The big bad Piggybank Wolf : gamification as an intervention in a banking customer service Center

(1)

The Big Bad Piggybank Wolf

Gamification as an intervention in a Banking

Customer Service Center

Meilon van Abs Version 1.9 Date: 08-12-2015

Supervisor: Prof. Dr. J. Strikwerda

(2)

Table of Content

Chapter one: Theory

3

§1.1 Introduction 3

§1.2 The mind and our tools 4

§1.3 Hacker ethic 5

§1.4 Generation Y 7

§1.5 Gamification 9

§1.6 Defining Gamification 9

§1.7 Gamification v.s. Playing and (Serious) Games 11

§1.8 Sources of power 14

§1.9 Dangers of gamification 19

§1.10 Scientific Relevance 20

Chapter two: The Intervention

21

§2.1 Setting 21

§2.2 Process 22

§2.3 Solution 30

Chapter three: Study

37

§3.1 Research Questions: 37

§3.2 Hypotheses 37

§3.3 Sampling frame 39

§3.4 Analytical Strategy: 40

§3.5 Results 43

Chapter four: Conclusion and Discussion

47 Bibliography

51 Appendix I: Pre Test Survey Email

55 Appendix II: Post Test Survey Email

56 Appendix III: Introduction to the Survey

57 Appendix IV: Job Satisfaction Scale

58 Appendix V: Organisational Identity Scale

60 Appendix VI: Turnover Intentions Scale

62

(3)

Chapter one: Theory

§1.1 Introduction

In this thesis we’ll conduct a empirical quantitive field study to determine the effectiveness of gamification as an intervention in a customer service center in the banking industry. Customer service centers suffer from problems like motivating and retaining their employees. In high skill service centers like in the banking industry this is an especially pressing matter because lack of motivation and high turnover drives costs up and makes it hard to keep the service at a desirable level. (Coxon, 2010). Add to this the changes in the workforce (Carr, 2010, Himanen 2001, Eisener, 2005) and it becomes clear that managers could use new insights in how to manage their service centers. A fairly recent “best

practice” called Gamification seems a perfect fit with service center management. Gamification can be used to steer behaviour and to increase motivation. Gamification works best when there is measured, repeated (boring) behaviour that's done by a large group of people (because of small percentile performance increases). (Flatla, D.R. et.all 2011) In customer service centers most tasks are repetitive and done by a large amount of people. Also much of the behaviour in customer service centers is measured. Coupled with the lack of motivation this means customer service centers are a very good fit to the

conditions for successful gamification. Since motivation is not an easy operational concept we will use Job satisfaction, Organisational Identity and Turnover intentions as indicators of motivation. Job satisfaction is the satisfaction with the day to day tasks. Together with organisational identity as a measure of connection between the self-perception of the

(4)

agent and the company as identifier it predicts the self reported likelyhood of leaving the company (turnover intentions). (Randsley De Moura, et al. (2009))

The research question then is “What is the effect of an gamification intervention on Job satisfaction, Organisational Identity and Turnover Intentions in a Banking customer service center?”

Before turning towards the nuts and bolts of the study however we need to sketch the societal context (§1.2 - §1.4), theory (§1.5 - §1.9) and relevance (§1.10) of gamification. After that Chapter 2 will explain the intervention setting (§2.1), the process (§2.2) and finally the implemented solution (§2.3).

In chapter three the empirical study will be detailed.

Finally in chapter four the conclusion of the research will be stated and discussed. Some final pointers for further research and exploration will be given.

§1.2 The mind and our tools

The world is changing, it’s always been changing of course, but in this time which we call the informational era change is going faster and the change is broader then ever before. Our informational preferences have been shaped through the new mediums we have started using (internet). It creates in us a neurological hunger for fast paced feasting on a large amount of relatively shallow information. Through neuroplasticity ánd cultural change Me and my Piggybank Two is a crowd Piggybank Shepherd Piggybank Doctor The Big Bad Piggywolf

(5)

we are being reprogrammed to the form of our new tools. Our brain expects

communication to be fast paced, intuitive and to deliver instant feedback (Carr 2010) Wether or not this is a good thing is debatable but Carr does spur us to critically evaluate 1

the effect of our tools on our minds. Beyond that question however, looms the more practical question of what this means for society (Carr 2010) and, since this is a business administration thesis, management in particular?

Two separate but conjuncted developments will lead us to our research topic. Motivation theory used to be based on a combination of protestantism, behaviourism and Maslow. The first is the observation of the emergence of a new paradigm that challenges this motivational theory and the underlying old Protestant work ethic. The second is the arrival of generation Y into the workforce.

§1.3 Hacker ethic

If the tools of our trade influence our minds as Carr reminds us of, it’s interesting to see what fuelled the inventors of those tools to create them. In The Hacker Ethic, Himanen creates a compelling story about how the approach to live and work of so called “hackers” challenges the protestant work ethic. Motivated by passion rather than duty, by happiness rather than money and by free knowledge rather than ownership these “hackers” live an alternative to the ratrace or “daily grind” of modern live. (Himanen 2001)

(6)

The main difference between the old protestant ethic and the new hacker ethic is that where the protestant ethic sees work as an end in its own the hacker ethic presumes that the only worthwhile work is something that also inspires passion in the hacker. That is, it’s something the hacker is intrinsically interested in. Where under the old ethic people work because it’s their duty, or to make money (breadwinning) hacker ethic focusses less on the survival aspect of work and more on the social and self actualisation aspects of work. (Himanen 2001)

Similarly the hacker ethic has a different approach towards the allocation of time. Focussed on self determination of time and a more holistic integration of work and non-work the hackers non-work when they find it necessary rather than adhere to nine to five working hours. (Himanen 2001)

Finally hackers promote the idea of “free” information. Rather than monopolising their expertise and knowledge they share it in the expectation that community will increase it tenfold and give back to the hacker in social worth. This is rather opposed to the normal notion of information ownership that’s so prevalent in modern business thinking. (Himanen 2001). Instead of knowledge being lodged in the hierarchical structure of the organisation the information flows freely through the organisation.

