An organisation as a game An analysis of the implementation of the success factors of games into organisations within the creative industry to enhance innovation
Danique Kamp Utrecht School of the Arts / The Open University London Master of Arts in Arts Management 2011 – 2012
Student ID Supervisor External party’s
: : :
2082222 Gabrielle Kuiper MA Prof. dr. Leon de Caluwé Drs. Jaco de Rapper
2
I dedicate this thesis to my dearest uncle, who recently passed away, but always will be in my mind…
3
Abstract As an effect of the upcoming engagement economy and the unstable economic environment, managers and scholars of organisations have been developing an increasing interest for gamification (applying game elements to make practices more game-like). Hence, organisations within the creative industry are driven to explore the trend, especially because they are facing problems that force them to innovate. For example, increasing competition, the need to foster entrepreneurship and the rise of Generation G. In addition, small research and development budgets are present, and the mission of the government is to obtain the most creative economy of Europe by 2020. This thesis therefore analyses the extent to which the success factors of games can be implemented in organisations within the creative industry to enhance innovation. The exact research question is formulated as: to what extent can the success factors of games be implemented in organisations within the creative industry to enhance innovation? As meaningful work is an important driver to obtain innovation within the creative industry, this component is taken into consideration as an important factor during the analysis. By comparing the design of organisations with the design of games, and the mechanisms of meaningful work with the success factors of games, conclusions could be derived to be able to identify the meaningfulness of the success factors of games within creative organisations. These comparisons are based upon an extensive literature review on the creative industry as well as organisation, management, meaningful work and game theory. Interviews with professionals experienced in the application of game elements in organisations were conducted to explore practice and discover risks. In this way findings from theory could be examined with practice to strengthen the results. The analysis finally resulted in six values organisations within the creative industry can implement to make their organisation more game-like in order to enhance innovation. The six values are described as encompassing clear achievements linked to a narrative, direct and clear results, continuous voluntary challenges, equivalence, optimism and social rewards. The framework offers managers of the creative industry as well as the government opportunities to innovate. In addition, the outcomes offer opportunities for further research into the emergence of game based organisations in other industries.
Keywords Gamification, creative industry, meaningful work, innovation, change management.
4
About the author Danique Kamp executed this research in order to complete the Master of Arts in Arts Management at the Utrecht School of the Arts. She studied a Bachelor of Event Management also at the Utrecht School of the Arts. The author has experience in project management, the experience economy, cultural entrepreneurship and communication strategies. She has worked for several years in the commercial industry, whilst facing creative and cultural influences. Correspondence concerning this thesis can be send to: Danique Kamp Kanaalstraat 90a 3532 CM Utrecht The Netherlands Questions and remarks can also be sent via e-mail to
[email protected].
5
It is games that give us something to do when there is nothing to do. We thus call games “pastimes” and regard them as trifling fillers of the interstices of our lives. But they are much more important than that. They are clues to the future. And their serious cultivation now is perhaps our only salvation. (Suits, 2005, p. 154).
6
Preface Yes! After seven months full of mood swings, setbacks and good ideas I proudly present my thesis. The process I have gone through added a tremendous value to my experience. Not only regarding knowledge as well as to me as an individual. Me, a non-gamer, studied gaming, went abroad on my own and studied during summer, all this for the first time in my life. In case you wondered, yes, I am proud of myself. This thesis is the result of a research into what extent the success factors of games can be implemented into organisations within the creative industry to enhance innovation. This thesis would not have been accomplished without the help of others. I am extremely grateful to a number of individuals who contributed to my research. Most importantly I would like to thank the following professionals for sharing their knowledge and experience: Kati Koivu (University of Tampere), Frans Mäyrä (Game Research Lab), Annakaisa Kultima (Game Research Lab), Jaakko Stenros (Game Research Lab), Melinda Jacobs (Flight 1337), Herman Koster (Demovides) and Jaco de Rapper (Optend). Of the Utrecht School of the Arts and as an extraordinary personality I would like to thank my supervisor Gabrielle Kuiper. Thank you for encouraging and motivating me, and for your insights and critical view, which have brought my thesis to a higher level. In addition, I would like to use the opportunity to thank my external party Prof. dr. Leon de Caluwé. I would have been lost without your comments and judgement with regard to validation and relevance for the professional field. Frans Smits and Jaco de Rapper, thank you for believing in me and giving me the opportunity to come over whenever I wanted to read, write or just talk. I could not have endured these seven months without your help. During this master program I have been fortunate to meet my wonderful classmates. I wish to especially thank Chrysoula Demiskidou, Anita Fox, Lisanne Fransen, Zanella Hey, Amanda Kool and Marieke Kooymans. This year would not have been so successful without you! Last but not least, mom and dad, thanks for all your support and phone calls in which you encouraged and reassured me. I realised that sometimes it has not been easy for you. Utrecht, August 2012 Danique Kamp
7
Table of contents 1. Introduction 1.1. Problem definition
13
1.1.1. Gamification top of mind in organisations
13
1.1.2. The engagement economy
14
1.1.3. The creative industry
14
1.2. Objectives
15
1.3. Research questions
16
1.4. Relevance
16
1.4.1. Sociological perspective
16
1.4.2. Political perspective
17
1.4.3. Economical perspective
17
1.4.4. Scientific perspective
18
1.4.5. New perspective
18
1.5. Concluding
20
1.6. Design of the report
20
2. Research approach
21
2.1. Field of research
21
2.2. Data collection
22
2.2.1. Literature
22
2.2.2. Interviews
22
2.3. Data analysis
25
2.4. Concluding
26
3. The creative industry 3.1. Creative industries
12
28 28
3.1.1. Towards a definition
29
3.1.2. The concentric model
30
3.1.3. The UNCTAD model
31
8
3.1.4. The TNO schema 3.1.5. Comparing the differences
33
3.1.6. The Dutch case
34
3.2. The importance of the creative industry
34
3.2.1. The welfare model
35
3.2.2. The competition model
36
3.2.3. The growth model
36
3.2.4. The innovation model
36
3.2.5. What does this mean?
37
3.3. Organisational design versus the mission of the creative industry
37
3.4. Concluding
40
4. Meaningful work 4.1. The individual as a source of meaningful work
41 41
4.1.1. Intrinsic motivation
42
4.1.2. Values
43
4.1.3. Beliefs
44
4.1.4. In summary
46
4.2. Mechanisms for the design of meaningful work
47
4.2.1. Authenticity
47
4.2.2. Purpose
48
4.2.3. Autonomy
49
4.2.4. Belongingness
50
4.2.5. Transcendence
50
4.3. Concluding 5. Game design patterns 5.1. Focussing on the design of games
31
51 52 52
5.1.1. Defining games
52
5.1.2. The six game elements
54
9
5.2. Focussing on the behaviour evoked by games
56
5.2.1. Purpose
56
5.2.2. The feedback system
57
5.2.3. Voluntary challenges
56
5.2.4. Optimism
58
5.2.5. Social comparison / connection
59
5.2.6. Narrative
59
5.4. Concluding 6. Analysis
60 61
6.1. Organisational design versus game design
61
6.1.1. Organisations and games as systems
61
6.1.2. Organisations and games compared based on their single
65
characteristics/elements 6.1.3. Interviews
68
6.1.4. What does this mean?
69
6.2. Meaningful work versus the success factors of games
69
6.2.1. Authenticity
70
6.2.2. Purpose
70
6.2.3. Autonomy
71
6.2.4. Belongingness
72
6.2.5. Transcendence
73
6.2.6. Visualised
74
6.4. Concluding
75
7. Conclusion
76
8. Discussion
80
8.1. Recommendations for further research
80
8.2. Evaluation of the research methods
81
10
9. Management product
83
9.1. The model
83
9.2. Recommendations for implementation
85
References
92
Appendices
101
Transcription interview Melinda Jacobs – Flight 1337
101
Transcription interview Herman Koster – Demovides
119
Transcription interview Jaco de Rapper – Optend
128
11
1. Introduction Gamification is hot and appears to be the new buzzword in today’s society. In 2011 it ended up at the Oxford University short list as word of the year (PR Newswire United Business Media, 2011) and was emphasised in trend reports of Gardner, Deloitte, The Rabobank and Forbes. It is often said games are a safe place to practice for real life. As much or as little as that we succeed in playing games. It is about fun, the fun of learning, being trained and the enjoyment that follows from the practice of trying (Castel, 2011). In the past, organisations often utilised full games like America's Army, a game that became the most successful recruitment campaign of the U.S. Army ever. Games are also being utilised to solve managerial issues in other fields than military such as the government, education and healthcare. Today the focus shifts increasingly from adding full games to adding specific game elements to organisations, such as scoring and feedback systems (Van Manen & Bloem, 2012). The use of these specific game elements in non-game contexts can be defined as gamification (Deterding, Khaled, Nacke & Dixon, 2011). Others define the trend as the process of adding an actionable layer of context (Jacobs, 2012). However, gamification is a tricky concept to ultimately define because a wide discussion is going on concerning the effects and the applicability of word. Therefore, explaining the concept by utilising examples makes it less complicated. Cases of organisations that already apply the aforementioned additional layer of context in terms of game elements are: 1) The British Co-operative Banking Group (n.d.) recently released a gamified car insurance for younger people. Based on the behaviour of young drivers a leader board of winners was presented at which the most secure drivers were highly listed. In addition, good behaviour was rewarded with positive feedback. The more secure is being driven, the lower the premium. 2) The online training institute Khan Academy (n.d) utilises game design elements like levels, instant feedback and a visualisation of progress to make learning accessible and fun. Like for example, in Super Mario the first levels begin easily as
12
well. Students are able to follow their progress and pathway towards their end goal. 3) IBM (2007) utilised a completely virtual world to implement new technologies in urban areas in the project Innov8 CityOne. 4) With Nike+ (n.d.) this sports brand turned running into a playful activity by challenging players to get through new levels of an iPhone app. Derived from the aforementioned examples it can be concluded that in its simplest form the main goal of gamification is to engage people with extrinsic rewards, like points. However, when looking at the positive emotions game elements evoke by means of continues positive feedback, intrinsic rewards are also included.
1.1 Problem definition 1.1.1. Gamification top of mind in organisations It is notable that the general attention for gamification amongst organisations keeps increasing. Studies into this subject are becoming more common and even an increasing amount of seminars are organised, both on a national and international level. For example, the Rabobank in Utrecht recently designed an interactive workshop for its employees concerning the application of gamification. It was specified that this issue is a “hot item” on the list of resources for innovation. In addition, the last two editions of the DIGRA conference, a prominent international event within the game industry that provides information on new and innovative topics, included sessions and workshops on to what extent game elements could be integrated into organisations. The previous Festival of Games, Europe’s most effective business event for everyone who wants to make profit with digital games, also contained various presentations on gamification. They addressed that gamification is a subject that has an enormous potential to generate extra engagement and therefore extra profit (Jacobs, 2012). Although the past five years the emphasis in organisations was mainly on collaborating, one currently seems to rediscover the power of games. It is noteworthy that we are experiencing a shift from an era dominated by collaboration and efficiency to an era in which game, engagement, efficiency and effectiveness work together (Van Manen & Bloem, 2012). Now the social layer in which one works in teams and a bottom-up versus a top down structure is
13
exposed is increasingly taking shape, the time has come to add an extra layer of context to increase engagement: game elements.
1.1.2. The engagement economy The shift in focus and the increasing attention for gamification are developments that appear to be the cause of the upcoming engagement economy. An economy in which, organisations need to become “smart players” to maintain the attention of employees and enrich their experiences. Instead of traditional stimuli and compensation in terms of discounts, spread payments, salaries and bonuses, meaningfulness comes first (Dekas, Rosso, Wrzesniewski, 2010; Pratt & Ashforth, 2003; Sauerman & Cohen, 2008; Shamir, 1991). We, humans strive for rewarding based on positive emotions and intrinsic values. Mutual engagement between the individual and the organisation encourages employees personally and collectively to increase productivity in order to reach the common goal. So, it is likely that employees within this engagement economy desire the same things gamification can offer. Van Manen and Bloem (2012) even state that gamification is the next step in evolution between humans and technology, and culture and economy.
1.1.3. The creative industry Just as gamification is a relatively new concept in today’s society, also the industry from which games arise is, the creative industry. It is one of the fastest growing industries and in all aspects involved in the upcoming engagement economy in which meaningfulness takes a central place (Jacobs, Hofman & Van Gogh, 2011). Moreover, this industry is immersed in a massive increase in competition (Flordia, 2007). In these highly competitive environments, organisations must therefore not only constantly innovate their creative products, services and business models, but also have a critical look at the role of meaningfulness (Ministry of Economics, Agriculture & Innovation, 2011). In addition, the Dutch Ministry of Economics, Agriculture and Innovation (MEAI) (2011) has determined nine top sectors, which are standing out and with which the Netherlands could obtain a strong position worldwide. The top sectors should strengthen the coming years to contribute to a more creative economy, because in 2020 the Netherlands wants to have the most creative economy of Europe. The creative industry is one of these nine determined top sectors. According to the MEAI, the creative industry plays a leading role in strengthening the
14
innovative capacity of the Netherlands. Moreover, continues innovation and unusual solutions for complex problems is essential for a sustainable, prosperous and competitive country. Something the creative industry is capable to produce. With the intensification of competition and the mission of the MEAI (2011), meaningfulness, but also innovation is increasingly becoming important (Amabile, 2007; Reeves, Byron & Leighton Read, 2009). Innovation is the crucial element that enables organisations within the creative industry to distinguish themselves and to contribute to a creative economy. Moreover, the art of achieving new combinations is the essence of innovation (Hagoort, Oostinjen, Van Thiel & Szita, 2007). Therefore, combining game elements and organisations within the creative industry could be a solution for innovation. So, it is time to grab the phenomenon gamification with both hands and build it up to a true victory for organisations within the creative industry. It can be concluded that it is interesting is to analyse to what extent the success factors of games can contribute to the innovation of organisations within the creative industry. Such an analysis has to start with examining the relationship between meaningfulness and innovation, and the extent to which the success factors of games are related. The results of this analysis can provide insights for both, the creative industry as a whole as managers of single organisations within the creative industry.
1.2. Objectives In this research, the extent to which the success factors of games can be implemented in organisations within the creative industry to enhance innovation will be identified. Because most literature and examples concerning gamification are focussed on implementing some aspects of games, the goal of this study is to take a step ahead: approach the implementation of success factors as viewing work as a game. Hereby is strived for the implementation of a total package, so no superficial implementation of some single game elements. It is assumed that this approach will have a more significant effect on a long-term period because of the integration of intrinsic rewards (Chorney, 2012; Copier et al., 2011; Jensen, 2012; McGonigal, 2011; Van Bree, 2011). With this research there is strived to create awareness concerning the effects the success factors of games can offer. In addition a goal is to contribute to the need for innovation within
15
the creative industry. In the current literature on viewing work as a game a practical guide is greatly lacking. That is why there is strived for a management product in terms of a practical explanation / guideline based on recommendations and a model. Through this, this research hopefully can serve as a medium for a dialogue and can provide a basis for further implementation into other industries.
1.3. Research questions The aforementioned has resulted in the following main research question: ‘To what extent can the success factors of games be implemented in organisations within the creative industry to enhance innovation’? In order to answer this question, the following sub questions need to be answered: 1) What contains the creative industry and why is it important within our society? 2) To what extent does the design of organisations relate to the vision of the creative industry? 3) Based on which does the individual determine the personal perception of meaningful work? 4) Which values constitute the basis for the creation of meaningful work? 5) To what extent are game elements and success factors of games coherent? 6) To what extent can organisations be compared with games? 7) In which way are the mechanisms of meaningful work reflected in the success factors of games? 8) What are the risks of implementing the success factors of games?
1.4. Relevance With the rapid rise of, the increasing attention for and many on-going discussions about the concept of gamification, the need for new approaches maintains. There is no single clear definition of gamification and still the question is whether the concept will survive anyway (Jacobs 2012; Van Manen & Bloem, 2012). In addition, the definitions are often too general, making them difficult to translate into practical solutions and not suitable enough for specific industries like the creative industry. With the current rapid changing environment as a result of digitisation and the emerging engagement economy, it is from multiple perspectives very
16
important that organisations within the creative industry are able to go along with trends such as gamification. It is important to understand why it occurs, to investigate it and to use it innovatively.
1.4.1. Sociological perspective From a sociological perspective the creative industry is one of the few industries that shows little or no resistance to new ways of thinking and trends such as gamification, particularly because of the age of employees and the small size of organisations. Moreover, the creative industry is part of the emergence of gamification and accustomed to the use of new mind-sets (MEAI, 2011). New business models, new organisational designs and new ways of working, which will increasingly becoming important in others sectors, will rise first in the creative sector (MEAI). Therefore, it is essential to conduct research in organisations within the creative industry to make topics as gamification more transparent, understandable and usable for other industries. In addition, it can be addressed that younger generations want to be informed, approached and learn in another way. When it comes to innovation we currently have to utilise a new way of thinking and analysis, based on the lifestyles of younger generations. An important phenomenon is the rise of Generation G (1999-2000), which is the first large group whose principal form of engagement is games (Zicherman & Linder, 2010). This is a generation with which all organisations have to deal with in the future. The emergence of Generation G ensures that organisations are forced to apply game elements to avoid a generation gap between traditional and new cultures of organisations.
1.4.2. Political perspective From a political perspective the MEAI states in the current Innovation Contract Topsector Creative Industries (Topsectorenbeleid) that that the creative industry needs to enhance an entrepreneurial attitude and is forced to innovate because of a retreating government and a growing believe in competition. Besides, the mission of the MEAI is to obtain the most creative economy of Europe in 2020, which requires innovation. According to the MEAI innovation should be translated into the utilisation of games. With the emergence of gaming in the innovation policy of the government, the creative industry is facing new challenges. The challenges and difficulties resulting from gaming as means to innovate are also important motives for conducting this research.
17
1.4.3. Economical perspective From an economical perspective the creative industry excels in creating economic value from creativity. A healthy entrepreneurial spirit characterises the sector. A vital creative industry, however, requires a permanent “power supply” of the entrepreneurial drive and that is why the entrepreneurial abilities are not excellent yet. According to the MEAI (2011) this is partly caused by the moderate connection between education and the labour market, whereby it is not only about initial education but also about life long learning. Too many employees in the creative industry are apparently lacking in skills and ambitions, necessary to get started as a start-up, to professionalise and to innovate. This research provides information to foster entrepreneurship. In addition implementing the success factors of games offers creative organisations possibilities to enter a new phase in their life cycle (innovate).
1.4.4. Scientific perspective Research and development (R&D) in the creative industry differs essentially form technological R&D. R&D in creative organisations goes hand in hand with daily practices in the workplace: the innovation cycle is fast and changeable. In the typical small-scale creative industry a few organisations with large R&D budgets for long-term research are present. Moreover, the sector usually rushes: projects have a short duration and require an intensive research effort. However, the system is not designed to support those research efforts. The creative industry and large research parties as TNO and NOW therefore barely collaborate. According 1)
to
the
MEAI
(2011)
this
results
in
a
triple
challenge:
Relevant knowledge for the creative industry is (disciplinary) highly fragmented;
2)
There is only limited knowledge of the creative industry itself;
3)
Knowledge transfer of new information has not yet succeeded sufficiently.
This research contributes to the aforementioned challenges. 1) It offers knowledge based on specific needs of the creative industry. 2) It provides insights into the creative industry itself. 3) It contributes new scientific knowledge in terms of gamification, which is practically applicable and accessible for others.
1.4.5. New perspective In times of recession it is important to reflect upon trends and developments. Literature
18
mainly states that the general approach towards gamification is greatly lacking (Chorney, 2012; Jensen, 2012; Van Manen & Bloem, 2012; Van Bree, 2011). One of the central problems with gamification is that it is often viewed as a “just add points” principle while it actually is not (Deterding, Khaled, Nacke & Dixon, 2011). Various examples of gamification also include intrinsic drivers such as continuous positive feedback. However, the general application of just adding points is an extrinsically motivated principle, which is not present for inherent enjoyment (Ryan & Deci, 2000). In other words, behaviour is stimulated to satisfy an external reward (points) or “to attain ego enhancements” (Van Bree, p.3). As such, gamification is not a sustainable strategy for engagement because engagement is based upon intrinsic rewards as explained at page 14. Moreover, according to game designers, using superficial single game elements has nothing to do with proper game design (Chorney, 2012; Jensen, 2012; Van Bree, 2011). Just adding points is the least important part of games in which social, emotional and cognitive drivers are also present (Salen & Zimmerman, 2004). This stresses that gamification should be informed by contextual inquiry, include intrinsic values and therefore should be viewed as a total package. Because this study focuses on viewing organisations within the creative industry as games, which means that the implementation of a complete package of success factors placed within a contextual perspective is analysed, this research offers interesting outcomes. Studies that share the vision of this research are studies of Van Bree (2011) and Warmelink (2011). However, Warmelink approaches the topic from the perspective of playfulness. Approaching the topic from play or from games results in a significant difference because play appears within free context and games within a structured framework (Salen & Zimmerman, 2010). Choosing games as a starting point will therefore strengthen this research with a structured framework, making it easier to manage the outcomes from a helicopter perspective. Van Bree (2011), however, also approaches the topic from games and identifies to what extent the design of games can contribute to the exploration of complex organisational systems with important social side effects. In this research, the main goal is, however, increasing innovation of organisations within the creative industry. The comparison between the design of games and the design of organisations made by Van Bree will also be highlighted in this research. Therefore, the basic idea that organisations can be viewed as games is the same, but the next steps and the focus serve another purpose.
19
Finally, the studies of Van Bree (2011) and Warmelink (2011) are of a high exploratory nature, particularly because the topic is very new. By adding a management product in which a practical guide is offered, this research therefore distinguishes from the aforementioned two studies.
1.5. Concluding The choices as made in this research ensure statements can be made about the added value of the success factors of games in organisations within the creative industry. By analysing the innovation caused by the success factors of games, the outcomes are extremely relevant for the government and the creative industry that is forced to enhance an entrepreneurial attitude and to innovate.
1.6. Design of the report This research begins with an explanation concerning the methodological approach. In the next chapter the creative industry has been focused on. In this chapter a short introduction is provided with regard to the history and the definition of this sector. In addition, research is done to the importance of the creative industry and to what extent the mission of this industry is consistent with the general design of organisations. Chapter four gives insight in they way individuals form their perspective towards meaningful work. In addition the mechanisms through which meaningful work can be created is researched. This results in five mechanisms, which are guiding for the rest of this thesis. In chapter five the design of games is outlined in order to critically determine the behaviour evoked by games. This results in six success factors also guiding for the rest of this thesis. Based on the literature study and interviews with professionals, the design of organisations is compared with the design of games, and the five mechanisms of meaningful work are compared with the success factors of games in chapter six. From this analysis, six values organisations within the creative industry can implement to view work as a game are derived. These six values will be described in chapter seven, the conclusion. In the conclusion these six values are also connected with the enhancement of innovation of organisations within the creative industry. This thesis rounds up with a discussion in which recommendations for further research are formulated and the research methods are evaluated. Lastly a practical approach (the management product) of the six values as described in chapter seven is outlined via a model and requirements for implementation in chapter nine.
20
2. Research approach The research approach describes the methods applied during this study. It comes to the understanding of how the research is conducted and the preconditions it has to comply.
2.1. Field of research The execution of this study is based on a qualitative analysis with a deductive approach i.e. a theoretically focussed qualitative research. Qualitative research can be defined as research in which you predominantly use data of a qualitative nature that aims to describe and interpret research problems or situations, events and people (Baarda, De Goede & Theunisse, 2001, p.15). According to Baarda, De Goede and Theunisse the selection of qualitative research can be based on three different characteristics: objective, respondents and topic. The way in which these characteristics relate to this research makes the qualitative approach in several respects suitable. The objective of this thesis is to describe and interpret a specific theme, which can be implemented in concrete everyday circumstances. In this case: identify to what extent the success factors of games can be implemented into organisations within the creative industry to enhance innovation. The future situation is the research situation and most important are the perspectives and perceptions of those concerned (Baarda, De Goede & Theunisse, pp.18-19). The emphasis of this research is based on existing literature and the interpretations and underlying motivations of those involved, which were necessary to the take into consideration in order to be able to explore pitfalls and difficulties with regard to gamification. It is important that the respondents have a bond of trust and interaction with the researcher during the research process (Baarda, De Goede & Theunisse, p.18). The qualitative approach is particularly suitable for this. The topic of this research is suitable for qualitative research due to the complexity and the fact that it relates to processes and interaction within existing organisations (Baarda, De Goede & Theunisse, p.18). However, less literature is available on this topic and therefore this research has an exploratory character. In addition longitudinal research was not possible due to time constrains.
21
2.2. Data collection In qualitative research it is assumed that the problem is multifaceted and therefore the interrelationship should be discussed (Baarda, De Goede & Theunisse, 2001, p.19). As well as in this study, a complex research problem is present. To be able to examine all aspects datatrangulatie (Baarda, De Goede & Theunisse, p.96) is utilised. By using different types of research data and data sources, the research situation will be more reliable and valid (Baarda, De Goede & Theunisse, p.96). In the collection of data, especially for conducting the interviews, openness regarding topics and structure was important. In addition there was strived for a flexible approach and method. Preliminary to this, a slight pre-structuring and pre-standardisation process was applied. Finally, practical considerations such as availability of time had a role in the collection of data.
