Gamification in organizational learning, taking organizational culture into account: an exploratory study

68

Gamification

in

organizational learning

,

taking

organizational culture

into account:

an exploratory study.

MSc. Business Administration Digital Business Erik Dirksen MSc.

1

Statement of originality

This document is written by Lonneke Lammers, who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document. I declare that the text and the work presented in this document are 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.

2

Acknowledgement

This document contains a Master’s thesis which is written as completion to the master of Business Administration at the University of Amsterdam. Gamification, the subject I have chosen, falls within the scope of the specialization I followed: Digital Business. I would like to thanks Erik Dirksen for being a great supervisor. He always knew how to push me forward by sharing his stories about anything that was related to my thesis. Also I wish to thank the participating respondents. Without your cooperation I would not have been able to conduct this study. And last but not least, I am thanking my family and friends who did not hesitate to help me with any difficulties and who made sure I had the necessary distraction during the process. Thereby I would like to close this chapter of my life and open up a different one, hopefully as interesting and rewarding as my time at the University. I hope you enjoy reading.

3

Index

2.1.1 Why gamification and how to use it? ... 11

2.1.2 Implementing gamification ... 14

2.2 Organizational learning ... 16

2.2.1 Organizational learning framework ... 17

2.2.2 Deliberate learning efforts ... 24

2.2.3 Measuring learning effects ... 26

2.3 Organizational culture ... 26

2.3.1 Academic literature on organizational culture ... 26

2.3.2 Schwartz value theory ... 29

2.3.3 Six cultural dimensions of Hofstede ... 32

3. Method ... 35

3.1 Research approach and strategy ... 36

3.2 Data collection method ... 37

3.3 Research strengths and limitations... 40

4. Findings... 41 4.1 Main findings ... 41 4.2 Propositions... 45 5. Discussion ... 48 5.1 Propositions... 48 5.2 Main findings ... 50 5.3 Theoretical implications... 52 5.4 Practical implications ... 52

5.5 Limitations and suggestions for further research ... 54

6. Conclusion ... 55

7. Bibliography ... 56

APPENDIX I: Interview protocol ... 64

APPENDIX II: Interview cases ... 65

APPENDIX III: Code structure ... 69

4

Abstract

This study is designed to investigate how gamified learning programs work in organizational learning. Herein, organizational culture is taken as a mediator. Since research found that gamification can help an organization in its learning which consequently leads to competitive advantage, an increasing amount of organizations are using gamification in their learning programs. In this study there are four propositions included in order to find an answer on the research question: “How is organizational culture a mediator in applying gamification in organizational learning?”. P1 finds that when applying gamification in learning, this tend to letch on better on people of generation Y in terms of results than previous generations. P2 finds that in firms who have a certain relationship with challenge, control, fantasy and curiosity gamification works best. P3 resulted in a finding of voluntary participation being necessary when willing to get the best results out of gamified learning programs. In testing the effect of organizational culture in the application, the last proposition P4 links the value theory of Schwartz with the application of gamification. This resulted, concluding, that in firms characterized by being open to change and self-enhanced, gamified learning programs fit better than in firms which are conservative and self-transcendent.

Keywords: gamification, organizational learning, organizational culture, application of

5

1. Introduction

Would you like to become a better person and change the world? Play a game! According to McGonigal (2011), four traits which any game possess help you to become a better person. These four traits are a goal, clear rules, a feedback system, and the most important one, voluntary participation. Also, she says, games can help you find new ways to make a deep and lasting impact on the world around us. Adding game elements into non-game environments is called gamification, a buzzword you might have heard of. Analysts predict that gamification will grow massively over the next few years (Dale, 2014). In figure 1 the amount of searches on this topic over the years can be found (Basten, 2017). However, according to Gartner, Inc. (2013), 80 percent of the current gamified applications will fail to meet business objectives. This is mainly a result of their poor design. This makes gamification an interesting subject to investigate. Therefore, a deeper understanding of the concept gamification is discussed below.

Dale (2014) described gamification as a method which is used to influence people in learning and doing a task and it should increase motivation. For this method, game-elements are used in a non-game environment with as goal to engage people (Dale, 2014; Deterding, Dixon, Khaled, & Nacke, 2011). and could be applied in both digital and physical learning. Other goals of gamification could for instance be boosting positive patterns in service use, improving quality and productivity of actions or increasing user activity (Hamari & Koivisto, 2013). By presenting practical challenges to people and guiding them to make progress through levels people can get emotionally engaged (Burke, 2016). According to Burke (2016), this can be an effective way of learning and can let people achieve their best performance. This method holds a lot of potential according to an article about gamification in the Harvard Business Review (2015), but to examine the real potentials of gamification more experience on this phenomenon is needed. Therefore, the effects of the implementation of gamification is a trending theme and chosen to investigate in this paper.

6

Figure 1. Google’s normalized trend data for the topic “gamification”

Note: the percentage indicates the proportion of searches for that topic to all searches of all topics. Source: Basten (2017)

The why in the call for importance of gamification is found in the entrance of Generation Y in the work field. The entrance of Generation Y in the job market calls for new ways of learning in organizations since this generation needs a more collaborative approach of learning (Shaw & Fairhurst, 2008). Generation Y, also known as the millennials, are born between 1980 and 2000. According to a two year ethnographic style study of Dacre and colleagues (2015), this generation is very adroit in nascent technology and expects to gather instant feedback. Comparing this with more analogous generations or employees, a real contrast in levels of engagement and motivation is found (O’Boycle & Harter, 2014). Taking this contrast into account, this could lead to a difference in the way different generations tend to learn. And learning is important in employee engagement (Eldor & Harpaz, 2015). Since engaged employees are advantageous to organizations (Eldor & Harpaz, 2015) and result in more productive organizations (Allen & Meyer, 1990), attention is needed to this phenomenon.

Dacre and colleagues (2015), studied Generation Y and its level of engagement in the work field. In his study they described that eleven cumulative years is the amount of time an average

7 employee spends at work. However, the amount of time in which an employee is actually engaged in its duties is less than one third of that time. And this low engagement level is particularly seen with Generation Y (Dacre et al., 2015). Since this generation has been raised with video games (Dacre et al., 2015), gamification might be a good solution for organizations to improve productivity and develop the ways in which they engage with their employees (Huang et al., 2016). Additionally, Dacre and colleagues (2015) even claim that this generation will dedicate around five cumulative years of their life playing video games, which would indicate for gamification indeed a possible suitable method to use for engaging employees in learning. In achieving employee engagement, Eldor & Harpaz (2015) argue that an organization’s ‘learning culture’ plays a critical role.