Himanen summarises the hacker ethic as having the following values: Passion, freedom social worth, openness, activity and caring. We will see these values again in later chapters. (Himanen 2001)

(7)

Although this “hacker ethic” as Himanen calls it, can be applied to non-programmer

people, it is interesting to see that it were these hacker types who invented the world wide web and many other of the tools that are now shaping our minds. (Himanen 2001). With the focus shifting from duty, money and structure, to passion, freedom and meaning it’s not hard to see why games, and gamification seem a good direction to turn towards. If our minds are changed by our tools, and our tools are created by followers of a different paradigm, what does this mean for our management paradigms? But wait, the plot thickens;

§1.4 Generation Y

“The newest entrants to the workplace, the Gen Y group, are largely uncharted territory for many managers. Gen Y workers tend to have unbridled energy, endless enthusiasm, and the skills and experience of those much older. They too, then, should be managed with a coaching style“ (Sujansky, 2002) With this statement Sulansky points towards the conflux

of the two developments mentioned before. A new generation has entered the workforce; a generation that has not just been shaped by the new media but who has practically grown up using it. This generation is more than even the hackers from the generation before them, shaped by the tools they use. As new employees they pose a challenge to managers creativity and ingenuity. (Eisener, 2005)

Generation Y has specific preferences for management style and work processes. They favour being included in decisions by management and desire speed and immediate Me and my Piggybank Two is a crowd Piggybank Shepherd Piggybank Doctor The Big Bad Piggywolf

(8)

feedback about how well they perform. (Francis-Smith, 2004) They also acutely feel work-private conflicts, where they will not easily give up quality time without compensation. This often leads to management using short term transactions to motivate generation Y beyond the norm. (Tulgan, 2004).

When we look at the description of the motivations of Generation y it becomes clear that Himanens hacker ethic and the shallow consumption pattern of Carr are present in the generational mindset of generation Y.

Added to this are the insights from “The kids are alright” by Beck and Wade (2006). They describe the new generation of employees as ROI driven, motivated by acquisition of expertise, loyalty and creative problem solving. Also they like to multitask and intuitively appraise ROI of any task they perform (because games force their audience to appraise the risk v.s. reward of every task and action in the game). These characteristics come from their experience in playing videogames and the way these games challenged them.

However to harness that potential a specific way of approaching them is needed.

Specifically first of all an appeal needs to be made on their instinct for heroism, or greater meaning. Second of all they cannot be pushed within existing frameworks of society. Thirdly they are focussed on rewards for tasks and will work calculating so the reward structure should mirror that. Fourthly they should be allowed to engage in their multi tasking behaviour as it will most likely enhance their performance rather then hinder it. Fifthly they might need help dealing with colleagues from different generations, just as

(9)

those employees will need help dealing with the new employees. Finally they need to be allowed to learn through their native trail and error way. (Beck, Wade, 2006).

If society as a whole, and one generation in particular have been changed by the tools they use, wouldn’t it make sense to adapt management styles to those changes? And if such adaptations were to be made, wouldn’t we want to know which of them were most effective? Since the drivers for motivation have changed from protestant work ethic to playful hacker work ethic we need new tools to steer employees. Which lead us to one of the ways management has been trying to adapt; Gamification.

§1.5 Gamification

Before we can proceed towards empirical study of the impact of gamification we have to figure out what, exactly, we mean by the rather vague term. Gamification as new

phenomena and buzzword has been used to describe a wide variety of concepts and practices. Furthermore, due to containing the word “game” it sometimes leads people to thinking it’s about making games or playing games. With this in mind it’s not hard to see that a definition is essential to demarcate what we’re going to study from what we’re not. In this chapter we will define gamification, separate it from (serious) games and “playing” and outline the most important sources that serve as its scientific backdrop.

§1.6 Defining Gamification

(10)

The rise of modern technology has given mankind the opportunity to use digital

motivational systems to promote motivation and thus enhance performance. One sub kind of such a system is the field of Gamification. Gamification as term was first coined in 2003 but in a different context. Since 2010 it’s widely used to refer to a set of approaches or best practices within business administration. (Werbach, 2012)

Those best practises vary widely but the overarching theme of Gamification is the use of game-elements, design and thinking in non-game settings. ‘Gamification’ is a general name for making non-game tasks more fun, rewarding and motivating by introducing game elements (Werbach, 2012). By making a task more “fun” the task will become rewarding in and off itself which makes it more likely to be completed successfully (Coursera, 2013).

“the use of game elements and game design techniques in non-game contexts” (Werbach,

2013)

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

audiences” ( Zichermann 2011, preface)

“the use of game mechanics and experience design to digitally engage and motivate people to achieve their goals” (gardner.com)

In this thesis we will use a combination of Zichermann and Werbach’s definition to come to the following:

(11)

Gamification is the use of game elements, game design techniques and game-thinking to solve managerial problems.

Gamification is trending, since according to Gardner (2011) 50 per cent of all organisations that manage innovation will use gamification within their innovation processes in 2015. Gamification is a hybrid of many perspectives within different fields of science. It draws upon behavioural psychology for learning mechanisms, upon need theory to explain the strong engagement felt by gamers and upon design theory and game thinking to explain how to signal information to the users.

§1.7 Gamification v.s. Playing and (Serious) Games

By the pure nature of it’s name gamification conjures images of pubescent boys playing games deep into the night. While understandable this stereotype ignores two important facts. First, although gamification takes lessons from games it is, itself, not about playing games. The other is that the audience of “games” in the modern world encompass far more than just the avid gamers we envision. With 48% of the gamers being female and the average age of gamers being 35 in 2014 (ESA 2014) the demographic that plays games is now “mainstream”. Truly the internet has in a fairly short period changed most of us in gamers.

Gamification is not about playing games though, nor is it only applicable to people who play games (gamers). Gamification, as said before is taking lessons learned from the Me and my Piggybank Two is a crowd Piggybank Shepherd Piggybank Doctor The Big Bad Piggywolf

(12)

succes of games and applying them to non game contexts. So gamification differs from a “game” in the sense that the game elements are not the main concern, but rather a addition to an existing context. (Werbach 2011) Where a game is a full immersive whole gamification is like a frame around the picture that actually matters. (Detering, S. et al. 2011)

Gamification is also not “playing”, that is, there is a predefined goal to be reached, and while creativity is encouraged, gamification does not to aspire to create the free floating fun that playing creates. (Detering, S. et al. 2011)

Below you see a figure (figure 1) detailing this. In the upper left quadrant we find

(serious)Games, as full fledged concepts that are wholly devoted to gaming. In the lower left we find toys, like building blocks or lego’s totally devoted to playing (that is free unguided creative fun). The bottom right has playful design. Here play is encouraged in objects that are not just for fun. Some furniture or art objects are created this way. In the top right we find gameful design (Gamification). In this case game elements are added to another concept. Like the chair is made playful in playful design quadrant here some context is made gameful. (Detering, S. et al. 2011)

(13)

(Figure 1: Engageit.co Image based on: Detering et all. ‘Gamification’ between game and play, whole and parts)

(14)

