the use of gamification in fostering an entrepreneurial...
TRANSCRIPT
The use of gamification in fostering an entrepreneurial attitude
Master Thesis
Anke Smilde (10868135)
June 27, 2015
Master – Business Administration Track - Entrepreneurship and Innovation
UvA supervisor – Wietze van der Aa Rabobank supervisors – Maarten Korz & Maarten Molenaar
2
Statement of Originality
This document is written by student Anke Smilde who declares to take full responsibility for
the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources
other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.
The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of
completion of the work, not for the contents.
3
Abstract
Although the concept of gamification has been widely applied by companies, there is limited
academic foundation regarding the effects of gamification. Furthermore, companies recognize
the growing value of having employees with an entrepreneurial attitude. However, established
companies experience difficulties in striving towards being more entrepreneurial. Therefore,
the following research question was formulated: How can innovation management use
gamification in order to foster an entrepreneurial attitude? A literature review was performed
and interviews were held in order to establish short-term effects coming from gamification
and sustain important factors in fostering a long-term entrepreneurial attitude. The results and
implications are discussed in detail. Innovation management can use gamification to foster an
entrepreneurial attitude by designing a well-considered gamified project that has actual
meaning as well as company wide support.
4
Acknowledgements
This master thesis is my final work for the Master Business Administration, track
Entrepreneurship and Innovation at the University of Amsterdam. Six months ago, I knew
nothing about the concept of gamification. But today, I present you this thesis on the topic of
gamification and an entrepreneurial attitude. The past months I have learned a lot about the
theoretical concepts of this study, but maybe even more about the practical use of these
concepts in business.
These practical insights were made possible by writing my thesis at Rabobank Nederland
while being a graduate intern. I would like to thank my Rabobank supervisors, Maarten Korz
and Maarten Molenaar, for providing me with this opportunity. Maarten and Maarten are both
very enthusiastic about their working fields in innovation and gamification. For me this made
them very pleasant and inspiring to work with. During the process, they offered me a great
deal of valuable feedback and taught me that asking for help from others is not always sign of
ignorance but can really be a good thing.
Also, I would like to thank my UvA supervisor, Wietze van der Aa. I enjoyed our on-topic as
well as off-topic discussions. Wietze’s concrete feedback helped me in taking the right steps
at the right time in writing this thesis and kept me on the track while learning about many
different theories. I believe the sincere interest Wietze showed during the process of writing
my thesis is unique and has contributed to my learning process.
Furthermore, I would like to thank all the other people that contributed to the realisation of
this master thesis. Those are my fellow students, teachers, interns and employees of Rabobank
and other companies, but especially the respondents. The interviews with the respondents not
only contributed to the results of this study, for me they were also inspiring and provided me
with ideas for where I want my future to be headed. The respondents of this study were not
‘just’ co-operating to this study, but they were truly enthusiastic and showed sincere interests
in the results. For me, this worked inspiring as well as motivating in writing this thesis.
5
Last but not least, I want to thank my friends and family for the support during this process.
They were always up for listening to me, despite my on-going stories about my thesis and this
topic. Last, I would like to dedicate this work to the memory my grandfathers and –mothers
because three of them witnessed me starting this master, but none is still here to share the end
result with. I truly hope reaching this stage of my master would have made them proud.
Arriving on writing the last paragraph of my acknowledgements not only means putting the
finishing touch on this work, but it also marks the end of an era, the era of being a student. As
I enjoyed being a student more than these words can say, I am now ready for the working life
and looking forward to applying all acquired theoretical knowledge in practice.
I hope you enjoy reading this thesis as much as I enjoyed writing it,
Anke Smilde
Amsterdam, June 2015
6
Table of content 1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 7 2. LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................................................. 9
2.1 GAMIFICATION ............................................................................................................................... 9 2.1.1 Autonomy, competence and meaning ................................................................................... 10 2.1.2 Gamification design .............................................................................................................. 12
2.2 ENTREPRENEURIAL ATTITUDE ...................................................................................................... 14 2.2.1 Pro-activeness ....................................................................................................................... 14 2.2.2 Innovativeness ....................................................................................................................... 15
2.3 CONCEPTUAL MODEL ................................................................................................................... 16 2.3.1 Distinction gamification drivers and relation to SDT .......................................................... 17 2.3.2 Gamification related to pro-activeness ................................................................................ 18 2.3.3 Gamification related to innovativeness ................................................................................ 19 2.3.4 Propositions .......................................................................................................................... 19
3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................... 20 3.1 DATA COLLECTION ....................................................................................................................... 21 3.2 DATA ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................... 23
4. RESULTS .......................................................................................................................................... 24 4.1 BRIEF OVERVIEW OF RESULTS ...................................................................................................... 24 4.2 EXAMINING PROPOSITION 1 .......................................................................................................... 27 4.3 EXAMINING PROPOSITION 2 .......................................................................................................... 29 4.4 EXAMINING PROPOSITION 3 .......................................................................................................... 31 4.5 EXAMINING PROPOSITION 4 .......................................................................................................... 34 4.6 REMAINING RESULTS .................................................................................................................... 36
5. DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................................... 38 5.1 DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................................. 38 5.2 THEORETICAL CONTRIBUTION ...................................................................................................... 41 5.3 MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS ....................................................................................................... 42 5.4 LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................................ 43 5.5 FUTURE RESEARCH ....................................................................................................................... 44
6. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................. 45 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................... 47 APPENDIX I ......................................................................................................................................... 52
7
1. Introduction
Back in the 90s when I was a kid I loved playing the game ‘RedCat Superkarts’. It was a
virtual game that I always played together with a friend. We had to race against other avatars,
but in order to win a race you not only had to race fast enough, you also had to solve
calculations. We really liked playing this game and without noticing, our maths skills
increased. Nowadays, I miss this type of learning and wonder why we are not still applying
these simple but useful techniques. But then, I came across the concept of gamification.
Gamification is “the use of game design elements in non-game contexts” (Deterding, Dixon,
Khaled, & Nacke (2011: p.1). Companies can insert gamification in order to achieve a higher
level of user engagement, change behaviour and to solve complex problems (Molenaar,
2014b). This means gamification might be a very useful tool in innovation management.
Especially since nowadays firms are continuously in transition. In this rapidly changing
world, companies are facing new challenges. One of these challenges is competing with the
rising success of start-ups, start-ups are able to operate faster and smarter than established
companies (Clough, 2014). The way entrepreneurs of these start-ups act and think is of great
importance for the success of their businesses. An entrepreneur is “a person who habitually
creates and innovates to build something of recognized value around perceived opportunities”
(Thompson, 2004: p 244). To be able to cope with the threat of new start-ups and their
entrepreneurs, established companies want to stimulate an entrepreneurial attitude in their
own employees. In order to achieve this entrepreneurial attitude of individuals, innovation
management is looking into several options how to foster this. As stated before, one of these
options might be gamification.
Taking a closer look at gamification, the following are example elements: self-representation
with avatars; narrative context; feedback; reputations, ranks, and levels; marketplaces and
economies; competition under rules that are explicit and enforced; teams; parallel
communication systems that can be easily configured; time pressure (Reeves & Reed, 2009;
Deterding et al., 2011). Those are elements that could be integrated in internal company
programs and processes. Deterding (2011) describes that the application of gamification is
suitable because it has the capability to satisfy the motivational needs of competence,
autonomy and relatedness. People tend to seek out and engage in those activities that promise
the satisfaction of those needs (Deterding, 2011; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Deterding (2011)
8
determined this effectiveness of gamification based on the self-determination theory of Ryan
and Deci (2000). Hence, multiple researchers claimed gamification could be useful in
innovation management (Gartner, 2013; Herger, 2014; Deterding, 2011).
However, literature on the topic of gamification is still very limited. This research aims at
supporting gamification practices with academic research, by examining the effect of
gamification on their outcomes. By linking autonomy, competence and meaning (Ryan, Rigby
& Przybylski, 2006) to pro-activeness and innovativeness (De Jong & Wennekers, 2008), the
actual effects of gamification towards an entrepreneurial attitude will be specified. In order to
measure specific effects of gamification, a difference will be made in short-term and long-
term design elements. This distinction might provide the opportunity to make the short-term
and long-term effects from gamification more insightful. Furthermore, this research will
contribute to the practice as well. As stated before, many established companies place
emphasis on an entrepreneurial attitude of their employees. The Rabobank Nederland, at
which this research is written, even has this as a priority goal. The results will contribute to
reaching the goal of intrapreneurship by providing the answers to the question what works in
stimulating this entrepreneurial attitude. Those outcomes will not only be of value for the
Rabobank Nederland, but for other established companies as well. To accomplish these
objectives, this study attempts to answer the following research question: How can innovation
management use gamification in order to foster an entrepreneurial attitude?
In the next section, a literature review is presented. In this literature review, previous research
on gamification and its related concepts as well as an entrepreneurial attitude are discussed.
Based on this literature review, a conceptual model and propositions are developed and
presented. After the propositions, the research method and data analysis are explained.
Following, an overview of the research results is presented. To finalize, the findings of this
study are discussed and the implications are explained.
9
2. Literature review
2.1 Gamification
The quote “work hard, play hard” is commonly used by employees who want to perform at
their job, but also want to play and have fun on a regular basis when they are off from work.
This quote implies that people want to accomplish something in their professional life, but in
the end the ability to play and have fun is more important, as it is the reward after they have
worked hard. So would it not be much more convenient if working and having fun could be
done and experienced simultaneously? The use of gamification within a firm can help in
making work more fun (Herger, 2014). Furthermore, not only will gamification increase fun,
it can also change behaviour, engage people, create habits and solve problems (Herger, 2014).
Gamification is “the use of game design elements in non-game contexts” (Deterding, Dixon,
Khaled, & Nacke (2011: p.1). To explain this definition we will take a closer look at it.
Gamification is not just about playing, but it is about playing games (Deterding et al., 2011).
Play is “whatever is done spontaneously and for its own sake” (Santayana, 1995: p. 19),
whereas a game incorporates play by being “a problem-solving activity, approached with a
playful attitude” (Schell, 2008: p. 37). So play is a free and expressive concept, while gaming
is more structured by rules and is striving to certain outcomes (Deterding et al., 2011;
Caillois, 1961). Another important part of the gamification definition addresses the “non-
game context”, as this part highlights the difference between serious games and gamification.
Serious games and gamification are alike because they both aim at striving for other purposes
with their players than ‘normal’ entertainment games do (Deterding et al., 2011). However, a
serious game is still played in a full game context, for example a simulation game. Whereas
gamification is integrated in non-game contexts, which are real world objectives, for example
mortgage regulating (Deterding et al., 2011). Huizinga (1949) is also mentioning the
importance of context while playing. He describes a magic circle, in which there is a
boundary between where the game is played and the real world. Within this circle, the game
rules matter (Huizinga, 1949). Gamification could be seen as the bridge between this magic
circle and the real world, as with gamification game techniques are applied in non-game
contexts, though people can be motivated by a created magic circle and its rules (Consalvo,
2009). Moreover, this research will focus on internal gamification, which is the application of
gamification within a company and a focus on employees. External gamification focuses on
marketing principles and interaction with the customer (Werbach & Hunter, 2012).