2.2.1. Literature For this research an extensive literature search is conducted in order to discover comparable research and guiding theoretical insights and terms. For this, Internet databases Google Scholar and Omega, and reference lists of former conducted researches in organisational science, psychology and game studies are utilised. The literature is selected on reliability and publishing date. There was strived to utilise recent literature, although it was inevitable to ignore some older prominent publications. Finally, a couple of sources remained and served as a theoretical framework. In each chapter the selection of specific literature is justified.
2.2.2. Interviews In qualitative research it is important to conduct the research during everyday practice (Baarda, De Goede & Theunisse, 2001, p.19). In the interviews, scope should be present for the expression of feelings and ideas. To accomplish this, an (open) interview topic structure with a semi-structured pattern is utilised. Questions and answers were not set in advance, however the topics had to be discussed (Baarda, De Goede & Theunisse, p.133). The order of the topics was not established and because of interest in the underlying motivations and thoughts, asking extra questions was required to be able to obtain usable information.
22
As individual ideas and practices at an institutional level come first, it was important that information could be discussed openly. The respondents should have the idea that every answer is acceptable or valuable (Baarda, De Goede & Theunisse, p.131). Therefore, a group discussion is considered as not suitable. The interviews were more in line with a personal conversation. For this study six interviews with professionals are conducted. Three of these interviews are detailed in terms of minutes (1-3). The other three (4- 6) are completely recorded and reported (see appendix). In each interview the same topics tried to be discussed, however the expertise and background of the interviewees were taken into consideration.
2.2.2.1. (1-3) The first three interviews mainly served as background information for this research, hereby minutes were considered as sufficient. These people are engaged in game research, but not directly involved in management or the creative industry. These interviews will therefore not be analysed in this research. However, the University of Tampere, Finland is selected based on the high quality of education, the presence of a unique game research lab and a seminar on game innovation, which was organised in the second week of April. The interviewees in Tampere, Finland are selected based on their general knowledge towards game design and their open attitude towards innovation in the field of gaming. These interviews were conducted with: 1) Head of Game Reseach Lab - Frans Mäyrä Frans Mäyrä is the head of the research group at the Game Research Lab at the University of Tampere, Finland. He is professor of information studies and interactive media, with specialisation in digital culture and game studies. His background is in textual, media and cultural studies. His current interests focus on the broad field of digital culture, including games and net cultures. 2) Researcher Game Research Lab - Annakaisa Kultima Annakaisa Kultima started at Game Research Lab in September 2006 and since then she has managed a number of research projects. Her educational background is in theoretical philosophy. In addition she occasionally writes game reviews for Gamereactor Finland.
23
3) PhD Student Game Research Lab and author - Jaakko Stenros Jaakko Stenros started at Game Research Lab in June 2006. His background is in sociology. He worked on numerous, both national and international research projects. He is the author of Pervasive Games: Theory and Design (2009), as well as an editor of three books on role-playing games: Nordic Larp (2010), Playground Worlds (2008) and Beyond Role and Play (2004). The first interview concerned an introduction to the approach the University of Tampere utilises on game research and the areas that are mainly investigated. This was primarily an orientation in the field of literature that should be read in relation to game design and critical success factors of games. Additionally, various assumptions could be tested. The second conversation was mainly of philosophical nature. Many theories on game design were compared in a profound manner. In addition, Annakaisa helped designing the structure of this research. The third conversation was generally about larping and role-play, and the extent to which games increasingly return in today's society. The interviews primarily provided insight into the vision of gamers, game designers and game researchers on innovation and the relationship between games and other contexts. A clear picture also has emerged concerning the question why gamers are so passionate and by what this is caused. Through this information it was possible to identify to what extent the outcomes are related and relevant to game designers.
2.2.2.2. (4-6) The last three conversations are based on a triptych. The first interview is conducted with Melinda Jacobs, a game designer who designs games for solving a variety of managerial issues. The second conversation is done with Herman Koster, an expert in the field of leadership and organisational design, who also utilises games elements for the design of organisations. The third interview is conducted with Jaco de Rapper, a behavioural scientist who is specialised in change management and thus has no expertise in the field of games. All interviewees are selected based on their knowledge in the field of gamification either organisational design or change. These interviews are important research resources and therefore, analysed for the purpose of this study.
24
2.2.2.3. Overall The selection of six interviews is based on practical, but also substantive considerations. In practical terms the conversations were time-consuming. The interviews took place at the workplaces of the interviewees and lasted about 60 minutes. Conducting and analysing the interviews took so much time that more conversations were not possible considering the time schedule. Above all, the selection is based on substantive considerations. During the interviews a repetition in the answers was noticed. Previous assumptions on multiple fronts were confirmed repeatedly. An intrinsic saturation occurred, an important objective within the qualitative research tradition (Baarda, De Goede & Theunisse, 2001, p.74). It was likely that six interviews delivered adequate information to provide this research with solid arguments.
2.3. Data analysis In the phase of analysis it was noticed that aspects derived from the interviews were more interesting to research than the initial research question. The original problem statement was strongly focussed on redesigning independent creative organisations: organisations with a creative policy, a production of creative products or services and operating in the creative industry. This selection was based on the assumption that these types of organisations are more open to change and the implementation of game elements. The relevance for this type of organisation soon proved to be insufficient and the expected results were therefore hardly useful. Eventually there is chosen to change the problem statement into the current research question. The justification of the type of research as mentioned in paragraph 1.1. and the choice of data as explained in paragraph 1.2. are based on the new problem statement. The literature study had to be adjusted and the topics had to be analysed in the light of the new problem statement once again. However, the interviews were usable, as the questions were not focused on a type of organisation, but rather on the effects of implementation of games and game elements in general. In the stage of data analysis the following planning of phases is utilised: 1) Selecting information on relevance 2) Dividing the information into fragments 3) Labelling of the fragments 4) Organising and reducing the labels 5) Determining the validity of the labelling
25
6) The formulation of core tags 7) Answering the problem definition (Baarda, De Goede & Theunisse, 2001)
The data analysis strategy has as a starting point the implementation of success factors of games in organisations, with a focus on the creative industry. This is based on the assumption that organisations and games are comparable and that meaningful work is the basis for innovation. There is no formal theory present on a comparison of organisations and games based on their design. To be able to compare games and organisations within the creative industry, similar characteristics with a common definition and a common way of applying are necessary. Therefore, the system theory is utilised as a starting point of the analysis. The four dimensions of Littlejohn and Foss (2007) are applied in order to assess if organisations can be viewed as games, because this source can be viewed as the most common and valid theory on system approaches. Only if the outcome is positive, the analysis can be continued on a deeper level. In addition, not formal theory is present on meaningful work in relation to the success factors of games. Therefore, primarily literature is thoroughly and substantively analysed utilising the aforementioned phases of Baarda, De Goede and Theunisse (2001). The objective of this literature study was to find out via which mechanisms meaningful work can be achieved. Based on these findings a number of key labels were identified, namely authenticity (1), purpose (2), autonomy (3), belongingness (4) and transcendence (5). These labels served as a basis for analysing literature on games and the interviews. An important factor could be described as in what way labels could be identified in literature on games and in the interviews, and to what extent they could be concretised. Hereby the way interviewees are designing games, give substance to objectives of organisations and how this differs form the labels has been taken into consideration for the management product. Finally the labels are compared with the success factors of games to be able to state something about the meaningfulness of these success factors. Obviously any negative effects/risks of implementing game elements are taken into consideration. These are addressed in the management product, in which recommendations for implementation are outlined. Eventually, six values are determined out of the comparison between the labels and
26
the success factors of games, which could ensure that by implementing them, organisations within the creative industry view work as a game in order to enhance innovation.
2.4. Concluding After presenting the methodology of this research, the creative industry will be discussed in the next chapter. This discussion needs to take place in order to be able to understand what the creative industry means, and why it is so important for our society and this research.
27
3. The creative industry This chapter highlight the industry this thesis will focus on: the creative industry. To be able to discuss to what extent the success factors of games could be implemented into organisations within the creative industry, it is important to frame this sector. After a short introduction on the creative industry itself, in which the history and the definition of this industry is described, the relevance of this industry for our society will be outlined. In addition the general design of organisations is compared with the mission of the creative industry. This shows which role meaningfulness takes in organisations and to what extent meaningfulness is important for organisations within creative industry.
3.1. Creative industries The relatively recent creative industry is an extension of the already existing cultural industry. The change from cultural to creative industries is however not a mere neutral one (Garnham, 2005). The term seems to have originated from multiple political discussions, started in the United Kingdom in 1997, but later also in other countries. In the United Kingdom creative industries were at first viewed as “the key new growth sector of the economy... and thus, against a background of manufacturing sector decline, they are the key source of future employment growth and export earnings.” (Garnham, p.25). Hereafter the discussion focussed on expanding the scope of the cultural industry. One of the reasons the United Kingdom policies added the term “creative” was the opportunity to add the whole computer software sector. “Only on this basis it was possible to make claims about size and growth stand up” (Garnham, p.26). This means that by adding the computer software sector, possibilities to expand the scope of the creative industries could go hand in hand with increasing the economic potential. In addition, the creative industry maintains a specific relationship with the computer software sector. The products developed by the creative industry are basically intangible; it involves information shared in many forms with costumers, both private and professional. In almost all cases, the creative industry utilises new or more traditional information and communication technologies. The new types are for example related to digital networks and various forms of information processing (software). Innovation in the creative industry is closely linked to
28
developments in the computer and software technology. The development of the Internet and all sorts of new digital equipment currently provides a thorough reorganisation of the media industry, the emergence of new segments, such as the games industry, and for a thorough reform of society. The creative industry is a leader in that development, precisely because it is a sector that floats on the development and exploitation of information and symbolism, in the broadest sense. Therefore, it is in some cases not very clear whether organisations belong to the computer software sector or the creative industry. Examples include global players such as Google, Apple and Amazon. In the Netherlands, Tom Tom is an example of the in some cases extensive fusion of creative industries and the computer software sector. In contrast to the United Kingdom, the computer software is in many other countries and also in the Netherlands, therefore, not part of the creative industry or vice versa. This partly explains why the British creative industries show high growth rates. One could ask why the United Kingdom then still is relevant for the rest of the creative industries in the world, and in particular the Netherlands. This is because the political implications of the aforementioned shift in discussion are not without consequences for the global interpretation of the creative industry. Moreover, the United Kingdom might be the catalyst of the ‘creative economy thinking’.
3.1.1. Towards a definition After years of presenting reports, background papers, incentives and so forth, the United Nations Conference of Trade and Development (UNCTAD) presented the Creative Economy Report in 2008. This is the first well-published report on (the value of) the creative industry. Statements in this report are largely based on the political discussions of the United Kingdom. In the UNCTAD report, the creative industries “can be defined as the cycles of creation, production and distribution of goods and services that use creativity and intellectual capital as primary inputs” (UNCTAD, 2008, p. 4). However, this definition is rather vague, as it does not include any concrete sectors. But it is becoming clear that the creative industries are not just a single concept with an unambiguous meaning. The extent to which the definition of UNCTAD internally differs is a question that needs to be answered in order to examine the correct understanding of the concept. Therefore, the differences are explored based upon three models visualising the creative industry: the concentric model of Trosby (2008), the UNCTAD model (2008) and a schema designed by TNO (2010).
29
3.1.2. The concentric model The concentric model of Trosby (2008) conceptualises the cultural sector as a component of the larger economy via a series of concentric circles centred on the creative arts. This model is based on the proposition that creative people are the primary source of ideas in sound, text, image and performance that are utilised throughout the cultural sector and beyond. The model proposes that ideas generated in the creative core diffuse outwards through the layers, nourishing industries that become increasingly commercial as one moves further from the centre (Trosby, 2008). “This process occurs not only through the diffusion of ideas but also through the movement of creative workers, who acquire skills and nurture their talent in the core creative arts, and may finish up working in a variety of industries both within the cultural sector and beyond it” (Trosby, 2008, pp. 147–164).
Figure 1: The concentric model. Adapted from: “The concentric circles model of the cultural industries” by D. Trosby, 2008, p 150.
30
3.1.3. The UNCTAD model The UNCTAD model displays the creative industry via a classification of four groups: heritage, arts, media and functional creations. “The rationale behind this classification is the fact that most countries and institutions include various industries under the heading “creative industries”, but very few try to classify these industries in domains, groups and subsectors” (UNCTAD, 2008, p. 13). According to UNCTAD (2008), doing so facilitates an understanding of the cross-sectorial interactions as well as of the broad picture.
Figure 2: The UNCTAD Model of Creative Industries. Adapted from: “The Creative Economy Report” by UNCTAD, 2008, p. 14.
3.1.4. The TNO schema The TNO scheme derives from a working paper by Rutten, Koops and Roso (2010), prepared for the benefit of earlier research into the creative industry. This model is a revision of a previous definition of Rutten in 2004, in response to an international harmonisation of statistics. This resulted in a partial revision of SBI (standaard bedrijfsindeling) codes. This necessary adjustment has been seized to also substantively adjust the operational definition on some minor points.
31
Art and cultural heritage
1. Performing arts - Practice of performing arts (creation) - Producers of performing arts (production) - Theatres (operation) 2. Artistic creation - Writing and other creative arts (creation) - Art galleries and exhibition spaces (operation) 3. Cultural heritage - Museums (operation) - Libraries (operation) - Art rental and other cultural rental centres (operation) - Public archives (operation) - Care for historic buildings (service) 4. Other arts and heritage - Services for the performing arts (service) - Information in the field of tourism (service) - Aid funds (service) - “Friends” in the field of culture and fan clubs (service)
Media and entertainment industry 1. Broadcasting - Production of television programs (production) - Television stations (operation) - Radio broadcasters (operation) - Facility activities for film and television production (service) 2. Print media - News agencies (creation / production) - Photography (creation / production) - Publishing of newspapers (operation) - Publishing of journals (operation) - Other services in the field of information (service)
Creative services
1. Communication and Information - Advertising (creation / service) - Trading in advertising space (service) - Public Relations Offices (creation/service) - Organization of congresses and fairs (creation / service) 2. Graphics and Design - Architects (creation) - Industrial design and graphic design (creation)
3. Film - Production of films (production) - Distribution of films and television productions (operation) - Cinemas (operation) 4. Music industry - Publishing of sound recordings (production / operation) 5. Book industry - Publishing of books (production / operation) 6. Gaming and other publishing activities - Publishing of computer games (production / operation) - Other software publishing (operation) - Other publishing (non software) (operation) 7. Live entertainment - Theme parks (production / operation) - Circus and cabaret (production / operation)
Figure 3. Organisational classification of the creative industries. Adapted from “Creatieve industrie in de SBI 2008 bedrijfsindeling” by O, Koops, M, Roso & P. Rutten, 2010, pp. 5-8.
32
3.1.5. Comparing the differences However, small the differences may seem, the UNCTAD model (2008) expands on the model of Trosby (2008) significantly. Likewise, the model of TNO (2010) expands on the UNCTAD model only to a lesser extent. The model of Trosby clearly shows that other creative arts and core creative arts are an extension to the cultural industry. Although today the outer circle is already included within the creative industry, a remarkable difference between the model of Trosby and the UNCTAD model is notable. With regard to this outer circle of related industries, jewellery, toys and R&D are included in the UNCTAD model. Whether the addition of jewellery and toys based on value creation is a real added value is however questionable, since the export values of the products resulting from the creative industry only relate to the end product and not to the design content (UNCTAD, p. 129). The value creation of jewellery and toys based on raw material (design content) is in fact much less than the end product. In addition, the social impact is questionable, because a single production of a jewel or toy cannot contribute that much to social integration or cultural diversity. For this reason, TNO probably omitted the addition of jewellery, toys and R&D. Compared with UNCTAD, TNO utilised the same clear tripartite division within the creative industry: art & cultural heritage, media and creative services. In addition, almost all sub sectors are the same; only TNO expands the sub sectors to split them at some points. These more detailed splitting leads to an application of creation, operation and service at the end of the various sub sectors, making it clear in which part of the process value is situated. Although according to Trosby (2008) no right or wrong models of the creative industry exist, the choice to utilise a particular model has however consequences for the interpretation of structural characteristics of the creative production. These characteristics determine for example the formulation of the expected economic size of the creative industry, measured in terms of value added, contribution to GDP, levels of employment and so on. Depending on the chosen model these characteristics vary, “since different models include a different collection of industries in the mix” (Trosby, p.156). Therefore, the aforementioned model of TNO is identified as the most realistic and complete definition of the creative industry for this research.
33
3.1.6. The Dutch case In the most common Dutch definition of the creative industries, the division of arts and cultural heritage, media and entertainment industry, and creative services is utilised (Koops, Roso & Rutten, 2010). Partly because of this, the definition of TNO is suitable for the Netherlands. In addition, TNO is a Dutch research institute and their data is also based on Dutch characteristics of the creative industry. This makes the developed schema applicable and acceptable for the Netherlands.
In the Netherlands ‘creative services’ is by far the largest entity. 63% of the organisations within the creative industry belong to this sector. That amount is 26% for media and 11% for art and cultural heritage (MEAI, 2011). The domain of arts and cultural heritage is mainly about the aesthetic experience based on works and artefacts that are usually created based on artistic and cultural necessity, and less with a view to commercial exploitation. This likely explains the small amount of 11%. The aesthetic characteristic of art and cultural heritage applies to a lesser extent to the media and entertainment industry in which profitable operation and serving a wider audience is important. Which does not mean that aesthetic quality in this sub-sector is of paramount importance. The creative services primarily involve the supply of creative services to business customers, which likely explains the major share of 63%. Typical for the creative industry in the Netherlands is that relatively many small organisations are operating besides quite a few big ones, like Endemol. Midsize organisations are less represented (Koops, Roso & Rutten, 2010). Furthermore, the creative industries are in particular concentrated in urban areas, especially in inner cities (Braaksma, De Jong & Stam, 2005; Koops, Roso & Rutten). Proximity is a relevant factor for the operation of the creative industry. Also encompasses that an important part of the creative industries presupposes proximity between product and audience, such as performing arts and museums, making the concentration of activities in urban areas and even within cities obvious.
3.2. The importance of the creative industry The importance and significance of the creative industry has been a regular topic of research and discussion in the recent years (Braaksma, De Jong & Stam, 2005; Koops, Roso & Rutten, 2010; Marlet & Woerkens, 2004). These research reports have repeatedly shown that the creative industries contribute significantly to the economy. It is assumed that they employ
34
people and provide work for organisations. There is also raised that the sector makes an important contribution to the Dutch gross national product (GDP). The figures show that the sector is growing by an average of six per cent per year and has 43,000 businesses and 172,000 employed persons (MEAI, 2011). The total share of GDP is also more than 2% (MEAI), making it seems impossible to imagine the creative industry will disappear out of the economic landscape of the Netherlands. The question is whether these figures are not too specific based on the importance of the creative industry. The sector seems to have a broader contribution than only adding economic value. As a collection of interrelated factors, as described in section 3.1., the creative industry likely is indirectly an important engine for innovation and development. It also seems to have a higher social significance than only a share in the GDP. This dubiety is confirmed through four models, developed by Jason Pots and Stuart Cunningham (2008): the welfare model, the competition model, the growth model and the innovation model. These models reflect the ratio between the growth (economic value) within the creative industry (CI), the overall industries (Y) and utility (U). The premise in these models is that change, for example in the form of innovation within the creative industry, affects the overall industries.
3.2.1. The welfare model dY
dU <0,
dCI
>0 dCI
Welfare in the creative industry has in itself a negative effect on the overall industries. The products and services created in the creative industry are welfare enhancing, but they need other industries to remain economically viable (Potts & Cunningham, 2008). This is because many organisations within the creative industry are unable to function independently and without subsidy. However, the social value of the products and services is acknowledged. It is, therefore, this social value that is utilised to legitimise the adjustment of prevailing market value of organisations within the creative industry. According to Potts and Cunningham, the key aspect of the creative industry is thus the (cultural/creative) value of production.
35
3.2.2. The competition model dY
dU =0,
dCI
=0 dCI
The effect of competition in the creative industry on other industries with regard to economic value is neutral. This means that the creative industry operates in line with the local average based on competition (Potts & Cunningham, 2008). Therefore, the produced creative goods are ‘normal goods’, which implicates the sector is just another industry with competition that is assumed being as challenging as in for example tourism (Potts & Cunningham). Thereby is not argued that the sector has no specific difficulties. From this it can be derived that the production of creative industries has a specific creative value and is in line with overall economic growth. However, this model seems only applicable for some more commercial industries such as film, TV and publishing.
3.2.3. The growth model dY
dU >0,
dCI
≥0 dCI
“This model explicitly proposes a positive economic relation between growth in the creative industries and growth in the aggregate economy. The key difference from models 1 and 2 is that model 3 actively involves the creative industries in the growth of the economy. Evidence would accrue not just in jobs and commodities (as in model 2), but in new types of jobs and new sorts of commodities and services” (Potts & Cunningham, 2008, pp. 237-238).
3.2.4. The innovation model The previous three models have a lot of analytical possibilities, however, model 4 approaches the relationship between the creative industries and the overall industries in a different way (not based on economic value).
36
dY
dU = undefined,
dCI
= open dCI
“The significance of the creative industries is not in terms of their relative contribution to economic value (models 1–3), but due to their contribution to the coordination of new innovative ideas or technologies, and thus to the process of development. Development in the creative industries therefore produces structural and not just operational change in the economy.” (Potts & Cunningham, 2008, pp. 238–239)
3.2.5. What does this mean? From these models it can be concluded that the creative industry is particularly important for growth and innovation in the Netherlands. There is a considerable growth, not necessarily directly in economic value, but in new types of jobs and services. Producing innovative products and services, its own way of innovating and the great adaptability remarkably establish the power of the creative industry. Moreover, in which the creative industry sets itself apart from other organisations is the specific nature of its innovative goods and services (MEAI, 2011), whereby the innovation derives from achieving new combinations and meaningfulness. In the creative industry meaningfulness and symbolism take a central place, which means that consumers purchase these products or services primarily for its symbolic value, its meaning. This symbolic value is therefore economically exploited on a large scale and thus a driver for growth and innovation.
3.3. Organisational design versus the mission of the creative industry The previous section showed the results on the relationship between the creative industry, economic development and innovation. This provided important indications for the specific role that the creative industry and the creative professions born within the creative industry play in today's society. The power of the creative industry is situated in the continuous generation of meaningful innovative products and services. This innovation largely depends on human productivity and creativity to constantly create meaning based on new concepts and ideas. This productivity and creativity will only continue to exist in a large amount, as the employees of organisations within the creative industry are strongly intrinsically motivated i.e. if work is meaningful. But are organisations generally designed to provide in the need for intrinsic values?
37
When analysing an organisation in general, firstly a common understanding of what an organisation contains i.e. what is an organisation is important. Leavit (1965) defines organisations as open focused systems of elements, which
influences
each
other
individually. Appointing the focused systems of elements can embody this holistic definition of Leavit. Although there is no clear distinction of these elements, the literature generally refers to strategy, structure and culture (Leavit, 1965; Mintzberg, 1979; Wentink, 2005; Caluwé, Cor & Weggeman, 2005). A more complete distinction of an organisation is developed by means of the Leidse octaëder (Figure 2). As displayed in figure 4, the
Figure 4: The Leidse octaëder. Adapted from “Ontwerpen en ontwikkelen van organisaties” by J.J. Boonstra, H.O. Steensma & M.I. Demenint, 2002, p. 27.
Leidse octaëder consists of six variables interacting and tending to a dynamic balance. It can be noted that organisations are appointed as a collection of interrelated and interdependent parts or subsystems, which form a whole together. This is also referred to as a system. The presence of an objective, structure, culture, strategy, technology and people, all interrelated, should therefore be the definition of an organisation (Boonstra, Steensma & Demenint 2002, p. 28). Also organisations in the creative industry should regardless size or specialisation include all the characteristics of the Leidse octaëder to be able to call themselves ‘organisation’. As shown in figure 4, organisations are built on people. However, in general organisational theories, as described in Boonstra, Demenint & Steensma (2002), there is virtually no attention given to the importance of intrinsic values. The intrinsic values are precisely really important for employees in organisations within the creative industry to be able to realise the aforementioned mission of the sector. In addition, a study of Daniel Pink (2008) demonstrated that the productivity and the creative performance of employees decrease when they are driven by extrinsic rewards. Taking this knowledge into consideration when comparing the
38
organisational design based on the Leidse octaëder and organisations within the creative industry, the following remarks can be derived. 1) The objective of organisations within the creative industry to design meaningful innovative products and services is achieved via a strategy, formed by culture, structure, technology and finance (Wentink, 2005; Collin and Porras, 2002). Therefore, strategy needs to be placed above culture, structure, and technology, as these elements are part of the strategy (see figure 5). 2) Finance should be added as an element to the operation of an organisation at the same level as culture, technology and structure (see figure 5), as this element is several times addressed in literature as part of the strategy (Wentink, 2005; Collin and Porras, 2002). 3) In the Leidse octaëder ‘people’ is viewed as a building block of the organisation, however, the significance of intrinsic values is ignored. So with regard to people, an extra layer should be added based on the intrinsic values/meaningfulness of work (see figure 5). How this layer should be designed will be discussed in chapter 4.