An organization should put focus on a positive learning culture because this encourages creating, acquiring and transferring knowledge (Eldor & Harpaz, 2015). According to Eldor & Harpaz (2015), this field of the learning culture, which is inextricably linked to an organization’s culture, is a relatively understudied organizational resource. However, these authors argue that the positive learning culture could be a source of motivation and employee engagement. This results from the tight bond between organizational learning activities and the physical, emotional, and cognitive resources which are embedded in engagement (Eldor & Harpaz, 2015). To adapt and succeed in today’s environment, the antecedents of these learning processes among individuals, teams and organizations, have to be better understood (Chadwick & Raver, 2015). Hence, a closer look on organizational learning in relation with organizational culture is essential. An explanation on these two concepts will follow now.

Firstly, organizational learning. Organizational learning is an abstract concept on which a lot of academic research has already been conducted. March (1991) described organizational learning as: “the process of creating, retaining and transferring knowledge in an organization”. In organizational learning, the question of what humans do to acquire knowledge and subsequently, how an organization aims to optimize its human resources, comes to play (Di Stefano et al., 2016).

8 One essential question in the process of learning and growing is: should humans seek to accumulate additional experience or should they instead focus on trying to articulate and codify experiences of the past? Especially when creating a strategy, this question is fundamental. According to Di Stefano and colleagues (2016), some firms increasingly rely on deliberate learning tools. This means, learning tools which have been organized in order to learn something. As in the case of after-action reviews and post-mortems (Catmull, 2014, in Di Stefano et al., 2016), there has been little effort to encourage individuals to take the time to review the past, rather than to do more and more. According to Catmull (2014, in Di Stefano et al., 2016), thinking after completing a task can enhance the learning process powerfully. Superior to this, it does even more than only accumulating additional experience (Di Stefano et al., 2016). When an individual is given the chance to couple some of his or her initial experience with a deliberate effort to articulate and codify the key lessons learned from such experience, a significant increase is shown in the ability to successfully complete a task (Di Stefano et al., 2016). This is an interesting finding, since organizations also feel the need to keep up with all the new innovations in the field of technology and other facets in this fast changing environment. Whether this chance of spending time on reflecting a task is given to an employee, might be affected by the culture in an organization. For example, does an employee feel allowed to put time in reflecting a task or does it work under high pressure and does he or she not feel this freedom?

Secondly, organizational culture. Fiol & Lyles (1985) already suggested that organizational culture influences the development of organizational learning. According to Chang & Lee (2007) an organization’s culture can positively and significantly affect learning processes in an organization. Other previous literature also identified culture as an important role in creating a learning organization (Caudron, 1993; Schein, 1993; Garvin, 1993; Marquardt, 1996). Barrett (1995) argued that a culture which is characterized by continuous learning from experience, experimentation,

9 questioning and dialogues is needed to sustain competitive advantage over the long term. Now, how do we define organizational culture?

Organizational culture is generally referred to as the organizational values which can be disclosed in norms, artifacts and observed behavioral patterns (Homburg & Pflesser, 2000, Schein, 1992 in Hogan & Coote, 2014). This culture is formed by the behavior of individuals in an organization, using cultural concepts such as semiotics, rituals, ceremonies, stories, and language (Ouchi & Wilkins, 1985; Hofstede, 1990; Trice & Beyer, 1984 in O’reilly 1991; Schwartz, 2012). These social principles or philosophies of a culture, which deploy themselves into values, guide behaviors and set a broad framework for organizational routines and practices (Hatch, 1993; O'Reilly et al., 1991 in Hogan & Coote, 2014). According to Hogan & Coote (2014), managers can build an organizational culture which has a powerful and compelling influence on employee behavior as a result of emphasizing certain values and building corresponding norms. Subsequently, these values and norms can consecutively manifest in artifacts and lead to a desired behavior, for instance improved knowledge. This indicates that organizational culture plays a role in learning processes.

Although many literature on organizational learning and organizational culture can be found, previous literature lacks the connection of the combination of these concepts with gamification. This paper will contribute this link to the literature and tries to find whether organizational culture plays a role in the application of gamification in organizational learning. Herein, this paper will firstly describe the phenomenon of gamification thoroughly. Secondly, how organizational learning works will be examined. Thirdly, the role of organizational culture will be explained. Lastly, the role of gamification in organizational learning will be tested in relation to organizational culture. To be able to properly connect gamification with organizational learning and test how it can be applied in relation to different organizational cultures, a literature review on the latest developments of these phenomena is described in the next section. This will deepen understanding in this research gap. To find out how gamification could be a potential contributing method in organizational learning in

10 relation to organizational culture, the research question is this study is: How is organizational

culture a mediator in applying gamification in organizational learning?

2. Literature review

This literature review consists of three sections. First, the concept gamification will be outlined. Second, important theories on organization learning are described in relation to this study. Third, the leading theories of the phenomenon organizational culture are explained. To make the research question of this paper more clear, the initial conceptual framework can be found in figure 2. In chapter 3, where the methodology will be discussed, propositions will be added to this framework. Consequently, in chapter 4 of the analysis, this framework will be tested.

Figure 2. Conceptual framework

2.1 Gamification

Gamification is not a new topic. However, it is fairly unknown to many people. Almost 15 years ago it has already been used by bigger organizations. In this section, first will be explained why gamification should be used by an organization. Then, the possible elements where it can be applied

11 to will be outlined. Consequently, the best practices of gamification and its implications will be covered in the subsection of implementing gamification.