§1.8 Sources of power

Gamification derives it’s supposed power from prior discovered psychological phenomena. It’s not new in the sense that all of its recommendations have been studied and used before. The theoretical underpinnings of gamification come from two fields within

behavioural psychology. Behaviourism and conditioning as one of the main inspirations and Self determination theory and need theory as the other. (Werbach 2012)

Behaviourism and Conditioning: Learning

Behaviourism is a sub theory of behavioural psychology that posits that behaviour can be predicted and influenced without knowing what is going on inside the black box. The theory brings us conditioning which helps us understand how humans learn. (Skinner, 1938) Conditioning was first coined by Pavlov who used the learned response of dogs to salivate at the sound of a bell to explain how learning takes place. His classical

conditioning posits that if you pair two stimuli together, noticing one will automatically lead to the expectation of the second. In his experiment the dogs got food when they heard the bell, later they’d salivate when they heard the bell even though there was no food. (Pavlov 1927)

The theory of classical conditioning grew out into operant conditioning when Skinner posited that behaviour gets either encouraged when a positive consequence follows it and gets discouraged when a negative consequence follows it. (Skinner, 1953) This idea of positive and negative reinforcement is the basis for the idea of instant feedback in Me and my Piggybank Two is a crowd Piggybank Shepherd Piggybank Doctor The Big Bad Piggywolf

(15)

gamification. By providing a direct consequence (feedback) on a desired action behaviour can be influenced. This we call the engagement loop (figure 2).

(Figure 2: Engageit.co company picture based on Skinners’ operant conditioning)

The engagement loop gives direct feedback on actions and so rewards employees for that action directly. Rather than getting feedback once a month, or even a year, employees directly know wether their action was “well done”. This feedback can be in the form of information or rewards but should give a clear and direct signal about the behaviour. The power of this becomes apparent when remembering Carr’s observations about how our brain craves direct and intuitive feedback, and the observations that Generation Y prefers instant feedback.

Self Determination and need theory: Motivation

Behaviourism tells us that we’re likely to do things that have good consequences and explains why we are likely to keep doing them. It does, however, purposely not tell us why _{Me and my Piggybank} _{Two is a crowd} _{Piggybank Shepherd} _{Piggybank Doctor} _{The Big Bad Piggywolf}

Engagement Loop

Motivation

Action

Feedback

(16)

we try those actions in the first place. As Skinner and his predecessors focussed on observable behaviour they consciously did not try to explain the needs or wants of the individual, merely its behaviour (Skinner, 1953).

The behaviourist approach thus leaves room for a complimentary discipline; need theory. Pioneered by Maslow, it states that humans have needs and that these needs influence their behaviour. These needs are hierarchical organised, and a higher need can only be satisfied if all the lower needs already are. This led to the Maslows Pyramid of needs that depicts the order of needs (Maslow, 1943)(figure 3):

(Figure 3: picture based on Maslow Theory of Human Motivation 1943)

The first and lowest order is the physical sustenance level of pure physiological needs. The organism “human” needs to sustain them in order to survive. The second is the level of safety and security which is the longer term version of the lower level survival need. The third layer is the social need, to belong, be loved and be connected to others. The fourth is

(17)

the level of psychological freedom and expression and growth. Finally he posited that there was a final layer that incorporated purpose, creativity and morality. (Maslow, 1943)

Gamification presupposes that the lower levels of physiological needs and safety and security are satisfied. It then helps with the next two levels of needs by providing social comparison and connection methods and the encouragement of growth and mastery

A more recent theory critiques and builds upon the upper three layers of Maslow's pyramid and explains in more detail what motivates people. This Self Determination Theory posits that people have three intrinsic motivations in the field of personal development and psychological health. These are “Competence”, “Autonomy” and “Relatedness”.

Competence is the feeling of accomplishment and or achievement. Autonomy is the feeling of freedom and being in control. Finally Relatedness is the connection to something

meaningful outside of the individual person. (Ryan et al. 2000) Relatedness, or “Meaning” as it’s usually called in gamification is a very strong motivator. In a study under child and adolescent mental health care workers researchers tried to increase the amount of times the health care workers would visit clients. To do so they had the patients write thank you notes to the health care workers. Were before on average only 43% of the clients were visited per week this climbed to a staggering 78%. This clearly shows the importance of meaning or relatedness in tasks! (Clark, H.B., 1988)

These three core motivations are eerily similar to Himanen’s hacker values of Passion, freedom and caring. It seems like the hacker ethic is close to fundamental human needs.

(18)

For gamification Self Determination theory informs in the creation of a meaningful motivational shell that gives the employee choice, the opportunity to grow and make choices. Besides informing things like leaderboard, social walls, “like” systems etc, it informs the second most important motivational “loop”. This is the Progression loop (figure 4). (Werbach & Hunter 2012, Ryan et al. 2006)

(Figure 4: Engageit.co company picture based on Werbach & Hunter 2012)

The progression loop leads the employee through stages of development and provides challenges that are always challenging. By dividing larger steps of growth into smaller steps it makes growth feasible and not too intimidating. The progression loop tells the story of how you grow from beginner to master and gives the tension between time on one axis and challenge level on the other. By providing feedback on the progress towards the larger steps the employee knows exactly where he stands and how fast he is growing. (Werbach & Hunter 2012)

Me and my Piggybank Two is a crowd Piggybank Shepherd Piggybank Doctor The Big Bad Piggywolf

Engagement Loop

Motivation

Action

Feedback

(19)

Together the two loops (engagement and progression) inform the other many elements and tools of gamification. Points and badges as feedback mechanisms, leaderboards and social walls to make things social levels and ranks to communicate progress towards mastery. Understanding the loops means understanding the basis of gamification (Werbach & Hunter 2012).

§1.9 Dangers of gamification

Not everyone is completely positive about gamification. There’s moral concern about the potential manipulative nature of it pointing towards the example of gambling and slot machines as motivation theory going wrong. This view is best expressed by Bogost who describes gamification as “exploitationware”, software to exploit employees. This view basically assumes gamification will be so successful that it will “addict” employees to their work. (Bogust 2011)

Another but similar argument is made by Galloway (2006) where gamification is a form of algorithmic control, an alternative to the conventional levers of control. This will be detailed more in the critique of this research in the discussion section.

The other criticism comes from the opposite direction and comes from the very theory that underpins gamification and warns that gamification if wrongly applied can take away intrinsic motivation and or can fail spectacular if it doesn’t take into account the peculiarities of the culture where it’s applied. Ryan & Deci (2006)

(20)

Both concerns could be legitimate but are kind of dependant on the question of the effectiveness of gamification.

§1.10 Scientific Relevance

Now we know what gamification is, how it fits in the modern day context and why it is supposed to be powerful we would like to know how effective it is. Sadly however, so far no real empirical studies have been done into the effectiveness of Gamification as an 2

intervention. We will attempt to make a start by doing a quasi experimental field study with pre-post test. But first we’ll describe the practise of gamification through a case study.