10
2.1.1 Autonomy, competence and meaning
The effectiveness of gamification can be explained by the underlying theory of motivation,
namely the self-determination theory (Deterding, 2011). The self-determination theory is an
approach to human motivation in which the involvement of individual’s capacities is
important for the development of their personality and behavioural self-regulation (Ryan &
Deci, 2000) The theory describes that psychological needs form the basis for people’s self-
motivation and personality (Ryan & Deci, 2000). To be more specific, self-determination
theory entails that individuals have an on-going need for autonomy, competence and
relatedness. Ryan and Deci (2000) even state that the satisfaction of those three basic needs is
necessary for an individual’s well-being. Looking into those variables, autonomy “refers to
volition – the organismic desire to self-organize experience and behaviour and to have
activity be concordant with one’s integrated sense of self” (Deci & Ryan, 2000: p. 231).
Secondly, the need for competence contains “to engage optimal challenges and experience
mastery or effectance in the physical and social worlds” (Deci & Ryan, 2000: p. 252). Lastly,
relatedness “refers to the desire to feel connected to others – to love and care, and to be loved
and cared for” (Deci & Ryan, 2000: p. 231). Contexts which are supporting autonomy,
competence and relatedness show more internalization and integration than contexts without
(Ryan & Deci, 2000). This knowledge could help managers in how they can motivate and
engage their employees.
Following, we take a more detailed look into how gamification satisfies the needs of
autonomy, competence and relatedness. Autonomy is enhanced with game design, through the
flexibility and choices it offers a participant. A participant can decide on his or her own
movements and strategies and have control over their own goals (Ryan, Rigby & Przybylski,
2006). The need of competence is fulfilled with game design by offering opportunities to
acquire new skills, an optimal challenge and providing positive feedback (Ryan et al., 2006).
However, Daniel Pink (1995) replaces the variable relatedness of the self-determination
theory of Deci and Ryan (2000) with the variable meaning. Csikszentmihalyi (1990: p. 231)
describes that creating meaning “involves bringing order to the contents of the mind by
integrating one’s actions into a unified flow experience”. He also adds that that meaning
entails having goals that are challenging enough to take up all your energy and goals that are
giving significance to your life (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). Multiple researchers agree that this
third motivational variable within gamification is meaning, as this gives people the belief they
11
are working on something great and meaningful (Ryan et al., 2006; Nicholson, 2012; Kumar
& Herger, 2013; Pink, 1995). Therefore, this research will use meaning instead of relatedness
as the third motivational variable as well.
In the next section, gamification drivers are explained in further detail. Those drivers and
gamification elements have in common that they all give the player feedback in a certain way.
This feedback provides the user with information about his actions or behaviour (Wu, 2014).
By this, a player journey comes visible, which means an insight in the players’ progression
and experience over time (Kim, 2011). Wu (2014) describes that the timescale of feedback,
which concerns the tempo of feeding progress information back to the user, is very important
within gamification. His feedback timescale of gamification tools is shown in figure 1.
Figure 1. Feedback timescale (Wu, 2014)
An important note to this model is that Wu (2014) states that it is behaviour dependent.
Meaning that when it is tried to gamify a challenging behaviour, the feedback timescale of the
tools increases through which the spectrum is more stretched compared to when gamifying a
simple behaviour (Wu, 2014). It is interesting to compare this gamification spectrum to the
fulfilment of the needs of autonomy, competence and meaning. At both ends of the spectrum
people will feel satisfaction of the three needs by receiving feedback. However, on the short-
term side of the spectrum the fulfilment of needs will be quick but extrinsic. Whereas at the
long-term side it takes longer to become satisfied, hence at this point people are motivated
12
intrinsically (Deci & Ryan, 2000). When people, through this underlying intrinsic motivation,
satisfy the three needs with respect to certain behaviour, they will tend to internalize its value
(Gagné & Deci, 2005).
2.1.2 Gamification design
In 2011, Gartner predicted that more than 50 per cent of the organizations would gamify their
innovation processes by 2015. However, in 2012 Gartner also predicted, now that the
gamification hype had started, that 80 per cent of the current gamified applications would fail
to meet business objectives because of a poor design. Both statements make it worth looking
into the design of gamification. There are many design elements within the concept of
gamification, those elements can be categorised into several mechanics. Mechanics are “the
various actions, behaviours and control mechanisms afforded to the player within a game
context” (Hunicke, LeBlanc & Zubek, 2004: p. 3). Gamification mechanics even go a step
further, as they are the building blocks that can be applied to gamify any non-game context
(Kumar & Herger, 2013). Essentially, the mechanics categorise design elements based on
drivers for the users. In this research, the design of gamification is grouped into seven
gamification drivers, which are set trough previous research of Rabobank Nederland
(Molenaar, 2014a) and based on the ‘Gamification Octalysis’ framework of Chou (2013).
Those drivers are: development and accomplishment, ownership and personalisation, scarcity
and impatience, avoiding loss, explore and surprise, social influence and relatedness, giving
meaning and higher goal.
Following, all seven gamification drivers are shortly described and supported with examples
in order to give an insight on the different drivers. To start with, gamification tools that drive
on development and accomplishment provide users with the feeling that his actions and
efforts are striving towards a long-term greater goal. Commonly used tools at this driver are
achievement symbols, leaderbords and progress bars. Secondly, the driver ownership and
personalisation contains tools that give the player the opportunity to have ownership, for
example by the use of virtual goods or an avatar. Then the third driver comes from the fact
that for some people, certain things are more interesting when they cannot get them, or at least
not right now. Gamification tools, which are used at the driver scarcity and impatience,
motivate the users by providing the opportunity to acquire something that is not available for
everyone. Options pacing and a countdown are examples that this driver uses. Following, the
driver avoiding loss consists of tools that focus on giving the player an unpleasant feeling
13
when he quits or is not participating at all. Techniques like fear of missing out and progress
loss are used at this driver. Next, the explore and surprise driver is especially useful with
people with a strong need for autonomy, as these tools stimulate the user to explore.
Examples of those tools are rolling reward and easter eggs, which is an unexpected surprise
within the game. Additionally, the sixth driver social influence and relatedness uses
techniques that are focused on stimulating and retaining interactions between players. Group
quest, touting and friending are examples of these gamification techniques. Finally, the tools
of the driver giving meaning and higher goal aim at giving the user the feeling that he is
involved in reaching a higher goal. Example tools are the use of narrative, elitism and
humanity hero (Chou, 2013; Molenaar, 2014a).
As mentioned above, there is some criticism on the effects and future possibilities of
gamification (Gartner, 2012). However, a case study of 304 gamification projects showed
gamified systems tend to support existing workplace and market constructs (Raftopoulos,
Walz, & Greuter, 2015). Although this research showed to support these effects in established
environments rather than that gamified projects are creating new forms of organization
structure systems or rules of play (Raftopoulos et al., 2015). So in order to provide innovation
management with the right results, possible pitfalls of gamification should not be overlooked.
The risk of gamification is mainly in when is it used inappropriately; in that case it might
have the opposite effect of what you were aiming for (Gartner, 2012; Raftopoulos, 2014). For
example, companies that notice the concept of gamification might think of it as a quick and
fun solution, so they drop some point systems and progression structures on a certain project.
This random application of game elements will not succeed, as the underlying theories and
design approach are what make gamification projects succeed (Gartner, 2012). Consequently,
the biggest pitfalls of gamification are in offering a wrong design. Regarding to innovation
and changing behaviour, an important risk to mention is the illusion of change (Raftopoulos,
2014). With illusion of change is meant that in some cases gamification can introduce and
enhance innovative potential, so it actually already feels like a change. However, for an actual
change, enterprise structures and processes have to be reinvented. Gamification needs,
amongst other things, detailed methodologies and systems in order to generate a company-
wide change (Raftopoulos, 2014). Moreover, such a company-wide change might be an
entrepreneurial attitude of employees, which is an objective in this research. Therefore, in the
next section, this entrepreneurial attitude will be explained in more detail.
14
2.2 Entrepreneurial attitude
Employees of a company who act in an entrepreneurial way are often called intrapreneurs.
Antoncic and Hisrich (2001, p. 496) define intrapreneurship as “entrepreneurship within
existing organizations”. Some important behavioral aspects of intrapraneurship are
“networking behavior, out of the box thinking, initiative, taking charge, championing, willful
behavior, finding a way, getting the job done and some degree of risk taking” (De Jong &
Wenneker, 2008: p. 30). Additionally, Bolton and Thompson (2000) define an entrepreneur as
“a person who habitually creates and innovates to build something of recognized value around
perceived opportunities” (Thompson, 2004). Therefore, the factor entrepreneurial attitude of
employees reflects on the level of entrepreneurial attributes in their attitudes. The definition of
attitude is “readiness of the psyche to act or react in a certain way” (Jung, 1971: p.687). This
means a certain attitude of a person is there all the times, in different situations. Furthermore,
several researchers came up with different sets of entrepreneurial characteristics within
organizations (De Jong & Wennekers, 2008). Covin and Slevin (1986) describe that the
dimensions of pro-activeness, innovativeness and risk taking are supposed to constitute an
entrepreneurial orientation. Antonic and Hisrich (2001) even classify four dimensions, those
are new business venturing, innovativeness, self-renewal and pro-activeness, whereas Knight
(1997) proposes to reduce the dimensions into pro-activeness and innovativeness (De Jong &
Wenneker, 2008). Overall innovativeness and pro-activeness are the two most common
dimensions in measuring intrapreneurship as well (De Jong & Wenneker, 2008). These two
are also to be found in the list of competences for innovative entrepreneurship within the
Rabobank Nederland. Therefore, we consider pro-activeness and innovativeness as key
factors of an entrepreneurial attitude.
2.2.1 Pro-activeness
A closer look at the concept of pro-activeness provides us with the following definition: “the
extent to which people take action to influence their environments” (Bateman & Crant, 1993:
p.103). Bateman and Crant (1993) describe proactive individuals as people who scan for
opportunities, show initiative and they persist in reaching closure by bringing change.
Unsworth and Parker (2003) state that pro-activeness in employees is important, especially in
coping with rapidly changing contexts and their competitive pressures to stay ahead of
innovation. In order to stimulate pro-activeness, managers should have detailed knowledge
about it. Crant (2000) distinguishes two types of pro-activeness, namely general behaviours
and behaviours based on the context. General actions are employees identifying opportunities
15
to improve things, challenging the status quo and creating favourable conditions. On the other
hand, context specific behaviours include socialization, feedback seeking, issue selling,
innovation, career management and stress coping (Crant, 2000). Based on these publications,
this study makes a distinction in two types of pro-activeness as well. Task specific pro-
activeness, which we call short-term pro-activeness, includes behaviours as taking initiative in
engagement and problem solving, socialization and feedback seeking. On the other hand we
look into long-term pro-activeness, which is an important trait of entrepreneurial attitude, as
an attitude represents certain actions or reactions (Jung, 1971). Long-term pro-activeness
includes employees identifying opportunities to improve things in general, challenging the
status quo, sharing knowledge and networking (Crant, 2000).
2.2.2 Innovativeness
Following, the other key factor of an entrepreneurial attitude, namely innovativeness, is
looked into. Innovation is defined as “the development and implementation of new ideas by
people who over time engage in transactions with others within an institutional context” (Van
de Ven, 1986: p. 604). Innovativeness refers to the extent of this occurring within individuals.
Thus, employees who act innovatively are intentionally introducing, applying and
implementing new ideas, products, processes, and procedures to their work role, unit or
organization (Yuan & Woodman, 2010). De Jong and Wennekers (2008) describe innovative
employees as employees who explore opportunities, generate ideas and apply those ideas.
Innovativeness in employees is important because it enables a company to succeed in a
dynamic business environment (Yuan & Woodman, 2010; Van de Ven, 1986). As with pro-
activeness, in this study makes a distinction between short-term and long-term
innovativeness. Short-term innovativeness of employees includes behaviours as suggesting
new ideas, creative problem-solving and implementation of new ideas (Scott & Bruce, 1994).