2.1.1 Why gamification and how to use it?

Why should organizations use gamification? Researchers found many reasons why organizations

should use gamification. One of these reasons is explained in the paper of Su & Cheng (2015). They tested the outcome of the learning process of both a gamified and a non-gamified program. When comparing the two, they found that the program wherein gamification was added into a “botanical” learning process achieved a better learning performance than in a non-gamified learning process. A botanical learning process herein is the gamified environment. Another reason why organizations should use gamification is that it results in a higher degree of motivation and subsequently learning achievement (Su & Cheng, 2015). An important factor that influenced these results was the factor of getting attention of users. Furthermore, as noted in the introduction, gamification can drive engagement, interactivity and participation results for an organization if it is implemented in a right way and maps them to business goals (Dale 2014). According to Basten (2017), gamification can be used to create value in usability, trust and motivation. Usability in sense of getting to know more features in the sometimes complex and difficult software platforms; trust in sense of creating the feeling of shared ownership; and motivation as a central idea of gamification. This latter one drives intrinsic motivation into gathering information and consequently develops new manners to use a system. All these three factors can help an organization achieve its business goals. Another researcher, Gee (2013), argued in his research that there is a connection between games and critical thinking. He states that games are “just well-designed experiences in problem solving” (p. 19). Summarizing the above mentioned arguments why organizations should use gamification, results in reasonable positive reasons. Subsequently the questions rises: how do organizations need to apply gamification?

12 How should organizations use gamification? As a collection of techniques, gamification can

be applied to workplace activities. For instance in a training and development program. There could be made a distinction between digital and non-digital possibilities of gamification. Gamification applied non-digitally could basically be any game-element added where one can think, for instance a quiz wherein someone will win when giving the right answer to the question the quickest. Then, a basic version of digital gamification is creating a digital environment wherein one needs to answer these same questions, but then in a digital program. Often, these digital gamified programs are more extensive than the aforementioned example since the possibilities are more adequate. However, in both non-digital and digital gamification, game-based learning must align with the learning goals and outcomes and must clearly demonstrate that learning can be evaluated and achieved (Elm et al., 2016). To be able to apply gamification in an organizational learning context, we need to know what elements gamification covers. Therefore, Kim & Lee (2015) proposed a dynamical model of educational effectiveness which covers four different theories of learning through gamification. This dynamical model for gamification of learning (DMGL), is focused on correlations with four main factors which originates from learning games: curiosity, challenge, fantasy and control (Kim & Lee, 2015). These four factors are indicated in the black boxes in figure 3 and are slightly different than the four traits McGonigal (2011) mentioned in the introduction: goal, clear rules, feedback system and voluntary participation. However, they can be found to be part of the same category of game-motivation and can complement and reinforce each other in sense of game characteristics. Another theory that is implemented in the DMGL is the theory of Hunicke and colleagues (2004). They argue that organizations could design their desired behavior with game elements taking the following three aspects of gamification design into mind: mechanics (1), dynamics (2) and aesthetics (3). Herein, mechanisms (1) cover the components of how information is presented. This could for instance be in the form of points and badges. Dynamics (2) are about the in- and outputs of the users resulting in the runtime behavior, for example choices and completion. Aesthetics (3) are about the emotional

13 feelings of the users, which could be for example the community-feeling or feeling of being challenged. These three factors are implemented in the DMGL of Kim & Lee (2015) and are indicated in circles which overlap, see figure 3 again. The result of their research is that gamified learning works better than the more traditional learning programs. However, this must find place in a specific setting and there must be a certain relationship with the earlier mentioned four primary factors. This results in the question whether gamification suits every organization. This question will be handled in the subchapter of organizational culture.

Figure 3. Fundamental primary factors for the dynamic model of gamification of learning (DMGL)

14

2.1.2 Implementing gamification

There are several factors that a company has to take into consideration when willing to implement gamification. According to Hansch and colleagues (2015), there is still a lot of experimentation regarding gamification on online learning platforms. However, factors that must be taken into account and implications found in previous literature are outlined below. Then, frequent used game elements are discussed.

Important factors. One of the factors that should be taken into account is personality of the

people involved. This will affect the implementation and acceptance of gamification. Basten (2017) argued that organizations must be aware of the fact that there will rarely be a situation wherein one size fits all, since personality of users differs. He stretches as an example the difference between an person who is a explorer and another person who is more an achiever, explaining that those two will enter a gamified program differently. Also, organizations need to be aware of the productivity. Factors that can decrease productivity are the feeling of an unequal system as a result of for instance unclarity (Basten, 2017). This unclarity can, according to Basten (2017) be found in an user’s feeling of being subordinated, or the feeling of other users being privileged. Another factor that must be considered when implementing gamification is described by Dale (2014). Dale concluded in his research that gamification can encourage knowledge sharing behaviors and better employee engagement within and across the organization. However, it depends on how a new product or service is implemented. Dale’s research shows that the strategy of how gamification is implemented is essential regarding to user involvement in the design and implementation phase. This is because otherwise the risk of being manipulated or being ‘gamed’ can be felt by a user. Consequently, this could bring about the opposite behavior to what was intended. Furthermore, a program wherein too much gamified features are added can result in too must distraction by users which may pass the core goal (Basten, 2017). This can decrease productivity and also quality of the outcomes. On the other side, too less gamified elements can have a undesirable effect. Basten (2017) argues that for instance

15 adding only simple “pointification” (only awarding points) can lower the acceptability among users. In addition to this findings of Basten, Hansch and colleagues (2015) conducted thee practical findings on this subject. The first is that there must be a presence of a meaningful design. They argue that the process of designing platforms and various user types with different motivations and cultural backgrounds has to be taken into account. Their second practical finding is about the fact that gamified features should be non-distracting and should improve user experience. This is to be aware of the danger that learning is not taken seriously anymore. Their third practical finding is that organizations need a deliberative design process in order to implement gamified learning in a productive way. The last factor that needs to be taken into account is a hot topic since the rise of the technological era: privacy. Since gamification is often electronic (Basten, 2017), data of personal information can be collected. This collection of data is in many countries connected to a certain law about how to handle this data. When users have the feeling of a system which they cannot trust regarding the protection of their personal information, this can result in a negative attitude towards the gamified program. Summarizing on all above together, many factors should be taken into account when implementing a gamified solution. These factors concern as well personality of users, as well the setup of a gamified program and its added features, as well as the protection of users privacy.

Common game elements. Gamification could get more concrete since gamification can be

applied broadly. Basten (2017) studied the application of gamification which resulted in six elements wherein gamification is used often. These six elements are feedback, goals, badges, point system, leaderboard and user levels and are shown in table 1. These game elements can be used together and separately, depending on the goal that it supports. Also, these elements can be embedded in computer based systems, although also in physical meetings. For instance, badges can also be handed out in a physical contest or game wherein no computers are involved.

16 Concluding, there are many factors which are important when implementing a gamified program in a company. Also, there are many types of gamification since there are many sorts of game elements. Gamification can be applied in computer programs, however, they are also used in non-computer environments. Since there can be found many research regarding to the effects of gamification on business outcomes (external, for clients) but less on the effects on employees (internal) concerning their individual and organizational learning processes, the next section provides a literature review on organizational learning.