Figure 5: The Tumbler by D. Kamp, 2012.
39
3.4. Concluding In this chapter a framework to position and understand the creative industry itself and her importance is created. There is focused on the TNO definition of the creative industry and how this can be contrasted to other existing international models. As well, the different approaches towards the interpretations of the economic value are questioned. It has been found that the creative industry not only contributes to the economic value in terms of GDP, but also is an important drive for development and innovation. In addition, there is clarified how the demarcation of the creative industry and her mission arising from the importance of the sector is related to the general design of organisations. In this light, a broader definition of organisational design is argued by adding an additional layer based on intrinsic values/meaningful work. In the next chapter, this thesis will elaborate on the relationship between individuals and meaningful work. The way in which meaningful work is created will be more specifically scrutinised.
40
4. Meaningful work
This chapter focuses on the meaningfulness of work, as this constitutes as basis for individuals in the creative industry to be able to continuously generate meaningful creative and innovative products and services. It is a concept difficult to approach and assess as it is embedded in several intangible aspects. In addition, the elements of meaningful work are fragmented in theory. It is therefore important to research the cohesion, as an isolation of single elements as presented in theory will not obtain the proper understanding of meaningful work. Therefore, a theoretical exploration is necessary. In the first paragraph a comparison between the individual and meaningful work is outlined, in which it becomes clear why the characteristics intrinsic motivation, values and beliefs serve as sources for meaningful work. This trichotomy is based on an article of Dekas, Rosso and Wrzesniewski in which becomes clear that intrinsic motivation, values and beliefs form the perception of individuals on meaningful work. Hereafter the way in which meaningful work can be created is emphasised. This shows five derived values constituting as mechanisms for the design of meaningful work, which in chapter six will be compared with the success factors of games in order to assess the meaningfulness of the success factors.
4.1. The individual as a source of meaningful work “Meaningful work is not just about the meaning of the paid work we perform; it is about the way we live our lives” (Chalofsky, 2003, p.58). It is the alignment of purpose and motivation we pursue in life (Chalofsky). Discussing the individual as a source of meaningful work is important because in organisations within the creative industry, these individuals are the one who generate innovative products and services based on their creative capacity and productivity. They have to continually experience work as meaningful in order to be able to deliver this output. The elements of the individual, which are part of the assessment of meaningful work, are therefore discussed in this paragraph. A large number of studies focussed on how intrinsic motivation, values, or beliefs of individuals influence the perceptions on the meaning of work (Dekas, Rosso & Wrzesniewski, 2010). However, a distinction of these three elements together is not commonly made. This paragraph therefore includes these three fields of research as elements individuals utilise to constitute their perception of meaningful work.
41
4.1.1. Intrinsic motivation One of the first links between motivation and the meaningfulness of work originates from a study into internal work motivation. Internal work motivation is explained by Dekas, Rosso and Wrzesniewski (2010) as the positive feeling that is caused by individuals whilst performing effectively on a task. The question however is, is how this internal work motivation is related to the meaningfulness of work. The ‘job characteristics model’ of Hackman, Lawler and Oldham (2000) refers to this question. In this model, it is indicated that the experienced meaning of work (variety, significance, complete) is one of the psychological statuses being essential for the development of the internal work motivation. According to the job characteristics model, the sense of internal work motivation is enhanced by meaningful work, because it provokes the idea that the individual’s work matters. The work of Hackman, Lawler and Oldham is a continuation of an earlier theory of Hackman and Oldham (1980), whereby the model is part of a proposal of a more general process, in which individuals are continuously driven from internal to external motivation. An interesting perspective in the theory of Hackman and Oldham is that the most internally driven form of motivation takes the form of intrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation is generally defined as individuals “driven by deep interest and involvement in the work, by curiosity, enjoyment, or a personal sense of challenge” (Amabile, 1996, p.7). There are however many varieties present based on the emergence of intrinsic motivation. Some examples are Csíkszentmihályi (1975) suggesting that it can be directed to the activity’s flow and Ryff (2000) suggesting that without intrinsic motivation, an individual will not perform at all, or will try to simply achieve the extrinsic goals as soon as possible. Others interpret the term as the expected correlation between an individual’s self-image and a specific environment or task. This cognitive conception indicates that intrinsic motivation is influenced by the work context itself, being satisfactory and fulfilling. The cognitive manner of thinking seems to be a source for the development of the selfdetermination theory, suggesting that the purest forms of motivation arises when people experience autonomy, competence, and relatedness in their activities (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Diametrically opposed to the self-determination theory stands a theory that is more based on senses, suggesting that intrinsic motivation results from feelings or self-images, being the core of one’s own behaviour (Shamir, 1991). Although both approaches influence the
42
perception of meaningful work, the cognitive view is generally emphasised in meaningful work literature. 4.1.1.1. Importance For this research, it is proposed that when people experience a form of intrinsic motivation, they are likely to interpret it as a sign of coherence between their work content and their selfimages, which produces greater experienced meaningfulness. For example, tasks, which are not construed as enjoyable, will be experienced as intrinsically motivating and meaningful if they are connected to elements of an individual’s self-image (Shamir, 1991). This choice is made based on the aforementioned statement that this approach is generally emphasised in literature. In addition, this approach is based on deeper internal drivers, which are particularly important for the creative industry.
4.1.2. Values It tends to be logical that work values vary amongst individuals, partly because it often reflects the influence of social norms and interaction between individuals, what is perceived different by every individual. Therefore, it seems values can shape work experience and vice versa. This is strengthened by the following statement of Brief and Nord (1990), in which is supposed that values have a ‘‘mutually causal relationship with the meanings that individuals attach to their work, resulting from the meanings societies attach to work and acting as a source of meaning individuals draw from in their work’’ (p.22). Social psychologist Milton Rokeach is one of the first academics that has written about the nature of human values. Most discussions about human values with regard to work contexts generally follow his perspective: “products of cultural, institutional, and personal forces acting upon the individual that in turn have consequences of their own” (Brief & Nord, 1990, p.24). In addition, work values in particular are defined as “the end states people desire and feel they ought to be able to realize through working” (Brief & Nord, p.21). Values are interpreted in many ways by several researchers. But surprisingly they are mostly interpreted as work values and to a lesser extent related to other domains in life. Although the role of values is often examined in the light of meaningful work, researchers tend to explain them very broadly, loosely and without a concrete relationship. This results in an unclear distinction between values and meaning, making them often approached as synonyms or that
43
meaning is defined in terms of values (Baumeister & Vohs, 2002; Brief & Nord, 1990; Dekas, Rosso & Wrzesniewski, 2010). Because values are so many times intertwined with the meaning of work, as aforementioned, they are in this paragraph explained as a source of meaningful work and will be described as a component of the mechanisms through which work becomes meaningful in paragraph 4.2. In examining values as a source of the meaning of work, various researchers have utilised many different orientations, ranging from broad to specific and from intrinsic to extrinsic. Examples of specific categories of values are for example purpose, self-image, social relationships and so forth (Dekas, Rosso & Wrzesniewski, 2010). To operationalize and test the effects of these values with regard to work meaning, some researchers have designed new scales and others utilise existing scales like Schwartz scale of ten basis values (Schwartz, 1992). What is notable is that individuals often have the opportunity to self select their profession based on a personal value profile. Likewise, Brief and Nord (1990) suggest a cyclical process whereby values influence occupational choices, and the experiences of work in those occupations reinforce those values. This opportunity to choose self-realization and personal fulfillment is therefore in general a very important value, which is related to the degree
to
which
work
is
assed
as
meaningful.
Overall, research suggests that values are crucial in shaping the meanings individuals make of their work (Brief & Nord, 1990). However, series of definitions and orientations of values in the meaning of work, and the difficult intertwining of values and meaning makes the distinction of the two terms a tough process. Therefore, it makes it difficult to generalise from the findings. For this research the effect is that the component values it not only discussed in relation to the individual as a source of meaningful work, but also will be addressed as a mechanism through which work becomes meaningful.
4.1.3. Beliefs The beliefs of individuals about the role of work in their lives are the type of beliefs meant in this paragraph. Generally four mainstreams of research are significant because they constitue the basis for the beliefs of individuals. 1) Job involvement. 2). Work centrality. 3) Work orientation. 4) Callings (Dekas, Rosso, & Wrzesniewski, 2010).
44
4.1.3.1. Job involvement and work centrality Job involvement contains the degree to which a job is central to the lives of individuals and reflects the relationship between real needs and the perceptions that a job can meet those needs (Dekas, Rosso, & Wrzesniewski, 2010). In other words, job involvement is about the psychological engagement of individuals with their jobs. The higher the level of involvement, the harder it is to separate the self-image from the particular job, making that particular work more meaningful (Brown, 1996). Work centrality is comparable to job involvement, it however adds an extra layer more concretely: the extent of centrality of work compared to other domains in the lives of individuals. The intensity of the relationship between the individual and the type of work represents the meaningfulness of work (Dekas, Rosso, & Wrzesniewski). A variety of relevant experiments with regard to job involvement and work centrality are about the importance of money. Generally the participants were asked, “If by some chance you inherited enough money to live comfortably without working, do you think you would work anyway or not?” (Vecchio, 1980, p.362). As already expected, the results of different studies showed that a large amount of the respondents answered that they would like to continue working (Vecchio, 1980; Pink, 2008). . From this, it can be derived how central work is in the life of individuals and that the meaning of work includes often much more than financial rewards. 4.1.3.2. Work orientation Work orientation is a more common approach towards the beliefs of individuals about work meaning than job involvement and work centrality (Dekas, Rosso, & Wrzesniewski, 2010). It contains the beliefs about the influence of work in general instead of beliefs about the current work context. From this perspective it can be concluded that work orientation indicates, “the primary types of meaning people see in the activity of work” (Dekas, Rosso, & Wrzesniewski, 2010, p.98). In other words, the work orientation of employees provides an insight into how they understand what their work means and why they even work. 4.1.3.3. A job, career or calling Work orientation can be divided in a trichotomy with regard to the way individuals see work. According to Schwartz (1992) and Dekas, Rosso, & Wrzesniewski (2010) this trichotomy is composed of a job, a career or a calling. Individuals believing in a job have a strong focus on
45
material benefits, primarily serving the interest to be able to provide in further maintenance. Contradicting to a job, individuals believing in a career experience the material benefits as advancement through an organisational structure. In other words “for those with career orientations, the increased pay, prestige, and status that come with promotion and advancement are a dominant focus of work” (Dekas, Rosso, & Wrzesniewski, p. 98). Calling is generally interpreted as the most interesting view on work as it has nothing to do with financial rewards. It is “the fulfillment that doing the work brings” (Dekas, Rosso, & Wrzesniewski, p.98). Here the work is an objective in itself, and is usually associated with the belief that work contributes to the lager entity and makes the world a better place. However, work has to provide opportunities in order to experience work as personally satisfying and having a material impact (Dekas, Rosso, & Wrzesniewski).
4.1.4. In summary The review of the individual and the meaning of work has resulted in three sources as discussed above: intrinsic motivation, values and beliefs. It is derived that these underlying elements influence the interpretation of the meaning of work by individuals. In other words, the way in which individuals see themselves and their orientation towards work activities fulfil a crucial role in the meaning of that particular work. From this it can be concluded that the individual is certainly an important source for the meaning of work. The additional layer of the Tumbler, as presented in chapter three, can thus be designed as:
Figure 6: Additional layer of the Tumbler by D. Kamp, 2012.
In the next paragraph the mechanisms through which intrinsic motivation, values and beliefs are triggered in order to design meaningful work are elaborated. By delineating by which mechanisms meaningful work is created, this section goes further than analysing the origin of meaningful work. It is about the process through which it is produced.
46
4.2. Mechanisms for the design of meaningful work The mechanisms through which the sources reviewed above contribute to meaningful work are in various ways explained in literature. In this perspective, mechanisms can be defined as the how’s and why’s of the noticed relationships. In other words, mechanisms are the driving engine between two variables, including the process through which one variable affects another. As well as in this research, the mechanisms have another level of analysis than the main sources in a described relationship (intrinsic motivation, values, beliefs). The mechanisms in this paragraph range from intrapsychic processes emphasising the fulfilment of the self to those that go beyond the self. The examination of mechanisms for meaningful work varies in literature from very explicit and measurable to implicit and theoretical. In this section, a basic set of mechanisms is identified. By summarising the essential mechanisms of meaningful work explored by various researchers to make clear how the meaning if work is composed, there is aimed to create a framework making sense of the existing literature as well as providing key labels which will be utilised for examining the meaningfulness of the success factors of games.
4.2.1. Authenticity In literature, authenticity is referred to as one of the most common domains through which work becomes meaningful. Basically authenticity is about the comparison between the behaviour of an individual and the perception of that individual’s “true” self (Pine & Gilmore, 2004). Towards meaningful work, authenticity is often described as a self-motive, which helps individuals to evoke meaning. In literature various researchers explain mechanisms related to authenticity also as the development of the “true” self. However, they also have utilised a variety of authenticity forms in which not only the self, but also others and the work context is viewed as a source of meaning. This analysis advocates that authenticity forms meaningful work because it allows individuals caring their behaviour is consistent with their beliefs, intentions and values during work (Shamir, 1991). This consistency in behaviour can return in work environments in a couple of ways. As described at paragraph 4.1.3.3. it is likely that someone who works based on a calling beliefs work can connect to the core of him/herself by behaving in line with personal values or intentions. This can be extremely meaningful because it promotes feelings of internal consistency (Baumeister & Vohs, 2002). Likewise, an individual who is very keen on informal communication is likely to experience authenticity when working in an informal
47
organisation. So, these feelings allow individuals to sense they are behaving in line with their beliefs and values whilst performing at work. This consistency therefore cooperates in creating the meanings individuals generate from their work, and results in higher experienced meaningfulness (Baumeister & Vohs). In addition, authenticity as mechanism of meaningful work can be shaped by the way in which personal identities are activated through work (Dekas, Rosso, & Wrzesniewski, 2010). For example, an individual who sees him/herself as highly responsible will interpret his/her work as more authentic when the tasks he/she has to complete require responsibility. The extent to which work affirms this identity affirmation process determines the level of authenticity and therefore, the work will be experienced as more meaningful when the level of authenticity increases. Another authenticity mechanism can be derived as personal engagement in work. Personal engagement can be compared with being intrinsically motivated, feeling personally immersed and vivid in the association of work. Therefore, the feeling of being engaged by work likely involves authentic engagement as a development of the self-image, which evokes meaningful work (Amabile, 2000; Csikszentmihalyi; 1975; Dekas, Rosso, & Wrzesniewski, 2010). Although the mechanism authenticity is related to the self as a source of meaningful work, whereby work meanings are shaped by consistency in self-image and behaviour, the aforementioned paragraphs indicate that authenticity also depends on “external sources of meaning, including the job design and organisational context” (Dekas, Rosso, & Wrzesniewski, 2010, p. 109). Although these sources vary internally and externally, the fundamental process is the same: in all these occupations authenticity evokes meaningfulness.
4.2.2. Purpose A second mechanism through which work is considered to be meaningful is purpose. Purpose is often defined as a sense of focus, direction and intention in life (Ryff, 2000). Moreover, a number of philosophers indicate that purpose provides life with meaning (Aristotle, 2000; Csíkszentmihályi, 1975; Dalai Lama & Cutler, 1998). There have been suggested various sources for purpose that often vary from being driven internally to externally. Research highlights the importance purpose with regard to the meaning of work in the light of having “the ability to connect present events to future anticipated events and states” (Baumeister & Vois, 2002, p.611). Moreover, the idea of moving towards a desired future or having the
48
feeling actions are purposeful, are often perceived as very meaningful (Dekas, Rosso, & Wrzesniewski, 2010). In literature the significance of work is one of the elements stated as a mechanism of the meaningfulness of work. The understanding individuals have of the significance of work is important in terms of experiencing purpose based on their work achievements, because it contributes to the meaningfulness of work (Dekas, Rosso, & Wrzesniewski, 2010). In other words, if a goal is significant to an individual, it generally serves a greater purpose and therefore it can be interpreted as more meaningful. Purpose can also be obtained via values shared by a group of people. It comes to the way others share values and therefore, individuals adapt these values in order to evaluate if their own behaviour is right or wrong (Schwartz, 1992). When individuals act in line with these shared values, they experience it as a kind of assurance that “they have done the right, thereby minimizing guilt, anxiety, regret, and other forms of moral distress” (Baumeister & Vois, 2002, p.610). For example when organisations communicate a clear mission and objective, individuals have a guideline with which they can compare their behaviour and it is giving them purpose. Therefore, the assurance of acting consistent with these mission and objective causes meaningfulness of work based on experiencing the creation of purposeful actions. Although in paragraph 4.2.1 is described that meaningfulness is caused by a consistency between an individuals behavior and values, with regard to purpose it can be concluded that the importance of participating in a larger system indicates that there are distinct psychological processes. As both refer to meaningfulness, these distinct psychological processes are likely to function in harmony.
4.2.3. Autonomy A third mechanism for meaningful work can be described as autonomy. Autonomy is often seen as a synonym for self-direction and is the opposite of being monitored. It involves “behaving with a full sense of volition and choice” (Deci & Ryan, 2008, p.14). This indicates that employees behave based on choices and therefore, they can be autonomous and interdependent. Research suggests that individuals have a basic need to be curious and manage their own activities (Deci & Ryan, 2008; Dekas, Rosso, & Wrzesniewski, 2010; Pink, 2009). Noteworthy is the behaviour of babies and young children, always exercising free
49
choice and being curious. This demonstrates that the suggestion about the link between autonomy and a basic human need might be true and that this cognition about our roots causes meaningfulness because it reassures individuals that they are proactive instead of powerless (Deci & Ryan; Dekas, Rosso, & Wrzesniewski). According to Pink (2008), a feeling of autonomy has a powerful effect on performance and attitude at work. Deci and Ryan (2008) complements this by stating that autonomy or autonomous motivation stimulates productivity, happiness, the achievement of better grades and imagination. Moreover, when an individual feels autonomy in the proactive way he or she accomplishes work, it is likely that he or she will experience meaningfulness based on a feeling of having an amount of control over consequences.
4.2.4. Belongingness The fourth mechanism concentrates on the belongingness and the view of individuals on this concept. In general belongingness is explained as ‘‘a pervasive drive to form and maintain at least a minimum quantity of lasting, positive, and significant interpersonal relationships’’ (Baumeister & Leary, 1995, p.497). Belongingness is often recognised as a mechanism for meaningful work in literature and is somewhat comparable with the values one shares when belonging to a group, as described in paragraph 4.2.2. However, belongingness concentrates on being part of the group itself instead of sharing values. This feeling of identification with and a sense of connection create in general meaningfulness by experiencing a shared common identity and friendship with others (Dekas, Rosso, & Wrzesniewski, 2010). One-way though which belongingness is approached as a mechanism for meaningful work is via social identification with others at work. Research suggests that groups in a working environment create shared beliefs and identities, which gives individuals the idea that they are part of something special. It seems that therefore, individuals are motivated to become part of these desirable groups. It is striking that identifications with groups are the most powerful when these groups are highly valued by others, although the belonging itself is in some cases already sufficient to experience meaningfulness (Baumeister & Leary, 1995).
4.2.5. Transcendence The fifth and last mechanism for meaningful work identified for this research contains transcendence. Transcendence can be translated into the commitment to a larger entity, which
50
goes beyond the self or the material world (Maslov, 1970). The aforementioned mechanisms primarily include motives, motivations, values and beliefs of the self. However, transcendence is almost completely different as it involves the idea individuals can place themselves to “groups, experiences, or entities that transcend the self” (Dekas, Rosso, & Wrzesniewski, 2010, p. 112). The transcendence mechanism in meaningful work literature can be found as the intangible contribution to something larger than only the self. This can be referred to for example the opportunities a job provides in order to contribute to a broader society or the world, like charity. In this case an individual perceives the opportunity as a feeling of being part of system that is greater than his/herself and which cannot exist without the collective efforts of many others.
4.3. Concluding Through this analysis accuracy is explored by comparing and analysing literature to identify the sources of meaningful work and the mechanisms through which work becomes meaningful. Five mechanisms are finally derived, encompassing as authenticity, purpose, autonomy, belongingness and transcendence. These mechanisms tend to focus on the psychological processes as a basis for the experience of meaningfulness, instead of the construction of meaning. Although there are a lot of opportunities for further research on the relationship between these mechanisms and meaningful work given the amount of theoretical and empirical approaches, the aim of this summary is to simply identify and classify them. In the next chapter, firstly the design of games and the behaviour evoked by games have to be explained in order to compare organisations, meaningful work and games in chapter six.
51
5. Game design patterns Having demarcated the creative industry and identified the mechanisms of meaningful work, it is finally time to elaborate on games. To eventually be able to examine the extent the success factors of games can be implemented in organisations within the creative industry to enhance innovation, it is firstly important to obtain more knowledge of what games exactly are and what behaviour they can evoke. Therefore, this chapter starts discussing the definition of games. After this brief introduction, the design of games will be emphasised in more detail. In addition, there is focused on the behaviour games can cause. This results in six factors, which can be identified as the reason why games are so successful. 5.1. Focussing on the design of games In exploring the design of games there is no focus put on simulation games (De Caluwe, Hofstede, Peters, 2008) or games that jump into reality (McGonigal, 2011). These types of games in itself are very valuable, however for this research they do not contribute to the idea that games and organisations can function in harmony. Although many other types of games are present, in this paragraph it is about what makes a game a game. There is aimed to compare the design of games with the design of organisations as a first step to identify to what extent the success factors of games can be implemented in organisations within the creative industry in chapter six.
5.1.1 Defining games Defining games and the associated patterns remains a tricky phenomenon as it is far from agreed upon what a game contains. A starting point for this contested discussion might be the explanation of the most common acknowledged characteristics. According to Salen & Zimmerman (2004) “a game is a system in which players engage in an artificial conflict, defined by rules, that results in a quantifiable outcome” (p.80). It seems that this definition tends to have structure as the core mechanism, as system and rules take a central place. This is complemented by McGonigal (2011) stating: “a good game is a unique way of structuring experience and provoke positive emotion” (p.33). When taking a step further in understanding games, it helps to distinguish the different layers or elements utilised in the design of games. The fact that games consist of different layers/elements forming a whole indeed indicates that a game can be interpret as a system.
52
Figure 7. The three elements of games. Adapted from: “The big bang” by J. van Mastrigt, 2008.
The core of figure six represents the rule set. The rule set actually provides the games from structure and logic, from which can and may not be deviated. Therefore, the rules are a building block for what is possible and impossible, and for the effects particular actions of players have on the game. The rules are explained via the second layer as displayed in figure six, the declarative layer. In the third and outer layer is named the social layer because in this layer the behaviour of players is created. However, the third layer does not only represents the behaviour between player and game, but also the relationship with the rest of the world. Noteworthy is that the behaviour of players occurs as a result of the way the inner circle is designed. This explains why often an iterative process is utilised on order to design games. It is in fact impossible to predict the behaviour of players occurring whilst they are playing a game in advance (Salen & Zimmerman, 2004). What a good games designer therefore has to realise is that he or she is not capable of designing direct behaviour. In doing so they thus take into account what Salen and Zimmerman prolong: a “game designer designs the rules of the game directly but designs the player’s experience only indirectly” (p.71). In the current game design processes therefore, rules are approached as an object and the player experience as an objective. Then, the iterative process can be applied in order to test the objective and thus evaluate the player experience.