These short-term innovative behaviours are mostly task specific. Long-term innovativeness of
employees involves suggesting new ideas in a broader sense, creative thinking, opportunity
recognition and willingness to change (Amabile, 1988; Hurt, Joseph & Cook, 1977; Kleysen
& Street, 2001). Those aspects emphasize more on an innovative attitude, as they have a more
general sense.
In sum, acting entrepreneurial incorporates short-term as well as long-term pro-active and
innovative behaviours. However, having an actual entrepreneurial attitude means including
showing long-term pro-activeness and innovativeness. Long-term pro-active behaviours are
16
identifying opportunities to improve things in general, challenging the status quo, sharing
knowledge and networking (Crant, 2000). Long-term innovative behaviours are suggesting
new ideas in a broader sense, creative thinking, opportunity recognition and willingness to
change (Amabile, 1988; Hurt, Joseph & Cook, 1977; Kleysen & Street, 2001).
2.3 Conceptual model
Continuing with the literature review, the conceptual model of this study is depicted below.
The model is based on previous research and validates as support of the explanation and
existing theories that follows.
Figure 2. Conceptual model.
17
2.3.1 Distinction gamification drivers and relation to SDT
On the left side of the conceptual model are the gamification drivers, as described in the
gamification design part of the literature review. For the aim of this research, the choice has
been made to distinguish the drivers into one category that taps into extrinsic motivation,
whereas the other driver category taps into intrinsic motivation. Extrinsic motivation refers to
“the performance of an activity in order to attain some separable outcome” (Ryan & Deci,
2000: p. 71), whereas intrinsic motivation refers to “doing an activity for the inherent
satisfaction of the activity itself” (Ryan & Deci, 2000: p. 71). According to Chou (2013),
drivers that are more associated with logic, calculations and ownership are more often based
on extrinsic motivation. These drivers motivate players because they want to gain something.
Drivers that are based on creativity, self-expression, and social aspects, have the tendency to
motivate intrinsically (Chou, 2013). Wu (2014) underlines these findings with his
gamification spectrum in which short-term, extrinsic mechanics are more based on striving
for something, whereas long-term, intrinsic mechanics focus more on social aspects (Wu,
2014).
Based on these previous findings, the seven gamification drivers of Molenaar (2014a) could
be categorized as follows. Tools based on the drivers development and accomplishment,
ownership and personalisation, scarcity and impatience, avoiding loss, are more focused on
the short-term and extrinsic motivation. These drivers can fulfil the need for autonomy,
competence and meaning rather quickly, though the satisfaction will not last. A gamification
design with these extrinsically based drivers can provide the opportunity to strive toward a
certain outcome (Ryan et al., 2006), this provides players with the opportunity to satisfy their
need for autonomy, competence and meaning (Ryan & Deci, 2000). However, the satisfaction
of the three needs will be short-term because it is closely connected to the game environment.
These extrinsically based drivers offer to strive for specific outcomes within the game and are
thus more task-specific. This leads to only a short-term fulfilment of the need for autonomy,
competence and meaning.
Following, tools based on the drivers explore and surprise, social influence and relatedness,
giving meaning and higher goal, are more focused on the long-term, intrinsic motivation of
players. These gamification drivers will be more focused on satisfying the needs for
autonomy, competence and meaning in the long term. Gamification design with these
18
intrinsically based drivers provides the opportunity to satisfy the three basic needs by doing
the activity itself (Ryan & Deci, 2000). That means that if the players like the activities that
involve the gamification objectives, they experience satisfaction of the need for autonomy,
competence and meaning on the long term, as it is satisfying inside as well as outside the
gamified environment. Satisfaction of those three needs in the long term result in the
internalization of the objected behaviours (Ryan & Deci, 2000).
2.3.2 Gamification related to pro-activeness
On the right side of the conceptual model is an entrepreneurial attitude, which in this study
consists of pro-active and innovative behaviours. Following, we look into how the
effectiveness of gamification on pro-activeness could be explained based on the fulfilment of
the three needs. Bateman and Crant (1993) describe pro-active individuals as people who scan
for opportunities, show initiative and persist in reaching closure by bringing change. A higher
degree of pro-activeness within employees, so more action that is taken by employees in order
to influence their environments, can be achieved through the use of gamification. A person,
the environment and behaviour continuously influence each other (Bandura, 1986). As
gamification fulfils the need for autonomy by providing the opportunity to set one’s own
goals and strategies (Ryan et al., 2006), it provides people with the opportunity to influence
the (gamified) environment by the actions they take and thus increases pro-activity (Becherer
& Maurer, 1999). Additionally, pro-activeness is more likely to occur under conditions of
autonomy (Grant & Ashford, 2008). Next, the fulfilment of the need for competence by
gamification increases the self-efficacy of employees, meaning the belief in one’s own
capabilities and actions needed to control events in their lives (Wood & Bandura, 1989). So
gamification increases the feeling of competence, which increases the belief to act pro-
actively (Bandura, 1993). When an individual sees and feels his own competence, he will
show more pro-activeness (Frese & Fay, 2001). Finally, gamification also fulfils the need for
meaning through the transparency that it offers. An important element of gamification is
receiving feedback and additionally, it always takes part in a non-gaming context (Deterding
et al., 2011). This provides the opportunity to bring order to the contents of the mind and to
integrate actions (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). It is important to keep in mind that gamification
has to be designed in such a way that it is meaningful to the user (Nicholson, 2012). When it
is meaningful to the user, this meaning will reflect in his or her motivation. Wong (1998)
describes that people who are motivated through meaning pursue challenging goals, seek to
actualize potential and strive toward personal growth. These are very similar to the
19
description of pro-active people by Bateman and Crant (1993; Schwarzer & Taubert, 2002).
So in motivating players, meaning will lead to a higher extend of pro-activeness.
2.3.3 Gamification related to innovativeness
Following, we look at the three factors coming from gamification in relation to
innovativeness. To begin with, Krause (2004) found that autonomy was positively related to
innovativeness, as employees who were given autonomy were increasing the generation,
testing and implementation of ideas. The fulfilment of autonomy, by creating a positive
atmosphere and encouragement of openness, increases idea generation and application of
employees (De Jong & Den Hartog, 2007). Secondly, gamification also increases
innovativeness by the fulfilment of the need of competence. As described before, people who
feel competent believe more in their own capabilities. And individuals who have strong
beliefs in their capabilities will show more effort in mastering a challenge (Boyd & Vozikis,
1994). So gamification can help employees in believing in their own capabilities to innovate,
which will actually lead to more innovativeness (Wood & Bandura, 1989). In addition, a
higher level of mastery will result in increased intrinsic motivation for innovativeness
(Amabile, 1988). Finally, Yan and Woodman (2010) describe why meaning is important in
increasing innovativeness. They describe that a reason for employees to not innovate is
because they do not believe it will benefit their work. Creating a meaningful context and
social recognition of innovative employees are important factors to overcome this obstacle
(Yan & Woodman, 2010). This is where gamification provides a big opportunity, as it
satisfies the need for meaning it can integrate the meaning of innovation in its design
elements.
2.3.4 Propositions
Based on the literature review and conceptual model presented above, the following
propositions are formulated.
Proposition 1: The short-term fulfilment of need for autonomy, competence and meaning,
based on extrinsic drivers, will cause short-term pro-activeness and innovativeness.
Proposition 2: The short-term fulfilment of need for autonomy, competence and meaning,
based on extrinsic drivers, which show a player journey, can stimulate more long-term pro-
activeness and innovativeness.
20
Proposition 3: The long-term fulfilment of the need for autonomy, competence and meaning,
based on intrinsic drivers, will cause more long-term pro-activeness and innovativeness.
Proposition 4: Internal gamification that includes extrinsically based as well as intrinsically
based drivers will cause short-term and long-term pro-activeness and innovativeness and thus
an entrepreneurial attitude.
3. Research methodology
This study is focussed on answering the research question: How can innovation management
use gamification in order to foster an entrepreneurial attitude? The first part ‘how can
innovation management use’ relates to the kind of gamification tools that are based on seven
different gamification drivers. Regarding the ‘gamification’ part of the question, this involves
the satisfaction of three basic needs based on the self-determination theory. The seven drivers
can result in different types of fulfilment of those needs. Lastly, ‘an entrepreneurial attitude’
incorporates pro-active and innovative behaviours of individuals. The aim of this study is to
determine the effective elements of internal gamification on an entrepreneurial attitude and to
establish how gamification can be of influence on long-term effects. Consequently, the nature
of this research is exploratory, as it builds on current gamification theories. In order to answer
the research question, a qualitative research design is used. Qualitative research is chosen,
because the influence of gamification on entrepreneurial attitude has to be analysed rather
than tested. Hence, qualitative research is applicable when certain meanings, as those from
gamification, have to be described and understood (Gephart, 2004). In this research, a case
study is used as research method. As a case study is an in-depth exploration from multiple
perspectives of the complexity and uniqueness of a particular project, policy, institution,
program or system in a real life context, it is a good method for the study of the effect of
gamification on entrepreneurial attitude (Simons, 2009). The study can be classified as a
multiple case study, as it took place at multiple businesses and thus cases. All of the
companies involved, had already applied gamification before the start of this study. The use
of multiple cases made the research more compelling, provided good construct validity and
made the research more generally applicable (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). These case
studies at different companies were parallel conducted.
21
3.1 Data collection
This research was written at the Rabobank Nederland, while I was a graduate intern. For the
first step of collecting data, more in-depth knowledge of the application of gamification
within the Rabobank had to be gained. The internship offered the opportunity to observe and
give insight in the content of current gamification projects, company culture and employee
attitudes. Next, interviews were conducted. After observing, it became apparent only one case
within Rabobank Nederland met the criteria of this study. Therefore, one interview was held
with a manager of Rabobank Nederland and seven interviews were held at different
companies. A gamification expert of Rabobank Nederland selected the companies and cases
that were used in this study. For this, purposive sampling was applied, as a few critical cases
were selected (Saunders & Lewis, 2012). The selection criteria were as follows: the company
had applied gamification, the implementation of a gamification solution started at least half a
year ago, the objective of applying gamification involved innovation, the objective of
applying gamification involved a behavioural change of employees. By setting these criteria,
relevant cases at which the conceptual model could be tested were selected. Furthermore, the
respondents came from eight different companies; those companies varied from small start-
ups till multinationals. The choice of conducting interviews with persons of different
company sizes was made to be able to generalize the outcomes of gamification fostering an
entrepreneurial attitude. Also, the concerned start-ups in this study were offering knowledge
and insights of multiple gamification cases. The reason for this was that these start-ups were
consultancy or project management firms that worked on multiple gamification projects at
different companies. Moreover, the companies of the respondents were based in five different
countries. At the different firms, the subjects were managers who were responsible for the
implementation of gamification principles, game designers, or gamification project managers.
These subjects in these functions were chosen as they had an overview of gamification
projects and their outcomes from different point of views. An overview of the respondents is
depicted in Table 1.
22
Respondent Function Type of company
Current country
Discussion of specific case
Interview method
Respondent 1 Gamification expert
Consultancy United States Yes Skype
Respondent 2 Chief technology officer
Software United States Yes Phone-call
Respondent 3 Project manager
Financial services
The Netherlands Yes Face-to-face
Respondent 4 Manager innovation technology and learning
Aviation The Netherlands Yes Face-to-face
Respondent 5 General manager
Consultancy Belgium Yes Skype
Respondent 6 Game designer
Game design and project management
The Netherlands No Face-to-face
Respondent 7 HR business development
Financial services
Austria Yes Phone-call
Respondent 8 Project manager
Project management
The Netherlands No Face-to-face
Table 1. Respondent overview.