Apart from a master thesis by v.d. Berg at the University of Amsterdam which tested the effectiveness in

2

(21)

Chapter two: The Intervention

§2.1 Setting

The setting of our gamified adventure will be Knab bank. Knab is a bank in the

Netherlands that’s been operating since september 2012. Knab aims to disrupt the market in the banking industry by being radically client oriented and by starting from completely digital service base. Knab does have a customer service center which serves as first contact with the client. The employees of Knab are relatively highly educated and young.

As their partner they chose engageit.co, a company specialising in gamification of

customer service centers. Being the implementing game architect I was allowed to perform a quasi experimental field experiment simultaneously to the implementation with the goal to asses, if possible, the impact of the intervention.

To get the full picture of the intervention the proces of the intervention will be detailed as well as the end result. For this we will follow the steps as they’ve been taking in the implementation of the intervention.

(22)

§2.2 Process

To facilitate interventions like the one at Knab, engageit.co utilises their own version of Werbach & Hunter’s six step plan.

(Figure 5: Engageit.co company document: Gamification Implementation Plan)

Step 1: Define Business Objectives

The first step is perhaps the most crucial as it serves as the cornerstone for all the following steps. In this step the client is helped with defining his concrete business objectives for the project. We’re not talking strategic

abstract goals here, but the concrete, derived departmental goals that are derived from the Me and my Piggybank Two is a crowd Piggybank Shepherd Piggybank Doctor The Big Bad Piggywolf

1

Define Business Objective

(23)

overarching strategic goals. By mapping out all (often competing) goals it is possible to get to a web of goals that can be used to inform the ruleset of the gamification motivational shell. When we know what the goals are we can start with step 2.

Many customer service centers suffer from high turnover, low employee job satisfaction and low organisational identification. This because the work is repetitive, rarely challenging and without a lot of growth potential. (Coxen, 2010) Training new employees and having unmotivated employees is a high cost for callcenters.

Out of the interviews with management it became apparent that Knab aims to keep its young experienced employees inside for as long as possible and turned to gamification as a tool to promote motivation, growth, satisfaction and organisation commitment.

The business objectives then were to inspire motivation, increase knowledge and productivity and stimulate a client oriented approach in Knab’s employees. When prompted to what their priority ranking would be the most important was Customer orientation closely followed by knowledge. Productivity was seen as hygienic but not the focal point. These goals had already received considerable attention in the form of more conventional interventions like coaching, training and (small) tangible incentives.

(24)

Step 2: Understand Players & Context

If the first step is the most crucial, the second step is where often gamification goes wrong. It is imperative that the motivational shell is made with the

audience in mind. That means custom made solutions and not ready made of the shelf. In step 2 we figure out who the players of the game are, what the context is in terms of other influencing incentives and rules and also what the culture is in the

department. This gives us cues towards the motivational structures that we can influence. Also in this step we figure out how the business objectives from step 1 look behavioural wise. By understanding what a certain business objective needs in terms of concrete behaviour by the employee we can fine tune our motivational shell.

This is were Bartles’ player types come into play. Player types is an abstraction that bundles certain game elements into packages based on certain motivations. Most people are not pure types and populations also contain mixes over all types. It is however

important to find the player types (and linked motivational tools) that fit to the culture of the department. (Bartle, R. 1996)

2

Understand Players & Context

(25)

(Figure 6: Engageit.co company picture based on Bartle, R. (1996))

Killer

Killer types love to win compared to another player. The love comparison and competition. Their goals is to “act” on players, in exert their influence over them. They are motivated by rankings, leaderboards, direct competition. (Bartle, R. 1996)

Achiever

Achiever types want to win from the environment and improve upon themselves. They want to exert their influence upon the environment in a visible way. They are motivated by growth, comparison to past achievements and the promise of future achievements. Badges, levels and experience points motivate the achiever most. (Bartle, R. 1996)

(26)

Explorer

Explorer types want to interact with their environment. They want to figure out how things work, want to be surprised and entertained. They hoard knowledge and want to hear the story. They are motivated by freedom, knowledge

gathering, puzzles and surprises.(Bartle, R. 1996)

Socialiser

The socialiser type wants to interact with his fellow players. he wants to meet, flirt, taunt, befriend, guide and mislead other players. He is motivated by any type of social interaction around or within the game. (Bartle, R. 1996)

Through workshops at Knab with the agents it was established that it were the achiever and explorer player types with a fundament of socialiser type. Killer type behaviour was frowned upon. The behaviour that was identified was growth of knowledge, clear and distinctive progress all geared towards being a knowledgable professional and client oriented helping hand.

Step 3: Design Game & Create Framework

In this step we create the game in concept and visual design. A ruleset and functionality map is superimposed over the goals, players and behaviours that we found in the previous steps. This step is as much art as science and needs

3

Design Game & Create Framework

(27)

to be done in close cooperation with both management and the employees. If we have a complete ruleset we continue to step 4.

For Knab we build a gamified knowledge bank that incorporated trainings, internal knowledge and career progression. The knowledge database has algorithms that link knowledge to individuals, has a question and answering structure that promotes bottom up knowledge building and suggests users to answer questions based on prior answers/ questions. In this way the explorer mindset is triggered. On top of that a feedback bar gives feedback on different matrix to motivate the achiever. Social interaction through a chat function and the Comment feature in the knowledge bank promote the socialisers motivation.

Step 4: Implement & Connect

In step 4 we create the additional rules and connections necessary to get the motivational shell up and running at the client. The visual design gets

attached to the ruleset. If everything is functionally ready we continue to step 5

In case of Knab no systems were connected except the knowledge bank itself. This was due to financial and technical limitation. Instead the data is imputed by team leaders. This means that the feedback is not instant, but dependant on the frequency of input.

Implement & Connect

4

(28)

Step 5: Revise & Balance

In step 5 we import historical data into the ruleset and see if the motivational shell behaves as intended. We check the progression curves and the

levelling and badge triggers.

The system was tested by feeding it historical data and the progression curves were adjusted to fit the historical data better. When everything worked as intended we continued to step 6

Step 6: Deploy & Play

In step 6 we help the client to go live with the motivational shell in a way that fits the clients’ culture and needs. Usually this is done with a launch party or

alternatively, phased by a “tell a friend” method. If the game is live we’ll schedule a maintenance and balancing setup for step 7.

At Knab we utilised the teamleaders and a couple of fore-runners to deploy the system. After that other people could be entered in and so the system grew organically until all employees of the customer service center were playing.