53
5.1.2. The six game elements Complementary to Salen and Zimmerman (2004) and Van Mastrigt (2006), the researcher Juul (2003) is also convinced that a definition of a game must include more than one domain by providing six game elements. Based on the definition of Salen and Zimmerman, Van Mastrigt and Juul, three domains can be identified as being the core of a game. 1) The system set up by the rules of a game. 2) The relation between the game and the player of the game. 3) The relation between the player of the game and the rest of the world. As a result, the six game elements of Juul can be distinguished based on the aforementioned three domains. These game elements will be utilised in comparing the design of organisations and the design of games in chapter six. System set up by the rules of the game 1) Rules: Games are based upon rules. The rule set of a game must be very clear i.e. it must not be possible to discuss them every time a game is played. This statement often causes resistance as it “sounds too much like structuralism” (Juul, 2003, p.36). According to Juul, many assumptions considered the idea that a narrative i.e. storyline is based upon a simplified underlying structure. However, the opposite is true as there is no formula for the creation of stories. This automatically states that there is no formula for the creation of games either. However, every game session is caused by the formula of the game. 2) Variable, quantifiable outcome: The rules of the game must provide possible outcomes that can be various (Juul, 2003). An important factor that goes along with the various possible outcomes is the extent to which the game fits to the competences or abilities of the player. This is related to the level of challenging choice making. Therefore, variable outcomes are dependent on a game, which is mentally challenging. If not, a game “will not work as a game activity” (Juul, p.37). Additionally, games itself often provide strategies for ensuring a variable outcome. However, the player itself also has influence by the
54
choices he or she makes in order to accomplish the game. To strive for a quantifiable outcome, comparable to rules, the design may therefore not provoke any arguments. The relation between the game and the player of the game 3) Value assigned to possible outcomes: The value that is assigned to the possible outcomes is mainly related to if the outcome is positive or negative. A positive outcome is generally interpreted as more satisfying and that is often what causes a conflict in a game because players are usually assigned to create a conflict between positive outcomes (Juul, 2003). Therefore, the design i.e. the rules of the game determine the value of the different outcomes. 4) Player effort: Player effort is interpreted as the motivation and willingness of playing the game. The effort influences the outcome and therefore, the level of the game and the extent of the challenge (Juul, 2003; Björk & Holopainen, 2004). 5) Attachment of the player to the outcome: Related to the player effort is the attachment of the player to the outcome as motivation and energy are responsible for the outcome (Juul, 2003). However, the attachment has a psychological layer as it contains emotions. When a player wins, he or she mostly feels happy and if a player looses unhappiness often arises. The difference between player effort and the attachment of the player to the outcome is related to the fact that a player could still experience a sense of happiness when winning a game by chance. This is however dependent on the attitude of the player towards the game i.e. the acceptation of the standardised reactions. Relation between the playing of the game and the rest of the world 6) Negotiable consequences: According to Juul (2003) games can be played with or without consequences for real life. Huizinga (1955) and Callois state (1961) that play can only occur when it is based on a voluntary participation i.e. without voluntary participation a game cannot be identified as a game. However, it does not mean that when someone is making money playing a game, the game is non-existent. “And since all games are potential
55
targets of betting and of professional playing” (Juul, p.34), and include optionally assigned consequences, they can be interpreted as activities with negotiable consequences. The only option for a game to have negotiable consequences is that the outcome is largely manageable and not dangerous (Schell, 2008). Although it is stated in the paragraph above that the emotions of a player are attached to the outcome, this happens only “within certain negotiable limits” (Juul, 2003, p.38). However, this ideal will continuously be disrupted as games involve for example provoking, teasing or anger and leans on the energy, involvement and time of the player(s). This means that all games have non-negotiable consequences to some extent. It seems that the negotiable consequences are often related to controllable aspects, such as the exchange of materials and that non-negotiable consequences are connected to less controllable aspects, such as emotions.
5.2. Focussing on the behaviour evoked by games The behaviour of players evoked by games is closely linked to the aforementioned game elements. When analysing the behaviour that is caused by the aforementioned six elements of games, six factors with regard to the success of games can be derived. There is aimed to compare the success factors of games with the mechanisms of meaningful work as a second step to identify to what extent the success factors of games can be implemented in organisations within the creative industry to enhance innovation in chapter six.
5.2.1. Purpose From the description of rules it can be derived that when playing a game is it almost always clear what you have to do or achieve, as well as where and how you have to do it (Copier, 2011; Jacobs, 2012; Kane, 2005; McGonigal, 2011). In its most simplified form you just have to get the job done and earn your rewards. Lyubomirsky (2009) states that the quickest way to improve the happiness of someone his life and therefore the level of meaningfulness, is to “bestow on a person a specific goal, something to do and look forward” (p.67). And when a specific goal is connected to actionable next steps, it creates an energising stimulus, a sense of purpose. That is why often receiving more tasks or the completions of tasks are more appreciated than points, as that is what is intrinsically motivating us (Kane, 2005; McGonigal; Salen & Zimmerman, 2004). “The real pay off for our work in [games] is to be rewarded with
56
more opportunities for work” (McGonigal, p. 57). However, if the purpose is clear but the method of achieving is not, the meaningfulness might be too less to make real progress. On the other hand, good games should include a guarantee of progress and that is why they are often so attractive (McGonigal). Therefore, the first success factor can be identified as ‘purpose’.
5.2.2. The feedback system The different values assigned to possible outcomes are related to the feedback system, as this system explains the player how close he or she is to the accomplishment of the goal. Therefore, the player knows if the outcome is positive or negative. Feedback can be given in various forms, such as a score, levels or points. According to McGonigal (2011), feedback can be as simple as the knowledge of when the game is lost or won. By continuously being aware of the quality of the results, which means that the results must be direct and clear, satisfaction will occur. Primarily because the feedback mirrors our positive view on our own capabilities and therefore, it stimulates motivation. Moreover, “the clearer the results, the faster we achieve them and the more productive we feel” (McGonigal, p.53). The feeling of productivity is related to a sense of the development of our personal resources, which make games meaningful. Although we think of games that they only provide a non-real experience, it is about the idea that an action generates tangible results. This is however related to the influence of to what extent the player understands and enjoys what is happening (Schell, 2008) as “experiences without feedback are frustrating and confusing” (Schell, p.231). Therefore, the second success factor can be argued as ‘the feedback system’.
5.2.3. Voluntary challenges The effort a player delivers and the variable, quantifiable outcomes are related to challenges the player can choose for, as the variable, quantifiable outcome suggest: the extent to which the game fits the player is related to challenging choice making. The concept of voluntary challenges contains that games offer players a set of challenging problems (Copier, 2011; McGonigal, 2011; Gee, 2009; Schell, 2009). Each time we play a game a new problem will occur if the skills attached to problems of a lower level are routinized or automatized. The game will be constantly challenging when every time the player play the tasks are a little bit more difficult than the ones achieved before (De Caluwé, Hofstede & Peters, 2008; McGonigal, 2011; Gee, 2009). Moreover, in a good game, the challenges are big enough to keep the player energised and motivated, but never as big that the feeling of anxiety or
57
incapability is experienced (Gee; Schell). The process of “levelling up” (McGonigal, p.53) triggers the willingness to arrange more challenging work, as the more points a player earns the higher the level and the more challenging tasks will occur. Although this mechanism causes the urge to get better and better at something, personal strengths must put into better use before meaningfulness can be experienced. However, this type of “hard work” as McGonigal describes, refers to meaningfulness, as it contains tasks that the players choose for and by themselves. The third success factor therefore involves voluntary challenges.
5.2.4. Optimism It is mentioned in paragraph 5.1. that attachment of the player to the outcome contains a psychological layer because it is about emotions. The attitude of the player towards the game is based on standardised reactions. Although in paragraph 4.2.2. is shown that we search for our own happiness, games let us experience happiness when we win but also unhappiness if we lose. What is striking is that normally individuals are afraid of failing as everyone strives for good results. However, in games the main activity seems failing. Therefore, it is interesting to see why this occurs although everyone remains playing and apparently remains positive. According to McGonigal (2011) this is related to the right kind of failure feedback. “Every game is meant to be solvable, every mission accomplishable, and every level passable by a gamer with enough time and motivation. But without positive failure feedback this belief is easily undermined” (McGonigal, p.67). However, it is important to represent the power of the players within the games to preserve the failure interesting. Only in this manner players will remain optimistic and therefore, they will keep trying to achieve success. So, if we can enjoy our failure, it is easier to be optimistic (McGonigal). That state of optimism we can learn via games encourages us to work harder and to complete more complex challenges. Scientists have discovered that “optimism is correlated to a higher quality in life” (McGonigal, p.69). So, optimism is connected to a positive sense towards our own capabilities. If we strive for that optimism it is likely that this mind state influences our level of meaningfulness, as players have the feeling that they could influence or control things by their own actions (Seligman, 1998). Therefore the fourth success factor is defined as ‘optimism’.
58
5.2.5. Social comparison / connection Playing a game always has negotiable consequences including or excluding real life. These consequences are rather related to others as games have a strong social connectivity in which positive emotions are generated. This is often not caused by the design of the game itself but through the additional side effect of playing together. (De Caluwé, Hofstede & Peters, 2008; McGonigal, 2011). Playing in a social context “encourages us to contribute to someone else his success, and as a result we form networks of support from which everyone involved benefits” (Ekman, 2003, p.197). However, this social context is also related to comparing scores of players, which slightly pressures the urge to achieve better results and therefore, it stimulates productivity (Schell, 2009). In addition, because of this social context, games can give players the feeling that we contribute to something bigger than ourselves. According to McGonigal (2011), this provokes an huge sense of meaning as games give players the opportunity to connect to a larger entity where a group of individuals strive for the same goal. Moreover, this opportunity is already enough to create a sense of meaning as players do not have to “contribute to something of real value” (McGonigal, p.97). It is the experience of consistency among intrinsic values and the players’ behaviour that causes meaning (Baumeister & Vohs, 2002, p.610). However, not every game feels like a contribution to something bigger than ourselves, as two crucial elements need to be present: a collective context for action and the sense of service (McGonigal). In general, the fifth success factor can thus be identified as social comparison/connection.
5.2.6. Narrative It is noteworthy that all the elements as described in paragraph 5.1. seem to be connected and influenced by the story of the game. The collective context is therefore too important to leave it without being described in a separate section, although it is not directly traceable in the game elements. The story of a game sets the stage for a meaningful experience, as it is something which a player feels intrinsically connected with (De Caluwé, Hofstede & Peters, 2008). “Even games without a story at all tend to inspire players to make up a story to give the context meaning” (Schell, 2009, p. 263). According tot Schell, a good game is therefore capable of producing series of stories that are so engaging that players want to share what occurred.
59
Additionally to the generation of interesting events, stories have the capacity to indirectly control activities because the player experiences a sense of freedom. Therefore, productivity will increase whilst playing a game. However, the main concept of the narrative is the understanding of the bigger picture i.e. making sense of the activities that need to be accomplished (Jacobs, 2012). Therefore, the sixth success factor is ‘narrative’.
5.3. Concluding In this chapter a simplified framework to understand games and game design is created. There is focused on the six game elements, which are eventually identified as the basic characteristics of games. Via these characteristics six success factors of games are derived from behaviour that is showed during playing games. Although there are more opportunities for further research on game design, the aim of this chapter was to provide information about what makes a game a game, and what makes a game successful. In other words, simply identify and classify the game elements and the success factors. It has been found that the success factors are purpose, the feedback system, voluntary challenges, optimism, social comparison / connection and narrative. In the next chapter, the game elements will be compared with the design of organisations and the success factors of games will be compared with the mechanisms of meaningful work.
60
6. Analysis Chapter three to five provides the terms and conditions, which are needed in order to answer the main research question. The main findings included the need for an extra dimension of organisational design in terms of intrinsic motivation, values and beliefs with regard to organisations within the creative industry. It is also identified that meaningful work is the core of innovation within this same industry. In addition, five mechanisms that constitute as the basis for meaningful work are discovered and explained. With regard to games, six elements related to the design has been found and described. And last but not least, six success factors of games are determined by means of behaviour that is evoked by games. In this analysis, the aforementioned information will be analysed via three approaches. 1) First a comparison is made between the design of organisations and the design of games by taking the concept ‘system’ as a starting point for the analysis. 2) The six game elements are compared with the characteristics of organisations within the creative industry. 3) The mechanisms of meaningful work are compared with the success factors of games, in which the essential elements as explored in chapter four will be retrieved in the effects games have on our behaviour. 6.1. Organisational design versus game design To be able to make statements about to what extent the success factors of games can be implemented in organisations within the creative industry, it is important to know to what extent organisations and games are alike. To compare games and organisations within the creative industry, similar characteristics with a common definition and a common way of applying are necessary, as described in the data analysis strategy. The interviews serve as a complement to the investigated theory.
6.1.1. Organisations and games as systems It is the interrelationship between the characteristics that makes a system into a system. The concepts, which have a mutual coherence, are therefore compared. The characteristics and elements with which we have acquainted are system concepts because by their interrelationship they the make an organisation to an organisations and a game to a game.
61
As already mentioned in chapter three, in the system theory organisations are appointed as a collection of interrelated and interdependent parts or subsystems, which form a whole together. Despite the fact that ‘system’ is a concept within the organisational theory is often mentioned, this way of thinking can also be found in game theory. For example, Salen and Zimmerman (2004) continually approach games as systems when defining them. A quite logical comparison between the two on the basis of this common denominator, however, remains absent. Also in the report of Van Bree (2011), in which he argues for game-based or game-like organisations, no interpretation is given to a clear comparison between the design of organisations and the design of games. In this paragraph the comparison will be conducted via the theory of Littlejohn and Foss (2007), who define systems based on four dimensions: objects, attributes, internal relationships and environment. Littlejohn and Foss represent these four dimensions in their book Theories of Human Communication, which is considered as a very valuable book summarising the relationships among various organisational and communication theories. The four dimensions of a system can be explained as follows: 1) Objects: Objects are the essential features within a system. The nature of the system depends on the type of elements, which may be abstract, physical or both, depending on the nature of the system. 2) Attributes: Attributes are the qualities or properties of the system and its objects. 3) Internal relationships: Internal relationships are based on the interaction among the objects. 4) Environment: Systems are influenced by their surroundings and therefore, they do not exist in isolation. As systems, organisations and games provide context for interaction, which can be “spaces, objects, and behaviours that individuals explore, manipulate and inhabit” (Salen &
62
Zimmerman, 2004, p.50). Systems come to us in many forms, from mechanical systems to conceptual and cultural ones. One of the challenges of the current comparison is to recognise the way organisations compared with games can be framed as a system. Assuming that organisations and games in the light of this thesis are more like a system with experiential dimensions, there is not chosen for conducting the analysis on a formal, mathematical level. Because chapter three has shown that individuals are the driving force behind accomplishing the mission of the creative industry: the continuous generation of innovative meanings, the system is approached as an interaction between individual and organisation, and between the player and the game. The results of this comparison are thus only specific to this way of framing. In other words, the way object, attributes, internal relationships and environments are identified in organisations and games depend on the way it is framed in a system. 6.1.1.1. Objects For organisations and games it is clear that they both are about and based on people. People are essential for both, because without these dimensions, organisations or games cannot exist. In organisations, people relate to employees who by means of intrinsic motivation, values and beliefs are decisive for achieving the desired objectives. In games, people are the players who are also driven by their intrinsic motivation, values and beliefs in order to play the game and therefore achieving the objective. From the perspective of the first dimension it thus can be concluded that organisations and games have the same central object in their design. 6.1.1.2. Attributes The attributes can be interpreted as the elements through which individuals in organisations and games have to achieve their objectives. This differs from the objects, because Littlejohn and Foss (2007) specifically state that attributes are the properties of a system and its objects. The properties of the system in an organisation can be approximated as technology, rules and finance. These three properties define within the system of an organisation what is possible and what is not. In addition, they offer employees grip during their actions. In games, the possibilities of the players are determined by the technological options and the rules that determine what is and is not allowed. However, finance does not play a general role, as only in some games performances dependent on a certain number of points, coins or even earning money. This characteristic could in itself be compared with financial aspects as in organisations, but it is however not applicable to all games. From the second dimension it therefore can be concluded that organisations and games contain the same central attributes,
63
but the attribute finance remains however questionable. 6.1.1.3. Internal relationships Because the people are the objects their interaction constitutes the internal relationships of the system. For organisations as games these relationships would include not just strategic interaction, but their social, psychological and emotional communication as well. For organisations
and
games
these
internal
relationships
are
often
based
on
the
structural/hierarchical connections of people as for both the structure partly decides which individuals have an internal relationship with each other and which not. Therefore, the term structure generally applies to both. 6.1.1.4. Environments Considering organisations and games as an experiential system, the total environment would have to include not just the attributes, but the immediate environment that contains the people as well. In others words this can be referred to as the context. In both, the context also includes the perceptions of people on the organisations or the game. Perceptions of people are not only formed by their own culture, but as well as via the culture within an organisation or game. The context including all attributes and the objects form de strategy together in order to achieve the objects, either in organisations as in games. Therefore, it can be concluded that with regard to the fourth dimension also a lot of similarities are present. 6.1.1.5. Visualised The results can be schematically presented as follows: Organisational design Objects Attributes Internal relationships Environment
Game design
People
People
Technology
Technology
Rules
Rules
Finance
Finance
Structure
Structure
Culture
Culture
Strategy
Strategy
Figure 8: A comparison between organisational design and game design in summary, based on the theory of S. W. Littlejohn and K. A. Foss, 2007 by D. Kamp, 2012.
64
6.1.2. Organisations and games compared based on their single characteristics/elements The comparison based on systems is derived from the perspective of organisations. In order to enhance the validity and reliability it is valuable to turn the perspective. Therefore, in this paragraph the design of organisations and the design of games will be compared from the perspective of the six game elements as identified in chapter five. A comparison is needed to also analyse similarities on a deeper level, which is done by comparing the mechanisms of meaningful work and the success factors of games. When lacking in a grounded foundation on a more superficial level, the comparison on a deeper level would not make sense. 6.1.2.1. Rules The rules of a game can be interpreted as a property of the game as a system. “The rules of games have to be sufficiently well defined that they can either be programmed on a computer or sufficiently well defined that you do not have to argue about them every time you play” (Juul, p.36). This statement is also leading for the role of rules within an organisation. Rules within an organisation are not necessarily programmed on a computer, but have to be so well defined that there cannot be argued about it every time you work. Noteworthy is the following statement in the article of Juul. “To borrow some concepts from computer science, the rules of any given game can be compared to a piece of software that then needs hardware to actually be played. In games, the hardware can be a computer, mechanical contraptions or the laws” (p.36). This suggests that more is needed to actually do something with the rules, to comply them. An environment is needed in which rules can also be rules. And as the previous analysis with regard to organisations and games as systems proved, this “hardware” is mostly comparable with culture, both within a game as within the organisation. 6.1.2.2. Variable, quantifiable outcome Variable, quantifiable outcome is also approached as a property of the game as a system. “For something to work as a game, the rules of the game must provide different possible outcomes. This is pretty straightforward, but for a game to work as a game activity, the game must also fit the skills of the player(s)” (Juul, 2003, p.36). From this it can be derived that the variable outcome is based on the one who plays the game. This is also applicable for organisations, in which different employees are responsible for achieving the objective. Important is that the variable outcomes also depend on the features of the game, the assignment or the job. This
65
includes strategy, but also the techniques and finance that (can) be used to achieve the objective, either in the game as in the organisation. 6.1.2.3. Value assigned to possible outcome Value assigned to possible outcome simply means that some of the possible outcomes of the game are better than others. Related to this statement, the question that can be held is to what extent the more positive or negative outcomes are associated with the set objective. Logically, it can be explained that the better or more positive the outcome, the closer it gets to the objective. Noteworthy is that Juul allocates the following values to different outcomes of a game: “it can be a statement on the box (“Defend the Earth”); it can be stated in the instructions of the game; it can be signalled by the fact that some actions give a higher score than others; by virtue of there only being one way of progressing and making something happen; or it can be implicit from the setup” (p.37). These values can easily be translated into values that can be allocated to the outcomes of actions within an organisation. The different values than encompass as: it can be stated in the job description; it can be stated in the fact that some outcomes yield in more money; by the presence of one way of progressing or developing; or it can be a logical consequence of influences from for example competitors or the labour market. It should be addressed that in games positive outcomes are in general harder to reach than negative outcomes, through which the game remains challenging. If that also remains in organisations is, however, questionable. 6.1.2.3. Player effort Player effort is defined as the idea that the player his actions can influence the game state and game outcome. In organisations the actions of employees of course also influence the condition and outcomes. It are precisely these people who are able to ensure that for example the mission of the creative industry can be achieved. What however is not addressed in the theory of Juul is that actions of the players are driven by intrinsic motivations, values and beliefs. This extra dimension actually constitutes the basis for the willingness of players and employees to deliver the effort. 6.1.2.4. Attachment of the player to the outcome “Attachment of the player to the outcome is a psychological feature of the game activity which means that there is a convention by which the player is attached to specific aspects of the outcome” (Juul, 2003, p.38). This statement is notable because of its contradiction.
66
Besides the fact it is stated that the feature is of psychological nature, whereby thus only the precondition of the player should influence the outcome, it seems also to be about the role or function the player fulfils. Implicitly it is thus indicated that the structure or hierarchy is also leading to the attachment of the player towards the outcome. Hereafter, Juul especially deepens the fact that the attachment "depends on the player's attitude towards the game" (p.38). Again this attitude can be interpreted two folded, on one hand based on intrinsic motivation, values and beliefs in relation to the game, but the other hand attitude can also be reflected as the position you occupy as a player within the game. Interesting is that within organisations the attachment also depends on the intrinsic motivation, values and beliefs to a certain outcome. Moreover, the position or structure within the organisation also influences the attachment an employee has to the achieved goal. 6.1.2.5. Negotiable consequences The first sentence that is directly noticeable in the description of negotiable consequences by is that “a game is characterized by the fact that it can optionally be assigned [to] real-life consequences” (Juul, 2003, p38). Obviously there is no choice within an organisation if actions relate to real-life consequences, because the actions will always occur in real-life. Based on this characteristic, therefore, no comparison between games and organisations can be found. However, when approaching negotiable consequences in a different manner it can be argued that they actually do refer to the relationship between the activity and the rest of the world, because there are games that have real-life consequences, like gambling and professional sports games. This suggests that the association with an imaginary world or reallife depends on the strategy and culture of the game. As well as in organisations, the association with the rest of the world depends on the chosen strategy, but also on the culture in which it operates. 6.1.2.6 Visualised The results can be schematically presented as follows. The = symbol identifies the meaning of the particular game element and the comparable application to the particular characteristic of the organisation.
67
Games elements
=
Characteristics of an organisation
Property of the Rules
game/organisation as a
Rules and culture
system Variable, quantifiable outcome Value assigned to possible outcomes
Property of the game/organisation as a system
Strategy, technology and finance
The goal that the player/employee must strive
Objective
for • The influence of the player/employee
Player effort
• Property of the game/organisation as a
• Intrinsic motivation, values and beliefs • People
system Attachment of the player to
The influence of the
Intrinsic motivation, values
the outcome
player/employee
and beliefs, and structure
The relation between the Negotiable consequences
activity and the rest of the
Culture and strategy
world Figure 9: A comparison between organisational design and game design in summary based on the theory of J. Juul, 2003 by D. Kamp, 2012.
6.1.3. Interviews Although organisations and games are very similar in terms of design based on theory, it is also interesting to analyse what the perceptions of practitioners are. The fact that organisations can be viewed as games is confirmed in the interviews. Both, Melinda Jacobs and Herman Koster state that organisations and games have a common ground. According to Jacobs, such a comparison is often made in the minds of game designers and researchers, although a real reconciliation based on design characteristics is according to her not been investigated.
68
Herman Koster confirms that the design of games is closely linked to the design of organisations. He even utilises games in his own projects to redesign organisations. He also indicates that a comparison is never been made on an academic level. “The idea is present by multiple people, but I have never seen a concrete comparison and certainly not in theory” (H. Koster, personal communication, 29th of May 2012). The interviews show that one predominantly utilises the design process of games to possibly redesign an organisation. This is often translated into the idea of using games to redesign, but actually the design process is meant. Eventually, the effects of games (in this thesis success factors) are utilised to improve or better understand specific parts of the organisation. A real comparison based on characteristics or elements is hereby often skipped, because it is generally assumed that organisations and games are similar, said by Jacobs and Koster. However, according to them it is indeed very valuable for an organisation to realise where similarities between organisations and games are clearly visible and where not. They for example address that this value is usable for educational purposes whereby games are deployed as a creative method. This shows that in general, practitioners adopt another dimension in the use of games. They are focused on achieving a goal by using actual games. In this study, however, answers are given from another perspective to the question to what extent the success factors of games can be implemented to increase innovation, whereby organisations and games are compared as similar entities. What is striking about the interviews is that a gap is originated between an analysis of gamification and the practical applicability.
6.1.4. What does this mean? What is striking is that the design of games and the design of organisations in both perspectives have a lot of similarities. As a first step in the identification of the extent the success factors of games can be implemented in organisations within the creative industry, it seems that based on design one could view organisations as games. However, a deeper level should be explored in order to judge if the effects games have could match organisations in a positive/meaningful way. Therefore, the comparison is made between meaningful work and the success factors of games in the next paragraph.
6.2. Meaningful work versus the success factors of games It is time to reflect on to what extent the mechanisms of meaningful work can be found in the success factors of games, based on the provided theoretical framework. In paragraph 6.2.6. a practical layer based on the interviews is added.
69
6.2.1. Authenticity Firstly, authenticity can be discovered in the success factor the feedback system. It is striking that by continuously providing positive feedback, this success factor contributes to the development of the “true” self, one of the characteristics of authenticity. By receiving positive feedback, the individual gains opportunities to develop him/herself, but also to explore the self. “If you make people care more and make them understand what they are working with, than you are going to have better communication and you are able to teach how to reach better communication on top of that” (M. Jacobs, personal communication, 4h of May 2012). This indicates that by continuous presence of feedback the individual will be more personally engaged by work, as the feedback mirrors our positive view on our own capabilities and therefore, it stimulates engagement either authenticity. Secondly, it is remarkable that authenticity is recognisable in the success factor voluntary challenges. By continuously offering challenging problems to the individual, he or she feels that it is possible to develop the self-image by getting better and better at something. “It is about gaining something, if the challenge is not interesting people stop improving. If people reach something where they are proud of, it is extremely motivating” (H. Koster, personal communication, 29th of May, 2012). In this way, the individual therefore experiences a feeling of being personally engaged during the voluntary challenges, which can be traced to authenticity. As third and last it is noteworthy that based on the success factor social comparison/selection the player is likely to contribute to someone else’s success. Moreover, the player has given an opportunity to compare his or her values with others, and thereby experiencing a sense of internal consistency because the individual is able to identify the self with others. This connection and comparison, therefore, provide a fundament for the indication of values towards to “true” self of a player, which causes authenticity.