The interviews were semi-structured, in order to compare the answers of different people
whilst leaving room for additions (Saunders & Lewis, 2012). The questions addressed topics
as an entrepreneurial attitude, a case description and the outcomes and effects of the
concerning case. The question regarding the case description started as a very open question,
so the respondent was not pointed in a specific direction. At two out of the eight interviews,
no specific case was addressed, as these respondents had knowledge about several cases and
more general questions were asked. After the case description, cards of gamification drivers
were shown in order to connect certain concepts to each other and to structure the interview.
First, cards of the seven gamification drivers were shown and it was asked what cards were
most recognizable in the specific case. This provided the case description with a structure and
it provided the right understanding of the drivers for the respondents in order to give a valid
answer to the questions that followed. Following, it was asked if the respondents could
connect the seven different cards to specific short-term or long-term behaviours that occurred
in the cases. To give more insight in the course of the interview, the interview protocol is
presented in Appendix I. Moreover, the four interviews with respondents from the
Netherlands took place at the offices of their companies. Two of the interviews with the
23
respondents that were based across the borders of the Netherlands took place via Skype and
the other two interviews were held by phone because these two respondents did not have a
Skype-account. An important note has to be made regarding the two interviews by phone: at
these two interviews the cards were not applied, as there was no possibility to show the cards
during the interview. All the interviews were audio recorded with permission of the
respondents.
3.2 Data analysis
After the data was collected the interviews were transcribed. These transcripts are presented
in Appendix 2. Transcripts, power point presentations and other company records were
analysed using the software tool Nvivo. The analysis strategy relied on the theoretical
propositions that were presented at the end of the literature review (Yin, 2009). Analysing the
data aimed on establishing the why and how of the effects of gamification. The key aspect in
the analysis was to find out how gamification has worked so far and what factors might be
useful in the long term to establish an entrepreneurial attitude amongst employees. In order to
focus on this aspect in the analysis, the following coding strategy was developed based on the
propositions. The data was coded on the seven gamification drivers which were used in the
different cases and shown in Figure 2. Additionally, pro-active and innovative behaviours that
came from these drivers were coded and classified in short-term or long-term as suggested in
the literature section. At the codes of specific drivers towards specific behaviours, codes were
added regarding whether the satisfaction of needs was short term or long term. These codes
regarding the needs were needed in analysing the complete relationships in the conceptual
model. This coding strategy enabled me to analyse whether there is a pattern of certain
gamification drivers and fulfilment of needs leading to specific short-term or long-term
behaviours. Additionally, the analysis of power point presentations of the cases and company
records reporting on gamification project results was focussed on the success factors and
inserted tools of the gamification cases. These documents served as supporting information
while coding the transcripts. Lastly, other important statements from respondents were coded
as well, if a repetitive pattern became apparent in these other findings, these findings were
categorized. They will be described in the last part of the results section.
24
4. Results
4.1 Brief overview of results
In the following paragraphs, there will be an elaboration on the results of the analysis per
proposition. To start off and give a clear insight, this first paragraph provides a brief overview
of the main results. Figure 3 is a graph that shows how many respondents mentioned the
short-term as well as the long-term effects of each of the seven gamification drivers. This
graph is based on the interviews combined with the analysis of company records. These
company records contained descriptions and outcomes of the different gamified cases and
thus were analysed on the inserted drivers and their outcomes. Next, Table 2 presents an
overview of the extrinsically labelled drivers and their possible effects on short-term pro-
activeness and innovativeness. Table 3 presents an overview of the intrinsically labelled
drivers and their possible effects on long-term pro-activeness and innovativeness. In order to
guard the quality and overviewing characteristics of the table a maximum of three quotes per
category was chosen and a few quotes were shortened. The quotes in the tables represent the
clearest statements regarding the specific category; the source of the quote is added between
brackets. Furthermore, Figure 3, Table 2 and Table 3 only provide a brief overview of the
main results. The following paragraphs discuss the analysis of the results more extensively.
Figure 3. Overview of the type of effect of gamification drivers
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Num
ber of respondents
Gamification drivers
Short-term effect
Long-term effect
25
Short-term pro-activeness (Taking initiative in engagement and problem solving, socialization, feedback seeking)
Short-term innovativeness (Suggesting new ideas, creative problem solving, implementation of new ideas)
Development and accomplishment
- “If you were good and active enough, you could be on this leaderbord in one or multiple areas” (Res. 1) - “There was a team that went to another company to receive feedback while striving for good outcomes of the game” (Res. 4) - “The game can engage people because it makes them extremely happy when the game tells them how good they are” (Res. 6)
- “Financial results were made, they might lay in the relationship with the innovativeness of the individual” (Res. 2) - “People look strategically at the badges and think creatively on which ones and how they can win them” (Res. 4) - “So they can earn points through a certain system for new things, that works very well and we see an increase” (Res. 8)
Ownership and personalisation
- “With virtual currency you can give credits. So an idea with a lot of credits can be seen as a good idea, worth implementing” (Res. 1) - “The teams were engaged through their own concept concerning a future design” (Res. 4) - “They did not know each other but became enthusiastic around the same idea” (Res. 5)
- “I have the choice of which projects I work on or participate in” (Res. 1) - “It gave people the right, the opportunity, to make change happen” (Res. 2). - “We wanted them to feel the urgency” (Res. 3)
Scarcity and impatience
- “It is also a clocked system, so they have to do some things weekly” (Res. 5) - “It is short-term in nature, requires direct and hard actions” (Res. 6)
- “My time is my currency, it is a scarce resource. Of course I want to be part of a project were I am learning a lot and making a contribution” (Res. 1)
Avoiding loss - “It is basically a non-innovator. It is not entrepreneurial.” (Res. 1) - “Typically an entrepreneur is not someone who avoids loss” (Res. 1)
Table 2. Overview of extrinsically labelled drivers and short-term behaviours
26
Long-term pro-activeness (Identifying opportunities to improve things in general, challenging the status quo, sharing knowledge, networking)
Long-term innovativeness (Suggesting new ideas in a broader sense, creative thinking, opportunity recognition, willingness to change)
Explore and surprise
- “Read and do more on their own initiative” (Res. 3) - “People are being involved more in the company, there is an energy, a boost. That results in more networking, also in real-life” (Res. 5) - “The game stimulated people to get up and connect with people from other departments. That learned them they could also do this outside the game” (Res. 6)
- “The game helped people to overcome the first obstacle and get insight in their possibilities for the future” (Res. 4) - “I did not know I had an entrepreneur in me, but we did all kind of new things during the game” (Res. 5) - “People are looking closer into the system, looking for the borders. Those people are being triggered to really go out of the box” (Res. 8)
Social influence and relatedness
- “There is a huge transparency between people” (Res. 5) - “It can really help for the long term as people become aware that working together can bring them further than doing everything on their own” (Res. 6) - “They managed to work with colleagues from other fields. This also opens a lot doors to future collaboration and to really to know if you have a question or issue who you can contact that you can actually further help you out” (Res. 7)
- “Get social confirmation that people think it is a good idea” (Res. 1) - “It creates networking, achieving top-down the involvement of employees in striving towards company goals, having a broad reach” (Res. 5) - “An entrepreneurial attitude does not solely come from an individual, it has to be stimulated and a situation within the company has to be created to stimulate this entrepreneurial attitude” (Res. 6)
Giving meaning and higher goal
- “They have the feeling that they really have something at their hand that could be important” (Res. 1) - “Because we showed people in a nice way what is happening outside, people are now more concerned with innovation and know what is happening outside” (Res. 3) - “A gamification system can show employees how inefficient they currently are. By providing real awareness, long-term solutions can be triggered” (Res. 8)
- “They are really stimulated to go out of the box on creative ideas, which will be implemented afterwards” (Res. 5) - “If people realise through the solution you offer that an entrepreneurial attitude is actually really good for themselves, then you are getting long-term solutions” (Res. 6) - “Participant are much more motivated if they see even the top leaders are recognizing the value of such an exercise” (Res. 7)
Table 2. Overview of intrinsically labelled drivers and long-term behaviours
27
4.2 Examining proposition 1
Proposition 1: The short-term fulfilment of need for autonomy, competence and meaning,
based on extrinsic drivers, will cause short-term pro-activeness and innovativeness.
Firstly, this analysis looks in to the ‘short-term’ factor of the gamification cases concerned. A
repetitive pattern amongst the cases was the focus on short-term goals of the projects. Most of
the respondents indicated that the gamification cases so far were more focused on the short-
term effect and goals of the project. A possible reason for this focus on short-term goals might
be due to the newness of the concept of gamification. As respondent 4 illustrates: “For
ourselves this was also a huge challenge and experiment. So we were already very happy with
any form of engagement in the first week. So we were not that much focused on the long term,
because we did not trust ourselves enough yet in the beginning of this story”.
Recall from the theory that by the extrinsic drivers as mentioned in proposition 1 are
development and accomplishment, ownership and personalisation, scarcity and impatience,
avoiding loss (Wu, 2014; Chou, 2013; Molenaar, 2014a). The driver development and
accomplishment, as well as ownership and personalisation, indeed were analysed as having an
effect in the short term. Leaderbords, points and badges, which are tools based on the driver
development and accomplishment, were especially effective in causing short-term pro-active
behaviour. Multiple respondents indicated that the tools based on this driver made the players
enthusiastic; in most cases this resulted in engagement, but also the behaviours socialization
and feedback seeking occurred. Respondent 1 states: “Development and accomplishment of
course is something that, I need to be able to accomplish something also in the short term, in
order to be motivated. So that means I need to break down a larger achievement into smaller
achievements”, this clearly emphasizes the need for competence in the short term. Respondent
3 adds to this: “It really has to be easy. If people think it is a bit too difficult, they will stop
being active”, this is also about the need for competence.
Secondly, tools based on the driver ownership and personalisation seemed to cause short-term
pro-activeness as well as short-term innovativeness. In some of the cases of this study, virtual
currency was used, which is a typical tool based on the driver ownership and personalisation.
Respondent 2 gave one of the explanations of the working of this tool: “The first was a
specific pact of giving permission for people to change things. By deploying this system it
28
gave people the right, the opportunity, to make change happen”. The driver ownership and
personalisation fulfils the need for autonomy, as people can make their own choices and
strategies. This can result in taking initiative and suggesting new ideas. Although some
respondents state that virtual currency might be problematic for innovation in the long term,
this will be discussed further on in the results section.
The third extrinsically based driver to be discussed is scarcity and impatience. Although this
driver was not applied so much as the previous two, respondent 6 made a clear statement
about it: “scarcity and impatience is actually short-term in nature, if you have a situation it
requires direct and hard actions”. So the driver scarcity and impatience might be useful in
engagement as well, although it is less applied in the cases of this study. Summing up, the
three drivers accomplishment and development, ownership and personalisation, and scarcity
and impatience fulfil especially the need for autonomy and competence and sometimes
meaning. However, these extrinsic drivers provide only a short-term fulfilment of those needs
due to the lack of enough connection with the non-gamified environment and the strong focus
on a certain point in time. Following, most respondents indicated avoiding loss as a driver that
is not useful in stimulating pro-activeness and innovativeness. Respondent 1 illustrates this:
“Avoiding loss makes you show less risk-taking behaviours. It is basically non-innovative, it is
not entrepreneurial. Entrepreneurs want to gain and win something”.