Table 1. Common game elements

Source: Basten (2017)

2.2 Organizational learning

Organizational learning is an abstract concept on which a lot of academic research has already been conducted. Most research agrees on defining this concept as a change in an organization’s knowledge (Argote, 2012). Argote (2012) argues that this knowledge both consists of declarative knowledge (facts) and procedural knowledge (skills and routines). Another definition or organizational learning from Koenig (1994) is that it is a collective phenomenon of the acquisition and development of cognitive and behavioral skills, knowledge and know-how. This subsequently

17 enables for thoughtful and durable modifications in the way how organizations are managed. In many other studies the concept of organizational learning is divided into two perspectives: exploratory learning (outside the organization) and exploitative learning (inside the organization) (Brady & Davies, 2004; Schildt, Maula & Keil, 2005; Atuahene-Gima & Murray, 2007; Chung et al., 2015). Since both perspectives have different characteristics and are part of a bigger whole (Argote, 2012), a more complete framework of Argote & Miron-Spektor (2011), wherein these two perspectives and more are interwoven will be used in this paper.

2.2.1 Organizational learning framework

In order to gain understanding in the organizational learning process, Argote & Miron-Spektor (2011) did an exhaustive research on this phenomenon. Their formed learning cycle, which is shown in figure 4, shows five components and two types of arrows. In the middle you can see three of these components, three boxes: task performance experience, knowledge and active context. These three components are part of two bigger components, the latent organizational context and the

environmental context. The curved arrows indicate organizational learning processes. The straight

arrows are showing interaction effects. The framework will be further explained below, with the most important aspects defined more extensively in the subchapters thereafter.

Organizational learning occurs in a certain context, which finds place inside and outside the organization (Glynn et al., 1994). In this framework this is referred to as organizational context

(inside the organization) and environmental context (outside the organization). Characteristics such

as structure, culture, technology, identity, memory and strategy are part of the organizational context. Competitors, government, clients and educational institutions are part of the environmental context (Argote, 2012). The organizational context, in turn, is divided in a latent and an active part. The

latent organizational context consists of organizational members which are not capable of action.

18 be a member of the organization, which tools they can use and which subtasks they need to perform (Argote, 2012). Next to the latent organizational context, there is an active context. In the active context the real learning occurs since interactions with an organization’s tasks find place in here

(Argote, 2012). Then there are two more non discussed boxes. One is task performance experience.

Task performance experience consists of the number of task performances which can be

experienced as completed or successful but also as incomplete or unsuccessful (Argote, 2012). Since experience accumulates when an organization is performing tasks, the total number of task performances is used as the measure of the total experience of an organization. This task performance experience interacts with both the organizational context and the environmental context to create knowledge (Argote, 2012). The last box in the framework is knowledge. Knowledge is

something that is embedded in an organization’s products or services (Mansfield, 1985) and is acquired by learning. It is embedded in the whole organizational context, thus in the active and the latent part. Knowledge can also be created through performing tasks, as shown in the framework of Argote (2012) figure 4. Since it is embedded in a product or service, it also flows out into the environment. Knowledge is the outcome of learning and can be recognized by ones changes in cognition or behavior. Since knowledge can be explicit but also tacit, it can be a complex thing to articulate.

To deepen understanding, the above mentioned elements concerning this framework will be explained in three subchapters: experience, context and learning processes. Although these subchapters are based on Argote’s learning cycle, other research on the phenomenon of organizational learning is also interlinked. Since (task performance) experience is the starting point of every learning cycle (Argote, 2012), this concept will be explained first.

19

Figure 4. Theoretical framework for analyzing organizational learning

Source: Argote & Miron-Spektor (2011)

2.2.1.1 Experience

Experience is described and characterized along various dimensions by researchers since outcomes of experiences can affect learning process differently in every organization (Argote et al., 2003). In previous literature, the process of how organizations learn from their own direct experience is oftenly explained through learning curves, see figure 5. Other names for a learning curve is a process curve or experience curve (Levitt & March, 1988). The learning curve gives insight in an organizational learning process and can help organizations in shaping a certain strategy. Since every organization is different, learning curves can differ tremendously (Dutton & Thomas, 1984). For instance, a distinction can be made between manufacturing companies and service companies. Nevertheless, many manufacturing organizations follow a typical learning curve wherein the unit cost of production decreases at a decreasing rate, see left figure 5. Additionally, the learning curve in service organizations wherein a skill is needed is more or less comparable, but instead of measuring cumulative volume of production in average time per unit the level of skill is measured by time invested, see right of figure 5.

20

Figure 5. Learning curve of manufacturing organization (left) and service organization (right)

Note: these graphs are drawn by the author of this paper herself based on basic knowledge acquired in her business studies. Similar graphs could be found in business books and Google.

How experience on task performance is shaped can be explained through many different dimensions. Examples of how experience can be characterized are direct versus indirect experience, degree of novelty, degree of success, ambiguity, timing and geographic location (Argote, 2012). This first dimension is about whether experience is acquired directly or indirectly, which means centrally from its own organizational entity or from other entities (Argote, 2012). She mentioned this as the most fundamental dimension of experience. The other dimensions can be part of either direct or indirect experiences. Subsequently, organizations can learn from their own direct experiences (Dutton & Thomas, 1984), which refers to learning inside its own unit. These units can also learn from experience from other units in that organization, which is referred to as knowledge transfer (Darr et al., 1995; Szulanski, 1996).

2.2.1.2 Context

The aforementioned context is divided into an environmental context and organizational context. The organizational context, or background context, is divided into a latent part and an active part. The

21 latent organizational context influences learning in the active context through its effects on members, tasks and tools. The availability of these tasks and tools is also determined by the latent part. Three other things are partly determined by the latent part. These are an employee’s abilities, motivations and opportunities (Argote, 2012). For example, employees abilities are influenced by training programs and performance feedback. Additionally, employees can be motivated or demotivated by factors as the given rewards, feedback or an organization’s culture. As well, the structure and social network are influencing an employee’s opportunities within the organization, and thus, the learning cycle.