5

Revise & Balance Framework Deploy & Play

6

(29)

Step 7: Continuously Perfect Framework

The final step does not end. It comprises continuously improving upon the game by looking at it’s performance and iteratively finetuning all aspects of the

motivational shell. Also in this step measuring effectiveness on achieving the goals and tweaking to improve it is important. It informs the further development of the game.

At Knab we’re now at this stage, we’re looking into connecting the motivational shell to their new systems and also keep tweaking the scores and progression curves. Knab teamleaders have started to create their own new badges for special occasions and the knowledge bank is expanding in scope and depth.

Continuously Perfect Framework

7

(30)

§2.3 Solution

The technical end result of the intervention was a new knowledge bank with a gamification toolbar. The knowledge bank exists through questions and answers and so creates a bottom up approach. It fills up with articles created by the employees themselves and comments to those articles. Answers can be voted down or up to keep knowledge up to date and accurate.

(Figure 7: Screenshot from Knab Knowledge bank)

(31)

The feedback bar in the top of the screen shows a summary of your progress. It shows the

employee’s name, level and points, a visual indicator of his/her rank (in this case Three Piggybanks) and shows how the employee is progressing on the three score indicators.

(Figure 8: Score indicators) Scores:

Because knab wanted to encourage knowledge and client oriented behaviour three scores have been implemented with each a different weight.

The most important was “Charm” which is an indication of the employees client oriented behaviour. It’s dependant on NPS (net promotor scores) and

compliments that the employee receives from customers. This ensures that players are motivated to help their clients to the best of their ability.

(32)

The second most important score is “knowledge” which goes up when the employee interacts with the knowledge bank. This can be the creation or consumption of articles but also commenting and liking articles. This ensures that employees keep up to date and are engaged with the knowledge bank.

Finally there is power, because even though knowledge and charm are important a certain level of efficiency and effectiveness are necessary. This increases with the amount of tasks that the employee performs but is the least weighted.

To increase in level it is necessary to get a certain score on all three of the scores. This ensures that all employees score well on all three, and do not specialise in one and ignore the others.

Levels and Ranks

When the employee progresses enough through levels he goes up in rank, from one piggybank to two piggybanks up until he’s the big bad piggy bank wolf.

The piggybanks were chosen as an symbol because they represent “taking care of money” and because they are fun :)

In order to know what is necessary to reach the new level an employee can click on the score indicators to receive feedback towards what tasks will improve that score.

Knowledge

(33)

Also the required tests for his career advantage are listed there under “missions”.

(Figure 9: Screenshot from Knab Ranking Icons)

(34)

Profile Page

The creation of knowledge is documented in the backend of the knowledge bank and compiled into a knowledge profile of each and every user. This the user can see on their profile page that also includes his badges and his position in a leaderboard. The

leaderboard doesn’t give a ranking but just shows the two people above and below you. This creates some sense of competition without creating the sense of being the winner/ loser.

(Figure 10: Screenshot from Knab Knowledge bank)

(35)

Badges

71 badges are available to unlock, 11 of which are hidden badges to be found by

behaviour that’s not normally prescribed in the company but still desirable. For instance the “viral” badge goes to the employee who gets a positive comment about Knab to go viral on social media. Below the surprise badges, can you guess what they're for?

(Figure 11: Engageit.co company Badges originally designed for the Knab platform)

(36)

How it all fits together

The journey of the employee through Knab’s customer service center is being guided by the scores, badges and missions. His advances through the ranks gives perspective of growth. Knab considers changing from seniority salary increase to basing salary increase on the ranks within the system. Everything is social, transparant and relatively immediate and intuitive. Finally the surprises in the system keep everything fresh.  

(37)

Chapter three: Study

§3.1 Research Questions:

- 1 What is the effect of an gamification intervention on Job satisfaction, Organisational Identity and Turnover Intentions in a Banking customer service center?

-- 2 What academic theories are available or can be used to measure and explain the effects of gamification on job satisfaction, organisational identity and turnover? 3 Will the empirical results from this case make a contribution to the existing literature?

-§3.2 Hypotheses

The nul hypothesis is that there is no difference between the situation before and after the introduction of gamification. In this case there would be no positive or negative effect that was caused by the intervention.

The alternative hypothesis is that there is a difference between the situation before and after the introduction of gamification. This is the situation we’re looking for. One possibility would be to find there’s a positive change on the variables which would indicate that the proponents of gamification are right. Another would be to find negative effects which would

(38)

indicate the suspicions of the more critical predictions are grounded. Finally a mix between desirable and undesirable effects could be found. Below we specify per variable which of these we expect to see and why.

Job satisfaction:

Due to the similarities between the way gamification motivates and the preferences of the new work ethic, the Generation Y managerial preferences and the way our brains are wired, as well as because gamification is supposed to be "fun" we expect the Job satisfaction of employees to increase due to the intervention.

h0: Job satisfaction pretest = Job satisfaction post test h1: Job satisfaction pretest =/= Job satisfaction post test

Organisational identity.

We expect organisational identity to increase. This because the intervention will make the workflow more similar to the employees preferences. This will lead to a feeling of familiarity and increase the level of identification with the company.

h0: Organisational Identity pretest = Organisational Identity post test h1: Organisational Identity pretest =/= Organisational Identity post test

(39)

Turnover intentions

We expected turnover intentions to go down due to the fun factor, the more suitable management approach and feedback and the growth opportunities.

h0: Turnover Intentions pretest = Turnover Intentions post test h1: Turnover Intentions pretest =/= Turnover Intentions post test Possible side effects:

Possible side effects could include:

- gaming the system; the employees could start to show unintended behaviour that aims solely at the completion of the game rather then the intended goals. To avoid this

periodical interviews with managers and teamleaders were taken.

§3.3 Sampling frame

Population: The population is all employees in banking customer service centers. We

want to know if gamification is a good tool in this setting.

Sampling Frame: The sample frame is the employees of the Knab customer service

center.

Sampling Method: The sampling method is Convenience sampling. Sample size: 18 pretest 17 posttest

Response rate: The pre-test had a response rate of 100% due to the almost mandatory

(40)

platform). The post test had a response rate of 88,2%

Demographics: average age is 26 55% male 45% female, 85% of the respondents have

university degree BSc. or higher.

§3.4 Analytical Strategy:

Collection

Results where obtained via a survey that was distributed via Qualtrics and was mandatory in the customer service center department of Knab. The number of subjects was 18 in the pre test and 17 in the post test. There were changes in the group but all employees where surveyed. The return rate was 100% in the pre test. and 88,2% (due to incomplete

surveys) in the post test. The completion of the survey in the pretest situation was mandatory so results should be taken with caution with regard to coercion.

