a disengaged operator costs the company an additional $17 per

disengaged customer.

How do you as a call centre manager begin to address this shortfall?

The problem described above seems to clearly illustrate the financial consequences of disengaged and

unproductive call center operators. Research by Gallup (2005) revealed that the local manager is the

single most important factor in local group performance. According to Gallup, great managers succeed

in empowering and engaging employees. This in turn could lead to fewer dropped calls, a higher

satisfaction rating among customers and eventually higher profits (Gallup, 2005). Because managers

are deemed crucial in fostering engagement among employees, this case seems well suited for

gamification. In light of the results of the thesis, this paper will try to illustrate how gamification can

provide a possible solution for this particular problem.

First, the managers should clearly and specifically determine the objectives of the gamified system. In

this case, the overall objective consists of decreasing the number of calls each customer needs to

make in order to solve his problem. On one hand, decreasing the number of calls each customer has to

make would result in a higher customer satisfaction, which in turn would elevate the customer retention

rate. On the other hand, decreasing the number of calls would significantly reduce the call center's

costs. Clearly, both consequences would result in higher profits for the company. Keeping in mind that

these objectives should be realistic, the managers should analyze -for example by using statistic

techniques- the potential of gamification in light of the current and forecasted performance of the

company. This should enable him/her to realistically determine the specific percentages by which the

number of customer calls and the customer retention rate is desired to decrease and increase

respectively.

What it comes down to is that the call center operators (the employees) should be motivated to solve

the customer's problems more efficiently so that fewer calls are required. As the case points out, the

63

lack of engagement among the operators seems the main explanation for the current inefficiency. The

objectives of the gamified system should therefore target specific engaging behaviours that will

ultimately result in better overall performance. In this case, a manager could develop a gamification

design that encourages the employees to share their experience with customer's problems as well as

the way in which they have solved these problems. By targeting a specific behaviour such as

'knowledge sharing', the gamification design could create an environment that enables different

operators to learn from each other. In this case, a digital gamification platform seems appropriate to

enhance knowledge sharing among the operators in order to facilitate problem solving and reduce

response times. The gamified platform should be structured in such way that all of the information,

shared by and with the operators, is easily accessible to every operator. This could be achieved by

giving a well-ordered overview of different customer topics, the associated problems and those

operators with experience in solving these problems. In this way, employees can consult appropriate

solutions provided by colleagues in order to solve the customer's problems quicker and more

efficiently.

When determining objectives, the manager should make sure these objectives can be actually

measured. The proposed objective, enhancing knowledge sharing among the call center operators,

can be easily measured and therefore fits this criterion. For each operator every successful solution,

the time it took to solve the problem and the customer's rating can be registered and shared on the

platform. This data, apart from the fact that it enables the operators to consult all of their colleagues'

registered information, also has several clear advantages for the manager who designs the

gamification project. First, this data enables managers to gain insight in problems that seem more

difficult to solve and need to be addressed more thoroughly. In addition, managers have a clear view

on the strengths and weaknesses of the operators, which they can use to deploy the operators more

effectively. Finally, this data provides valuable information on how the operators are interacting with

the gamified system. Managers can use this information to identify possible areas for improvement

and to tweak the gamification platform in order to maximize success.

In other words, the following objective seems to be realistic, measurable and focuses on behavior:

Engage employees to share their knowledge in solving customer related problems trough a digital gamified platform in order to motivate employees, facilitate problem solving (by x percent), elevate

customer retention (by x percent), all of which will ultimately result in higher profits.

Having determined the objective of the gamification project, the manager should then further shape the

gamified platform in alignment with the corporate culture/structure in which it will be implemented as

well as with the individual needs and desires of its future players. To attain a thorough understanding

of these context and individual variables, the manager should schedule a certain period to observe the

operators within the company. This should enable the manager to gain insight in the traits and desires

of the players as well as the existing structure and culture the firm is characterized by. After revealing

64

these differences, the manager can design a gamified system that consists of those game elements

that seem most effective for engaging the identified player types.