The most important three latent context components consist of the following. Firstly, depending on the type of organization, the relation of the context to organizational learning may differ. Haunschild & Sullivan (2002) and Ingram & Baum (1997) argue that there is a difference in learning from experience between organizations. They make a distinction between generalist organizations and specialist organizations. In their research they found that specialist organizations learn more from experience than generalist organizations. Secondly, the organizational culture. This component affects learning because it influences an employee’s feeling of safety and freedom to expression (Edmondson, 1999; Argyris & Schon, 1978). Liking among group members can facilitate organizational learning (Wong, 2004), and additionally a shared language enabled interpretation of experience (Weber & Camerer, 2003). The social environment is an extremely important contextual determinant of effectiveness of a training (Noe, 1986). In the next subchapter, the importance of organizational culture in the process of organizational learning will be further explained. Thirdly,

organizational structure plays an important role whether employees are stimulated in learning. For

instance, a distinction can be made between a decentralized structure as opposite from a centralized structure. Especially when an organization's environment is unstable, decentralization can help to explore solution for certain things and thereby prevents it from converging on suboptimal solutions too early (Ethiraj & Levintal, 2004; Siggelkow & Levinthal, 2003; Siggelkow & Rivkin, 2005).

22 Another finding on structure according Fang and colleagues (2010) is that semi-isolated subgroups result in the greatest organizational learning in comparison with fully isolated subgroups or fully decentralized subgroups.

A more practical addition to these factors mentioned by Argote (2012) is formed by Kolb & Kolb (20120. According to a case study by Kolb & Kolb (2010), playing in a ludic learning space can promote deep learning in different fields, such as the intellectual field. Firstly, because it encourages an individual to be responsible for its own learning which is based on his or her own standards of excellence. Secondly, the process of how an individual has attained knowledge is being valued equally as the outcome. Thirdly, the experiential learning cycle is engaged. This means that players are allowed to come back to the familiar experience with a new or fresh perspective. In this ludic learning space which Kolb & Kolb (2010) describe, the recursive nature of learning brings a form of continuity in an individual’s experience to mature and deepens knowledge. Applying these principles of deep learning in a formal organizational context could, according to Kolb & Kolb (2010), succeedif the organizational space allows employees to self-organize and create boundaries for recursive and timeless play. Also, the environment has to allow for the employees’ intrinsic interests and authenticity to come alive (Kolb & Kolb, 2010). Concluding on Kolb & Kolb (2010), learning spaces can make or break a learning process.

Concludingly on the influence of a certain context on the effect of organizational learning, the organization type, culture and structure are important influential factors. Other factors that may be taken into account are performance feedback, training, absorptive capacity, aspiration levels, slack resources, power and status, social networks, member diversity and stability and tools (Argote, 2013). A more practical addition on the context was given by Kolb & Kolb, who argue that a ludic learning space can promote deep learning. Now, how these learning processes work between the three boxes of task performance experience, knowledge and the active context will be explained.

23

2.2.1.3 Learning processes

The aforementioned curved arrows show where the process of learning occurs. These learning processes can indicate knowledge creation, knowledge transfer or search to knowledge. The three arrows are all sub processes of learning. The first arrow, the one from task performance experience towards knowledge, indicates either knowledge creation or knowledge transfer. The second arrow, from knowledge towards active context, indicates knowledge retention, which means that the knowledge created or transferred in the aforementioned process remains in the organization (Argote, 2012). The third arrow, which goes from the active context towards the task performance experience indicates the influence from the members and tools on task experience performance. Herein the aforementioned characteristics of experience come into play, for instance, employees can look for new experiences in their own circle, but can also specify it to looking in other subunits (indirect experiences) for only successful experiences. Additionally, these learning processes can be explained along various dimensions.

One dimension is about controlled processes versus automatic ones (Shiffrin & Schneider, 1977). Controlled processes can be defined as processes which are given mindful attention to. These processes must include dialogic practices (Tsoukas, 2009), which is a certain ‘dialogue’ wherein the conversation is not about the person, but about being with the person. Also, these controlled processes must include some sort of analogical reasoning. This means that there is sought for similarities between two cases to support a conclusion (Gentner, 1983). Automatic processes, on the other hand, are practices wherein is learned via stimulus and response. When responses are reinforced, the frequency goes up (Argote, 2012). A combination of both controlled and automatic learning processes can result in the two complementing each other which can optimize an organization’s learning (Levinthal & Rerup, 2006). This is also proven by Miller, Fern & Cardinal (2007). They argue that new knowledge is often obtained or created during knowledge transfer attempts, which means that indeed a combination may result in a positive result for an organization.

24 An organization can stimulate this process by implementing a transactive memory system. Such a system makes it able to distribute learning processes by providing information about who knows what.

2.2.2 Voluntary learning

In maximizing the effect of learning, one important factor that plays a role is voluntariness. When someone is willing to learn from intrinsic self-motivation the understanding of the learned

information increases (Carvalho & West, 2011). In addition, voluntary learning behavior is more self-directed and does not necessarily have to take place on the job (Walumbwa et al., 2009), which make flexible learning methods more attractive. Walumba and colleagues state that when applying for a job, one casual factor of formal job requirements is about how the voluntary learning is organized. Also, they say that an important predictor of voluntary learning behavior is the

identification one has with an organization. This is relevant for the link between an employee’s sense of self and the organization. When an employee is able to identify more closely with his or her employer, he or she should be more motivated to accept learning-appropriate role prescriptions (Walumbwa et al., 2009). This makes voluntariness an important factor in learning.

2.2.2 Deliberate learning efforts

An organization often measures its learning processes by looking at performance outcomes. According to Di Stefano and colleagues (2016), these learning processes can be found in two different sources: the accumulation of additional experience (practice or experiential learning) and the deliberate effort to articulate and codify experience which is accumulated in the past. They argue that when someone has accumulated experience with a certain task, there are more benefits when accumulating even more experience than consciously articulating and codifying the previously accumulated experience. This means that it is beneficial for an employee to review and reflect on

25 accumulated knowledge in order to increase future learning. This is more beneficial than only accumulating more knowledge and not reflecting at all (Di Stefano et al., 2016). An explanation of how this works.