In the pre-test situation employees got an introduction letter that explained the purpose of the survey, but not the intended intervention. Upon completion of the survey the login details were supplied to the employees.

In the post test situation employees just got the link for the survey again. Without the slight coercion that was present in the pre test not everyone finished the survey completely leading to a slight decline in respondents.

The scales used to measure Job Satisfaction, Organisational Identity and Turnover Intentions were based on a translated version of Randsley De Moura, Et.al (2009) The

(41)

translations where translated from English to Dutch and back by two separate English natives with fluent Dutch language proficiency. After conferring with me we settled on the current incarnation of the questions. I also removed one item from the Turnover intentions scale “I’m planning to keep working at this company for the rest of my life” because it seemed antiquated to the test panel.

Manipulation

In order to prepare the data for Repeated measures ANOVA the dataset was exported from Qualtrics into SPSS and cleaned. The cases from the pre- and posttest were then matched in order to form one dataset. The names of the posttest variables are the original names with a added “pt” as suffix. Cases that did not occur in both sets was omitted as per the repeated measures ANOVA method.

Changes in the personnel makeup of the customer service center due to heavy turnover and recruitment left the dataset with only 11 matching cases after matching.

Analysis

First I looked at the scale reliability.

The scale to determine turnover intentions (TurnIn) was reliable. With a Crombachs alpha of 0,858. Checking for item removal did not indicate that the removal of any item would improve scale.

(42)

Job satisfaction(Jsat) also proved to be reliable with a Crombachs alpha of 0,834. As in the case of turnover intentions removing any items would not improve the scale reliability.

Organisational identity (OrgIdent) was also reliable with a Crombachs alpha of 0.735. However, checking for item removal showed that the scale reliability would increase from 0.735 to 0.825 with the removal of Orgid5. Low reliability could be explained by archaic question „Bij knab horen is een belangrijk deel van mijn zelfbeeld”. This prompted me to exclude this question out of the scale in further analysis. This could imply that the link between organisational identification and self image has changed since the conception of this scale.

Following I computed scale means into new variables for both post and pretest. For the pretest this created the following variables: JsatTotPre, OrgIdenTotPre and TurnInTotPre. The new variables contain the means of the scales for each respondent in the pretest situation.

For the posttest this created the following variables: JsatTotPt, OrgIdenTotPt, TurnInTotPt The new variables contain the means of the scales for each respondent in the posttest situation

I then conducted a oneway within subjects ANOVA (Repeated measures ANOVA) on the means of the pretest and the means of the posttest.

(43)

§3.5 Results

Job Satisfaction:

Job satisfaction in the pretest had a mean of 5.455 and a standard deviation of 0.848. In the posttest the mean was 5.891 with a standard deviation of 0.683. The mean difference being -0.436

To translate the scores of the mean to a more intuitive concept; on a ten points scale this would translate to a 7.79 in the pretest and a 8,41 in the post test. There is a strong

increase in in Job Satisfaction from an already decent score. In light of the new work ethic, the preferences of the generation Y and the changes in our mental makeup this is what we expected to see. the inclusion of fun, direct feedback, progression and choice should make the work more suitable and enjoyable. Now we turn to see if this decrease is significant.

I checked if Sphericity was assumed which it was not. So for significance I checked the Greenhouse-Geisser which was 0.057. This meant that although there are differences between the means the effect is not significant at the 0.05 interval and I cannot reject the

null hypothesis.

This means that the strong increase we see in Job satisfaction is NOT significant and so we cannot say that gamification influenced this variable positively (nor negatively).

(44)

Organisational Identity:

Organisational Identity in the pretest had a mean of 5,844 and a standard deviation of

0.431. In the posttest the mean was 5,831 with a standard deviation of 0.469. The mean

difference is 0.013.

To translate the scores of the mean to a more intuitive concept; on a ten points scale this would translate to a 8.35 in the pretest and a 8.33 in the post test. There is a slight decrease in organisational identity but overal it’s still quite high. This was not what we assumed would happen. The intervention was supposed to increase the perspective the employees had on growth and link them through social ties (on the platform) and fun stronger with the company. Now we turn to see if this decrease is significant.

I checked if Sphericity was assumed which it was not. As an alternative to sphericity I checked the Greenhouse-Geisser which was 0.912. This meant that the very small

differences between the means are not significant at the 0.05 interval nor the 0.1 one and I

cannot reject the null hypothesis.

This means that the slight decrease we see in organisational identity is NOT significant and so we cannot say that gamification influenced this variable negatively (nor positively).

Turnover Intentions

Turnover Intentions in the pretest had a mean of 3.182 and a standard deviation of 1.277. In the posttest the mean was 3.273 with a standard deviation of 1.009. The mean

difference is -0.091

(45)

To translate the scores of the mean to a more intuitive concept; on a ten points scale this would translate to a 4.55 in the pretest and a 4,67 in the post test. This means that the intention to leave Knab has increased slightly. This is not what we expected. The

intervention should show how the employee could grow within Knab and so motivate them to stay longer. Now we turn to see if this decrease is significant.

I checked if Sphericity was assumed which it was not. So again for significance I checked the Greenhouse-Geisser which was 0.825. This meant that the small differences between the means are not significant at the 0.05 interval nor the 0.1 one and I cannot reject the

null hypothesis. This means that the slight decrease we see in turnover intentions is NOT

significant and so we cannot say that gamification influenced this variable negatively (nor positively).

Mean average and significance

*p <= 0.01 : very strong presumption against neutral hypothesis ** 0.01 < p < 0.05 : strong presumption against neutral hypothesis

*** 0.05 < p < 0.1 : low presumption against neutral hypothesis Element 1 -> 2

Mean Difference p

Job Satisfaction _-.436 _0,057***

Organisational Identity 0,013 0,912

Turnover Intentions -0,91 _0.825

(46)

Not finding any significant findings does leave us in the dark considering the effectiveness of the gamification intervention on job satisfaction, organisational identity and turnover intentions. The lack of significant findings can be explained easily by the small set of cases after matching data. The main problem with this particular field study was that the already small sample frame got smaller by changes in the personal make up.

With repeated measures ANOVA, you will lose any data that isn't matched in all datasets. This becomes problematic when applied to field studies where it is nearly impossible to keep the sample frame exactly constant. This makes longitudinal studies risky and difficult to control.  

(47)

Chapter four: Conclusion and Discussion

Unfortunately we did not find any significant results from the self reported data. As pointed out he small sample size might have impacted this negatively. Unfortunately due to the extreme changes in the department it was (and will be in the foreseeable future)

impossible to get any meaningful time between measurements without also losing test subjects.