6.2.2. Purpose Almost logically the mechanism purpose can be identified with the success factor purpose. Recognisable is the fact the success factor purpose contributes to the provision of clear achievements, a focus and direction. Because a game always offers logical next steps, the player experiences that he or she is capable to connect present events to future anticipated events and states. “Logical steps and structure are not there meant to make things less serious,
70
but to help people find out the things they cannot place themselves” (M. Jacobs, personal communication, 4h of May 2012). This is in accordance with the mechanism purpose from the perspective of meaningful work. In addition, purpose can be recognised in the success factor the feedback system. Based on direct and clear positive feedback, the player receives grip and guidance for further development, but also clear future next steps and objectives. Because the player can always realise to what extent the objective is achieved, there logically arises a sense of focus and direction, which causes purpose as well. Lastly, purpose can be traced in the success factor social comparison/connection. As aforementioned games have a strong social connectivity, which is caused by playing together. “One of the motives of individuals is that they matter, that they are heard and can contribute” (J. de Rapper, personal communication, 4th of June, 2012). By playing together, the player is able to share his or her values with a group of people. During the game it is also about the way others share values. Therefore, players are able to adapt these values in order to evaluate if their own behaviour is right or wrong. When individuals during the game act in line with these shared values, they experience it as a kind of assurance that they have done the right. For example, in a game each player communicates a clear mission and objective or the scores of other players reflect what a player have to do in order to win. Therefore, individuals have a guideline with which they can compare their own behaviour and actions, which is giving them purpose.
6.2.3. Autonomy Autonomy is generally perceived as a sign of self-direction and having a sense of control. This is firstly notable in the success factor voluntary challenges. As previously shown, in a game challenging problems are always offered to players. These challenges will become harder when a challenge is achieved and can be observed in a player’s routine. However, the player always has a free choice to improve the skills. “The productivity level probably doubles because they do not have to set it up themselves, is got set up for them and they can freely work through it” (M. Jacobs, personal communication, 4h of May 2012). This freedom in choice encourages self-direction and stimulated the feeling that the player has a sense of control over the completed tasks. Therefore, voluntary challenges link to autonomy.
71
Autonomy can also be recognised in the success factor optimism. What is striking is that we keep playing games although the failing percentages are higher than the winning in order to reach the eventual objective. From this it can be derived that the players tend to find happiness by themselves and choose to remain optimistic whilst playing a game. This can be referred to a sense of self-direction, a part of autonomy. However, optimism is influenced by positive failure feedback, through which the player experiences that the work context is safe and the objective is feasible. “Self-esteem and safety are often a really important factors to perform” (J. de Rapper, personal communication, 4th of June, 2012). This indicates that positive failure feedback in games actually causes a positive sense towards our own capabilities and the idea that we can influence or control things by our own actions. Again this results in a connection with autonomy. A third similarity is related to the success factor narrative. By the narrative, players are not only engaged but also motivated to achieve the objective. Therefore, they experience themselves as being part of the story with corresponding responsibilities. The narrative often helps in a better understanding of the problem, but also provides a sense of freedom and equivalence. This freedom experienced by players relates to not feeling control of a superior, through which autonomy occurs.
6.2.4. Belongingness The fact that players experience a strong social connectivity during the games is notable with regard to the meaningful work mechanism belongingness. By means of a strong social connectivity in games, players have the feeling that they belong to a group or lager entity. “For example soccer. A lot of things happen and you have to interact together. This can be caused by the opponent or because they defend the goal. You play the game for and with each other in order to protect the same goal” (H. Koster, personal communication, 29th of May, 2012). It appears that the success factor social connectivity/connection also shows that the players strive for the same goal together, which can be translated into players striving for the same values and beliefs by playing the game. This evokes a sense of social identification and equivalence, whereby players feel that they share a common identity. As a result they experience that they are part of something special, which refers to the meaningful work mechanism belongingness.
72
6.2.5. Transcendence The mechanism transcendence stands out in the success factor narrative. Because of the story which is added to a game, the collective context, players are not only able to understand the game easier, but also have the idea that they can contribute to a larger entity then the self. Depending on the story, but generally games depend on more entities to reach the objective. Often the emphasis is put on this by the rules or the story itself. Because of this, the player experiences the feeling that the objective can only be achieved via a collective effort, which is related to the meaningful work mechanism transcendence.
6.2.6. Visualised The results can be summarised and schematically presented as follows. The = symbol identifies the similar characteristics between the elements of meaningful work and the success factors of games.
73
Meaningful work
=
Success factors of games
• Development of the true self Authenticity
• The feedback system
• Personal engaged by work
• Voluntary challenges
• Internal consistency
• Social
• Social rewards
comparison/connection
• Optimism • Clear achievements
Purpose
• Direct and clear results
• Purpose
• Sense of focus, direction
• The feedback system
and intention • Grounded judgment on
• Social comparison/connection
what is right or wrong • Self-direction Autonomy
• Sense of control over own actions • Equivalence
• Voluntary challenges • Optimism • Narrative
• Social identification Belongingness
• Belong to something special
• Social comparison/connection
• Equivalence • Commitment to lager entity than the self • Only a collective effort of Transcendence
many others can achieve
• Narrative
the objective • Social rewards • Optimism Figure 10: A comparison between meaningful work and the success factors of games in summary by D. Kamp, 2012.
74
6.3 Concluding In paragraph 6.1. an overview is created with regard to what extent organisations and games are comparable based in their design. By means of the term ‘system’, it can be concluded that the organisation and the game maintain the same objects, attributes, internal relationships and environments. As well as based on the comparison between single game elements and characteristics of organisations it is notable that from the perspective of theory, but also from the interviews, it appears that organisations and games are very similar. A critical note can be added to the comparison based on the game principle negotiable consequences. This element is only with regard to a small amount of games comparable to organisations. This difference arises from the fact that in general actions within a game have no real-life consequences, whilst in organisations actions are always related to real-life. Paragraph 6.2. reveals that this is a driving force of games, through which players experience a sense of safety and are therefore less anxious to fail. It is striking that this element can return into the mechanism of games, for example optimism. Furthermore, it can be concluded based on paragraph 6.2. that all mechanisms of meaningful work can be found in the success factors of games. However, they are scattered among the various success factors, which means that if meaningful work wants to be achieved via the success factors of games, all of them need attention. In the next chapter, the results are translated into an umbrella of six values that form the basis for the extent the success factors of games can be implemented into organisations within the creative industry to enhance innovation.
75
7. Conclusion The previous chapter revealed that the most important success factors of games are more or less reflected in the mechanisms of meaningful work. To be able to answer the main research question, the question, however, remains to what extent and in which way organisations within the creative industry can integrate these factors to enhance innovation. In other words, it is yet unclear how the six success factors that render a meaningful work experience can be translated into values for viewing organisations as games in order to enhance innovation in organisations within the creative industry. In this section an answer is offered by six values for viewing organisations as games: clear achievements linked to a narrative, direct and clear results, continues voluntary challenges, equivalence, optimism and social rewards. The values are developed by means of defining meaningful work mechanisms in the success factors of games via theory and interviews. The confrontations of the insights acquired in the different research phases result in a final conclusion of this research. It this research the following main research question obtained a central position: “To what extent can the success factors of games be implemented in organisations within the creative industry to enhance innovation?” This question arose from the increasing attention of trend watchers and organisations towards the topic gamification. A relatively recent topic, which had to be approached in a broader sense to be able to fully understand and apply it. By means of identifying the specific needs of the creative industry, several interfaces with gamification could be discovered. The most important motives for the implementation of success factors to enhance innovation within the creative industry are the increasing competition, the need to foster entrepreneurship, the rise of Generation G, small research and development budgets and the mission of the government is to obtain the most creative economy of Europe by 2020. The research revealed that implementing success factors of games is a complex process of determining, understanding, creating and developing. The creative industry sets itself apart from other industries by a continuous drive for the generation of innovative meanings in terms
76
of products and services. In order to be able to continuously come up with innovative outcomes, the employees of organisations within the creative industry have to be triggered by the meaningfulness of work. It has been found that the perception of employees on meaningful work is formed by their intrinsic motivation, values and beliefs. It however appears that in general organisational literature; these three elements are too often ignored. From this it can be concluded that the general design of organisation lacks with regard to the vision of the creative industry. Therefore, an expansion of the Leidse octaëder is suggested by means of the Tumbler, in which the intrinsic values of people as influenced by meaningful work form the basis of the organisations within the creative industry. The creation of meaningful work is a difficult process as the mechanisms mostly result in intangible values. The research proved that there is not a readymade formula to create meaningful work. However, the following mechanisms can be derived as the basic mechanisms: authenticity, purpose, autonomy, belongingness and transcendence. When focussing on games it is notable that the game elements form the outline for the behaviour of the players of the game. When analysing the behaviour that evokes via the game elements, six success factors can be found. Again, no readymade formula is present on the success of games. It can be concluded that the positive stimulation of behaviour is generally caused by purpose, a feedback system, voluntary challenges, optimism, social comparison/connection and a narrative. As the findings of this report point out, the design of organisations is comparable to the design of games. From both perspectives, the organisation as the game, a considerable overlap is present. Therefore, a step further in the research could be taken by comparing the mechanisms of meaningful work and the success factors of games. Since both are derived from the design, the overlap “allowed” researching this deeper level. This comparison revealed in what way the mechanisms of meaningful work can be traced in the success factors of games. From this analysis six values organisations within the creative industry can implement in order to enhance innovation are derived. Managers of organisations within the creative industry should not use the six values that can be derived from these findings as fixed values. It is possible to implement them as flexible tools that give an extra dimension to the work experience of employees. Because the mechanisms of meaningful work are scattered amongst the different values, it is very important that all six values will be implemented in order to achieve innovation in organisations within the creative industry. The six values can eventually be presented as:
77
1) Clear achievements linked to a narrative By adopting clear achievements linked to a narrative organisations embrace certainty but also risk taking with regard to long term goals. For this concept to be applicable for an organisation, guarantee for progress should be provided. When experiencing a certain guarantee for progress openness arises towards new ideas for processes, products of services. This value is derived from purpose and narrative. When the purpose is clear, employees realise the opportunities for innovation instead of the treats. Significance by a narrative ensures that the overall view is clear and the objective becomes more attractive. 2) Direct and clear results By adopting direct and clear results the employees of organisations within the creative industry become more aware of the quality of their results. The clearer the results, the faster the achievement, the more productivity increases. This value is derived from the feedback system and authenticity that come with games. By implementing continuous feedback the employee will become also more aware of the quality of the approach, which will give him/her purpose, opportunities to develop the true self and increases engagement. 3) Continuous voluntary challenges The value of continuous voluntary challenges is based on the ability to letting employees learn in whatever shape or form. By continuously allowing employees to learn and understand new aspects of the environment they find themselves in, they can become engaged and their personal strengths can be put into better use. This value is derived from continuous voluntary challenges, authenticity and autonomy that come with games. Perhaps the most obvious way in which organisations within the creative industry can express the continuous voluntary challenges is through internal education programs. In such programs employees not only have the possibility to train relevant job skills, but can also develop an understanding of and appreciation for the organisation’s goal or vision. Another form can be designed as sharing information and knowledge or giving colleagues advice and encouragement. It has to be taken into mind that incapability is unthinkable. 4) Equivalence By adopting equivalence organisations will strive for social equivalence as experienced whilst playing a game. This does not mean that organisations within the creative industry are totally abandoned of a hierarchical division of decision-making power. On the contrary, if it is
78
functional, employees within the creative industry can appreciate a power hierarchy as simply part of ‘the rules of the game’. In other words, as a part of the narrative that the organisation effectively utilises. Social equivalence therefore is about a level playing field and equal chances for growth. As a result employees communicate and collaborate quite informally with one another, despite possible differences in decision-making power. This value is derived from social comparison/connection, autonomy and belongingness. These values make it possible that an employee higher up the hierarchy can only limit a lower employee’s actions at the request of the actual employee. Equivalence can also be expressed by basing the entire organisation on teamwork. In other words, relatively small groups of people whom selfinitiate to do certain (sub-) projects. 5) Optimism By subsequently adopting optimism as a value, it is shown in the research that employees of organisations within the creative industry not only freely develop new ideas, but also feel safe to fail. This is associated with the idea that they can become better at something without being anxious. Optimism maintains the feeling that employees can achieve more by receiving positive failure feedback, which keeps the failure interesting because the idea of incapability is decreased. Continuous trial and error is accepted, which stimulates that the employees go through iterative processes that enhances creativity. This value is derived from positive failure feedback, autonomy and engagement that come with games. These game concepts make it possible and imperative for every employee to find and take opportunities befitting the organisation’s long-term objective or vision. It encourages them to work harder and complete more complex challenges. 6) Social rewards By adopting social rewards as a value, employees of organisations within the creative industry are socially recognised for the efforts and competence they present. Social rewards are more intrinsically motivating as it gives a feeling of internal consistency. As well they can provide in the idea that employees are part of the collective context for action. This value is derived from social comparison/selection, transcendence and belongingness. These game concepts ensure the employees have the feeling that they belong to something special. Social rewards can for example be translated into employees rewarding each other or into ‘levelling up’ based on proven competence and efforts to help employees build real esteem among their colleagues.
79
8. Discussion It was unavoidable that certain issues could not be addressed in detail and were beyond the scope of this research. Therefore, some issues concerning the approach of this research that has been taken to identify the extent to which the success factors of games can be implemented in organisations within the creative industry to enhance innovation can be mentioned, as well as recommendations for further research. These recommendations are addressed in paragraph 8.1. In paragraph 8.2. emphasis is put on the reflection of the research methods.
8.1. Recommendations for further research This research applies theory on the creative industry as a unit of analysis. To make the six values encompassing as clear achievements linked to a narrative, direct and clear results, continues voluntary challenges, equivalence, optimism and social rewards even more applicable, it might be worthwhile to conduct a comparable study into specific sectors of the creative industry, for example museums or architects. It might be possible that some of the derived values need to be adjusted in order to find a better connection with innovation within a specific sub-sector. A first recommendation for further research therefore is an expansion of the research in different sub-sectors within creative industry in order to be able to judge the generalizability of the six values. A second issue that is noteworthy is the positive rhetoric organisational theorists and trend watchers often apply towards the implementation of game elements. Admittedly, this implementation probably has weaknesses as well. As became evident in the work of Chorney (2012), Jensen (2012) and Van Bree (2011), gamification is often lacking and the sustainability is questioned. Thus the implementation of the six values based on the success factors of games presumably includes these weaknesses as well. Indeed, it is shown in this research that when not applying all the six values based on the success factors of games, not all elements of meaningful work are covered, which will cause unsustainable and lacking results. In order to identify to what extent one or more of the six values can be implemented to a lesser extent, it is interesting to gain more insight into the weaknesses of the implementation of the success factors of games in organisations.
80
In addition, this research has shown that it is very important to focus on the intrinsic motivation, values and beliefs of individuals in order to create meaningful work experiences, which constitutes as the basis for innovation within the creative industry. This is shown in the extension of the Leidse octaëder by means of the Tumbler. Osterloh and Frey (2000) however note that intrinsic motivation, though desirable, can involve risks. They argue that in the light of the good objectives of employees and the fact that intrinsic motivation is extremely difficult to change, channelling intrinsic motivations is often a problem. Although the extent to which the success factors of games can be implemented in organisations within the creative industry to enhance innovation is derived from intrinsic mechanisms, this research was however less concerned with the problem of channelling intrinsic values. Therefore, further research can be directed into what extent this channelling problem affects the implementation of the six values. A final issue is the practical extension of the research. It is noteworthy that this research includes a large theoretical framework. Because there is little uniformity on the relatively new concepts creative industry, meaningful work and gamification, an extensive theoretical exploration was needed to establish a clear overview. Without this thorough theoretical exploration it was not possible to create a grounded basis for the analysis. The interviews show that the perspective as applied in this research seems to occur in practice, but after analysing the answers the opposite can be concluded. Therefore, the issue practical extension can also be pointed to the outcome, the six values. To be able to test if the results will actually yield in the desired outcome, a more ambitious project is required. A starting point for further research into the first game-based organisation Quest2 Learn in New York (McGonigal, 2011) is a great opportunity for practical deepening. Although Quest2learn was contacted to participate in this research (which was unfortunately not possible), a strong theoretical basis/analysis was necessary as a first step to come up with results that can be tested in practice.
8.2. Evaluation of the research methods The objectives are formulated in the introduction as: approach the implementation of the success factors of games as viewing work as a game, create awareness concerning the effects the success factors of games can offer and contribute to the need for innovation within the creative industry. These objects can be considered as achieved.
81
By deriving six values to view organisations as games from the comparison between the design of organisations and the design of games, and between meaningful work and the success factors of games, this research offered a contribution to the current debate on gamification as a trend for organisations. By focussing on the creative industry the outcomes have specific value concerning their need for innovation and can provide a basis for further research in other industries, also an important objective of this research. Reflecting on the applied research methods, the chosen combination of literature research and exploratory interviews was correct. In this way a complete picture of the topic is gained. Despite the useful conclusions, also a number of subsequent improvements can be addressed. These improvements are mainly related to the research data. Firstly, it was unfortunately not possible to do a case study. After balancing up various options, none of the organisations proved to adopt the perspective from which this research has been started. However, one organisation met the requirements. The aforementioned organisation Quest2Learn in New York is until now the only organisation, which is built upon game elements. Due to a surplus of applications they could unfortunately not accept another “observer”. The second and most important limitation in this research is related to the interviews. With regret it appeared that after conducting the interviews a different perspective and problem definition would yield more interesting conclusions. Through this it was not able to fully focus on the right topics and ask the right questions. Unfortunately, conducting new interviews was impossible due to time constraints and the summer period. However, the outcomes are used were possible to strengthen the results. Although the conclusions might have been sharper if the interviews were conducted in the light of the new research question, despite this limitation it is likely that solid arguments has been presented. Altogether this research was a very instructive and valuable process on a personal and professional level, and it has enriched the authors’ theoretical and practical knowledge on her dearly beloved creative industry.
82
9. Management product The complex processes undertaken in the research report are displayed in a management product, which is based on the findings and results of the research. The management product consists of two parts. 1) The management model and 2) A guide for implementation. The management product can be utilised by managers of organisations within the creative industry who aim to enhance innovation within their organisation. The recommendations provide information with regard to the implementation of the six values as presented in the model, including tips and risks.
9.1. The model The management model is created based on the six values derived from the research (see chapter seven). Therefore, conceptually it reflects the main findings and results. The results can be transferred into a visual representation of the six values, encompassing as clear achievements linked to a narrative, equivalence, optimism, social rewards, continues voluntary challenges and direct and clear results. It should be noted that this model has the character of an evaluative tool. In other words, it is not objective, but a subjective review that leads to informative and reasonable outcomes, based on the decisions of an individual, the manager. The model consists of two interrelated parts, represented as follows.
83
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Note: 1= very poor, 2= poor, 3= very strongly insufficient, 4= strongly insufficient, 5= insufficient, 6= sufficient, 7= more than sufficient, 8= good, 9= very good, 10= excellent.
84
In the first part of the model it is graphically represented that when implementing the seven values, a “game experience” is evoked. The second part of the model offers managers of organisations within the creative industry a comprehensible way of visualising and analysing the current situation. This model assists in structuring reflection on the topic of ‘implementing success factors of games’ and it gives the opportunity to apply the model if managers ask themselves the following questions: What are our core values?; How did we get to this point?; What is happening right now?; How can we utilise this knowledge for shaping the future and be innovative? When these questions are answered it is possible to quantify the presence of each value by transferring the outcomes to a ten-point scale. These ten points range from 1: very poor to 10: excellent. This scale is chosen based on the utilised scoring scale of the Dutch education system, which via an amendment in 1929 has a general accepted meaning and is commonly known in the Netherlands and Belgium. In addition, a ten-point scale is applied in order to offer the user more differentiation. It is proven that when applying a smaller scale, for example 1 to 5, users are tempted to centre their scores.
9.2 A guide for implementation Where do we need to be aware of before implementing the six values? What are the risks of such an implementation? How can we implement the values in our own organisation? These were questions that served as a starting point for this implementation guide. The research has proven that the six values as presented in the model can improve the working environment of organisations within the creative industry with regard to innovation. The aim of this guide is to offer managers step-by-step recommendations for the implementation of the values as presented in the model above. Hopefully this guide can help and inspire you as a manager in order to implement the six values to enhance innovation.
Step 0:
Preparing for launch
Before it is possible to offer recommendations on the implementation of the six values, some background information is necessary, as different expectations can easily result in misunderstanding and miscommunication. In order to avoid this, it is valuable to read the answers to the following questions.
85
What are we talking about? This guide is an extension of the model as presented at paragraph 9.1. Where the model concerns evaluating the current situation, this guide provides guidelines for the implementation of the values clear achievements linked to a narrative, equivalence, optimism, social rewards, continues voluntary challenges and direct and clear results, as mentioned in the model. The guide presents theories, processes and tools, which are useful for the implementation of these values. The objective of these values is to enhance innovation in organisations within the creative industry.
It is definitely not… a guarantee for success. This guide is not a golden formula that automatically will lead to success. Although it offers guidelines, this will not imply that no other perceptions or ideas are allowed. The guideline is created based on standards, so it is possible it has to deviate for certain types of organisations.
Why should this guide be utilised? The model as presented in paragraph 9.1. has not been created ever before. Although practical literature with regard to recommendations for changes within organisations is present, this guide offers steps specifically focussed on the presented model. Thereby, attention is given to risks that could encompass by implementing the six values. The description of the specific risks cannot easily be found in other literature. In other words, a complete overview of relevant recommendations for this model is offered nowhere else.
When to utilise it? This guide is specifically useful for managers of organisations within the creative industry that want or are forced to innovate. In addition, these managers can utilise the guide when being sure they want to achieve innovation via the success factors of games or just want to gain more knowledge of it.
Step 1:
Asking the right questions
Implementing the six values is a form of responding to current trends and developments. The research proves that these forms of change happen due to social and economic imperatives.
86
Yet, what are the indicators of responding adequately? How quickly and successfully is your organisation reacting to these drivers? What do we exactly need or want to develop? What is necessary in order to change? What do we want? Is this not a ‘million dollar question’? Asking the right questions will probably result in a clearer overview of what is necessary either realistic. When you as a manager of an organisation within the creative industry have decided to implement the six values, it is important that your decision is justified and that you have a clear view on what is possible or not. If so, it becomes easier to measure to what extent the implementation is fulfilled.
Step 2:
Be aware of the hierarchy of needs
If you are about to implement the six values, realise yourself that it are actually the employees who change, and not the organisation because based on their intrinsic motivation, values and beliefs, the employees are the ones who have the ability to change. Before the implementation, it therefore is worthwhile to utilise the pyramid of Mavlov (see figure 11). In this pyramid the needs of your employees are visualised. The theory explains that they will not be motivated to pursue a higher need until the lower needs are satisfied. So, realise yourself what the implementation of the six values generally will do according to the needs of your employees. For example, if you notice that such an implementation will take away the sense of safety, you have to restore it in order to let your employees eventually experience self-actualisation, which is needed to enhance innovation.
Figure 11: Maslov’s Hierarchy of Needs. Adapted from “The Art of Game Design: A book of lenses” by J. Schell, 2008, p. 126.
87
Step 3:
Be aware of the complexity of change
Although the implementation of the six values is very valuable, be aware that change within your organisation can be very complex, as it often is associated with resistance and emotions. It is important to know that resistance can be derived from various factors. When you as a manager can identify these factors of resistance, it eventually will be easier cope with the resistance. In this paragraph only some relevant factors are highlighted. The first factor can be identified as the presence of ambiguous and obscure objectives, processes and decisionmaking. So, realise that your objectives and decision-making needs to be clear before introducing the six values to your employees. The second factor is related to employees striving for autonomous work, driven by intrinsic values. For them it is often difficult to accept guidance during the implementation of new systems, like the six values. It is important that you give them opportunities to explore the system on their own and definitely not limit them. The third and last complexity is the ability of employees to refuse assignments either tasks by having the idea they do the right thing. For example, whilst you as a manager address you opinion during a conversation with an employee about what should happen, the employee will address his or her opinion as well. You as manager may think, ‘I made clear how he/she should approach the task in the future’ and the employee will think that you will understand him/her better now. This can go on for a long period of time, and therefore, it is important that you are not too obtrusive. Otherwise, it might end up in a strong dichotomy between you as a manager and your employees. With regard to change, the process of implementing the six values can also go along with your employees experiencing an emotional mind state. It is important that in almost all cases, your employees will ask the following questions: What does the change mean for me? What will it mean for my work? How will it influence the current collaboration with my colleagues?
