The use of gamification in fostering an
entrepreneurial attitude
Master Thesis
Anke Smilde (10868135) E: ankesmilde@gmail.com June 27, 2015Master – Business Administration
Track - Entrepreneurship and Innovation
UvA supervisor – Wietze van der Aa
Rabobank supervisors – Maarten Korz & Maarten Molenaar
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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)
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-long-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.
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 “non-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).
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
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
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
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-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.
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
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 activeness as well. Task specific
pro-activeness, which we call short-term pro-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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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 N u m b er o f r esp on d en ts Gamification drivers Short-term effect Long-term effect
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
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)
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-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
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
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
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
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
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”.