A number of alternative explanations might place the lack of results in perspective. The first is that the game is not yet enough build around the core characteristics of the new employees. The game has only a slight layer of “epic meaning” and misses the appeal to the heroic self (Beck, Wade, 2006). It also lacked real autonomy, because the road to mastery was prescribed. Also, the implementation of the game was suboptimal where the game was not completely “bug free” when it was introduced to the agents leading to disappointment. In this sense that game failed to appeal to the expectations of the young employees and fell into the category of “management tool” rather than “rewarding

feedback system”.

The second of the alternatives, or rather the worse variant, is that the system is built as a control system, perpetuating the old hierarchical structure through new media, rather than a rewarding experience for the agents. (Galloway 2006) The absence of autonomy and heroism makes the score more like a clinical score that can be used to steer and control agents. The language of the game is not win-win but hierarchically top-down. Players play

(48)

Further muddling the case is that the self reporting might not be as reliable as a tool because of its coerced nature in this case. However, this would affect validity/reliability rather than significance.

Finally, though it’s not the place of a master’s thesis to question a fully validated scale there’s some reasons to question the scales that I used. In preparation of my study I found that these scales for Job satisfaction, organisational identity and turnover intentions are widely used. However there’s a lack of critical evaluation of these measuring tools in light of the changing generational make-up of the workforce. Where the scale for job

satisfaction wasn’t much reason for discussion with the translators (translating scale from english to dutch and back to test it) turnover intentions and organisational identity proved to me more controversial. The scales contain questions about “live long” employment and seek a certain type of organisational identity that might be outdated. The new generation (as described previously in the paper) has a different vision of identification and

employment then the previous generation. Similarly, the turnover intentions questions seem to search for a level of commitment that seems questionably valid considering the short attention span and high preference for variety that characterises the new generation in the workforce.

It could be that the thesis in general asks the wrong questions about turnover intention and organisational identity. When measured on the same scale as is used for older generation employees it is easier to compare between generations, but it might obfuscate different

(49)

ways of commitment and identification. Confusion about wether or not the questions even apply to the new generation in the workforce might explain the lack of significant results. It seems that the organisational behaviour aspects of gamification by theorists have been described in terms of old theories, whereas some argue (social identification theory with an emphasis on contribution-based motivation) claim that due to the Internet and social media there is a shift away from the old basis of motivation and identification. Therefore this research suggests that first a re-description is needed of games and gamification in terms OB-aspects, motivation, turnover, identification, as a basis for survey questions.

To get further insight in these issues more in-depth studies could be done towards the differences in conceptual understanding between generations within the workforce. These would test the scales that are currently in use to test for these constructs. Measuring tools could be adjusted for the different generational preferences and so, get more reliable results.

We cannot conclude that gamification has any effect as an intervention, however we also cannot conclude that it has a negative effect or that it has no effect. It will be up to further studies to hopefully establish the effects of gamification as an intervention.

For the next research concerning this topic it would be recommended to take a deeper and closer look by including the performance side by using company data. It would be

recommended to take/find a larger pool of subjects for the survey. Finding a company that’s both willing and able to provide a larger subject pool might proof difficult however.

(50)

Also it would be recommended to find a cooperation where the researcher is more detached from the implementation of the system as to eliminate wishful thinking from the research and a more objective look at the implementation of the project. Finally it would be useful if the measuring tools where reevaluated and maybe updated to repeat this study with those updated measurement scales.

What might explain the results of this research at a level of methodology is that a

paradigmatic research was designed (the paradigms being those of existing organisational behaviour) and applied to what seems to be a non-paradigm or perhaps even a

pre-paradigmatic situation (Miller, D. (2007).

Summarising, we can state that no direct significant effect could be established between gamification, job satisfaction, organisational identity and turnover intentions. The

measurement of the effect could have been aversely affected by the mismatch between the paradigmatic method and the pre-paradigmatic situation and so further work should be done creating new measures for the new paradigm. The contribution of the empiric study thus mostly serves to point the direction for further work on conceptualising those new measures and concepts in order to better describe, measure and explain the forces of motivation in the (new) workforce.

(51)

Bibliography

Bartle, R. (1996). Hearts, clubs, diamonds, spades: Players who suit MUDs. Journal of MUD research, 1(1), 19.

Beck, C., Wade, M. (2006) The Kids are Alright: How the Gaer Generation is Changing the Workplace, Harverd Business School Press, Boston.

Bogost, I. (2011). Gamification is bullshit. The Atlantic: Technology. from http:// www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/08/gamification -is bullshit/243338 26-05-2015 

Carr, N. (2010) The Shallows: What the internet is doing to our brains. Norton, New York.

Clark, H. B., Northrop, J. T., & Barkshire, C. T. (1988). The effects of contingent thank-you notes on case managers’ visiting residential clients. Education and Treatment of Children, 45-51.

Coxen, A. (2010) ‘Top 10 call center problems’, CallcenterHelper. [http://

www.callcentrehelper.com/the-top-ten-call-centre-problems-12637.htm] visited: 08-11-2014. 

Detering, S. et al. 2011 ‘From Game Design Elements to Gamefulness: Defining

(52)

Eisner, Susan P. S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal70.4 (Autumn 2005): 4-15.

ESA (Entertainment Software Association) “Essential facts about the computer and videogame industry” 2014 (Available on the theesa.com) Visited: 26-06-2015

Flatla, D. R., Gutwin, C., Nacke, L. E., Bateman, S., & Mandryk, R. L. (2011, October). Calibration games: making calibration tasks enjoyable by adding motivating game

elements. In Proceedings of the 24th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology (pp. 403-412). ACM.

Francis Smith, J, (2004, August 26). Surviving and thriving in the multigenerational workplace. Journal Record. 1.

Galloway, A. R. (2006). Gaming : essays on algorithmic culture. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Gartner http://blogs.gartner.com/brian_burke/2014/04/04/gartner-redefines-gamification/ consulted 04.05.15)

(53)

Himanen, P (2001) The Hacker Ethic: a radical approach to the philosophy of business. Random House, Toronto

Leary, M. (2004) Introduction to behavioural research methods. Pearson, London

Maslow, A. H. (1943) A Theory of Human Motivation Originally Published in Psychological Review, 50, 370-396.

Miller, D. (2007) “Paradigm prison, or in praise of atheoretic research” Strategic Organization 5: 177-184, doi:10.1177/1476127007077558

Randsley De Moura, G. & Abrams, D. & Retter, C. & Gunnarsdottir, S. & Ando, K.

(2009). Identification as an organisational anchor: How identification and job satisfaction combine to predict turnover intention. European Journal of Social Psychology. Vol. 39, pp. 540-557

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.