Step 4:
Reward the ones that are very interested and do not punish the ones that are not
As aforementioned, introducing a new system, like the six values, always encompass emotions. It is likely that implementing the six values replaces the older system. Therefore, it is likely you are going to have one group, which is extremely frustrated, another group that is
88
not going to like it defaultly and another group that is very motivated and interested because they did not like the old system. This will lead to a very strong contrast. In that case, something valuable to do is: 1) reward the ones that are very interested, 2) absolutely do not punish the ones that are not and 3) help the ones that really liked the old system to accept it by being a bit softer of utilising a little bit more humour. How to achieve this? Realise that you can ease your employees that are not interested or disappointed by letting them go off for a while by letting them do their own thing. In other words, guide your employees but never limit them. This also applies to the one who bypass the six values and understand them. Give them also some room to go off and let them explore the values on their own, but within certain limits. This is of course extremely complex, as the limits will differ for every employee either organisation.
Step 5:
Be aware of the risks
It is important that the implementation of values based on the success factors of games do not only include positive preconceptions. The main risks can be identified as follows.
Sustainability Still there is argued for values derived from games not being sustainable. This comes forth from the sustainability issue social games (especially on Facebook) encounter. These social games heavily rely on new features added, the narrative and the mechanics of the game, making them less sustainable unless indefinite new content is added. Where persistent games like World of Warcraft are sustainable because of the community that is formed within the game environment. Game experts warn that this issue also might encounter with gamification. Although the six derived values are not really comparable with real games anymore, it is an issue you as manager can learn from. Apparently it is important that the six values will become part of the community and do not totally depend on a narrative or the idea that your employees have fulfilled them once and do not have to do anything with them anymore. Only in this way the six values can remain sustainable.
Taboo Although the six values do not really look like a game anymore, when you introduce them as success factors of a game your employees might get anxious. In several studies is has been
89
proven that people are tend to behave differently when they are introduced to games at work; they perceive it as something not serious. For you as a manager it, therefore, might be valuable to not introduce the values as success factors of games. Realise yourself that there are also other options with regard to introducing, for example it is possible to just say that you are going to adapt a new way of working.
The presence of reality The research has shown that in contrary to games, in organisations within the creative industry reality is always present. Although the values are already translated to real life actions, it is still important that you realise yourself that reality has boundaries. Sometimes it is comprehensible that it is just not always possible to offer your employees for example voluntary challenges. So be realistic and make the challenges for example smaller or utilise time periods. In addition, remember that the narrative is designed to help your employees understand problems. However, the more the narrative is abandoned from reality, the less you employees are able to engage.
Total package From the research is has resulted that the elements of meaningful work are scattered amongst the success factors of games. In addition, it has been proven that only the six values together create a game experience. Therefore, it is very important that when you as a manager choose to the implement the values, all of them receive attention. Only in this way, innovation can occur on the long-term.
Step 6:
External aid is not stupid
Al already mentioned, the process of implementing the six values is very complex. It is not strange if you as a manager experience a sense of incapability or insecurity. During change processes it is very common to invite an expert who is able to offer some extra guidance, especially during the start up. Realise yourself that the values are probably not only new for the employees, but also for you as a manager. It is better to make use of external aid when experiencing a sense of incapability and/or insecurity than ruining the first impression of the employees because you necessarily want to do it yourself. Once that occurred, it is difficult to recover the trust of the employees and their willingness to contribute.
90
Step 7:
Do it together
The last and most important step is realising that you have to do it together. When you finally made the decision that you want to implement the six values in order to enhance innovation, it is important to introduce your plans in time. It is not even necessarily to have everything set yet, but the employees want to be involved during change processes. They want to experience involvement because at that moment, they have the idea that everything is under control and noting “worse” is being hidden. Realise that eventually they are the ones who have to carry the new system, so finally everything has to be achieved together.
91
References Amabile, M. T. (1996). Creativity and Innovation in Organizations. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing. Argyris, C. (1996). Leren in en door organisaties. Schiedam: Scriptum Management Baarda, D.B., De Goede, M.P.M. & Teunissen, J. (2001). Basisboek kwalitatief onderzoek – Praktische handleiding voor het opzetten en uitvoeren van kwalitatief onderzoek. Groningen/Houten: Wolters-Noordhoff. Baumeister, R. F. & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497– 529. Baumeister, R. F. & Vohs, K. D. (2002). The pursuit of meaningfulness in life. The handbook of positive psychology (pp. 608-618). New York: Oxford University Press. Boonstra, J. J. (2000). Lopen over water: Over de dynamiek van organiseren, vernieuwen en leren. Amsterdam: Vossiuspers Boonstra, J.J., Demenint, M.I. & Steensma, H.O. (2002). Ontwerpen en ontwikkelen van organisaties. Den Haag: Elsevier bedrijfsinformatie bv. Braaksma, R.M., De Jong, J.P.J. & Stam, E. (2005). Creatieve bedrijvigheid in Nederland. Structuur, ontwikkeling, Innovatie. Zoetermeer: EIM Brief, A. P. & Nord, W.R. (1990). Meanings of occupational work. Lexington: Lexington Books Brown, S. P. (1996). A meta-analysis and review of organizational research on job involvement. Psychological bulletin, 120 (2), 235-255.
92
Caillois, R. (1961). Man, Play, and Games. New York: Free Press Of Glencoe. Caluwé de, L., Hofstede G., & Peters, V. (Eds.). (2008). Why do games work? In search of the active substance. Deventer: Kluwer. Caluwé de, L., Kor, R. & Weggeman, M. (2005). Essenties van organiseren, managen en veranderen. Schiedam: Scriptum Books. Castel, R. (2011). Game-based learning for project management. Master thesis, Department of Business Administration, Athabasca University, Canada. Chalofsky, N. (2003). Meaningful work. T+D Magazine, 57 (12), 52-58. Chorney, I. A. (2012). Taking The Game Out Of Gamification. Dalhousie journal of interdisciplinary management, 8 (9). Collins, J.C. & Porras, I.J. (2002). Built To Last: Successful Habits Of Visionary Companies. New York: HarperCollins Publishers. Copier, M., Koster, H., Pavloff, N., van Uden, J., Vlaar, M., Wenzler, I., Zuurmond, J. (2011) Serious Games, Playful Business – Toekomstbeelden van de spelende organisatie. Den Haag: STT. Csíkszentmihályi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety – Experience flow in work and play (25th ed.) San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Dalai Lama & Cutler, H. C. (1998). The art of happiness: a handbook for living. London: Hodder & Stoughton. Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Facilitating Optimal Motivation and Psychological WellBeing Across Life’s Domains, Canadian Psychology 49 (1).
93
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R. & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A Meta-Analystic Reviw of Experiments Examining the Effects of Extrinsic Rewards on Intrinsic Motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125 (6), 627-680. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.627. Dekas, K. H., Rosso, D. & Wrzesniewski. A. (2010). On the meaning of work: A theoretical integration and review. Research in Organizational Behavior, 30 (1), 91127. doi:10.1016/j.riob.2010.09.001. Deterding, S., Khaled, R. Nacke, L.E., & Dixon, D. (2011). Gamification: Toward a Definition. CHI 2011 Gamification Workshop Proceedings. Retrieved from: http://gamification-research.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/02-Deterding-KhaledNacke-Dixon.pdf Dijksterhuis, A. (2012). Het slimme onderbewuste: Denken met gevoel. Amsterdam: Uitgeverij Bert Bakker. Ekman, P. (2003). Emotions Revealed: Recognizing Faces and Feelings to Improve Communication and Emotional Life. New York: Times Books. Fairlie, P. (2011). Meaningful Work, Employee Engagement, and Other Key Employee Outcomes: Implications for Human Resource Development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 13, 508. doi:10.1177/1523422311431679. Florida, R. (2007). Flight of the creative class – The new global competition for talent. HarperCollins Publishers: New York. Garnham, N. (2005). From cultural to creative industries. International Journal of Cultural Policy 11(1), 15–29. Gartner. (2011). Gamification – Hype Cycle for Emerging Technologies 2011. pp. 1-31. Gee, J. P. (2007). Good video games + good learning. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.
94
Geurts. J., Joldersma.C., Roelofs. E. (Eds.) (1998). Gaming/Simulation for Policy Development and Organizational Change. Tilburg: University Press. Gilmore, J. H. & Pine II, B. J. (2007) Authenticity – what consumers really want. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Hackman, J., Lawler, E. & Oldham, G.R. (2000). Job characteristics theory. In Miner, J (ed) Organizational Behavior: Essential theories of motivation and leadership. New York: M.E. Sharpe; Armonk. Hackman, J.R., & Oldham, G.R. (1980). Work redesign. Readings, MA: Addison-Wesley. Hagoort, G., Oostinjen, A., Van Thiel, M. & Szita, J. (Eds.). (2007). Read This First – Growth and development of creative SME’s. Bunnik: Libertas. Huizinga, J. (1955). Homo ludens – a study of the play element in culture. Boston: The Beacon Press. IBM. (2007). Seriosity, Virtual Worlds, Real Leaders: Online games put the future of business leadership on display. Retrieved from :http://www.seriosity.com/downloads/GIO_ PDF_web.pdf. Jacobs, D, Hofman B. & Van Gogh, M. (2011). Prioriteiten in de creatieve sector. Bouwstenen voor een innovatieprogramma. Utrecht: Syntens Jacobs, M. (2012). Click, click, click, click. Zynga and the gamification of clicking. Retrieved from: http://www.gamejournal.it/click-click-click-click-zynga-and-the-gamificationof-clicking/#.T_rlmu2hByY Jensen, M. (2012). Engaging the Learner Gamification Strives to Keep the User's Interest. T+D Magazine, 66 (1), 40-44.
95
Juul J. (2003). The Game, the Player, the World: Looking for a Heart of Gameness. In M. Copier & J. Raessens (Eds.). Level Up: Digital Games Research Conference Proceedings (pp. 30–45). Retrieved from: http://www.digra.org/dl/db/05163.50560. Johnston, S. (2011). State of the Dutch Gaming Industry (Deloitte). Retrieved from: http://www.marketingfacts.nl/berichten/20110429_state_of_the_dutch_gaming_indust ry_deloitte Kane, P. (2005). The play ethic: A manifesto for a different way of living. London: Pan Macmillan Khan Academy. (n.d.). A free world-class education for anyone anywhere. Retrieved from Khan Academies website: http://www.khanacademy.org/about Koops, O., Roso, M. & Rutten, P. (2010). Creatieve industrie in de SBI 2008 bedrijfsindeling. TNO Innovatie en ruimte: Delft. Koster, R. A. (2004) Theory of Fun for Game Design. Phoenix: Paraglyph Press Leavitt, H.J. (1965). Applied organizational change in industry: structural, technological in humanistic approaches. Chicago: Rend McNally. Littlejohn, S. W. & Foss, K. A. (2007). Theories of Human Communication. Andover: Cengage Learning, Inc. Liu, Y. & Perrewé, P. L. (2005). Another look at the role of emotion in the organizational change: A process model. Human resource management review, 15, 263-280. Lyubomirsky, S. (2009). The How Of Happiness: A New Approach To Getting The Life You Want. New York: The Penguin Press. Malaby, T. M. (2007). Beyond Play: A New Approach to Games. Games and Culture, 2 (2), 95-113. doi: 10.1177/1555412007299434.
96
Marlet, G. & Van Woerkens, C. (2004). Het economisch belang van de creatieve klasse. Economisch Statistische Berichten, pp. 280-283. Mäyrä, F. (2008). An introduction to Game Studies: Games in Gulture. London: SAGE Publications Maslov, A. H. (1970). Motivation and personality (2th ed). New York: Harper & Row. Mayer, I. & Mastik, H. (Eds.) (2007). Organizing and learning through gaming and simulation. Proceedings of Isaga 2007. Delft: Eburon. Mc Gonigal, J. (2011). Reallity Is Broken – Why Games Make Us Better And How They Can Change The World. New York: The Penguin Press. Mintzberg, H. (1997). Structuring of organizations. Englewood Cliffs. New York: Prentice Hall. Ministry of economics, business, agriculture and innovation. (2011). Creatieve industrie in topvorm. Advies Topteam Creatieve Industrie. Retrieved from: http://www.topsectoren.nl/creatieveindustrie/sites/default/files/documents/Advies%20Topsector%20 Creatieve%20Industrie_0.pdf Ministry of economics, business, agriculture and innovation. (2012). Samenvatting Innovatiecontract Topsector Creatieve industrie. Retrieved from: http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/ondernemersklimaat-eninnovatie/documenten-en-publicaties/kamerstukken/2012/04/02/samenvattinginnovatiecontract-topsector-creatieve-industrie.html Montola, M., Stenros, J. & Waern, A. (2009). Pervasive games: theory and design – Experiences on the boundary between life and play. Burlington: Elsevier Inc. Osterloh, M. & Frey, B.S. (2000). Motivation, knowledge Transfer, and organizational forms. Organizational Science, 11 (5), 538-550.
97
Pink, D. H. (2009). Drive – The surprising truth about what motivates us. London: Penguin Group. Potts, J. and S. Cunningham (2008). Four models of the creative industries. International Journal of Cultural Policy 14(3), 233–247. Pratt, M. G. & Ashforth, B. E. (2003). Fostering meaningfulness in working and at work. San Fransisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. PR Newswire United Business Media. (2011). SQUEEZED MIDDLE is named Oxford Dictionaries Word of the Year 2011. Retrieved from PR Newswire United Business Media website: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/squeezed-middle-isnamed-oxford-dictionaries-word-of-the-year-2011-134361588.html Reeves, Byron & John Leighton Read. (2009). Total Engagement: Using Games and Virtual Worlds to Change the Way People Work and Businesses Compete. Boston: Harvard Business Press. Ryff, C. D. (2000). Meaning of life. In A. E. Kazdin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Salen, K. & Zimmerman, E. (2004). Rules of play – Game Design Fundamentals. Cambridge: The MTI Press. Sauerman, H. & Cohen, W. (2008) What Makes You Thick? Employee motives and firm innovation. NBER Working paper, 14443. Seligman, M. (1998). Learned optimism: How to Change Your Mind and Your Life. New York: Free Press. Schell, J. (2008). The Art of Game Design: A book of lenses. Burlington: Morgan Kaufmann. Shamir, B. (1991). Meaning, self and motivation in organizations. Organization Studies, 12 (3), 405-424.
98
Suits, B. (2005). The Grasshopper - Games, Life and Utopia. Ontario, Canada: Broadview Press. Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Basic Human Values: An Overview. Retrieved from: http://segrdid2.fmag.unict.it/Allegati/convegno%207-8-10-05/Schwartzpaper.pdf. The co-operative insurance, good with money. (n.d.). Young driver insurance video. Retrieved from The co-operative insurance website: http://www.cooperativeinsurance.co.uk/servlet/Satellite/1331626331918,CFSweb/Page/InsuranceCar?WT.svl=nav3 Throsby, D. (2008). The concentric circles model of the cultural industries. Cultural Trends 17(3), 147–164. UNCTAD (2008). Creative economy report. Technical report, UNCTAD, UNDP, UNESCO, WIPO & ITC, Paris. Van Bree, J. (2011). Complex Systems and Emergent Behaviour: Engaging With Computer Games To Enrich Organisation Studies. Breukelen: Nyenrode Business Universiteit. Van Manen, T. & Bloem, J. (2012). Game On, Spel als pijler van onze engagement economie. LINE UP boek en media bv: Groningen Van Mastrigt, J. (2006). The big bang, Dutch Gamedays, Utrecht. Vecchio, R. P. (1980). The function and meaning of work and the job: Morse and Weiss (1955) revisited. Academy of Management Journal, 23(2), 361-367. Warmelink, H. (2011). Towards a Playful Organization Ideal-type: Values of a Playful Organizational Culture. Proceedings of DiGRA 2011. Retrieved from: http://www.digra.org:8080/Plone/dl/db/11307.09298.pdf. Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organisations are loosly coupled systems. Administrative Science Quality 21 (1), 19.
99
Wentink, T. (2005). Kwaliteitsmangement, bedrijfsvoering en organisatieontwikkeling. Utrecht: Uitgeverij LEMMA BV. Zichermann, G. & Linder, J. (2010). Game Based Marketing - Inspire Customer Loyalty Through Rewards, Challenges, and Contests. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
100
Appendices Interview Melinda Jacobs – Flight 1337 04th of May 2012, Amsterdam 11:00 – 12:30 Melinda S. Jacobs, M.A. is an engagement designer, specialising in gamification and social game based designs and strategies. She is the co-founder, CEO, and lead designer at Flight 1337 where she develops game-inspired experiences that engage audiences with brands, concepts, events, and products. Flight 1337 is an engagement design studio, specialising in games and game-inspired strategies that engage audiences with brands, concepts, events, and products. In doing so, Flight 1337 brings together experts from around the world in the field of new media, digital culture, and game studies. (For more information, see www.flight1337.com). D: What are the current projects Flight 1337 is designing for? M: There are a couple of projects we cannot formally announce because of the clients. Our business model is about long-term projects. Even though we might get something done in six to eight weeks, usually development always takes much longer because they are interrelated with bigger complex platforms and so the moment of announcing it is always a bit in the air. So for AEGON we did the ‘Speel je toekomst’, [I already talked with Melinda about ‘Speel je toekomst’ at the Festival of Games, therefore it is not further explained during this interview] that is still not live yet because their own development team has taken now over half of the year to develop it. We did all of the design and everything. One of the priorities of Flight 1337 is to work efficiently and work on deadlines. So we got our work done very quickly, in six weeks just as promised to AEGON. Eventually it was eight weeks including two weeks of research, so in eight weeks we were done. AEGON wanted it to get it out really quickly and it is quite a challenge of course to get a project done in eight weeks. But is it still has not launched yet and now we are getting to the point that we really can talk about ‘Speel je toekomst’ and that we can mention it. Up in the next couple of months there will be an article in the NRC Handelsblad in which they will mention ‘Speel je toekomst’ as well. So it is kind of getting to the point were it could be talked about. In addition to ‘Speel je toekomst’ we do a
101
lot of consultancy for AEGON. For example helping them with different sponsorships or different aspects of organisations and social media campaigns. For the Princes Beatrix Fonds we do things related to their digital strategy, like revamp their volunteer platform. We also have another client were we did projects for in the past, which were also related to volunteering, like helping engage their volunteer community and get them more active and bring in younger users. We also started a project with a magazine. They want to activate their online community more, get it more active and make their magazine more a brand in general. A representation of women culture instead of this is the magazine and that is it. We are also just about to announce that were doing a project for Ajax. We are going to design a football fan platform for them and then AEGON is also interested in that because they are their main sponsor. So it would be a combination platform for engaging fans with brands and helping them know what both of them, Ajax and AEGON, are actually doing. For a small company like us these projects are quite big and that is why we have a smaller portfolio, but we do have a lot of things on our plate. It is just that they take quite a while to finish. D: Are all of these projects game-based or is it mainly digital advice/social media advice? M: We do both, I mean the digital strategy for the Princes Beatrix Fonds is very much just social media and communication based, so how do you communicate better, how do you efficiently rebuild you website, how do you stream online content whilst not being to overwhelming. The project of the Princes Beatrix Fonds is not really game-based, but at the same time parts of it can be game-based. So their volunteer platform will have a bit of a tweak of a game in it. So how can you engage people, how can we get in to engagement design as we are supposed to design just a communication strategy? We are equipped to do both, but we prefer the designing because it is more fun for us. But there are often projects, that we say ok, even though this is more about communication strategy it is still very interesting and we would like to help out, so let’s do that. D: After all this I was wondering how did you get in contact with games and when did you realise that it could help businesses or add value to a managerial context? M: Actually during my Masters Program. I did a research project on a consumer site that I really liked called wood.com. And this is back in 2007. So before gamification and before the hype started I was doing this project and I thought: ‘hey, this is really interesting’ because there is this community and what they do is: they put one item for sale every 24 hours and
102
when it is sold out is it just sold out and then you have to wait until the next 24 hour period to intentionally but another item. But it is just one item. And then every once in a while they have something they called a wood off, where they put item after item the second something sold out. So for like 24 hours they would have item after item on sale as long as the item before sold out. And if the item before never sold out, then at the end of the time period there is not coming anyone. So what I found so fascinating about this is that the community around it really was involved in it. So they really started to instead of just looking as individual consumers, to actually work together and try to buy things out that they did not even want, so they could get the potentially better next item and that was really a new looking of game play in a way. They were starting to strategize; they were attacking instead of as individuals as a team. That is what I found really interesting and I started to analyse why this happened. Is this something they planned for, is this a side effect of this, what really went on here and most importantly how can this be applied to other situations? At that point I started realising, ok, games and business they might be a good combination. After the research project I finished my Masters degree and started to work for a while in the game industry and I still always felt that this is really a smart thing to do. And than the big gamification boom came around and then I realised that we were already there because of my research, which was already a form of gamification. It was only not mentioned like that, but it is still the same thing. Edward Casternova published a book on putting play and fun in the workplace as in game design. So it was funny to see gamification coming up, but I had been thinking for a while, maybe this is something you can use knowledge from and actually translate into a real experience. And at that point I decided, why not start a company for it and then as I said the rest is history. D: To what extent is it true that there are not many companies applying games into a business environment? M: Not too many, there are some. Usually they are a bit angled somehow. There are companies that are designing engagements for fans, a serous game company that may try to apply gamification to a project. However, gamification is such a tricky term. You know, for the sake of the discussion and not going crazy, they try to do gamification projects. Because the main people that are in the same picturing as we are is serious game companies. And that is interesting in itself, because is it never marketing companies. We almost never see actual marketing companies really pitching for the same thing. But often we get projects that marketing companies had, but they could not completely do and then it is kicked back to us.
103
Then we have to take the earlier version of the idea, clean it up and make it a bit stronger like we did with ‘Speel je toekomst’. They say it is not working and ask can you tell us why? We tried to give them answers and they replied: fix it! Design the entire thing, even though the concept itself already existed a bit. But the challenge for us is to figure out how all the pieces fit together and experience that if you are not really trained to think like the user it is very difficult to really create a very good experience because you will may create something that works temporarily, but you did not thought about the second part. D: So how did the first version of ‘Speel je toekomst’ functioned? M: They did not have any guiding structure. So during the game, they basically asked a bunch of questions and they pushed you into the world of lifelines and you just could add events everywhere. Because ‘Speel je toekomst’ is about learning about your pension and how can your life events affect your pension. And they just kind of threw you into your life events and it was not guided and there was no narrative that helped you understand what was going on or why you would want to do things. So it was very limited, like here is the deep, let somebody jump in and say ‘swim!’ They may not drown, but they may not join the experience either. D: But that is actually really interesting, because maybe they realise ‘okay, games might work’, but they have no clue how they work. M: And that is exactly what happened because the person from AEGON said: ‘I know games will work here and that is what we try to do, but we do not know enough or we are not experienced enough and we do not have the expertise to built this’. Therefore they asked to Flight 1337, ‘do you still think this will work?’ It is occasional but still engaging and the answer is yes. Of course it is possible, but you need the right mind-set, skillset and practice to be able to enact it just as any other professional. D: What do you think the success factors of applying games within a managerial context are? So, in brief, why does it work? M: From specifically looking at management, a lot of the times what is going wrong in managing a team, is that people do not communicate or they do not understand each other. And one thing games are very good at is at teaching you how to play them. If you take that same context and the same idea of how can I help guide someone through this experience and teach him or her how to succeed in it, which is just what a game does (most games), you can
104
apply that than in the managerial context and say: ‘okay how can I teach someone how to work with the team and how to be most productive’. If you help guide them more and if you think about it through that structured context of what are they missing, why aren’t they succeeding, then you really can get very far. It is not that necessarily everything needs to be turned into a World of Warcraft. That is not necessarily useful. It is kind of that philosophy, that mentality, that is helpful in all of these situations. Because you are just thinking ‘what is missing’ and how can I artificially create that in the environment to help to get the person from A to B and help to improve creativity to increase whether it is motivation or understanding, or whatever it is what is lacking there. Motivation and understanding are usually the two big ones. But then that is where is would be beneficial and you can create that to the additional structure of games. If you make people care more and make them understand what they are working with, than you are going to have better communication and you are able to teach how to reach better communication on top of that.
D: Do you think than that there always needs to be a problem? Or can you also apply game principles when the system works well? M: I mean than the question would be why would you fix something if it is not broken? There are always things to improve, which are working well. For example the client we are going to do the volunteer program for. It is not that it is “broken” but they just want a bit more, they want to enhance their strategy. So there does not have to be a problem, but a lot of things start with something is lacking. There is always a goal or challenge they want to have themselves, but they have often troubles with understanding these challenges or goals that they are facing. It is almost always there otherwise it is not so necessary to change the environment structure. D: Especially in the current environment organisations are hunching for innovation, so maybe that
could
be
a
trigger
as
well.
What
do
you
think
about
that?