With regard to context, a call center seems an appropriate environment to implement a digital gamified

platform. Since every operator already sits behind a computer, it seems safe to assume that the

gamified platform will not interfere with the existing structure or the daily work. With respect to the

individual differences between employees on the other hand, it is fundamental to select the right

combination of game elements in order to motivate operators to stay on task and gain expertise. The

game elements out of which the gamification design consists should create a meaningful, intrinsically

engaging and rewarding experience. Rewards, which are considered one of the most important types

of game elements, should be carefully selected by the manager in order to intrinsically appeal to the

different operators. For the sake of this example, it seems appropriate to discuss a compressive mix of

different types of rewards that each could motivate different types of players.

First the system could give points for each successful telephone call and positive customer rating. A

certain number of points could then be rewarded with a badge that indicates the type of problem or skill

the employee excels in. For example, employees could gain a badge for solving the customer's

queries the fastest or for receiving the most positive ratings. In this respect, the manager should keep

in mind that accumulating points or badges is not presented as the main goal, but instead as a means

to trigger intrinsic rewards, such as autonomy or recognition for their efforts. It could be argued that the

feeling of being recognized as an expert -stimulated by badges for example- in a certain topic or

problem is particularly motivating to Strivers; players who are triggered by achieving a personal best

score. Integrating every operator's achievements into a leaderboard, on the other hand, might be very

motivating to players who are driven by the competitive aspects of the gamified experience (Slayers).

In addition, the fact that each player engages in sharing valuable solutions on the platform, could

engage Socializers; players who value the social and collaborative aspects of the game design.

Finally, by structuring the gamified experience into different levels of varying difficulty, the application

could also appeal to players who value the learning experience and are engaged by progression

(Scholars) (Bartle, 1996).

The above illustrates how certain extrinsic rewards -badges, leaderboards and feedback- in the

gamified application can and should foster intrinsically rewarding experiences. To keep the call

operators intrinsically engaged in the long run, the gamification design should keep evolving on two

levels. First, on the level of the design process, the manager should constantly analyze the data

provided by the interaction of the employees with the platform in order to keep improving the system.

Second, the gamified experience itself should also be evolving in order to keep the operators engaged

and challenged. Useful suggestions with regard to an evolving gamification experience could include

the implementation of different levels that increase in difficulty. For example, an operator could

achieve a badge after receiving five positive customer ratings. The next badge for customer

friendliness, however, should not be given after 10 positive ratings but, for example, after 20 positive

65

ratings. By varying the perceived difficulty of reaching the next level, the manager could prevent the

operators from loosing interest.

All of the above seems to illustrate how a manager can implement a gamified platform that enhances

engagement among call-center operators by creating an intrinsically motivating experience. This

engagement could in turn decrease the number of calls each customer has to make in order to solve

his or her problem, resulting in more satisfied customers and higher profits for the call-center company.

66

Case Study: Sebastian Duyvendak

Gallup’s work with a leading call centre in the US, employing 8,500 operators and serving one

million customers, powerfully demonstrates how customer service ratings influence customer

attrition and how disengaged call centre operators cost organisations millions of dollars. In a

customer engagement partnership with this call centre, customers were asked to rate their

experiences. Where customers rated their experience as “much worse than expected”, this

equated to a loss of 15% of customers – equating to $4,500,000 of business. Gallup then

worked out how many calls the most disengaged customers had to make to resolve their

query. Customers who rated the service as “much worse than expected” had to make three

calls to resolve their query, while those who rated the service as “much better than expected”

only made 1.3 calls. The average cost per call was worked out at $10, which means that a

disengaged operator costs the company an additional $17 per disengaged customer.

You are asked to help the call centre’s manager in addressing this shortfall, what would you

advise?