First, in reflection there are two mechanisms that come into play: cognition and emotion. In the explanation of performance outcomes, deliberate learning efforts have influence on how one approaches the same task afterwards both cognitively and emotionally (Di Stefano et al., 2016). This means that someone’s tasks understanding (mechanism of cognition) and perceived self-efficacy (mechanism of emotion) mediate the performance outcomes of reflection. When someone has for instance great self-efficacy, reflection on a task can have more effect in a learning process than when someone has e a lower self-efficacy (Multon et al., 1991). A lower self-efficacy can be a result of for example a bad experience in the past. Besides, when a task is understood well and someone recognizes a link between the things learned, the learning process and especially the performance outcome can accelerate (Zollo & Winter, 2002; Kale & Singh, 2007). Second, Di Stefano and colleagues (2016) concluded that when both these mechanisms are considered at the same time, only task understanding seems to mediate in the connection between reflection efforts and improved performance. This suggests that the cognitive stimulant has a fundamental role in performance improvements. Third, the aforementioned reflection builds confidence in one’s ability to deal with a task. However, what really drives the performance increase is the cognitive mechanism of task understanding.

Concluding on the research of deliberate learning efforts, the improved understanding of the task is the driver of the actual performance increase. This improved understanding can be obtained by spending time on reflection of a task. Linking this to the previous subchapter of gamification, there are factors of gamification which imply to enforce reflection, such as feedback (Basten, 2017).

26

2.2.3 Measuring learning effects

In order to finding an answer on the research question, a manner of how to measure organizational learning effects is needed. Each organization measures its organizational learning with a different approach. For instance, it can use a cognitive approach or a behavioral approach (Argote, 2012). In the cognitive approach the cognition of employees is measured by for instance a cognitive test (Huff & Jenkins, 2002). The behavioral approach measures knowledge embedded in routines or practices (Gherardi, 2006; Levitt & March, 1988). It is difficult to decide which approach fits best with an organization since tacit knowledge is hard to capture. Therefore both approaches should rather be combined than divided (Leroy & Ramanantsoa, 1997).

2.3 Organizational culture

In this chapter previous literature on organizational culture is described. Herein, this phenomenon will be introduced by describing previous findings of the most influential researchers within this field. Two influential theories follow from the researchers Hofstede and Schwartz. Those theories will be outlined and discussed thoroughly in the next subchapters and are included in the theoretical framework. There are also other authors who researched this phenomenon, however, Hofstede and Schwarz included most of these theories within their own theories.

2.3.1 Academic literature on organizational culture

Organizational culture has been researched by many researchers in the past. Although outcomes are a bit different, most have categorized culture along various dimensions of organizational values and practices which are subsequently linked to a certain culture (Hofstede, 1990; Schwartz, 2012). In essence, organizational culture is about how members or employees relate to each other, to their work and to the environment compared to other organizations. This makes an organization's culture a

27 part of the inside of the organization, where, contradictory, organizational learning also happens outside the organization. However, still there is little empirical evidence on this phenomenon which makes it difficult to support theoretical arguments or show the relevance on this subject (Hofstede, 1990). Nevertheless, the last two decades interest has risen and different scales and measurement methods were developed (Cameron & Quinn, 2011; Hartnell, Ou, & Kinicki, 2011; Sarros, Gray, Densten, & Cooper, 2005).

According to Porto & Ferreira (2016), the most valuable and useful scales within this field were developed by Hofstede and colleagues (1990), Cameron & Quinn (2011) and O’Reilly, Chatman & Caldwell (1991). All of these researchers describe certain values as indicators of certain cultures. These values can be described as “shared mental representations” (Tindale et al., 1996) about an organization’s rules. These rules consequently guide practices and standards (Kahn, 1974). According to Barbera (2014), these values form the core element of the organizational culture. However, there is no consensus on these value dimensions (Sagiv & Schwartz, 2007). Since many of these studies measure different elements (values, practices, beliefs) of organizational culture, comparing and merging these theories is challenging.

Since values are stated as the big basic element of culture through the aforementioned researchers, a second scale-method of organizational culture which will be used in this paper is the value theory of Schwartz (1992, 2006). Schwartz, as another influencing researcher within this field, clarified how values differ from other concepts used to explain behavior. This behavior is found in attitudes, beliefs, norms, and traits (Schwartz, 2012). The value theory of Schwartz (1992, 2006a) follows the view that human values can be specified into six main features. These are features of all ten values and are also found in the writings of many other theorists (e.g. Allport, 1961; Feather, 1995; Kluckhohn, 1951; Morris, 1956; Rokeach 1973). The features of the value theory are shown in table 2 and have to be kept in mind when thinking and working with Schwartz’ value theory.

28 Many of the aforementioned researchers touched only the values-aspect of organizational culture in their studies and left other components of culture behind (Porto & Ferreira, 2016). For both Durkheim (1897/1964) and Weber (1905/1958), values were crucial for explaining social and personal organization and change (Schwartz 2012). However, Hofstede and colleagues (1990) also incorporated practices, which subsume symbols, heroes and rituals, see figure 6. Herein, organizational values are about what an employee of a firm should be and organizational practices are about what an employee actually does. They did multiple case studies and consequently developed a model with six cultural dimensions which could be seen as checklist for practical cultural differences between organizations. This model will be used in this paper and will therefore be further explained in the next subchapter.

Table 2. Six features of the value theory

Source: Schwartz (2012)

Figure 6. Manifestations of culture: from shallow to deep

Source: Hofstede (2003)

Six features of the value theory 1 Values are beliefs linked inextricably to affect. 2 Values refer to desirable goals that motivate action. 3 Values transcend specific actions and situations. 4 Values serve as standards or criteria.

5 Values are ordered by importance relative to one another. 6 The relative importance of multiple values guides action.

29

2.3.2 Schwartz value theory

Shalom H. Schwartz is a well-known researcher within the field of values. His first publication was about universal content and structure of values in which already seven of the later in total ten types of value were presented (Schwartz & Bilsky, 1990). All ten principles are a result of a study across 82 different countries and with a highly diverse geographic, cultural, linguistic, religious, age, gender and occupational groups (Schwartz, 2012). Consequently, the value theory of Schwartz (2012) describes the basic human values which have high level of consensus across many cultures and consists of shared common values between these different cultures. This can be based on values expressed explicitly or inferred indirectly from peoples judgement (Schwartz, 2012). Something that is quite incredible that the nature of these values are quite universal, as also the structure of the values. Nevertheless, people can have different priorities and hierarchies in these values and can attribute different importance to them (Schwartz, 2012). Schwartz (2012) divided these values in four categories. In addition, three principles are applicable. Both the values, the categories and the principles will be explained below.