Complementary to the expectations there were also effects from other gamification drivers.
Especially the driver explore and surprise is important and effective in the short term, as it
was mentioned by most of the respondents. In the cases, explore and surprise was mainly used
at an early stage of the projects by not being clear about the purposes of the new project. This
resulted in engagement through autonomy but also as respondent 4 explains: “If I would have
told the players that this experience was about working together, they would have said they
were already doing that so the project would be useless”. Next, the gamification driver social
influence and relatedness seems to have small a short-term influence. Especially peer-pressure
is an influential factor, when someone’s colleagues are engaged and taking initiatives, this
individual is likely to follow as well. Respondent 7 explains it: “The fact that they were in a
team and the other team members were still trying to push and to do things. I think this was
actually a good way to get everybody engaged”. Additionally, the interaction between players
is an important factor in most of the cases. An interesting difference regarding interaction
29
between players is that a small part of the cases was on an anonymous base, so players did not
know with whom from the company they were interacting. A reason for this was providing a
risk-free environment to create ideas. However, in a later stage of these cases, it was not
anonymous anymore because relatedness and recognition in the real world became needed for
the fulfilment of meaning. Lastly, the driver giving meaning and higher goal was not
commonly indicated as a short-term driver and will be discussed in a later section of this
thesis.
4.3 Examining proposition 2
Proposition 2: The short-term fulfilment of need for autonomy, competence and meaning,
based on extrinsic drivers, which show a player journey, can stimulate more long-term pro-
activeness and innovativeness.
A striking point regarding the short-term goal focus was already found while examining
proposition 1. In multiple cases, these goals of the projects were vague for the players at the
beginning. As explained, the reason for this is could be that it might be wise to not present a
gamification solution clearly as being a gamification solution, because the newness of the
concept could bring resistance. By keeping some vagueness within the gamified solution,
people can get used to the new project easily and provides them with the fulfilment of the
need for autonomy in the long term. Additionally, the game designer can provide a player
journey in which the need for meaning can be fulfilled at a later stage. Another important
point regarding a player journey is the journey of an idea itself, as respondent 1 puts it “You
help them and you coach them to come up with an idea or to connect them or sponsor them or
expose them to others. If there is attraction and good feedback, you may have something that
people need. If it is just the idea, you do not know”.
The gamification driver development and accomplishment was already analysed as being
extrinsically motivational for short-term behaviour. But development and accomplishment
can do more, when it is carefully designed to show progression for the player. Some of the
cases gave insight in how the accomplishment of the next level or badge in the game
stimulates the players in showing an entrepreneurial attitude. For example respondent 1 said:
“The system in this case shows how well your project is processing to the stages. And then, a
person, who has a higher innovation performance index, has kind of more influence in the
innovation process and this can bubble up in idea bending”. Respondent 7 illustrated another
30
example: “Doing the gamification, people had to dig into topics that were not in their familiar
zone. I think this was really something that pushed them to do the extra effort in order to have
a better understanding of the different functions of the bank”. These statements show long-
term behaviours like recognizing opportunities and sharing knowledge. A quote of respondent
8 clearly explains why the driver development and accomplishment does not solely motivate
in an extrinsic and short-term way: “It is not only about winning, it is also about comparing
your own performance with how you performed in the past and discuss this with each other.
Through that, you can increase your performance”. By showing a player journey in
combination with tools based on development and accomplishment, people are given more
self-control in the long-term fulfilment of autonomy, competence and mastery.
Also, the gamification driver ownership and development shows potential in being effective
in fostering long-term behaviour. At the beginning the driver ownership and development is
especially useful in creating awareness and urgency. As respondent 3 describes: “We really
wanted to create a mind-set in which the participants thought: I have to engage in this task,
this is my responsibility to bring this company to the next level”. Through the use of tools of
the driver ownership and development, a strong emphasis is placed on the need for meaning,
which seems to be important for a change in behaviour in the long term. By creating
awareness together with making it personal, individuals get an insight in why they should act
differently. Respondent 8 underlines this with: “Gamification helps to get employees from
unconsciously incapable to consciously incapable, from that point on you can start on
working on letting them become consciously capable”.
Following, it might be possible the driver scarcity and impatience forces individuals to make
better long-term decisions. As respondent 1 said: “My time is my currency, it is a scarce
resource. And of course I want to be part in a project where I have the feeling I am learning a
lot and, or, I am really making a contribution. I do something good”. However, this choice
will strongly depend on the preferences of an individual so it will not necessarily foster an
entrepreneurial attitude. The fourth driver that has been proposed to be extrinsically
motivational is avoiding loss. However, the cases barely use this driver so from this analysis it
comes apparent the driver avoiding loss might not be an effective gamification tool for
fostering an entrepreneurial attitude.
31
Overall the analysis shows that some extrinsic drivers, when they show a player journey,
indeed can give long-term results. However, the analysis showed that it really is the player
journey and not so much the type of driver that is important in striving for long-term goals.
Multiple respondents made a similar comment as the following from respondent 6: “If you
drop a bomb on Monday morning and announce the team has to operate totally different and
they are going to do that with this gamification solution, that might be fun for the first but it
will not last on the long term”. So a step-by-step progress was important in the cases of this
study, people need time to adapt to a change. Thus the analysis shows the importance of the
player journey to foster an entrepreneurial attitude. This outcome is actually not surprising, as
positive feedback and progress are very essential parts of gamification. Respondent 8 adds to
this that it is also important for gamification itself to keep renewing: “If you do not keep
constantly refreshing and keep constant as a game attendant, then it will become part of the
normal and it will not stay interesting”. By applying these step-by-step projects, the players
experience a direct fulfilment of the need for autonomy, competence and meaning, as well as
the prospect of new opportunities that will fulfil their need for autonomy, competence and
meaning. While players strive to fulfil their need for autonomy, they have to show long-term
pro-active behaviour. Multiple cases indicated this result by having players that were sharing
knowledge, taking initiative and networking. The prospect of the fulfilment of competence
encourages players to show more long-term innovative behaviours like opportunity
recognition and willingness to change. Following, the need for meaning seems extremely
important for gamification to succeed in the long term; I will elaborate on that in examining
proposition 3. Furthermore, the following quote from respondent 6 summarizes the analysis
on proposition 2 concisely: “in a certain sense, gamification is more evolution than
revolution”.
4.4 Examining proposition 3
Proposition 3: The long-term fulfilment of the need for autonomy, competence and meaning,
based on intrinsic drivers, will cause more long-term pro-activeness and innovativeness.
At this proposition, long-term pro-active and innovative behaviours are at stake, which results
in looking beyond the borders of the gamification system as well as time scale. As the goal is
a permanent entrepreneurial attitude of employees, although enabled by a gamification
solution, respondent 8 explains: “If you tap into intrinsic motivation, it will become bigger
and it will not only have to do with the game anymore. But also that you believe it is really
32
nice to do and because you learn from it”. The respondents of this study underline the
importance of intrinsically motivated people in relation to showing an entrepreneurial attitude.
Regarding to pro-active behaviour respondent 6 states: “There is absolutely a correlation
between pro-activeness and intrinsic motivation. I think you want to go into that area,
motivating people and letting them do what they actually want to do”. And about innovative
behaviour respondent 5 said: “Especially when you talk about innovation, then you have to be
creative and be able to motivate the people intrinsically”. Actually, when striving for a
change of behaviour, the goal of a gamification solution is to transform players into being
intrinsically motivated. Respondent 6 underlines this: “In the end I think it is very important
that when I start a project, to get those people intrinsically motivated. Through that, actually,
a long-term behavioural change occurs”. Following, the results on particular gamification
drivers are presented.
Explore and surprise is the first gamification driver that is labelled as typically intrinsically
motivational in this study. The analysis at proposition 1 already showed this label might be
wrong, as the driver explore and surprise can be useful as an extrinsic motivator as well.
However, another important pattern becomes apparent in this analysis that taps into the
intrinsic motivation and that is important for the long-term pro-activeness and innovativeness.
The use of the driver explore and surprise can fulfil the need of autonomy of an individual
because it gives the opportunity to discover and execute a personal strategy within a gamified
environment. Yet, what appears to be an even more valuable effect is the awareness this
driver creates on the pleasure of satisfying the need of autonomy in the long term, as well as
competence and meaning. Respondent 5 gives an insight: “I did not know I had an
entrepreneur in me. But the things we did with our team during the game! I get to know a
whole bunch of new people and we worked at night and even in the weekends, I never did that
before”. So creating awareness is an important effect that can result from gamification, it will
be further discussed later in this analysis. Furthermore, for players who are driven by explore
and surprise, cheating is a typical and even common behaviour. Although cheating might
have a negative connotation, the analysis shows it is a positive behaviour regarding an
entrepreneurial attitude of an individual. A cheater shows typical long-term innovative
behaviour by thinking out-of-the-box and challenging the status quo. As respondent 8
explains: “It really is a part of entrepreneurship. People are putting the system into
discussion and are going to test the system. That really is not a bad thing”.
33
Following, the driver social influence and relatedness will be discussed. A striking point that
became obvious from the analysis is the interconnectedness of this driver and the goals of
several cases. Although peer-pressure and reputation are more effective to motivate in the
short term, creating awareness of each other and connecting to other people is valuable for the
long term. A gamification solution could facilitate the sharing of knowledge and networking,
so that more opportunities to improve things in general can be recognized. Respondent 4 and
6 explain about a case: “There were people that worked at their department but did not really
find and connect to each other. We stimulated them to go around and find people. The game
encouraged this, also with the goal that people would continue connecting to each other after
the game”. In a couple of cases of this study, knowledge sharing was intended to take a step
further into cross-functional knowledge sharing and collaboration. Gamification appears to be
a useful tool in accomplishing these objectives. Respondent 7 gave an insight in the effects:
“They were coming from different countries and different fields and they managed to do a lot
of networking. This also opens a lot of doors to future collaboration and it helps in knowing,
if you have a question or issue, who you can contact and can actually help you further out”.
The value of this outcome is clearly described by respondent 4: “By building on each other’s
knowledge and being able to find each other, you can be innovative”. However, as mentioned
above, the goals of several cases of this research were, among other things, collaboration and
connectedness. In that sense, it has to be noted that the analysis does not show at each point
whether social influence and relatedness was a driver for player or more the goal there were
striving at. Although the influence of this driver has been confirmed, some of the particular
direct effects remain vague.
Importantly, the gamification driver giving meaning and higher goal was indicated by almost
all of the respondents as being a driver of long-term influence. This driver is primarily
important because it provides the connection of a gamified solution with real-life outcomes
and implications. In order to establish an effect in the long term, this connection is critical
because it lets the gamification make sense. An example is given in the case description by
respondent 5: “We have the format of an inspiration game, in which player can get into all
kinds of different roles. But we provide companies with this game because they want to tackle
a certain challenge together with their employees. People really can go out-of-the-box and
afterwards those ideas really have to be implemented. And afterwards even the non-winners
34
thank us, because they finally felt they were involved”. Giving meaning and higher goal
actually can help in fostering an entrepreneurial attitude because this gives players the
possibility to identify opportunities to improve things in general and to suggest ideas in a
broader sense by connecting them to real-life outcomes of the gamification project. Therefore,
awareness of one’s capabilities and the situation can be valuable for long-term outcomes.
Respondent 6 underlines this: “I think it is really important that people realise like: ‘hey, wait
a minute, what they ask from me, that entrepreneurial attitude, that is actually really good for
myself. Through that, I become a better person, can do my job better and have way more fun
in doing it’. If people realise that through the solution you offer, then you are really getting
long-term solutions”. Logically, this driver especially taps into the long-term fulfilment of the
need for meaning.
