Moderator, Byron Reeves from Stanford University engages panelists, Charlie Kim of NextJump, Obie Fernandez of Dueprops, Mario Herger of SAP, Kes Sampathar of Cynergy, and Maksim Ovsyannikov of Rypple on how large enterprises and innovative startups are constantly seeking ways to attract, retain, train and incentivize their top-performing employees.
Kim talks about how experimenting with games requires permission to fail. To this end it is important to be supported by your management as you develop your gamification system.
Fernandez adds that even if the company signs up for the long haul, you better have a good onboarding experience or it won’t work.
Reeves asks about the kind of expertise that is necessary. Which is more important? Business or Game Design?
Fernandez replies that even if management says a certain tool must be used, if the game isn’t fun people will find ways to work around it or ignore it. The game has to be fun. The feedback should be paid attention to—even the rate at which you send email alerts should be monitored and analyzed.
There has to be someone at the product management level that is balancing intrinsic vs. extrinsic rewards, he continues. You can’ t just say this game is going to make your life experience better. People will roll their eyes if the game is too hokey. The extrinsic motivation has to be vibrant enough to engage them long term.
Ovsyannikov adds that people have to understand how the game fits into the game of “work.” That’s why they put the understanding the game of work ahead of understanding the game, for example, managers copy and paste reviews, basically phoning them in.
Who do we actually hire? asks Sampathar. People who understand business strategy over game design. He believes it’s much easier to train people in games than in business.
Kim expresses that the ideas behind gamification are one, whether you call it a game or call it leadership, at the end of the day, you are trying to identify a problem and solve it.
Different sets of things have to be taken in due course, according to Herger. From team building, to overcoming cultural biases or standard biases, how do you separate them out? Each one requires a different approach.
Fernandez tells a story about a guy on the verge of getting fired for always getting his own work in late. When the boss looks more closely he sees that he is praised by colleagues for helping them out even to his own detriment. The boss realizes that if he’d fired him, it would have been a major mistake. There has to be a better way to track the behaviors of employees.
Reeves asks whether people should take on Gamification in a major way or go in piece by piece.
Kim replies that no matter what the reward is, it has to matter and be relevant to the players. It also has to be competitive. His company gave a winning team $1000 if they worked out the most at the company gym. They created a leaderboard so everyone could see who was working out. Then the number of visits most people were paying started dropping off because there was one team that worked out the most. So everyone else stopped competing. So they introduced an algorithm that gave everyone a fit rank of 1-5 stars. Once it got competitive again- it sustained at 80%.
Ovsyannikov agrees that losing can be as important as winning.
In Germany, Herger says, they must contend with strict labor laws. His company could not start with Gamification easily. It has to fit into the privacy and labor laws.
Sampathar points out that once gamification is added to a work space, it can be more difficult to fix problems that may arise. If for example, once the game starts people feel alienated or marginalized it’s hard to fix. Healthy competition vs. negative attacks can be difficult to balance. Tread cautiously.
Ovsyannikov suggests you watch the work force. Stay on top of the game. Don’t just let a game fly. Watch your feedback.
