Gamification: Concepts, Consequences, and Critiques PDF

790911 research-article2018 JMIXXX10.1177/1056492618790911Journal of Management InquiryVesa and Harviainen Dialog...

790911 research-article2018 JMIXXX10.1177/1056492618790911Journal of Management InquiryVesa and Harviainen Dialog Journal of Management Inquiry Gamification: Concepts, Consequences, 2019, Vol. 28(2) 128­–130 © The Author(s) 2018 Reprintsreuse Article and permissions: guidelines: and Critiques sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI: 10.1177/1056492618790911 https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492618790911 jmi.sagepub.com journals.sagepub.com/home/jmi Mikko Vesa1 and J. Tuomas Harviainen2 Abstract The domain of work is etched into our minds as a domain of the sombre, the orderly, the very coalface of dull modernity through which our societies prosper. Work also demarcates that which is of value; work itself; from that which is less so; e.g. play. But as the behemoth of global capitalism lurches forward into the 21st century we are witnessing a; be it new or simply renewed; interest in merging work and play. It is this development, labelled gamification, that this dialogue collection of essays explores offering conceptual and critical insights into the possibilities and problems of this attempted merging. Keywords gamification, theory of play, organizational creativity, organizational design, work process design, post-bureaucratic organizing This dialogue section introduces to you a vivid debate on and Restubog, and Aquino (2018) in their review on play at work, around the concept of gamification. Gamification, as there is little conceptual agreement on what play at work described in the two seminal texts which academically means, how it takes place, or what its consequences are. And, defined it, means the use of game design elements in non- the same might be said about the meaning of play in general game-contexts (Deterding, Dixon, Khaled, & Nacke, 2011) (Stenros, 2017). or a process of enhancing a service with affordances for While the concept of gamification is a solidly 21st cen- gameful experiences to support user’s overall value creation tury one, it is a contested concept that partly outdates itself (Huotari & Hamari, 2012). Many variations of these defini- (Roth, 2017). On a highly abstract level, the driving force tions exist, but their focus remains the same: using game-like behind gamification is the idea that work, or the motivation elements to make nongame tasks more interesting (Landers, to work, can somehow be enhanced by fusing it with play Auer, Collmus, & Armstrong, 2018). (Sørensen & Spoelstra, 2012). What both this enhancement While games and play are core components of organizing, and this fusing actually implies is far from straightforward, they have an uneasy and fluctuating relationship with manage- and this is so because gamification has been fitted to the ment and organization studies. Historically, early research on needs of increasingly divergent interests ranging from the simulations and operational gaming were stock-and-bolt parts popular business press to a rapidly developing field of of management studies (see, for example, Cohen, March, & research. For some, gamification is simply a ploy in search Olsen, 1972; Keys & Wolfe, 1990), functioning as resources of utilitarian effectiveness, while for others, it is about the for exploring organizational decision making. In organization emancipatory potential of game design–based thinking. Seen theory, play has been used as lenses on behavior and learning through a more historic lens, gamification might be but one (Roos & Victor, 1999; Statler, Heracleous, & Jacobs, 2011) as step in a long tradition of trying to employ different sources well as conceptualized as a source of creativity and innovation of intrinsic motivation for work enhancement. Here, the cults (Hjorth, Strati, Drakopoulou Dodd, & Weik, 2018; Mainemelis of the socialist working heroes Aleksei Stahanov and Lei & Ronson, 2006). Likewise, the practice of exploring strategic Feng come to mind, as do the “employee of the month” alternatives, which involves the generation of possible futures, plaques of American burger joints. has a direct connection with the playful mind and its ability to create diverse hypotheses (Van der Heijden, 2005; Vesa, den Hond, & Harviainen, 2018). More widely, classical works of 1 Hanken School of Economics, Helsinki, Finland sociology, anthropology, and play-related behavioral theories 2 University of Tampere, Finland have acted as sources of theoretical inspiration (see, for exam- Corresponding Author: ple, Apter, 1989/2007; Bateson, 1955/2000; Caillois, 1961; Mikko Vesa, Hanken School of Economics, P.O. Box 479, FI-00101 Csikszentmihalyi, 1975; Huizinga, 1955; Sutton-Smith, Helsinki, Finland. 