M: It is a mixed bag. Some companies are really strong in innovation and AEGON is one of them. They really love innovation. You can recognise that because they even have an innovation department in the company that is literally called ‘The Innovation Department’. They are really very very strong in innovation and that is one of the reasons we love to work with them. They are very imaginative, they are open minded and advanced and they just do not want something that is safe. On the other side you have people who are not really ready for this yet and they are like ‘hmm okay I can kind of see why this would work, but it is a
105
game’. It is that entire insecurity with terms. Is it gamification, is it a game, is it this or that? But is it a bit out of the comfort zone. And at that point it is where innovation stops. That is why a lot of companies have not adapted it yet. And it is still projected that it takes until 2018 until 80% of the companies will use gamification. It will get there but it takes so long sometimes for some companies who are not really looking to risk money on innovation. They argue that noting is exactly broken. They think it maybe can get better but if it works now they do not know why they should try to fix it. It is really a mixed bag and some people they go with gamification because they want to be innovative, but for others it is actually a huge deterrent and you need to convince them even more. D: Can we assume that it is more likely that innovative/creative organisations are willing to adapt game principles for redesigning their organisations or policies instead of traditional/bureaucratic organisations? M: Absolutely! D: Does this cause mixed feelings to you because it might be way more effective for these traditional/bureaucratic organisations? M: Yeah, and that is a matter of what is going to work. And that is why some of the gamification companies or creative companies go in with a white label product and they try to sell to everyone with the idea that maybe it will work in both organisations. But maybe one organisation needs less and another needs more of it because they are more open-minded. I completely agree that that can really differ the success rate. At the same time a lot of people or companies get confused with the idea that adding game mechanics means that it is not serious anymore. However, actually a lot of game mechanics (and again I hate the term game mechanics because what is it?) do not look like a game. It is just about improving the structure, adding a structure to standard procedures, teaching people, adding roles or challenges. And these things are not there meant to make things less serious, but to help people find out the things they cannot place themselves. So I start a project, where do I start? I have a blank slate and then someone comes and says ‘plump here is step 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Go start on them because when you finish them you are going to have another set of challenges’. All of a sudden my productivity level probably doubles because I do not have to set this up, this is got set up for me and I can work through it. You could think like this just as project management but depending on how you do it, it could also be gamification, interaction
106
design, experience design or engagement design because you are helping someone structure something. D: The interesting thing is, when I was looking at the characteristics of a creative organisation, they already have some elements, which exactly look like game elements. And that is why I think it is so interesting that some people have the idea it is not serious but the similarities are already present. M: You should read the Edward Casternova book! It is a bit like Jane McGonigal but it is very far out there. It is a bit extreme so people would actually take it seriously. It is basically a book about how online fun could be implemented in different things and about how organisations already using it, but at the same time being scared of it. This was written in 2007, I think. He had another book, which was more on virtual economy. So how does a digital economy effects the physical economy and how are they interlinking and how is that breaking the concept that games are just play because they are reaching in the non-play area. From what you have just been saying you might find this interesting. D: Thank you! Two weeks ago I was in Finland for a couple of weeks to interview some game designers and they were very very sceptical towards gamification. They actually hate the term and it looks like they refuse to accept it. It is such a contradiction because these people are so passionate about game research and game design that I expected that they would be a bit more open towards these kind of developments. One of the things the researchers in Finand mentioned was that games are not working as a learning tool because it is just something new and that is why it seems to work, not because it is a game. What do you think of that statement? M: The problem with all academia is that people get in little camps and then they like to defend it. That is one of the biggest hurdles with innovation in general, especially in game research right now, because game research was very unaccepted for a while and now it becomes accepted and nobody really wants to move on. Of course some really bad games are out in our environment, but there are also really bad books or movies or television shows or whatever. So in those cases, I agree with them. There are really bad examples of gamification that is just not thought trough and not done very well. There are bad examples of games whether it is educational or anything else. But then to put the blanket statement that games cannot be used for learning I think is really inaccurate. Because when I refer it back even to
107
when I was in grate school. One of the things I remember from science class is getting to play a computer game. It was a Carmen San Diego game, I do not know if you are familiar with this show? D: No unfortunately not. M: The idea of the game was that there was this character you had to track and you would get little clues in different phases. You had to try to figure out where in the world she was. It was kind of a mystery game related to geography and science. It was for grate school children so not forensic science or anything like that. But I still remember that game because it really did teach it. It thought about that whole process of how do I go about researching something. How do I start thinking about where to find this person because that is a huge challenge? What would I look for? What do you pick out of this pile of evidence? It helped teach you how to do that. I think in those cases it is not that games can replace all education, but it can be so useful because you cannot really explain it as getting someone to do it. And that is where educational games really have their role. In a way as simulation, structured simulation, not as second life simulation, real simulations of ‘try this out’. And it is structured and guided so you are not going to get to get lost. Try it out because I cannot impart enough knowledge. It is the same with learning game design. As you just got to design games it does not matter what your training is, you cannot train someone in game design. You have to let them do it and give them feedback. Some people would be able to game design because they think on the right level. It is not about intelligence but about if they think about cause and effect and how people work. You can improve that to certain extents, you still have to teach people by having them design games. Why would any other education be different? D: When I was in Finland I disagreed with them as well, but it triggered me to be critical. Is it then more focussed on short term or long term? Because what interests me is that you are not able to play a game forever. Okay, some games like World of Warcraft you can play your whole life, but especially business games are currently focussed on short-term results. M: It is a really tricky question but it will be a question that will be on top of everybody’s mind very soon because of social gaming. Social gaming kind of proved the point, so like you have World of Warcraft and that is proved to be a very persisting game. The same thing with other MMORPG’s. They are still continuing and people are enjoying them because the people are the game. So they can be sustainable. The interesting thing is that with social gaming, they
108
are dying out. You see it with Zenga. They keep replacing game after game. It goes to certain extent that they wear out the game, they cannot support it anymore and they move to the next one. But the thing is that these games still exist so what the question really is: is can you create a sustainable social game? Or is gaming something really short term? Could these games only survive for so long? Or what would it take if you wanted to not be social but completely sustainable? Adding more episodes or adding more content is proven to not be enough. People still migrate. And if enough people stay then it is sustainable but is our people still playing it because it is a good game or is it dying out and is it such huge numbers we cannot tell. So, I think this will be a really a question that will become pretty permanent in the next couple of years because gamification will see the same thing. I completely agree. Can this platform sustain itself? Can it be enough to continue year after year? I think yes in some cases, like the volunteer platform. Than it includes a platform with inspired game elements on it, but it is still a platform with a functionality that triggers the question: is this functionality something that we can continue for a longer period if time. Volunteer interaction: yes, a brief campaign with a set goal and challenge, no. That is probably not sustainable. But as far as the game mechanics itself as something we should look as a short-term experience using gamification or games versus long term. Yeah, that is a tricky question and I think social gaming will be the right answer. It kind of will depend on how those cards fall as to what the future of casual and social games kind of will be and the minds of everyone of course. D: Especially related to business games, we can assume that the players will not be gamers or not really into gaming. Therefore, I am really curious what the reactions of these types of players are towards business games. And what if they discover that it is a game and try to tweak it. Is the strategy then still effective? M: That is something we as a company are not really thorn on. That is why we do not do consulting. We never do it because we cannot control the final outcome. I really believe that game design is about all the little details. You have the big mechanics, which are the basis of the game, but how do these things really interact and what are the small interaction factors? The placement of a button can make or break something sometimes. And other times it is about if you are going to have competition or not in the environment. It is really hard if you do not pay attention to al these details and have enough experience or education about the topic and again not intelligence, but just if are you familiar with working with game design. So, yeah, in a way there is a little bit of fluctuation that is nice, which says ‘hey, this could be
109
bit more efficient for me if it is like this’. But at the same time I think most people their time is too busy anyways to mess around with it. But then it still has to be careful because if you start to designing and manipulating it and it does not work, the client will come back to the contract and believes that it is not working anymore. And that is why we as a company always warn ‘if you mess with it, we cannot be able to be accountable for it because it is a entire strategy’. That is where the game mechanics versus contexts come in to play, because when you think that just game mechanics plopping in, then you feel much more compiled to play. Like oh, I just bring up my deck of cards, lets try this mechanic now or that one. But if you think of it as a context very clear you just cannot touch all the mechanics without affecting anything else. D: Yeah, because it is all interacting with each other. But on the other hand do you think that players within a business/managerial environment after a couple of weeks will think: ‘boring’? If so, how do you deal with it or prevent it? M: Yeah they could. It really depends what the game is and how relevant it is. But what is interesting is if it is a problem of the game or a changing habit of the player. The more the game environment relies on its own environment and storyline, the harder it is to sustain it because you have to generate additional content. The more the game or gamification world relies on interactions within a “real world” context the easier it is to sustain because you do not have to generate that additional storyline, that additional context, that additional world. And that is why MMORPG’s, even though they are a bit in the fictional land, are so sustainable because they rely on real people generating more content for you than anything else in the world. It would take millions of game designers to come up with all the content the World of Warcraft people have generated for themselves. Especially in the role-playing service, the world they built around it is so incredible. In the case of the business example the question would be: ‘is it a game, which relies on its own game environment and a creation of that game environment or is it something that relies on a external project or HR coordination or something more with people/social network?’ Facebook in a way is a game. It is gamification of your social network. But it succeeds because it relies on people. But if it was all fictional people and you were friends of fictional people and you would have those interactions i.e. storylines like Farmville you come into non-sustainable because you really have to maintain that illusion and maintain that environment where you have less of the real world that filters in.
110
D: When do businesses contact you? So in what stadium are they when they need help or innovative solutions? M: Usually we are seen trough the publishing of academic journals we do or from past work or conferences. Some people have read up a lot about gamification or gaming and they already convinced themselves they need it. And that is the easier conversation, than you just get straight to the point ‘what do you want?’ Usually they still do not understand how it will be applied for them, but that is why they contacted us. Other times, they have seen it and they are like very abstractly: ‘this may help that, but what is this and convince me about gamification’. Then you need many more meetings because you have to explain what it exactly is and how it functions. Then they highlight the problem, but because they did not went to the gamification stage first, they do not exactly understand the problem. So you have to work through a lot more things and that is ok as well, but it really depends. AEGON was really clear. They were like ‘this is the project, we know gamification can work, how do we fix it?’ And that is very short and very clear. Then we another clients, like the volunteer client: ‘yeeeaah, we saw gamification and you know it sounds really interesting and we saw a talk of yours and can we talk about it?’ These talks are going from one to another because these types of clients then ask whether you can apply it to several non-relevant situations. Than you just have to really guide them and apply gamification during the talk itself. Help them structuring the conversation so that they are thinking with you as supposed to having a discussion. It is that feedback and challenge that works in almost anything. Which is in a way on one hand a little bit scary because you can add feedback and challenges to a lost of things and get people interested. At the same time it is apparently a wiring in the human mind. It speaks a lot about how culture has shaped almost all of us. D: The project of AEGON is not really internally but externally is it, so for their clients and not for their employers and employees? M: It is not only for their clients, it is actually for the entire population of the Netherlands. They are not branding their own products at all. They just want to help people to understand pensions better because what they are very much about now is transparency. After all of the things, which have happened in the past they really want to make sure people will understand this. They do not want them understand what AEGON can do but understand the pension itself and the future, the insurance and all other options. So they just trying to create a platform that really helps people get to that point. That is where the concept form came from.
111
D: Did you also do projects, which were more internally focussed? M: Yeah, well we do a lot of HR consultancy. So we do workshops with people. So there are HR consultants and then they advise people about how can we get, whether it is recruitment or… A lot of times what they want is employees to refer their friends or old colleagues to the company so that the company can hire from that pool. So some of the times it is about how can we advice them how gamification might work in this case. Or it is about how can we increase productivity. We use gamification in way to increase our own productivity. A lot of what we do for internal gamification is by helping HR people understand it to the point that they can guide their clients to a point of then being able to approach us. But we are really working on building up that program now. We have done a lot of three to four hour workshops or talks on it and really investigating or researching it be able to say for example ‘if you want to improve communication in management then you need to think of it like this...’. Another problem we countered was a problem related to flex working. A company wanted to figure out a way in which flex working could or would work better. What you often see is people think of it themselves and they get really big ideas and try to reinvent Facebook. The focus is often missing. For example the focus on flex working. It is about how we can make flex working better. Think small, you can always expend. The second step is that they add all these features and than you are like ‘why do you want the features?’ The clients are convinced that it helps engagement, but they have no idea why. And because they got so caught up in the idea of all these mechanics increasing engagement they are convinced they need as much as possible. But if it does not have a purpose why would you let somebody do it? Because then they are not really doing what you want them to do. The third thing really is the end goal. Where do you want to go with a project? Why are you, especially when it is bumping internal, what is the atmosphere you want to create through it because a lot of people will go immediately to leader boards. And that is a real danger in something internal because than you create a competition. It is a soft competition but… That is why with a lot of internal management problems it is easier to do workshops first because there is such a learning gab compared to sometimes-other clients. With AEGON or if you doing “business to consumer” people are a lot more educated on what they do want the consumer to do. And they know a lot more.
112
D: Okay, so actually the purpose for business to consumer is clearer? Because when you want to implement gamification internally it is really interlinked and the example of AEGON is just about informing? M: Absolutely and again, people are so much more familiar with dealing with consumers. No one is reeeaaly familiar with dealing with employees. It is really difficult to put a new system into anything. Ironically enough that is what people want gamification for. They want a platform to help people understand a platform. Or they want a new construction on that and that is very tricky because you have to do it very gently, otherwise you can enjoy the entire eco system that has built upon the previous system. And that is I think why you do not see a lot of examples of really well done HR internal gamification because it is really difficult to do, as the majority sees gamification as random game mechanics. D: I think that managers in general often already have difficulties with changing behaviour of employees and therefore they hire an external consultant or whatsoever. It it so that gamification doubles up the complexity? M: Yeah I think so, but it can eventually simplify it. D: So, do you have any experience or thoughts on how you should inform the employees who have to play the game? M: It would depend on the topic. If for example it has to do with designing a system to help them through the process of firing (I do not know if it will work, but lets pretend) then you have to be really gentle. You have to account for that additional level of emotions. With consumers it is about peaking their interest level, but with employees there are a lot more emotions that come into play. How would you introduce a system, but what are the emotions they are likely to have? It will probably be a new system, which is replacing the older one. So you are going to have one group, which is extremely frustrated, another group that is not going to like it defaultly and you are going to have a group that is very motivated and interested because they did not like the old system. So you are going to have a very strong contrast. In that case what you have to do is reward the ones that are very interested but will not punish the ones that are not and also help the ones that really liked the old system to accept it. Maybe then you are a bit softer or use a little bit more humour. You kind of ease them into it a bit more while you are letting the other ones go off and do their own thing. And
113
that is where good gamification assigns: guide people but never limit them. So if you bypass the system and you will understand everything, then there is room for you to go off and explore it on you own, basically create your own game based on the system. But for the ones that are going to take a lot longer through it, that is a place as well. So by the time they get to the end they can at least do this, they may never go beyond there, but you at least have got them to there and at least you are accounting for the fact that they are not going to be happy with the system and then you just do not plump the system in. It is very complicated. And in these situations is might go more to activation as supposed to game design necessarily. It is then how you do introduce a topic or launches a new campaign. D: I think it is also quite difficult for managers to figure out which people like it or not, what might help managers with these struggles? M: At this point, community dynamics can really help because colleagues know who do and do not like the system. So if you set up a community dynamic that help the ones who like it convince the others or at least segment the other ones and let them be accountable for it. Than it is okay if you do not know what true is because they will sort themselves out. So make some things cooperative instead of singular. Even if it is a singular system you can do things together. You will mix the groups naturally and you can continue on. That would be an example of how you will fix the problem. So make things cooperative. The employees have to meet in the middle because they do not want to be seen as negative or against it by their colleagues. So than the manager does not actually have to think too much about it because the system will account for it, but they can see from the system who is struggling and who is not and give the additional personal help. D: So, what is actually necessary to implement game principles or game mechanics? Or what is the right word to utilise? M: Well that is the biggest bane of our industry. One of the reasons more innovative research does not get done is because nobody knows how to talk about it. Because everyone hates the term gamification, but at the same time you cannot call it gaming because it is different. So how do you call it then because it is not serious gaming either. So in the best case we need to invent another word, but than of course the gamification people will clink to that. It can be implemented anywhere, even if everybody hates it you can try to implement it, but than you have to create on top of the system that will help them what you want them to do, a system
114
that provokes that. Than you get into paradox. Of course there sometimes will be a group, which says: ‘no way we are never going to do this’ there is nothing you can do about it. It is a test for a good designer if you can design something for any situation. That requires a team that looks at the context. And they need to be used to design narratives to games because both narratives and games rely on thinking of all the attributes. Assuming the good narrative design is more important than in the end the audience is because in the end someone who can design a good narrative is able to design for anyone. That is were a lot of marketing companies go wrong. They do not understand that this is a skillset. Whether it is learning in practice or a five-year education that is another story. Thinking trough a narrative, the cause and affect is the crucial element. D: Do you already have some kind of results from projects you did related to gamification? M: From project we have done the initial testing van ‘Speel je toekomst’ showed that people got further. In the first version you could really see on what page they dropped off on. On the home page there was a huge drop off. A ridicules drop off. So one of the first things we fixed was making the home page. And later on you could just see the drop off point were we last the majority of the people. That user testing we did during our design showed that people got further because there was a narrative. It seems that things were connected and that they were working towards something. Just that feeling of ‘I am working towards something’ help people stick with it because they knew what to expect, they knew about the iteration. And that is one of the things you can really see from a project like that. What people almost want to know more than anything is where they are and what they are doing. And that is in a way the biggest thing gamification can do, is achievement. We all think that achievements work because people are completionists. They want to get everything. So if they see ten achievements is it is likely that they want to have them all. But if you think about it a second time, what also do achievements do? They show you things you can do. It is obviously more work than just achieving something. There is no game on Facebook that is called ‘ultimate achievements’ because that is not how it works. It is again not only about the simplified mechanics. But we still pretend it works like that because the other way is so much easier. D: There is a contradiction based on literature and practice when you look at rewards. Because rewards like points might work, but money as a reward really decreases motivation and production. What do you think of that?
115
M: Absolutely true. D: I think it is really interesting because I assume that in the end people need rewards. When looking at increasing motivation via rewards, games might be the solution because in games rewards work but in real life they some sort of do not. M: It is the ultimate discussion. Why do people will do really meaningless tasks in World of Warcraft but still do it? And when it is asked at work they refuse to do it. Have you read the Jane McGonigal book? D: Yes. M: The main question is, why are we not doing things in here we do there? Here we are thinking people do things for money and there they do things for points or achievements. Here a lot of times they do not get an achievement or points and they hardly get anything from it. But there they progress the narrative, they get further in understanding and exploring the game and have the skillset you need to get further. If you are too weak here you cannot go any further and it is all about what is coming next. But there you just get stuck. If they do not like it, it is a dead and job. They cannot go anywhere. But if you change this around and make it more about learning and understanding how to work with your environment and progresing, maybe people will be more motivated. And that is where now finally people are saying: ‘maybe we should give this a try because this is working and this is not’. D: What is your future perspective on the development of gamification? M: I think that the gamification terminology discussion will come close to ending the world [laughter]. I mean I think what will happen and is already happening, is that the term will go away from gamification and will go towards engagement. That is one of the reasons why we chose very early to call it a bit different and use engagement because that is in the end what everyone is doing. There are a lot of things you can do to engage people and you can see that more and more people are taken it that way. So lets focus less on terminologies and more on the end results. People will start to think that way and we will get further because the placing of gamification will become redundant at some point because it will stop working. It can only be sustainable for so long and that is why the question you asked earlier is actually very very relevant and a really interesting question because I do think we will come into play because
116
social games are starting to fail. Social are already wavering a bit and they are already not sustainable, that is very clear. But is will really bite everyone in the face and ask for subsequent steps because social games are kind of the gamification of clicking. They make clicking fun. Now we are looking towards it from a perspective of engagement, but we have a sustainability problem. Gamification is probably going to have that same sustainability problem. So we have to fix that as well. And than the old gamification methodologies will be slowly going out to play and more of the game industry will accept the idea of gamification, which really the difference is: virtual world compared to real life events based or more people based. It will get more about the context and situation. It has to go to that process of failure first before people realise sustainability is not really the option with these things. If you just place things in it may work temporarily but it cannot be sustainable, unless you are very lucky. In the end we are looking towards it as an experience as a whole instead of individual mechanics, but we have to come to that failure point until everybody gets there. That is what is so frustrating about people who say that gamification is evil because you have good and bad gamification. Does the term suck or is it a bad word, well sure. That does not mean that it is all evil. D: Do you think that organisation in the future will realise that they need to become more playful? M: I think it is going to take a little while before the CEO’s and presidents of companies really understand why they are tapping into it. But than in the end they will because they want to increase productivity. I do think that HR and internal gamification is the way it is going to go because there is only to an extent you can do it with consumers. In the end people will accept is more and they will not think of it as making their organisation more playful, they would just think of that World of Warcraft example and say ‘they are doing really boring things there and are happy about it. How can we get that here?’ That will be than why it gets put into place because they realise that they can use this tool or think of it as a tool not as a design. And that is why there will be always a place for white labels and plopping in game mechanics because people want simple fixes. It is much more complex and expensive to do a longer fix because it takes more time, but in the end that will be what works. I think it will be accepted but not so much for the play aspect, but just for the cause and affect. ‘If I do this, I will get more productive employees’. As people become more and more disinterested, more and more overwhelmed with knowledge and more and more competitive in every industry, it
117
is going to be harder and harder to keep people from burning out. In the end maybe HR and internal gamification might be used to keep people from burning out. I think it will show up first in America because work is such a huge part of their culture.
118
Interview Herman Koster – Demovides 29th of May 2012, Amsterdam 11:00 – 12:00 Drs. Herman Koster has worked as vice president at Capgemini. He develops innovative concepts in the field of labor relations, management and talent development. He is also founder / owner of Demovides. Demovides is a network organisation focused on the development and application of (social) serious games for organisational design and change. Originally, Koster is a psychologist specialised in “difficult educability”. He graduated cum laude from the University of Groningen with a research into the effects of amusement centres on younger people. This is related to addiction issues, whereby Koster putted his focus on drugs and gambling. D: Ik vraag mij af hoe je zo verzeild bent geraakt in management gecombineerd met games? H: Hoe bedoel je management? D: Het is voor veel mensen ongewoon om game principes toe te passen in organisaties en daarmee organisatievraagstukken op te lossen en ik vroeg me af hoe je daar zo bij gekomen bent? H: Ik ben heel lang manager geweest en heb veel talent ontwikkelt binnen groepsbeleid. Ben 4 jaar lang directeur geweest van de academie van Cap Gemini en trainingen gegeven. En wat ik erg interessant vond was de game vorm om de dingen te beleven dan in een uitgewerkte vorm van A naar B te komen. Ik geloof er heilig in, dat hetgeen we geleerd hebben we spelend geleerd hebben van onze ouders en vriendjes. Op school heb ik veel minder geleerd dan in de eerste 4 of 5 jaar van mijn leven en dat is allemaal spelend geweest. Dus dat werkt. D: En hoe ben je er achter gekomen dat het werkt? H: Ik leer zelf spelenderwijs al van jongs af aan en nog steeds. Op een speelse manier werkt voor mij goed dan vraag gestuurd en zonder al te hard morren. Mensen kunnen piano leren spelen en door lessen te nemen leren ze piano werken en we kennen allemaal mensen die 5 jaar of langer lessen hebben gehad en nooit hebben leren spelen. Ze hebben leren werken. Als
119
je vraagt, speel eens wat? Dan kunnen ze dat niet omdat ze het niet op papier hebben of geen boek bij zich hebben. Spelen is vrij. Als je een kind van een jaar of 4 of 5 hebt en je geeft ze lego zeggen ze ook niet ik heb het al een tijdje niet gedaan of me dit of dat. Spelen is vrij. De manier waarop we veranderingen aanpakken is vaak onvrij en dat is dus niet leuk. Het heeft vaak ook een vrij gering effect. D: Ik heb ook het boek gelezen van Johan Huizinga - Homo Ludens, die best wel aankaart dat je als speler altijd vrijwillig moet zijn, maar als je het dan inzet binnen een bepaalde context ga je mensen eigenlijk wel dwingen om te spelen. H: Nee dat moet je niet doen. D: Dus als je het toepast is het vrijwillig mee doen of niet? H: Ja, om te spelen is gewoon heel leuk. We staan nu aan de vooravond van het EK voetbal en er zal best een speler zijn van het Nederlandse elftal die geen zin heeft. Maar dat is ook niet echt spelen, het is gewoon werk. Dus als je een game bedenkt moet zorgen dat het aansluit met iets en dat je zegt zullen we gaan spelen. En als je een spel verzint voor kinderen van 6 jaar moet je niet gaan werken met ingewikkelde handleidingen, want dat vinden ze niet leuk. Als mensen een game hebben wat ze leuk vinden gaan ze het ook doen. D: Wat zijn volgens jou de succesvolle factoren van zo een game of game elementen om veranderingen te laten plaatsvinden? H: Het moet pakkend zijn, je moet er ingezogen worden en dat is erg belangrijk, anders zou je weer een simulatie hebben. Belangrijk is dat tegenspelers ruimte hebben om casuïstiek voor elkaar creëren. Dus meer de social games. Neem nou bijvoorbeeld voetbal dat is ook zo een game. Er gebeurt van alles en je moet reageren. Dat kan ook komen door de tegenstander omdat je bijvoorbeeld het doel verdedigd. Je doet het met en voor elkaar om dat doel te bewaken. D: Als je een organisatie benadert zie je zoveel elementen die met een game gelijk zijn. Het is maar net in wat voor laag of context je het plaatst willen mensen het op een hele andere
120
manier gaan benaderen en veel mensen noemen de succesfactoren van games de continu geven van feedback. H: Ja het vrije experimenteren en het even los van het werk en los van sociale patronen. In een spel doen rangen en standen er minder toe. Dat zijn wel allemaal belangrijke dingen. Niet iedereen is even goed, maar je houd rekening met elkaar. D: Met wat voor projecten ben je momenteel bezig? H: We zijn nu bezig met een game voor klantgerichtheid, flexibiliteit, initiatieven en prioriteiten
stellen.