The values are pictured in a circle, see figure 7. Herein, values which are close to each other

in either direction around the circle indicate that these values have more similar underlying motivations than the ones that are further away in distance (Schwartz, 2012). Also, values are adjacent to each other because they share both congruence and conflict. For instance, someone can attach great value to benevolence and universalism. These two values share enhancement of others and transcendence of selfish interests (Schwartz, 2012). However, according to Schwartz (2012) there is conflict in the sense that the universalism in essence cares about the welfare of all people and nature and benevolence does not. Benevolence is group focused and focuses on wellbeing in-group instead of the larger society and world as a whole (e.g. social justice, equality, world at peace).

30

Figure 7. Theoretical model of relations among ten motivational types of values

Source: Schwartz (2012)

Additionally, these values are divided into four categories. This distinction in categories ia

part of one of the three principles applicable and are therefore explained together. The first principle

is about these values being categorized along two dimensions: openness to change versus conservation (1) and self-transcendence versus self-enhancement (2). The former dimension shows the difference between values which are highly independent of thought, action and feelings on the one hand, and values which are about order, self-restriction, preservation of the past and resistance to change on the other hand (Schwartz, 2012). The latter dimension contrasts welfare and interest of others (self-transcendence) against the pursuit of one’s own interests and relative success, and additionally dominance of others (self-enhancement). In both dimensions, people from all over the world experience conflict between the values along these two dimensions.

The second principle divides the categories in personal focus and social focus. In figure 8, the difference between the two type of focuses can be found between the top two boxes (yellow and green) and the bottom two (red and purple). Although, there are two values, namely security and universalism, which share both focuses. However, these mostly concern social focus. Determining which values are incorporated in a company will help in determining a company’s focus.

31 The third principle distinct anxiety-based values against anxiety-free values. This principle is about how one feels in the social and physical world and can be described as the difference between the more conservative values (yellow and red boxes) against the more progressive ones (green and purple boxes). For instance, tradition and security serve maintaining thing as how they are, and power is about controlling threats (Schwartz, 2012). The values of the other side are more about growing and self-expansion. One exception is the value of achievement. Schwartz described that this one may, when meeting social standards, control anxiety. Subsequently, these values altogether can help in the prediction and understanding of relations of the values to certain attitudes and behavior.

Now, how are values divided from attitudes, beliefs, norms and traits? According to Schwartz (2012), values are the central component of our personality and are critical motivators of everything we do (behavior) and the way we think about something (attitude). Therefore, these values as a measuring scale for organizational culture are used in this paper, in order to investigate how this affects the application of gamification in an organization.

32

Figure 8. Dynamic underpinnings of the universal value structure

Source: Schwartz (2006)

2.3.3 Six cultural dimensions of Hofstede

The other influencing author on organizational culture is Geert Hofstede (1990). As aforementioned, he made a distinction between organizational values and organizational practices. The latter one can also be labeled as conventions, customs, habits, mores, traditions, or usages. He started his research a few decades ago, around 1980, when he developed a four-dimensional model of national culture differences based on research on work-related values in over 50 countries (Hofstede, 1980). These dimensions were independent. He labeled the four dimensions as followed: power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism vs. collectivism and masculinity vs. femininity. The former two can be measured in sense of strong vs. weak and large vs. small respectively (Hofstede, 1980). Here we see some similarity with Schwartz value theory, who also inducted the first three of these

33 dimensions in his three principles. This four-dimensional framework of Hofstede (1980) has been used and applied by both practitioners and students (Hofstede 1986). Later, he developed and specified these dimensions of organizational culture into six independent dimensions (Hofstede, 1990). These dimensions could be seen as checklist for practical cultural differences between organizations. They can help organizations in defining their organizational culture. The dimensions are not about the one dimension being better than the other, it is only about pointing out the differences in cultures. If an organization is able in doing this, it can help setting a certain strategy to achieve certain organizational goals. These dimensions, which are shown in table 3, need a little more explanation.

Table 3. The six dimensions of organizational culture

Source: Hofstede (1990)

The first dimension concerns the opposition between orientation on means or the process on the one hand and goals or results on the other hand. This dimensions closely linked to an organization’s effectiveness. When a culture scores high on means, this points out that the ‘how’ around carried out work is important. In a result-oriented culture the focus is around the ‘what’ and concerns about achieving internal goals. Peters and Waterman (1982) claimed that organizations

Organizational culture dimensions

process orientation vs. results orientation

employee oriented vs. job oriented

parochial identity vs. professional identity

closed system vs. open system

loose control vs. tight control

34 with the latter one have “stronger” cultures. Strong is interpreted here as employees having a homogeneous view, or cohesion, around beliefs, behavioral rules, traditions, and rituals.

Dimension two is about employee versus work orientation. In the former one organizations care about the employees and give attention to those with personal problems. In a work oriented culture, organizations put pressure on performance of employees and give less attention to personal circumstances.

Dimension three points out whether employee’s identity is about their own profession or more about the company in the broad way. In highly professional companies, the content of the job and the relating profession is important and gives an employee a certain identity or status. In the very parochial, or local company, an employee’s identity is determined by the boss or unit, wherein social control is often high.

The fourth dimensions measures a company's system. An open system is accessible wherein new employees feel welcome quickly. Also towards the outside world these organizations act friendly and they try to make everybody fit in. A closed system works the other way around.

Dimension five scopes a loose organizational control versus a tight organizational control. Loose control refers to a very easy going culture and structure wherein predictability is low. Improvisation and surprises are characteristics of this type of organization. The reverse happens in a tightly controlled system, since employees are very punctual, serious and conscious around cost-decisions.

The last dimension makes a distinction between a highly internally driven or highly externally driven organization. In the former one, employees perceive their tasks towards their clients or the outside world as given. Honesty and business ethics are very important and this results in bringing the best they can into the outside world. This is the normative dimension. Conversely, the pragmatic dimension is externally driven in which the ethical attitude is less important than the emphasis on requirements of customers.

35 Concluding, these dimensions of Hofstede (1990) can be used in measuring an organization’s culture. Together with the value theory of Schwartz, this will form the base in the analysis of this paper and will help in determining which cultural aspects have influence on the application of gamification in organizational learning.

3. Method

In the previous chapter, the literature of previous authors on the three subjects gamification, organizational learning and organizational culture was discussed which illustrated the complex process of how an organization learns and optimizes learning, and also the many other factory that come into play. This chapter serves a detailed description of the methodology used. This methodology is designed in order to analyze the research question:

RQ: “How is organizational culture a mediator in the application of gamification in organizational learning?”