1997). Yet, as observed by Petelczyc, Capezio, Wang, Email: [email protected] Vesa and Harviainen 129 From a more narrow academic point of view, the nature reflection, the humanistic design approach is likely to be of gamification can begin to be elucidated by observing more robust for bringing about actual transformative change. where there is a broad consensus as to what it is not, Taking an even bolder step, Richard N. Landers (2018) argues namely, the most banal consultancy-approach to the con- that the choice architecture approach is, in fact, not gamifica- cept. Known somewhat disparagingly as the “points- tion at all. Rather, it is a rhetorical appropriation of the con- badges-leaderboards” approach, its idea is that anything cept of gamification, one that consults wield and sell at ease. can be made more game or play-like through the introduc- This is problematic both for organizations, as well as aca- tion of simple game-like mechanisms. This in itself would demia, because an “anything that looks gamification’ish is then trigger new forms of intrinsic motivation, resulting in great”–approach effectively just blurs the general understand- productivity gains. The allure of such a formulation is sim- ing of what actual gamification can meaningfully be. Landers ple to see; it is easy to implement, easy to explain and sell, argues that we should adopt a rather narrow definition of and it contains a promise of performance gains. Like any gamification, that it is a design process intended to modify phenomenon riding the crest of its management fashion- existing work processes, one in which scientifically valid ability, however, it also contains a problem: it both mas- game elements are used to attempt predefined behavioral sively oversells its actual promise and sidesteps how changes. While the essay offers clarity on the concept, it challenging the design of thoughtful gamified interven- remains to be seen if this narrow, more exact definition will tions are. In short, gamification does not work like that. resonate with the management and organization research in In many ways, this marks the starting point of this collec- light of the inherent heterogeneity of our field. tion of essays. We, together with our essayists, agree that the The concern for consequences highlighted by Deterding academic understanding of gamification must go substan- and Landers are brought to life in the pieces on gamified tially beyond an instrumental, simplistic attaching of game- corporate social responsibility (Trittin, Fiesler, & Maltseva, resembling features onto work processes. Gamification is 2018) and crowdsourcing as gamification (Morschauser & different from the play-based interventions that our field has Hamari, 2019). Hannah Trittin, Christian Fieseler, and witnessed before, because rather than using play as an auxil- Kateryna Maltseva observe that while the use of game ele- iary device through which to intervene in work, gamification ments can help to raise interest in sustainability and corpo- actually strives to alter the very processes of work itself. This rate social responsibility, there is also a clear risk that these renders it an organizational phenomenon of interest, because efforts in themselves end up being counterproductive. it seeks to carve for itself a much larger turf than other play- Partly, this is because CSR and sustainability initiatives based interventions. Doing this, it conjures for us a two-way themselves are equally subject to choice architecture– road: one on which gamification ought to be more rigorously based reasoning, but partly also because games in these exposed to organizational research and, reversely, one on contexts are by necessity simpler than the reality they which management and organization scholars can benefit communicate. Going beyond conventional corporate from what has been already learned about gamification in boundaries, Benedikt Morschheuser and Juho Hamari other academic domains. It is at this disciplinary junction (2019) examine how gamification affects crowdsourcing, where this collection finds itself, presenting both cutting- effectively a new source of labor enabled by digital inter- edge conceptual work on the concept of gamification, intro- connectivity. Motivating the Internet crowd by means ducing reflection on the organizational consequences of other than extrinsic rewards, in essence monetary compen- gamification, and opening up a critical debate on what gami- sation, is naturally alluring for corporations. But it might fication in organizations can and may be. be so for crowdsourcees as well, offering opportunities for Thus, the first aspect of gamification that warrants closer self-development, accomplishment, or even altruism attention is what is actually meant with the concept. In his depending on the nature of the crowdsourced task. Again, essay, Sebastian Deterding (2018) points out that gamifica- the authors warn against a one-size-fits-all approach, tion today stands at a crossroads between, on one hand, choice observing that both gamification and crowdsourcing are architecture and, on the other hand, humanistic design. In multifaceted phenomena. In particular, they observe that choice architecture, games appear as perfect micro-devices gamification itself can actually negatively affect partici- for controlling micro-agential behavior, a kind of manage- pants’ intrinsic motivation in situations in which they were ment dashboard where game-like incentives can be used to already a priori intrinsically motivated. elicit preplanned behavioral patterns from people. In opposi- A final provocation in this collection is offered by Perttu tion to the choice architecture approach stands a more human- Salovaara and Matt Statler (2019), who drawing on istic game design tradition, in which games can bring about Gadamerian (2004) hermeneutics challenge a within-per- positive affordances resulting in rich meaningful experiences. spective