Ryan, R. et al. (2006). Motivation pull of video games: A Self-determination theory approach. Motivation and Emotion, volume 30, issue 4, 347-365

(54)

Sujansky. J. (2002, May). The critical care and feeding of generation y. Workforce. 81 {5), 15

Tulgan, B. (2003). Managing generation y. Resource Center for Workforce Solutions, National Restaurant Association Educational Foundation. Retrieved on October 29, 2014, from http://www.nraef.org

Werbach, K, “Coursera Gamification course” 2013: www.coursera.org

Werbach, K. & Hunter, D. (2012) For the win: How Game Thinking Can Revolutionize Your Business. Wharton Digital Press.

Zichermann, G.; Cunningham, C. (2011). "Preface". Gamification by Design: Implementing Game Mechanics in Web and Mobile Apps (1st ed.). Sebastopol, California: O'Reilly Media. p. 208. ISBN 1449315399. Retrieved 2012-11-25. "Gamification may be a new term" 

(55)

Appendix I: Pre Test Survey Email

Beste dhr./mevr. ${m://LastName}

In verband met het aanstaande project dat uitgerold gaat worden bij Knab verzoek ik u het volgende onderzoek in te vullen. Het betreft een vragenlijst over uw

werksituatie en zal gebruikt worden voor een onderzoeksproject dat verbonden is aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam. Uw antwoorden zullen vertrouwelijk behandeld worden.

Hier vindt u de vragenlijst:

${l://SurveyLink?d=Klik hier voor de vragenlijst}

U kunt ook de volgende link kopiëren en plakken in uw browser adres balk

${l://SurveyURL}

Bij voorbaat dank, Meilon van Abs

Engageit.co 

(56)

Appendix II: Post Test Survey Email

Beste dhr./mevr. ${m://LastName}

Afgelopen najaar hebben wij u gevraagd om deel te nemen aan een enquete over uw werksituatie. Graag vraag ik u om nogmaals de vragenlijst in te vullen. Het betreft wederom een vragenlijst over uw werksituatie en zal gebruikt worden voor een onderzoeksproject dat verbonden is aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam. Uw antwoorden zullen vertrouwelijk behandeld worden.

Hier vindt u de vragenlijst:

${l://SurveyLink?d=Klik hier voor de vragenlijst}

U kunt ook de volgende link kopiëren en plakken in uw browser adres balk ${l://SurveyURL}

Bij voorbaat dank, Meilon van Abs Engageit.co

(57)

Appendix III: Introduction to the Survey

!

In dit onderzoek vindt u vragen die betrekking hebben op hoe u uw werksituatie beoordeeld. De resultaten zullen gebruikt worden voor een onderzoeksproject vanuit de Universiteit van

Amsterdam. Uw input wordt strikt confidentieel behandeld.

(58)

Appendix IV: Job Satisfaction Scale

Jsat1 Al met al, ben ik tevreden met mijn huidige baan. ❍ helemaal mee oneens (1)

❍ mee oneens (2)

❍ een beetje mee oneens (3)

❍ niet mee oneens/niet mee eens (4) ❍ een beetje mee eens (5)

❍ mee eens (6)

❍ helemaal mee eens (7)

Jsat2 Mijn baan lijkt op de baan die ik wilde toen ik er aan begon. ❍ helemaal mee oneens (1)

❍ mee oneens (2)

❍ mee eens (6)

Jsat3 Als ik opnieuw zou moeten kiezen met de kennis die ik nu heb, zou ik voor deze baan kiezen.

❍ helemaal mee oneens (1) ❍ mee oneens (2)

❍ mee eens (6)

❍ helemaal mee eens (7) Jsat4 Ik ben trots op mijn baan. ❍ helemaal mee oneens (1) ❍ mee oneens (2)

❍ mee eens (6)

(59)

Jsat5 Ik heb plezier in het werk dat ik doe. ❍ helemaal mee oneens (1)

❍ mee oneens (2)

❍ mee eens (6)

❍ helemaal mee eens (7) 

(60)

Appendix V: Organisational Identity Scale

OrgId1 Ik voel me sterk verbonden met Knab. ❍ helemaal mee oneens (1)

❍ mee oneens (2)

❍ mee eens (6)

OrgId2 Knab is belangrijk voor me. ❍ helemaal mee oneens (1) ❍ mee oneens (2)

❍ mee eens (6)

OrgId3 Ik ben trots om een deel van Knab te zijn. ❍ helemaal mee oneens (1)

❍ mee oneens (2)

❍ mee eens (6)

OrgId4 Ik voel dat ik hóór bij Knab. ❍ helemaal mee oneens (1) ❍ mee oneens (2)

❍ mee eens (6)

OrgId5 Bij Knab horen is een belangrijk deel van mijn zelfbeeld. ❍ helemaal mee oneens (1)

❍ mee oneens (2)

❍ mee eens (6)

(61)

OrgId6r Ik vind het vervelend om bij Knab te horen. ❍ helemaal mee oneens (1)

❍ mee oneens (2)

❍ mee eens (6)

❍ helemaal mee eens (7) OrgId7 Ik ben

blij dat ik bij Knab hoor. ❍ helemaal mee oneens (1) ❍ mee oneens (2)

❍ mee eens (6)

(62)

Appendix VI: Turnover Intentions Scale

TurnIn1 Ik ben van plan Knab in de komende jaren te verlaten. ❍ helemaal mee oneens (1)

❍ mee oneens (2)

❍ mee eens (6)

TurnIn2 Ik verwacht dat ik in de komende jaren Knab zal verlaten. ❍ helemaal mee oneens (1)

❍ mee oneens (2)

❍ mee eens (6)

TurnIn3 Ik denk erover om Knab te verlaten. ❍ helemaal mee oneens (1)

❍ mee oneens (2)

❍ mee eens (6)

(63)

Appendix VII: Non Validaded Scale Questions

x1 Ik kan makkelijk de informatie vinden die ik nodig heb. ❍ helemaal mee oneens (1)

❍ mee oneens (2)

❍ mee eens (6)

x2 Het is mij duidelijk wat er van mij verwacht wordt. ❍ helemaal mee oneens (1)

❍ mee oneens (2)

❍ mee eens (6)

x3 Ik ben van plan om de volgende termijn te blijven werken bij KNAB ❍ < half jaar (1)

❍ half jaar tot een jaar (2) ❍ jaar tot anderhalf jaar (3) ❍ anderhalf jaar tot twee jaar (4) ❍ > twee jaar (5)

x4 Ik kan makkelijk inschatten wat mijn bijdrage is binnen Knab. ❍ helemaal mee oneens (1)

❍ mee oneens (2)

❍ mee eens (6)