Three propositions have been formed resulting from previous literature on gamification. Since O’Boycle & Harter (2014) argued for Generation Y having a higher level of engagement and motivation in contract with the more analogous generations, the first proposition is about applying gamified programs to employees from Generation Y having a more positive result than employees from analogous generations. The second proposition concerns the four factors issued by Kim & Lee (2015), who argue that when a firm has a certain relationship with the factors challenge, control, fantasy and curiosity, gamification fits better than in a firm who does not have a relationship with these factors of the DMGL. The third and last proposition is about the voluntary character in which gamification seems to work best according to McGonigal (2011) and Kim & Lee (2015). The three propositions are stated below:

36 P1: Applying gamified learning programs to employees from Generation Y have a more positive result

for an organization than applying gamified learning programs to employees of analogous generations. P2: Gamification is applied better in firms who have a certain relationship with challenge, control,

fantasy, curiosity

P3: Applying gamification in a learning program works best if participation is voluntary

Subsequently, one final proposition has been composed regarding the mediator organizational culture in combination with the application of gamification. Herein is chosen to test whether the value theory of Schwartz (2012) can be linked to gamification. Since generation Y scores higher on personal focus than on social focus (Aruna & Anitha, 2015), P4 is an addition to the other propositions in sense of strengthening this research by linking the literature of gamification to the literature of organizational culture.

P4: Gamified learning programs fit best in firms wherein employees' personal focus scores higher than employees' social focus, and thus scores high on openness to change and

self enhancement (Schwartz 2012)

3.1 Research approach and strategy

The approach used in this research is as well inductive and deductive. Inductive because the effect of organizational culture on the role of gamification in organizational learning will be researched in order to develop new theory. Deductive because already existing knowledge will be tested by the formed propositions, which are a result of previous literature which of the most useful information can be found in the literature review chapter. Subsequently, this research is a practice-oriented explorative multiple case study (Saunders & Lewis, 2014), wherein new insights about gamification are obtained. Due to the nascent nature of the phenomenon gamification and the lack of verifiable

37 theoretical models, the choice for an exploratory study is made. Herein, firstly, multiple theories about the mediator organizational culture are used, which are combined in the theoretical model. Secondly, to be able to form a more precise theoretical model for eventually further investigation, there will be focused on real world experiences in multiple firms which will contribute to the theoretical model. Also pattern analysis will be used, which strengthens internal validity (Yin, 2009). Using this pattern-matching logic, the empirically observed patterns can be compared with the predicted ones (Trochim, 1989) which are found in the propositions.

3.2 Data collection method

This research is a mono study whereby the relation between the phenomena of this research is studied by doing a heterogeneous purposeful convenience sampling (Saunders et al., 2012). This method lends itself to get into suitable cases by doing research in firms that meet some restrictions which will be outlined later in this paragraph. The typology used for the interviews is semi-structured. Herein, a set of predetermined questions is asked to the interviewee. All the relevant subjects as defined based on literature were covered and it also maintained the opportunity for identifying and discussing on new questions and issues. This insured that all items were covered related to the research question. The character of the interviews was cross-sectional since the interviews are conducted within two months.

All interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and coded in order to prepare them for analysis. The amount of interviews conducted is ten, with employees from different companies in a time span of two months. Multiple cases were used in an effort to find replicable and generalizable results (Yin, 2013). Additionally, a grounded theory approach was applied here to analyze the data collected through these interviews (Glaser & Strauss, 2009). This means that the data collection and data analysis were the drivers for new or additional theory formulation.

38 The interviews are conducted in six different organizations. Preferably fifty percent would be organizations which seemed more open to change and self-enhanced and fifty percent in organizations who tended to be more conservative and self-transcendent (Schwartz, 2012). This distinction was made to properly examine whether there is a difference in the application of gamification in different organizational cultures, which consequently has influence in the learning processes of an organization (Argote, 2012). To estimate whether an organizations fell in this first or latter distinction of Schwartz, a preliminary investigation was done by for instance reading information on their websites and asking ex-employees. In four of these organizations not one but two employees were interviewed in order to get more reliable data about the learning processes and the organizational culture. Herein, one of these two employees has been part of the implementation process of the gamified learning program (1). The other one consisted of an employee who made use of this particular gamified learning program (2). After conducting these first eight interviews, the researcher found that a second interview in the same organization was not adding many new insights. Ever since, only one interview per firm was conducted, with an employee with profile one (1). Therefore the fifth and sixth organization only consist of cases A, see table 4. One restriction all employees must met was that they work at least six months in the organization in order to be able to answer questions about the organizational culture. In table 4 you will find and overview of all interviews which have been conducted and used in this research. Since all interviewees are native Dutch speakers, the interviews were conducted in Dutch. The quotes which are used in chapter 5 Findings are translated in English by the author.

39

Table 4. Overview of cases

Case Industry Position Gender # years working

in company

Interview date

1A Financial services Location Director female 5 June 12, 2018

1B Financial services Financial Loan Advisor male 3 June 18, 2018

2A Financial services L&D Manager, HR Advisor

& Developer

female 30 June 18, 2018

2B Financial services Project Manager female 2,5 July 5, 2018

3A Consultancy HR Strategy Advisor female 2 June 14, 2018

3B Consultancy Talent & Learning Advisor female 0,7 July, 17, 2018

4A Consultancy Advisor female 1 July 20, 2018

4B Consultancy Healthcare Advisor female 2 July 23, 2018

5A Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) Implementation Coordinator Specialist female 35 July 20, 2018

6A Hospital Project coordinator female 3 August 7, 2018

Note: case A = employee who has been part of implementation process (1) and case B = employee who used gamified program (2)

A program called NVivo 11 (Welsh, 2002) is used as starting point to ‘play’ with the retrieved data (Yin, 2009) and to accomplish a good content analysis (Krippendorff, 2004). Since pattern analysis (Yin, 2009) is used for a deeper understanding, this program is very useful because data can be easily organized.

In order to organize, reduce, structure and analyze the interviews, the transcribed interviews were labeled into ‘codes’. A code is “most often a word or short phrase that symbolically assigns a summative, salient, essence-capturing, and/or evocative attribute for a portion of language based or visual data’’ (Saldana, 2012). The data is coded following a certain coding strategy. The coding strategy used in this paper is open coding, axial coding and selective coding respectively (Straus &