of gamification by offering an alternative reading Echoing the critique of the points-badges-leaderboards of play in which play is a quality of the world. The essay approach, Deterding points out that while the choice architec- positions itself in what is potentially a rich tradition of ture reasoning is easier to absorb into corporate life without sociological, anthropological, and philosophical literature 130 Journal of Management Inquiry 28(2) on play, and points the way to how such conceptual rich- Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety: ness can be brought to bear on how we in management and Experiencing flow in work and play. San Francisco, CA: organization studies approach the dual notions of games Jossey-Bass. and play. The authors argue that “all schemes, calculations, Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). From game design elements to gamefulness: Defining gamification. risk hedges, etc. re-appear as potentially playful engage- In Proceedings of the 15th international academic MindTrek ments that are actualized or performed in and through conference: Envisioning future media environments (pp. 9-15). physical, material embodiments and environments.” Can New York, NY: Academic MindTrek Conference. one but think here of the cavalier spirits we ourselves Gadamer, H.-G. (2004). Truth and method. London, England: extrude when we charge, headlong, into the academic pub- Continuum. lishing game or play the academic job market? Hjorth, D., Strati, A., Drakopoulou Dodd, S., & Weik, E. (2018). We hope that this collection of essays on gamification, rep- Organizational creativity, play and entrepreneurship. resenting an interdisciplinary collection of insight from world- Organization Studies, 39, 155-168. leading experts on the matter, will sparkle a wider interest into Huizinga, J. (1955). Homo Ludens: A study of the play-element in the foundations of the phenomenon within management and culture. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. organization studies. Certainly, it is a debate somewhat over- Huotari, K., & Hamari, J. (2012). Defining gamification: A service marketing perspective. In Proceedings of the 16th interna- due. In light of gamification’s hype-like promise, we have a tional academic MindTrek conference (pp. 17-22). New York, responsibility to moderate the cajole, but we also should know NY: Academic MindTrek Conference. better how, when, and under what conditions gamification Keys, B., & Wolfe, J. (1990). The role of management games and delivers on its promise. More critically, we also have a respon- simulations in education and research. Journal of Management, sibility for monitoring gamification’s utilitarian whiplash, to 16, 307-336. warn society against the use of gamified practices and pro- Landers, R. N., Auer, E. M., Collmus, A. B., & Armstrong, M. B. cesses as straight-forward forms of exploitation. (2018). Gamification science, its history and future: Definitions and a research agenda. Simulation & Gaming, 49, 315-337. Declaration of Conflicting Interests Mainemelis, C., & Ronson, S. (2006). Ideas are born in fields of play: Towards a theory of play and creativity in organizational The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect settings. Research in Organizational Behavior, 27, 81-131. to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Petelczyc, C. A., Capezio, A., Wang, L., Restubog, S. L. D., & Aquino, K. (2018). Play at work: An integrative review and agenda for Funding future research. Journal of Management, 44, 161-190. The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author- Roos, J., & Victor, B. (1999). Towards a new model of strategy- ship, and/or publication of this article. making as serious play. European Management Journal, 17, 348-355. Roth, S. (2017). Serious gamification: On the redesign of a popular References paradox. Games and Culture, 12, 100-111. Apter, M. J. (1989). Reversal theory: A new approach to motivation, Sørensen, B. M., & Spoelstra, S. (2012). Play at work: Continuation, emotion and personality. Anuario de Psicología, 42, 17-30. intervention and usurpation. Organization, 19, 81-97. Apter, M. J. (2007). Reversal theory: The dynamics of motivation, Statler, M., Heracleous, L., & Jacobs, C. D. (2011). Serious play emotion and personality (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oneworld as a practice of paradox. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Publications. (Original work published 1989) Science, 47, 236-256. Bateson, G. (2000). A theory of play and fantasy. In G. Bateson Stenros, J. (2017). The game definition game: A review. Games and (Ed.), Steps to an ecology of mind (pp. 177-193). Chicago, Culture, 12, 499-520. IL: The Chicago University Press. (Original work published Sutton-Smith, B. (1997). The ambiguity of play. Cambridge, MA: 1955) Harvard University Press. Caillois, R. (1961). Man, play, and games. Urbana: University of Van der Heijden, K. (2005). Scenarios: The art of strategic conver- Illinois Press. sation (2nd ed.). Chichester, UK: John Wiley. Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A garbage Vesa, M., den Hond, F., & Harviainen, J. T. (2018). On the pos- can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science sibility of a paratelic initiation of organizational wrongdoing. Quarterly, 17, 1-25. Journal of Business Ethics, 1-15.