Moreover, the analysis showed that the company context and support from senior
management plays an important role in the success of a gamification project. Although this
was not a focus point in the analysis at first, it did show a repetitive pattern that made it worth
looking into. Indeed, respondent 2 and 7 even pointed out the senior management support as
being the key success factor of the gamification project. In this sense, the driver giving
meaning and higher goal is important because involvement of top management gives the
participants the fulfilment of the need for meaning as their actions seem to matter.
Respondent 7 explained: “When you have the support of the senior executives of the bank and
when they are actually getting involved in this kind of project, then the participants are much
more motivated because they see even the top leaders are recognizing the value of such an
exercise”. Furthermore, the importance of context will be discussed at the remaining results.
4.5 Examining proposition 4
Proposition 4: Internal gamification that includes extrinsically based as well as intrinsically
based drivers will cause short-term and long-term pro-activeness and innovativeness and thus
an entrepreneurial attitude.
At the previous three propositions specific drivers and their possibilities of causing short-term
or long-term pro-activeness and innovativeness were looked into. However, an individual that
has an entrepreneurial attitude is showing short-term as well as long-term pro-active and
innovative behaviour. Therefore, this proposition is looking into the use of extrinsically based
drivers as well as intrinsically based drivers together.
35
Hence, respondent 8 clearly explained why only extrinsic motivation is not enough when you
want to foster an entrepreneurial attitude: “Extrinsic motivation actually always stays kind of
in the game. Then it will not stick to you. So short loops with rewards, which can make you do
stuff at that point, but it stays in the game pretty much”. However, it is important to mention
that extrinsic motivators are not necessarily bad. In addition to the results presented at
proposition 1 and 2, extrinsic motivators can result in high participation rates at gamified
projects and also those are the drivers that most players perceive as fun. Therefore, the
following analysis looks into extrinsic motivation combined with other drivers. The data
showed that a couple of respondents place the emphasis on the combination of extrinsic and
intrinsic drivers. So not focussing on one certain type, but the combination of both results in a
synergy. As all the different gamification drivers motivate people in different ways, the
analysis shows that indeed a combination of drivers has the broadest range. Respondent 1 puts
it like this: “Extrinsic motivator is not necessarily bad. It is in combination with intrinsic
motivations like having a higher goal, that it is something positive. Because an intrinsic
motivator is a counter, which shows you how successful you are with reaching your intrinsic
goals”.
As already announced at the beginning of the analysis of proposition 3, creating awareness is
an important effect that results from gamification. Having knowledge of what is happening
around you and understanding why having an entrepreneurial attitude is important not only
triggers behavioural change, but makes it also more interesting and fun to change.
Gamification typically creates awareness on an unforced and fun base. Furthermore, creating
awareness with gamification also matters in another way, namely for the people who are
already capable of showing entrepreneurial behaviour but do not show this yet. For those
people it is important to have awareness of the fact that their company is giving them time,
space and encouragement to show their entrepreneurial attitude. Gamification is extremely
useful in tracing and triggering those people, because these individuals feel they finally get
the chance to do something with their talents and a couple of gamification mechanics
typically trigger entrepreneurial people. The analysis shows that for these people, a distinction
between extrinsic and intrinsic mechanic is less important, as gamification in general already
provides them with the awareness and opportunity to act entrepreneurially. Respondent 8
explains: “I think people who are entrepreneurial are in a way more triggered by
36
gamification. Because that is a sort of enthusiasm and contest and other stuff that are
associated with an entrepreneur, that also come back in the application of gamification”.
4.6 Remaining results
During the analysis, other remarkable results became apparent, which were not necessary
included in the theoretical propositions. This section elaborates on these findings.
The analysis of proposition 3 already showed the importance of the involvement and support
of the senior management regarding gamification projects. Even more, the analysis implies
that the overall context is important in the success of a gamified solution. That means a
gamification project has to fit in with the contextual factors. The respondents agree on that
every gamification project has to fit and that this requires a great deal of interaction between
stakeholders. In short, gaming is about interaction. Respondent 6 describes the interaction as
one of the key success factors of gamification: “What you do in the process, is looking
carefully into the process and also really think it over. Like, if we have this solution, how do
people react on that, what does that type of reaction and what influence had that reaction on
the solution and consequently, what has that solution to offer. You have to continually
overthink that process. Until you reach a situation in which people are doing the thing you
want them to. I think that it really is the power, to really reflect on that interaction”. So not
only the interaction between the company and the game designer and/or implementer is
important, also the interaction between both these parties and the players requires much
attention. Additionally, the analysis of the cases shows that the type of players at which a
certain solution is aimed matters in the gamification design. The respondents advise that when
you use gamification you have to make sure that you tap into different player styles, in order
to reach a broad audience. Although the importance of context and close interaction seems to
be recognized, this is also a point at which gamification can be improved. The analysis
indicates that there still exists a gap between companies and game designers and
misunderstanding of each other will decrease the positive outcomes of gamified solutions.
Respondent 6 explains where this problem needs improvement: “I think there has to happen
something at the beginning, to get a company ready for what is going to happen. So looking
into where the possibilities are, where gamification can be applied and what is necessary. But
also preparing the company to make sure that the provided solution is actually going to be
used and implemented right. So making sure it goes well and the problem of the company is
really tackled”.
37
Last, the analysis showed some possible downsides of gamification. The respondents explain
that it is possible that gamification can have a contrary effect on people, when they have had a
bad experience. This places emphasis on why the design of gamification is important; the
design needs to include mechanisms that stay interesting for all players. An example of a
risky tool that is sometimes used in gamification is having a jury that selects ideas. On the one
hand this might result in a big group of disappointed people, because just a few ideas were
chosen as being good. On the other hand, many good ideas might be missed, because
disruptive innovations might not always be recognized at first hand. Luckily, some of the
respondents also suggest possible solutions for this problem. To begin with, close interaction,
as stated before, also helps in guarding for disappointed players. Additionally, transparency in
the process and decision-making provides a higher level of fulfilment of needs and thus less
risks of the gamification solution. Furthermore, respondent 5 and 8 brought another risk to the
attention. It is possible that employees like their newly discovered entrepreneurial attitude so
much, that they feel that they are not at their place in a big company any longer. The
challenge for companies in this is to make sure the company keeps up with the developments
of their employees and keeps providing them with the right environment.
38
5. Discussion
5.1 Discussion
At this section, the results presented above will be discussed. First, the seven gamification
drivers are looked into. Based on theory, different categories of drivers were distinguished in
this study. Development and accomplishment, ownership and personalisation, scarcity and
impatience, and avoiding loss were considered having a short-term, extrinsically based, effect.
Explore and surprise, social influence and relatedness, and giving meaning and higher goal
were considered having a long-term, intrinsically based, effect (Wu, 2014; Chou, 2013;
Molenaar, 2014a). The analysis shows this distinction might be limited, as the outcomes show
the gamification drivers might not necessary work typically extrinsically or intrinsically as
determined by design.
Taking a closer look into the specific drivers, the driver avoiding loss should not be applied in
gamification projects that foster an entrepreneurial attitude. It is possible that the driver
avoiding loss might tap into motivations that are not suitable in an entrepreneurial attitude.
Being entrepreneurial is, amongst other things, about gaining something (De Jong &
Wenneker, 2008). That means while fostering an entrepreneurial attitude, individuals should
be motivated by what they can achieve instead of being stimulated towards behaviours of
avoidance.
The extrinsically labelled drivers development and accomplishment, ownership and
personalisation, and scarcity and impatience were expected to have short-term effects. The
cases that applied these three drivers indeed showed occurrence of short-term pro-active and
innovative behaviours. The two drivers explore and surprise and social influence and
relatedness were not originally extrinsically labelled, but the analysis showed these two
drivers might be capable of extrinsic motivation as well. When using these gamification
drivers to tap into extrinsic motivation, engagement in the project as well as awareness might
grow. Engagement and awareness could help in succeeding in the objectives of a project, that
means these extrinsically based drivers and way of motivating might be of importance.
However, to foster an entrepreneurial attitude and thus behavioural change, extrinsic
motivation is not enough (Wu, 2014). During the analysis it became apparent that the drivers
that showed a clear player journey might be intrinsically motivational as well. This player
39
journey offers the player continuous feedback. As the high level of positive feedback is a very
typical part of gamification (Deterding, 2011), this outcome underlines the possibilities of
gamification. Although a striking point regarding not reaching the potential of gamification
yet is found in not understanding how gamification should be designed. This will be outlined
later in this discussion.
Following, the three intrinsically based drivers explore and surprise, social influence and
relatedness, and giving meaning and higher goal were expected to result in long-term
behaviours. The use of these drivers in the cases of the study might have cause long-term pro-
activeness and innovativeness. The analysis implies that especially the use of the driver giving
meaning and higher goal might be applicable when striving for long-term results. Firstly, this
driver might create awareness in players, through which the players understand the situation
and what is asked of them. Secondly, the driver giving meaning and higher goal could give
the people who already were entrepreneurial the opportunity to actually show their talents.
Finally, this driver is important in the long term as it connects the outcomes and importance
with the real world. Additionally, the analysis showed that it might be the combination of
extrinsic and intrinsic drivers that could make the success of gamification, also in the long
term. As extrinsic mainly makes it fun, whereas intrinsic has the capability to take behaviours
further than the game.
Furthermore, this study proposed a difference in short-term and long-term fulfilment of the
needs for autonomy, competence and meaning. Indeed, individuals can perceive fulfilment of
the needs for autonomy, competence and meaning with gamification. For example, a short-
term fulfilment might take place at challenges in which players have to come up with their
own strategies, apply their knowledge and present their ideas real-life. However, this
satisfaction is typically short-term, as it stayed within the borders of the game. Although this
is effective in the short term, fulfilment of the needs in the long term turned out to be
important in achieving an entrepreneurial attitude in employees. Contexts that provide the
opportunity for one to satisfy the needs for autonomy, competence and meaning enhance
achievements and well-being (Ryan & Deci, 2000; Pink, 1995). Gamification can provide this
context and thus can get people self-determined and therefore showing an entrepreneurial
attitude. However, then it does have to fulfil the needs of autonomy, competence and meaning
in the long-term. When people feel a permanent satisfaction of needs, they are intrinsically
40
motivated and show the required behaviours naturally and spontaneously (Deci & Ryan,
2000). Autonomy in the long term can be achieved by gamification through showing how
players can influence their environment, for example by connecting different departments,
and providing the opportunity to come up with personal strategies also outside the gamified
environment (Becherer & Maurer, 1999). The feeling of competence in the long term can be
embraced through the constant positive feedback that gamification offers (Amabile, 1988),
although this is a factor that needs serious improvement in most of the current gamification
solutions. Companies that implement a gamification solution need to make sure the
environment adapts to it as well and grows into having a more entrepreneurial culture, as the
players grow at the same time into being more entrepreneurial. In the long term, quick and
positive feedback remains important. Following, the satisfaction of meaning might be the
determent factor of a long-term effect of gamification. The satisfaction of this need could be
directly fulfilled by the driver giving meaning and higher goal. The long-term fulfilment of
meaning might occur by not only showing the meaning of a certain task or challenge, but by
showing the actual meaning of, for example, an entrepreneurial attitude. It appears that
providing meaning might be the key success factor of the effects of gamification in the long
term. So far, gamification projects seem to lack a strong connection with real-world
outcomes. That means that if innovation management wants to use gamification in order to
foster an entrepreneurial attitude, epic meaning has to be inserted in the solution. Furthermore
it becomes apparent that in striving towards long-term satisfaction of all three needs, creating
awareness is a very important step. Gamification might be particularly useful in creating this
awareness. This underlines the effectiveness of gamification based on the self-determination
theory, as conscious valuing of a behavioural goal is an important step in going from
extrinsically to intrinsically motivated (Ryan & Deci, 2000).