First of all, the manager should extensively analyse the problem before thinking about a

specific solution. This analysis is very important to identify the underlying causes of the

problem and to develop appropriate solutions accordingly. The main problem here seems to

be the loss of customers as well as increased average costs per call, both due to disengaged

operators. According to theory about the service profit chain, disengaged employees play an

important role in customer satisfaction, influencing business results. In this example,

customers who rated their experience as “much worse than expected” equated to a loss of

15% of customers – equating to $4,500,000 of business. The manager should consider

solutions the appointed problems that are able to effectively deal with motivational and

behavioural problems. Internal gamification presents itself as a suitable solution because of

its potential to enhance employees’ intrinsic motivation by applying game elements and

game-design techniques in non-game contexts.

There are many factors to consider before designing a gamified solution, which require

careful preparation. First of all, the manager needs to think of a solution that will enable him to

positively influence the entire workforce of 8500 operators. One thing that all operators

commonly share is the software platform in which they operate. Therefore, it would be

67

advisable to gamify this platform by applying game elements and game-design techniques.

By targeting this commonly shared software, the manager has found a medium to transfer the

gamified solution to all employees. In addition, each gamified solution should start by

identifying clear objectives that further guide the gamified design. These objectives should be

realistic and measureable in order to evaluate the system. In this case, the manager should

clearly state by how much percentage customer satisfaction should improve, or by how much

percentage the average calls to resolve a query should decrease. Having found the

appropriate medium as well as the objectives that should be accomplished, the manager can

start developing an appropriate gamified system.

Successfully developing internal gamification on a software platform requires the selection of

an effective combination of game elements and game-design techniques that appeal to the

employees’ intrinsic motivation. However, without having extensive knowledge about what

motivates his employees, the manager will not be able to make a proper selection of game

elements. Therefore, it is adamant that the manager invests time and resources in observing

and questioning his employees for him to learn about their motivations. Only by having a

thorough understanding of employees’ primary motivations, suitable incentives can be

implemented that appeal to these motivations. Additionally, annual surveys regarding

employee satisfaction could be consulted as an extra resource. Having 8500 employees

implicates that employees can be motivated by very diverse incentives, meaning that a well-

balanced gamified system is required that appeals to all employees. Therefore, it would be

wise to include different game elements that appeal to all of the three basic intrinsic needs,

i.e. the need for competence, the need for autonomy and the need for relatedness.

The question arises what game elements to choose that can tap into these intrinsic

motivators. First of all, in order to appeal to the need for competence, operators should be

provided with real time feedback about their performance. In this regard, allocating points to

operators per query that they solve is a good start. Furthermore, enabling the customer to

rate the operator can also be used to recognize their performance. This way, operators can

track their performance and might become more motivated to hone their skills. In order to

reduce the average calls per customer to solve their query, additional rewards can be

provided to operators who succeed in resolving a query during the first call. While some

employees might be very motivated by these competence-affirming game elements, others

might be more motivated by their need for relatedness. To address employees who are

incentivised by the latter, the system should provide ways for social interaction such as the

sharing of accomplishments. The fact that all operators commonly participate in one gamified

68

design which attaches meaning to their actions, can further contribute to a sense of

relatedness among employees. To address employees who are primarily motivated by their

need for autonomy, some freedom of choice on preferred topics should be provided.

The game elements that have been selected based on the three intrinsic motivations should

be assessed against the organizational context. The manager should assure that certain

rewards provided in the gamified system do not conflict with existing reward structures in the

company. Furthermore, the system should not disrupt the existing business processes but

rather make those processes more efficient. In this regard, it’s a good idea for rewarding

operators for solving query efficiently. It is adamant for the manager to understand that he

should constantly monitor the system by measuring and interpreting the data. This way much

more information about what specifically motivates different operators can be gathered and

used to improve the system. Furthermore, the design should be evolving in itself as well. This

means that new challenges and rewards should be added as the system matures or as the

operator progresses.

FACULTY OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMICSNaamsetraat 69 bus 3500

3000 LEUVEN, Belgiëtel. + 32 16 32 66 12fax + 32 16 32 67 91

info@econ.kuleuven.bewww.econ.kuleuven.be

69