Not all of the cases of this study had a particular long-term focus or were still quite new.
Regarding the short-term goals, the gamification cases were successful. Short-term pro-active
and innovative behaviours became apparent in the analyses. Taking initiative in engagement
and problem solving, socialization, the suggesting and using of new ideas were behaviours
that commonly occurred. However, there were also cases that showed results that included
behaviours that were typical for an entrepreneurial attitude or showed potential to reach these
outcomes in the future. Gamification created a more positive view of employees on an
entrepreneurial attitude. Behaviours like identifying opportunities in general, sharing
41
knowledge, networking, suggesting new ideas in a broader sense and creative thinking are
signalled more than before gamification was used. The analysis suggests that creating the
right environment for the companies as well as for the employees with gamification might
enable them to develop an entrepreneurial attitude.
However, as mentioned before, the potential of gamification is not fully reached yet because
several current gamification projects fail in the design (Raftopoulos, 2014). The results of this
research gave an insight that a striking reason for this seems to be the gap between game
designers and the objected company. The problem is as follows. Game designers have
knowledge of different tools and mechanics, and they know how to apply them in general.
The managers of companies know what behaviours they want to achieve and expect the
gamification solution to attain these behaviours once the game designer is given the
assignment. After the game designer is done, the solution is presented to the company and the
designer wishes the manager all the best with implementing it. However, gamification does
not have standard designs that result in very particular behaviours. The design of the right
gamification solution is an interactive and on-going process (Raftopoulos, 2014). So if
gamification wants to be able to foster an entrepreneurial attitude, a closer collaboration and
understanding between game designers and managers is recommended.
5.2 Theoretical contribution
This study supports prior research on gamification as well as opens a door for new theoretical
contributions. The results of this study underline that the positive effects of gamification
could be explained using the self-determination theory (Deterding, 2011; Ryan et al., 2006).
The outcomes might support the finding that an individual has to be intrinsically motivated in
order to achieve a change in attitude, although extrinsic motivators can support the process of
behavioural change (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Furthermore, this study emphasizes the importance
of a well-considered design of every single gamification project (Gartner, 2012; Raftopoulos,
2014; Raftopoulos, Walz & Greuter, 2015). The results provide an insight in how a certain
use of driver can result in particular behaviours. This research elaborates on previous research
by not only establishing that it might have a certain effect, but also by specifying certain
effects by making a distinction between short-term and long-term. The outcomes specify prior
statements regarding short-term and long-term differences in the design of gamification (Wu,
2014). Since the current academic research on gamification is limited, this research supports
the concept of gamification in general with an academic study. A step towards detailed
42
research regarding the right use and specific effects of gamification towards an
entrepreneurial attitude has been made. That might offer an opportunity for other research to
build upon, which will be further discussed at the future research section.
5.3 Managerial implications
A better understanding of the effect of gamification on an entrepreneurial attitude provides
companies and their innovation management with several insights. Therefore, this section
illustrates the implications of this research for practice. First, innovation management can use
gamification in order to stimulate an entrepreneurial attitude. In an early stage it can be a
supporting tool for enthusiasm and engagement, later on it might provide awareness and long-
term pro-active and innovative behaviours. However, in order to successfully reach an
entrepreneurial attitude within employees, the following remarks have to be considered.
An adequate design of a gamification solution with a fit at the objected company can result in
positive outcomes. An adequate design includes the use of tools based on a combination of
drivers. In striving for long-term outcomes, this combination means extrinsically based as
well as intrinsically based drivers. That means it is advised to companies that want to
emphasize a behavioural change to include tools based on the drivers explore and surprise,
social influence and relatedness, and/or giving meaning and higher goal. Additionally, the
gamification solution also needs to involve tools based on the drivers development and
accomplishment, ownership and personalisation and/or scarcity and impatience. In order to
strive for an entrepreneurial attitude, these last three drivers might help in creating
enthusiasm, awareness and engagement.
Another recommendation in order to achieve a suitable design is to focus on close interaction
between the firm, the players and the game designer. The design of the gamification solution
has to be continuously improved. That means close interaction between stakeholders is not
only needed while implementing a gamified solution, but it should already be embraced
before implementing and keep going afterwards. Although if done right gamification can
effectively foster an entrepreneurial attitude, managers do have to consider choosing for using
gamification involves dedication of several stakeholders.
Additionally, in order to achieve long-term commitment, actual meaning has to be applied.
The connection with the real day-to-day business is important and valuable for the employees
43
as well as the company. By creating meaning, employees might feel the urgency and be aware
of the advantages of having an entrepreneurial attitude. In return, if the efforts of employees,
stimulated through gamification, result in positive outcomes for the company then it
consequently provides a win-win situation. Creating meaning also means that proposed
objectives of a project should be embraced company-wide. If the goal is fostering an
entrepreneurial attitude within employees, the company and its environment have to develop
during the process towards being more entrepreneurial as well. If the context of a firm fails to
align with the developments of its employees, the company risks losing those employees who
have or have developed an entrepreneurial attitude. Therefore, the long-term goals of the
gamification project for the firm should be clearly stated at the first stage of the project.
5.4 Limitations
Despite the contributions, this research was not without limitations. In order to value the
contributions of this study, these limitations are addressed. The first limitation was the time
constraint in combination with the newness of the concept of gamification. Several cases took
place recently and therefore the distinction between short-term and long-term behaviour was
not clearly visible yet. In addition, a few respondents pointed out that there was not always a
long-term focus and detailed measurements of behaviours after the gamification project were
missing. Secondly, the cases of this study were examined by using company records, like the
presentations of the results and project designs, together with talking to game designers and
managers. However, due to the scope of this research, the behaviours of players of employees
were only evaluated based on the observations of the respondents and thus might be one-
sided. Also, regarding the generalizability of this research, a number of eight respondents is
quite low. Following, as this study focussed on the overall effect of internal gamification it
intentionally left out other theories like the theories about player types. Although it provided
the research with a good theoretical focus, these theories should be considered as well when
looking into the long-term effect of gamification. Finally, due to the minimal amount of
scientific publications regarding the topic of gamification, other sources were consulted as
well to build theory. All these limitations, together with the findings of study, suggest
interesting future directions. The future directions for research will be discussed in the next
section.
44
5.5 Future research
To establish the theoretical contributions and managerial implications, research that builds
upon this study can be valuable. In order to support the findings of this study, quantitative
measures on the relations between the variables would be interesting. While doing a
quantitative study regarding the effect of gamification on an entrepreneurial attitude,
moderators should be considered. For example, based on the finding of this research the
player type could be a moderator. In addition a longitudinal case study would be an
interesting future direction, as it provides the opportunity to measure the change in behaviour
over time. However, a solid basis in measuring the effects of gamification also needs a
stronger scientific background in order to design a valid longitudinal study. That means
another future direction for research is a strong measurement tool for gamification and its
outcomes. Therefore, it might be interesting to include research into traditional reward
systems as well, like at elementary school, into a research in developing a measurement tool
for gamification. In general, as this research underlined the importance of a solid gamification
design, a stronger academic support regarding gamification and its outcomes is necessary and
thus an important future direction for research. Following, the findings of this study showed
the importance of epic meaning of a gamification project. The results imply a positive effect
on the outcomes of gamification when positive results of the gamification project are related
to real-world outcomes. Future research should focus on how to make the most of this fact.
But even more important, more research is needed regarding the connection between real-
world consequences coming from gamification, especially regarding negative outcomes. A
first step has been made in positively rewarding individuals who perform well, but could a
gamification solution even be more effective when there were serious consequences for the
underperformers as well?
45
6. Conclusion
In order to keep up with start-ups that are gaining ground, the innovation management of
established companies want to foster an entrepreneurial attitude within their firms. Another
trend is the upcoming popularity of gamification, but through the newness of this concept
long-term effects have not been clearly established. Therefore, the aim of this study was to
answer the following research question: How can innovation management use gamification in
order to foster an entrepreneurial attitude?
This exploratory research started off with a literature study to develop a conceptual model. In
this model internal gamification included seven gamification drivers. The four extrinsically
based drivers were development and accomplishment, ownership and personalisation, scarcity
and impatience, and avoiding loss (Wu, 2014; Chou, 2013; Molenaar, 2014a). These four
drivers were expected to have mainly short-term effects. The three intrinsically based drivers
were explore and surprise, social influence and relatedness, and giving meaning and higher
goal (Wu, 2014; Chou, 2013; Molenaar, 2014a). These three drivers were expected to have
mainly long-term effects. Furthermore, previous research showed that the effectiveness of
gamification could be explained by the self-determination theory (Deterding, 2011; Ryan et
al., 2006). This entails individuals can be motivated by striving towards satisfaction of the
needs for autonomy, competence and meaning (Ryan & Deci, 2000; Pink, 1995). The
conceptual model implied that extrinsically based drivers could result in the satisfaction of
needs in the short term and intrinsically based drivers could result in the satisfaction of needs
in the long term. Furthermore, in the model it was expected that internal gamification could
foster an entrepreneurial attitude. This entrepreneurial attitude included short-term pro-active
and innovative as well as long-term pro-active and innovative behaviours. Short-term
behaviours were taking initiative in engagement and problem solving, socialization, feedback
seeking, suggesting new ideas, creative problem solving and implementation of new ideas
(Crant, 2000; Scott & Bruce, 1994). Long-term behaviours were identifying opportunities to
improve things in general, challenging the status quo, sharing knowledge, networking,
suggesting new ideas in a broader sense, creative thinking, opportunity recognition and
willingness to change (Crant, 2000; Amabile, 1988; Hurt et al., 1977; Kleysen & Street,
2001).
46
The findings of this study provided insight in the use of gamification drivers. The six drivers
accomplishment and development, ownership and personalisation, scarcity and impatience,
explore and surprise, social influence and relatedness, and giving meaning and higher goal
might be of use in fostering an entrepreneurial attitude. The driver avoiding loss might not be
helpful in striving for this particular attitude. The six above-mentioned drivers might be useful
as this study implies that when the design of gamification includes intrinsically motivating
drivers in combination with extrinsically motivating drivers and enables the long-term
satisfaction of autonomy, competence and especially meaning, gamification is able to foster
an entrepreneurial attitude. Important success factors of gamification for the long term are the
creation of awareness and the application of actual meaning. Also, an adequate and project-
specific gamification design might be significant for the determined outcomes. The right
design involves the combination of extrinsic and intrinsic drivers, and close interaction during
all the stages of the process of designing and implementing. To answer the research question
in sum, innovation management can use gamification to foster an entrepreneurial attitude by
developing gamification solutions with close interaction with all the stakeholders and through
having company-wide support in striving for an entrepreneurial attitude.
47
References
Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in organizational behavior, 10(1), 123-167. Antonic, B., & Hisrich, R. D. (2001). Intrapreneurship: Construct refinement and cross- cultural validation. Journal of business venturing, 16(5), 495-527. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, United States: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational psychologist, 28(2), 117-148. Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior: A measure and correlates. Journal of organizational behavior, 14(2), 103-118. Becherer, R. C., & Maurer, J. G. (1999). The proactive personality disposition and entrepreneurial behavior among small company presidents. Journal of Small Business Management, 37(1), 28-36. Boyd, N. G., & Vozikis, G. S. (1994). The influence of self-efficacy on the development of entrepreneurial intentions and actions. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 18(4), 63-77. Caillois, R. (1961). Man, play, and games. Illinois, United States: The Free Press of Glencoe, Inc. Clough, R. (2014, 7 August). General Electric wants to act like a startup. Retrieved from: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-08-07/ge-taps-lean-startup-ideas-for faster-cheaper-product-rollout Consalvo, M. (2009). There is no magic circle. Games and Culture, 4(4), 408-417. Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1986). The development and testing of an organizational-level entrepreneurship scale. Frontiers of entrepreneurship research, 1(1986), 626-639. Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of management, 26(3), 435- 462. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. New York, United States: Harper and Row. De Jong, J. P., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2007). How leaders influence employees' innovative behaviour. European Journal of innovation management, 10(1), 41-64.
48
De Jong, J., & Wennekers, S. (2008). Conceptualizing entrepreneurial employee behaviour. EIM-SCALES (Scientific Analysis of Entrepreneurship and SMEs). 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. Deterding, S. (2011). Situated motivational affordances of game elements: A conceptual model. In Gamification: Using Game Design Elements in Non-Gaming Contexts, a workshop at CHI. 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. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of management journal, 50(1), 25-32.
Fay, D., & Frese, M. (2001). The concept of personal initiative: An overview of validity studies. Human Performance, 14(1), 97-124.
Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational behavior, 26(4), 331-362.
Gartner (2011, 12 april). Gartner Says By 2015, More Than 50 Percent of Organizations That Manage Innovation Processes Will Gamify Those Processes. Retrieved from: http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1629214
Gartner (2012, 27 November). Gartner says by 2014, 80 percent of current gamified applications will fail to meet business objectives primarily due to poor design. Retrieved from: http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2251015 Gephart, R. P. (2004). Qualitative research and the Academy of Management Journal. Academy of Management Journal, 47(4), 454-462. Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in organizational behavior, 28, 3-34. Huizinga, J. (1949). Homo Ludens. Abingdon, United Kingdom: Routledge. Hunicke, R., LeBlanc, M., & Zubek, R. (2004). MDA: A formal approach to game design and game research. In Proceedings of the AAAI Workshop on Challenges in Game AI (Vol.4). Hurt, H. T., Joseph, K., & Cook, C. D. (1977). Scales for the measurement of innovativeness. Human Communication Research, 4(1), 58-65.
49
Jung, C. G. (1971). Psychological types: The collected works. Princeton, United States: Princeton University Press. Kim, A. J (2011, 26 January). Gamification 101: Design the player journey. Retrieved from: http://www.slideshare.net/amyjokim/gamification-101-design-the-player-journey Kleysen, R. F., & Street, C. T. (2001). Toward a multi-dimensional measure of individual innovative behavior. Journal of intellectual Capital, 2(3), 284-296. Knight, G. A. (1997). Cross-cultural reliability and validity of a scale to measure firm entrepreneurial orientation. Journal of business venturing, 12(3), 213-225. Krause, D. E. (2004). Influence-based leadership as a determinant of the inclination to innovate and of innovation-related behaviors: An empirical investigation. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(1), 79-102. Kumar, J., & Herger, M. (2013). Gamification at work. Georgia, United States: The interaction design foundation. Molenaar, M. (2014a). Gamification mechanics. [Company record of Rabobank Nederland]. Molenaar, M. (2014b, 30 October). How a bank becomes playful. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8n9iQ02O3M&feature=youtu.be Nicholson, S. (2012). A user-centered theoretical framework for meaningful gamification. Games+ Learning+ Society, 8(1), 223-230.
Raftopoulos, M. (2014). towards gamification transparency: a conceptual framework for the development of responsible gamified enterprise systems. Journal of Gaming & Virtual Worlds, 6(2), 159-178.
Raftopoulos, M., Walz, S., & Greuter, S. (2015). How enterprises play: Towards a taxonomy for enterprise gamification.
Reeves, B., & Read, J.L. (2009). Total Engagement: Using Games and Virtual Worlds to Change the Way People Work and Businesses Compete. Boston, United States: Harvard Business School Press.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American psychologist, 55(1), 68-78. Ryan, R. M., Rigby, C. S., & Przybylski, A. (2006). The motivational pull of video games: A self-determination theory approach. Motivation and emotion, 30(4), 344-360. Santayana, G. (1955). The sense of beauty: Being the outline of aesthetic theory. New York, United States: Dover Publications, Inc.
50
Saunders, M., & Lewis, P. (2012). Doing research in business & management: An essential guide to planning your project. Essex, United Kingdom: Pearson Education. Schell, J. (2008). The art of game design: a book of lenses. Burlington, United States: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers. Schwarzer, R., & Taubert, S. (2002). Tenacious goal pursuits and striving toward personal growth: Proactive coping. In Beyond coping: Meeting goals, visions and challenges (pp. 19-35). Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3): 580- 607. Simons, H. (2009). Case study research in practice. Thousand Oaks, United States: SAGE publications. Thompson, J. L. (2004). The facets of the entrepreneur: identifying entrepreneurial potential. Management Decision, 42(2), 243-258. Unsworth, K.L., & Parker, S.K. (2003). Proactivity and innovation: Promoting a new workforce for the new workplace. In D. Holman, T.D. Wall, C.W. Clegg, P Sparrow, & A. Howard (Eds.), The new workplace: a guide to the human impact of modern working practices (pp. 175-196).
Van de Ven, A. H. (1986). Central problems in the management of innovation. Management science, 32(5), 590-607. Werbach, K., & Hunter, D. (2012). For the win: How game thinking can revolutionize your business. Pennsylvania, United States: Wharton Digital Press. Wong, P. T. (1998). Implicit theories of meaningful life and the development of the personal meaning profile. Hillsdale, United States: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory of organizational management. Academy of management Review, 14(3), 361-384. Wu, M. (2014, 9 September). The gamification spectrum – A unified organization of gamification tools. Retrieved from: https://community.lithium.com/t5/Science-of- Social-blog/The-Gamification-Spectrum-A-Unified-Organization-of-Gamification/ba- p/169571
Yin, R. (2009) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, United States: SAGE Publications.
51
Yuan, F., & Woodman, R. W. (2010). Innovative behavior in the workplace: The role of performance and image outcome expectations. Academy of Management Journal, 53(2), 323-342 Chou, Y.K. (2013). Octalysis: Complete gamification framework. Retrieved from: http://www.yukaichou.com/gamification-examples/octalysis-complete-gamification- framework/#.VSONz1zvV6B
52
Appendix I
Thesis interview protocol Introduction Momenteel ben ik bezig met mijn master Entrepreneurship and Innovation aan de UvA en daarnaast schrijf ik mijn afstudeer onderzoek bij Rabobank Nederland. Mijn onderzoek richt zich op hoe gamification een ondernemende houding van werknemers zou kunnen stimuleren. Het interview zal beginnen met wat korte vragen over een ondernemende houding en daarna zou ik het graag met u over [specifieke case] willen hebben. Gaat u er mee akkoord dat ik het interview opneem? Currently I am a master student Entrepreneurship and Innovation at the UvA and graduate intern at the Rabobank Nederland. My research focuses on how gamification can stimulate an entrepreneurial attitude of employees within a company. The interview will start with some questions regarding an entrepreneurial attitude and after that I would like to talk with you about [specific case]. Do you agree with this interview being recorded? Starting question 1. Zou u mij iets meer kunnen vertellen over uw rol en verantwoordelijkheden binnen dit bedrijf? 1. Could you tell me something about your role and responsibilities within this company? Entrepreneurial attitude questions 2. Hoe belangrijk denkt u dat ondernemend gedrag van een werknemer binnen een groot bedrijf is? En waarom? 2. What do you think of the importance of entrepreneurial behaviour of employees within a big company? 3. In mijn onderzoek vallen pro-actieve en innovative gedragingen onder een ondernemende houding. Welke vormen van pro-activiteit en innovativiteit ziet u momenteel in de mensen waarmee u werkt? 3. In this study pro-activene and innovative behaviours are considered as an important part of an entrepreneurial attitude. What kind of pro-activeness and innovativeness do you recognize in the people you work with? 4. Bent u zelf pro-actief en innovatief? Waarom denkt u dat? 4. Are you pro-active and innovative? Why? 5. Neemt u een verschil waar in mensen die heel taak specifiek ondernemend gedrag kunnen tonen en mensen die altijd een ondernemende houding laten zien? 5. Do you recognize a difference in people who show task-specific entrepreneurial behaviour and people who always show an entrepreneurial attitude?
53
Case questions 6. Kunt u voor mij [betreffende case] beschrijven? 6. Can you describe [specific case] for me? [Als het niet specifiek in de beschrijving naar voren komt: welke gamification tools werden er zoal ingezet bij dit project?] [If it is not describe specifically: which gamification tools were used in this project?] 7. Wat voor een invloed had de toepassing van [specifieke case] op de ondernemende houding van werknemers? (Aanvullend: Hoe merkte u dat?) 7. What kind of influence did the implementation of [specific case] have on the entrepreneurial attitude of employees? (Additionally: how did you notice this?) 8. Wat waren de sterke punten van [specifieke case]? 8. What were successful factors of [specific case]? 9. Wat ging er minder goed? 9. What went less successful? 10. Welke rol speelde de context van het bedrijf in dit project? 10. In what way did the context of the company play a role in this project? 11. Als u de gamification omgeving en de bredere context naast elkaar zou plaatsen, wat was dan het belangrijkste in het behalen van de gezette doelen van het project? Waarom denkt u dit? 11. If you have the gamification environment and the broader context, which one was the most important in accomplishing the goals of the project? Why do you think this? Gamification questions – Application of cards 12. Als u denkt aan het ontwerp van [gamification/specifieke case], wat waren hierin drijfveren voor gebruikers? 12. When you think the design of [gamification/specific case], what were drivers for users? Kaarten laten zien Show cards 13. Als u kijkt naar deze drijfveren, welke zijn voor u het meest herkenbaar wanneer u denkt aan [specifieke case]? 13. When you look at these drivers, which ones were most applicable during [specific case]?
54
14. Welk effect nam u op korte termijn waar na het toepassen van [gamifcation/specifieke case]? 14. Which short-term effects did you observe after implementing [gamification/specific case]? 15. Zijn er ook effecten van [gamification/specifieke case] die op lange termijn zichtbaar werden? 15. Were there also effects coming from [gamification/specific case] which were more long-term? 16. Zou u deze lange termijn effecten kunnen koppelen aan bepaalde drijfveren of elementen? 16. Could you connect those long-term effects to certain drivers of elements? 17. Als laatste nog even specifiek; op wat voor manier heeft [gamification/specifieke case] bijgedragen aan de pro-activiteit en innovativiteit van uw medewerkers? 17. Lastly, to be specific; in what way did [gamification/specific case] contribute to the pro-activeness and innovativeness of your employees? 18. Heeft u verder zelf nog iets toe te voegen aan dit interview? 18. Would you like to add anything to this interview? Closing In het geval ik met iemand spreek die verantwoordelijk was voor de implementatie van gamification: is het mogelijk dat ik nog iemand uit het bedrijf mag interviewen (vanuit een ander perspectief)? Heel erg bedankt voor uw medewerking. Uiteraard krijgt u te zijner tijd bericht over de resultaten. In case the interview took place with the person responsible for implementing gamification: is it possible to interview another person from you company (from a different point of view)? Thank you very much for cooperating. And of course I will send you the results later on.