We
zijn
bezig
met
een
patiëntgerichtheid
game
in
een
ziekenhuisomgeving om patiënten beter te beheersen, het heeft maken met contact, of verwachtingstrategie klopt, communicatie afdelingen, de patiënt beter te begrijpen en beter voor te bereiden op de agenda van de patiënt. D: Het gaat er dus om wat hun interesseert en motiveert? H: Ja D: Is dat ook de reden waarom zie die game zouden moeten spelen? Omdat, dat hen intrinsiek motiveert? H: Ze menen dat de lig tijd gewoon omhoog kan en dat het aantal klachten naar beneden kan. En dat de organisatie kan verbeteren door alerter te zijn of beter te kijken naar de mens. D: Zijn dat nu de voorbeelden waarbij games ingezet worden om vrij specifieke issues op te lossen. Ik las dat jullie ook bezig zijn om games in te zetten om een organisatie te ontwerpen. H: Games die wij maken veranderen mensen dus ook organisaties. Als je als organisatie anders wilt gaan werken zal je ook je organisatie moeten aanpassen. Als je andere dingen belangrijker vindt dan vroeger, anders werken, zoals het nieuwe werken, meer in control zijn, vertrouwen, beheersbaarheid, eigenaarschap, instructies of delegeren. Als je dat wilt veranderen dan verandert alles.
121
D: Dus dat is best wel een complex proces het veranderproces binnen organisaties en als je dan gaming inzet is dat niet een extra obstakel omdat veel managers er niet mee bekend zijn? H: Je moet het ook inzetten als leerinterventie waar ze de volgende dag iets aan hebben en over een jaar ook nog. Het uitleggen voor een klas heeft geen zin. Het gaat er om dat een effect blijft en niet weg zakt. D: Dat leereffect is op zich erg interessant. Ik ben zelf een maand in Finland geweest voor mijn scriptie en daar op de universiteit zit een game research lab en de onderzoekers daar die games op zich onderzoeken en in mindere mate van innovatie in combinatie met management of andere dingen en die zijn er erg op tegen om games in te zetten voor leren of om management vraagstukken op te lossen. Zij vinden dat het meer korte termijn geschikt is en niet voor de langere termijn. En als het voor die doeleinden wordt gebruikt. Ik was het niet mee eens maar vond het wel erg intrigerend dat die mensen vanuit gamedesign daar niet open voor staan. H: Je moet dus ook eerst kijken welk doel wil je binnen een organisatie bereiken en dan vertrek je. Als je het niet mee maakt dan zie je het anders dan dat je het wel meemaakt. Bijvoorbeeld als je een game hebt met een acteur en die vertoont oud gedrag dan hebben mensen dat direct door. Achteraf zeggen mensen dan ook “ik heb nooit geweten hoe vervelend het is”. Het gaat er om om hetzelf mee te maken dan weet je wat het doet. D: Hoe kijk je aan tegen het statement korte en lange termijn en dat games meer doen op de korte termijn maar meer zouden moeten doen op de lange termijn? H: Het belangrijk om je organisatie daar op aan te passen. Als het bijvoorbeeld gaat om vaardigheden moet je blijven leren. Het gaat er om dingen te leren en toe te passen en dingen te leren die zich ook feitelijk voor kunnen doen. Als je iets leert en je doet het niet dan raak je het kwijt. Dus het statement dat games alleen op de korte termijn werken klopt niet. Het gaat er om, om inzicht op te doen dat je, je leven lang bij blijft. Dat vergeet je nooit meer dat kan niet. Wij zorgen er voor dat de games inzicht geven die je nooit meer vergeet. D: Als je games wilt gebruiken om een organisatie op een bepaalde manier te laten functioneren is het dan ook zo, dat als de medewerkers het spel door hebben en het zich eigen
122
hebben gemaakt en weten dat ze een spel aan het spelen zijn het vanuit zichzelf gaan manipuleren . H: Bij een goede game worden mensen zo gepakt dat het vaak ernstiger is dan de werkelijkheid. Weten hoe het werkt wil nog niet zeggen dat het doet wat je wilt. Als je kijkt naar voetballen dan is het telkens een nieuwe spel en wordt telkens weer gespeeld. Ook bij schaken is elke partij weer een nieuw spel dat afgemaakt wordt en elke partij is weer anders. Het is anders dan steeds het zelfde boek lezen, dat heb je op een bepaald moment gehad. Er zijn games die mensen telkens weer spelen en het spel kennen ze maar blijven het toch steeds spelen. D: Ze moeten dus wel het gevoel hebben om verder te kunnen worden of beter te worden? H: Dat hoeft niet soms is het spel spelen op zich genoeg. Natuurlijk is het zo dat het spel lekker speelt en dat er iets te behalen is als het er niet toe doet houden mensen op. Kijk maar naar het kind dat speelt met het poppenhuis. D: Hoe zit dat dan binnen management context? Of binnen organisaties als je daar games implementeert, is het dan belangrijk dat mensen zien dat ze verder zijn gekomen of we hebben iets bereikt? H: Ja dat is wel belangrijk. Hoeft niet altijd in een cijfer te worden uitgedrukt maar kan ook zijn dat mensen iets hebben bereikt en dat vinden mensen leuk en motiveert ze en waar ze trots op zijn. Maar het kan ook leuk zijn zonder resultaat. Kijk maar naar een wandeling die mensen maken en dat heeft ook geen resultaat en toch vinden ze het leuk. Soms gaat het er om dat het gewoon leuk is. D: Wat zijn nu de projecten die je hebt gedaan waarmee het meeste resultaat is behaald, waar mensen zichtbaar beter werden? H: Vaak zijn dat de projecten waar begrip omsloeg naar besef. Dat mensen achter dingen komen die ze al weten. We wisten het wel, maar we deden het niet. Van begrijpen naar beseffen.
123
D: Dus de kern van games in dat gebied is mensen leren wat ze doen, mensen leren waar ze mee bezig zijn? H: Kracht van de game is geeft inzicht hoe je dingen doet en hoe je dingen anders doet dan je deed. Games geven inzicht, daar zijn ze sterk in. Games spreken heel erg aan de houding van mensen. Games zijn geschikt voor het behoud van vaardigheden door te oefenen. Voor kennis zie ik niet zo het voordeel van games. Het is vooral voor inzicht en houdingsverandering. D: Wat kom je regen bij de implementatie van games bij vrij traditionele organisaties? Hoe gaat het proces van implementatie? Hoe moet een manager er mee omgaan? H: Je hebt verschillende fases. Je begint met de ontwerp fase, je probeert te achterhalen wat het effect moet zijn. En je kijkt wat de mogelijkheden en de beperkingen zijn van een organisatie. En dan bedenk je een game. En dan maak je een kosten raming. En dan geeft je aan dit zijn de mogelijkheden en daar kunnen ze ja of nee tegen zeggen. En gezamenlijk kom je tot een werkbeslissing. Wat is de game belasting, hoelang hebben ze de tijd. Kunnen ze in een bepaalde setting bij elkaar komen. Gaat het om competitie of samenwerking, wat spreekt ze aan en in welke setting of context. Het moet ook leuk zijn. Ook kan je het hebben over de invulling en accessoires. D: Het gaat volgens mij over oorzaak en gevolg wat voer je uit en wat gebeurt er en niet zozeer de context. H: Als je bijvoorbeeld een voetbal game hebt dan heb je het bijvoorbeeld over de kleur van de bal. Maar als de wedstrijd is begonnen interesseert niemand zich daar meer voor. Het gaat in nauw overleg met de opdrachtgever en moet aansluiten bij het niveau van de medewerker en het moet niet afschrikken. Je maakt niet een game over vleesindustrie als je bij een bedrijf komt dat werkt in de vegetarische industrie. Het moet wel een beetje prikkelen. En als ze dan zeggen maak het maar, maak je een aantal play tests met een aantal toekomstige spelers en die worden dan enthousiast en dan krijgt iedereen zin om te spelen. Het is een training, maar het is ook een investering in de cultuur van de organisatie.
124
D: Misschien is mijn perceptie niet juist maar het lijkt mij niet dat mensen spelen een game en dat is het, naar mijn gevoel gaat er gewoon veel gebeuren door die game en het management moet daar weer mee omgaan, die er sturing aan moet geven. H: Ik zal een eenvoudig voorbeeld geven; je hoort een raar geluid in je auto en je gaat naar de garage. Je wilt weten of de auto gemaakt kan worden, hoe duur is het en wanneer is hij klaar. Als je dan met een monteur praat dan geeft hij je allerlei technisch details waar je niet in geïnteresseerd bent en daardoor verliest de garage klanten. Dan kan je door een game mensen bewust maken en inzicht geven waar het de klant feitelijk om gaat en hij kan daar direct de volgende dag mee verder dan heeft hij geen manager nodig om te zeggen, nee je moet zeggen hoe duur het is. D: Zouden gedragsveranderingen eerst bij een manager moeten optreden die het dan goed kan coördineren bij zijn medewerkers? Of wordt die tegelijk meegenomen in het concept? H: Ja ik geloof heel sterk in organisaties en niet sterk in het klassieke top down. Je hebt heel veel goeie mensen in Nederland die zich zonder manager ook heel goed redden. Veel mensen hebben een zelf regulerend vermogen. Als je mensen verantwoordelijkheid geeft gaan ze ook de ruimte zoeken om die verantwoordelijkheid te nemen. Hangt ook af van de afspraken die je daar over maakt. D: Voor mijn scriptie heb ik de vraag gesteld “hoe zou een organisatie kunnen functioneren als een game”? hoe zou je de kenmerken van games in een totaalsysteem van organisaties kunnen implementeren zodat je het altijd hebt? H: Ik geloof daar niet zo in. Een game kent een begin en een einde. Een game heeft ook zijn eigen limiet. Als je achter staat dan maakt dat het spannend. Altijd spelen voelt bij mij wat raar aan. Als je elke maand een prijs moet uitreiken aan de best verkopende accountmanager raak je, je effect kwijt. D: Is het echt zo negatief of zou je de positieve aspecten kunnen nemen? Mij is altijd verteld dat je nooit alleen de losse game elementen kan implementeren, omdat het altijd in een bepaalde context moet worden geplaatst en alles met elkaar samenhangt. Eigenlijk heb je dan al weer een game en in mindere mate gamificatie. De een zegt dat gamificatie heel succesvol
125
kan zijn en er zijn ook goede voorbeelden van, maar eigenlijk klopt dat weer niet met andere uitspraken. H: Nee, dat klopt wel, er zijn heel veel soorten van, net als dat er heel veel medicijnen zijn en die helpen wel maar zijn het verkeerde medicijn bijvoorbeeld hartpillen tegen hoofdpijn en de hoofdpijn verdween. Als je bijvoorbeeld kijkt naar de blikvanger bij tankstations is eigenlijk geen game maar play en is erg succesvol. D: Ik vraag mij af voor hoelang? H: Ja dat is de vraag, maar sommige mensen nemen een hond en na 3 maanden hebben ze het wel gezien, maar willen hem toch houden. We hebben heel veel dingen en toch graag doen. Het is van belang om heel scherp te kijken wat je doelstelling is en wat mensen motiveert. Het punt van waaruit je vertrekt is belangrijk. Het valt niet mee een game te bedenken voor kinderen van 7 of voor menen van 70. Ze hebben hele andere interesses en affiniteiten en toch kan het en vinden ze het allebei leuk en doen ze het graag ook al hebben ze het al gezien. Een game is niet een bioscoopfilm. Bij een game is de verschijningsvorm steeds anders. Alles kan werken, maar wat de discussie lastig maakt dat mensen een sterke mening hebben en je moet je domein goed afbakenen. D: Daardoor zou je kunnen stellen dat games effectief zijn als het een duidelijk doel heeft? H: Serieus doel is toegesneden op een doelgroep, dus ook op de toekomstige spelers . En affiniteit met dat soort werkingen en dat maakt het ook weer spannend. D: Hoe bereid je nu zo een organisatie voor, van we gaan met zo een game komen en er gaat heel veel veranderen. Gaat daar een lang traject aan vooraf? H: Organisaties beginnen vaak. D: Of komen ze met een bepaald probleem bij jou? H: Ze komen bij je omdat ze iets willen veranderen of invoeren. Bijvoorbeeld klantvriendelijkheid, leiderschapsstijl of iets anders. En ze snappen inmiddels ook wel dat een
126
dag samen uit als mountainbiken het ook niet is en dat er iets anders moet komen die een andere energie geeft dan met zijn allen in een hok. D: Weten organisaties er veel van of is dat per organisatie verschillend? In wat voor stadium komen ze dan? H: Vaak als er sprake is van een maatschappelijke impact. Bijvoorbeeld meer zelfstandigheid en dan moet ook het besturingsmodel bijstellen van control naar vertrouwen. En als je dat niet wilt, je zegt iedereen gaat spelen maar voor mij verandert er niets dan werkt het niet. Het kan niet zijn dat alleen anderen moeten veranderen en ik niet. Dus dat de game bedacht is voor de anderen en niet voor mijzelf als leidinggevende D: Hoe ga je daar mee om als je dat tegenkomt? H: Gewoon mensen af laten spreken; veranderen doen we samen. D: Staan ze daar wel voor open? H: Ja, anders kan het niet. D: Het lijkt momenteel zo een hype te worden en dan met name de gamification en minder de games met implementaties binnen organisaties en ik denk dat veel organisaties er een verkeerde perceptie van hebben en waar ik nu vooral nog mee bezig ben is hoe voer je dat nu eigenlijk in en wanneer is dat dan succesvol of niet? H: Het is erg belangrijk om te meten en als je succes wilt meten zal je altijd een nulmeting moeten doen en daarna een effectmeting. En sommige onderdelen hebben na het spelen van een game een direct effect en andere onderdelen pas op de langere termijn. Om het effect te meten zou je gebruik kunnen maken van het stochastisch model en daarin zitten heel veel variabelen. Er zijn heel veel factoren die het succes bepalen. Als je een game bij een autoverkoopbedrijf doet en daarna worden tienduizend auto’s teruggeroepen vanwege een mankement en de crisis breekt uit en het doel wordt niet gerealiseerd dan hoeft dat niet aan de game te liggen. Veel factoren zijn bepalend voor het succes. Het effect is dus eigenlijk moeilijk te meten.
127
Interview Jacco de Rapper – Optend bv 03th of June 2012, Amsterdam 14:00 – 15:00 Drs. Jaco de Rapper (1963) is a behavioural scientist and system therapist. He is since 2004 director (DGA) of Optend bv. From 1990 to 2004 he worked as a lecturer and manager in Universities of Applied Sciences. He accompanies organisations for many years in change, both content and process wise. He guides and supports organisations in concrete innovation and realising sustainability, which is supported by the entire organisation. In addition, Jaco de Rapper also organises training and coaching sessions for individuals, groups and organisations. In the Netherlands he is one of the propagators of the contextual approach, the philosophy of Professor Nagy in business, education, assistance and services. Strategic management experience he gained as Chairman of the Board of the Foundation for Youth and Sexuality. His multi-sided bias, sharp analytical skills and communication skills cause that he is frequently asked for being an initiator, consultant, coach, trainer and facilitator in complex situations. D: Waar ik het eigenlijk over wil hebben is het bekijken in hoeverre je elementen van games kunt toepassen binnen organisaties en waar het eigenlijk heel veel raakvlakken mee heeft is met jouw vakgebied, het veranderproces van organisaties of medewerkers en voor mij is het denk ik wel van belang om daar nog meer kennis van te hebben en ook een goed advies kan schrijven op basis van implementatie. Van hoe ga je nou verder als je echt wilt implementeren binnen organisaties dat is eigenlijk abstract gezien eigenlijk ook een verandering. En in mijn onderzoek ben ik gestart met een vrij abstracte benadering van organisaties van wat is het nou en vrij abstract en niet heel praktisch en daarin komt ook een paar keer naar voren het wordt gezien als een systeem en ik weet dat jij er veel mee bezig bent geweest in hoeverre een organisatie gezien kan worden als systeem. Ik vroeg me af in hoeverre werkt jouw systeem theorie? Kan je er iets meer over vertellen? Het wordt al wel vaak genoemd. Het woord systeem komt vaak voor bij beschrijving van organisaties in hoeverre kunnen volgens jou organisaties worden gezien in relatie tot die systeem theorie? J: Organisatie is een systeem. Je hebt daar verschillende systemen in en het kleinste sub systeem is het individu en dan de diade dat is 2 personen en de triade 3 personen en dan heb je het systeem en dan komt het supra systeem de samenleving bijvoorbeeld. Je kan naar de
128
werkelijkheid en de wereld kijken vanuit het systeem denken. Organisatie is in principe dus een systeem bestaande uit een aantal elementen. En wat een organisatie tot een systeem maakt is de relatie tussen de elementen. Dat maakt het systeem tot een systeem en niet de elementen of personen an sich. De relatie tussen de personen of elementen maakt een systeem tot een systeem. D: Maar dat zouden we eigenlijk meer de toegevoegde waarde zijn om het zo te benaderen omdat vaak als je het beschrijft gezien worden losse elementen benoemd en minder de relatie tot elkaar. J: Vaak wordt wel een organigram gemaakt en gezien, de hiërarchie en de gezag relaties zichtbaar werden, verantwoordelijkheden en bevoegdheden, maar de kracht van een organisatie ook waardoor een organisatie blijft bestaan is de onderlinge samenhang. En dat is heel belangrijk. En volgens mij is dat in gaming ook zo. De relaties tussen de elementen onderling die het spel tot het spel maken. En dat is met organisaties ook zo. D: Ik was eigenlijk heel nieuwsgierig en was nog niet heel bekend met die hele systeem theorie. Ik vroeg mij af in hoeverre verschilt het nu met een de Caluwe die een organisatie beschrijft en het zou misschien en efficiënte toegevoegde waarde kunnen zijn dat je dat op die manier beter kan vergelijken dan met een game, als je ook ziet als een systeem. J: Niet alleen de Caluwe maar ook een Manfred Kap die organisatie geeft vanuit de psychologie en een psychoanalytische benadering dat er dus krachten binnen een organisatie zijn, zoals sfeer, cultuur, omgaan met communicatie en samenwerking die de kwaliteit van een product of het succes van een organisatie bepalen. En dat is heel lang onderschat. En daarvan maken we dus heel veel gebruik van de principes van de systeemtheorie, die destijds is ontstaan en wat we noemde triductionistisch denken, de werkelijkheid steeds verder opdelen in kleine delen dat, dat geen antwoord gaf op heel veel vragen. D: Merk je dat zelf ook als je dat toepast? J: Ja dat je eigenlijk door een aantal individuen te spreken om een organisatie inzichtelijk te krijgen, maar het zegt nog niks over het functioneren van het geheel. Als ik 6 individuen interview heb ik wel veel informatie maar niet over hoe het echt functioneert. Dat zie ik pas
129
als die mensen bij elkaar zitten. Dat is voor mij vaak de reden bij een reorganisatie verandering zoals als nu voor een groot bedrijf, dat ik in eerste instantie alle spelers bij elkaar wil hebben om te kijken hoe die mensen onderling op elkaar reageren. Wie wanneer wat zegt, dat geeft ook heel veel inzicht in het totaal. Er valt heel veel te zeggen over het systeemdenken. Je hoort tegenwoordig ook heel veel over systemisch leiderschap. Dat is een vorm van leiderschap niet alleen hiërarchisch leiderschap maar juist in een bedrijf of instelling werken mensen die bepaalde kwaliteiten hebben die een leidinggevende niet heeft. En als je het dan hebt over systemisch leiderschap is dat je die mensen vraagt wil jij mij helpen met dat stuk of deel waar jij beter in bent zonder dat het je positie ondermijnt. Maar meer dat je elkaar nodig hebt in dat systeem om goed te kunnen functioneren. En dat het niet raar is om te zeggen kan jij mij daar mee helpen. Heel lang dachten en nog denken leiders “ik moet het weten” en als ik het niet weet doe ik alsof ik het weet. En systemisch leiderschap gaat er vanuit als jij je ergens in verdiept hebt zoals jij in gaming en organisatieverandering en als je dan ergens komt te werken waar iemand met organisatieverandering bezig is en dan zegt goh ik moet nu voor die en die club werken hoe zit dat? Want ik weet dat niet, kan jij mij daar bij helpen, dat is systemisch leiderschap D: Is dat iets wat jij zelf ook wel eens adviseert of toepast of probeert? J: Omdat ik veel werkzaam ben in organisaties waar veel hoog opgeleid personeel werken, niet altijd, maar wel voor een groot deel en ook veel in de dienstverlening en daar is het product de kwaliteit van de relatie zo bepalend. Als het gaat om zorginstellingen en het mediabedrijf waar ik voor werk. Als zij pitchen om een opdracht binnen te halen is de gun factor erg bepalend en die wordt mede bepaald door hoe de relaties liggen D: Merk je ook dat als systemisch leiderschap probeert na te streven dat, dat ook wel erg bijdraagt tussen de leidinggevende en de werknemer? Dat triggert ook wel dat ze zich erg gewaardeerd voelen in zo een organisatie? J: Eén van de drijfveren van mensen is natuurlijk dat ze er toe doen, dat ze gehoord worden en er mogen zijn en een bijdrage mogen leveren aan. Dus het mes snijdt aan verschillende kanten op dat moment. Als leidinggevende wordt je beter omdat je de juiste informatie bij de juiste mensen vandaan haalt, dat is één en het tweede is, dat je laat mensen merken dat ze
130
belangrijk zijn en iets kunnen wat jij niet kan en dat geeft een gevoel van ik doe er toe. Ik kan iets en beteken iets. D: Intrinsieke drijfveren, die motivaties dat is eigenlijk het belangrijkste voor mensen. Ze werken wel voor geld, maar ik heb altijd wel het idee dat, dat niet de kern is. J: Daar is al onderzoek naar gedaan dat waardering voor mensen belangrijker is om te presteren dan financiële impulsen. Ik vraag mij af of ik nog verder moet ingaan op dat systeem denken en de aspecten daarvan. D: Misschien dat je wat suggesties hebt voor literatuur, zodat ik daar zelf verder naar kan kijken? J: Is goed, maar misschien schiet me straks nog wel iets te binnen waar we het over moeten hebben. D: Alle verander trajecten die je doet zijn zeer divers op verschillende mensen, typen en organisaties, maar heb je een bepaalde eerste stap om te gaan integreren of hoe begin je of is er een bepaald voorbereidingstraject. J: Dat is wel eens verschillend, maar door de bank genomen begin ik altijd met een vraag. En het verhelderen van zo een vraag of probleemstelling. D: Dat lijkt me wel heel complex? J: Ja, want daar waar veel conflicten onderhuids liggen, mensen die niet direct uitspreken. De vraag is of men zelf het nog wel in de hand heeft. Om meteen te zeggen ik weet het niet of ik kan het niet doen ze niet. Je moet dus heel goed luisteren naar wat is de vraag achter de vraag en observeren, wat doen mensen. D: Ik heb ook tijdens een ander interview gehoord van een man die al veel ervaring had met het implementeren van spelelementen of games en wat hij ook wel eens aangaf was dat mensen willen het maar dan moet er vooraf eerst nog van alles gebeuren voordat die verandering echt plaats kan vinden. Kom jij dat ook wel eens tegen? Hoe weet je dan, dat het
131
moment daar is dat iedereen er klaar voor is? Het lijkt me ook heel voor mensen om te veranderen op het werk. J: Het moeilijkste is dat iedereen er klaar voor is, dat is niet zo. Je begint dus ook met een vraag of een doel dat helder is, zodat je weet waar je aan werkt, zodat je ook steeds kan toetsen in het hele proces of we op de goede weg zijn met elkaar. Soms moet je doelen bijstellen het is cyclisch, systeem denken is een cyclisch proces en niet zozeer je begint ergens en alleen maar gefaseerd, nee alleen al in de vraagstelling tijdens het verhelderen van het doel of het probleem daar kan al door de vraagstelling mensen gaan nadenken en dat kan al een verandering in een organisatie teweeg brengen. Het onderscheid tussen de doelstellingen helder krijgen, zoals het probleem helder krijgen kan heel veel verandering teweeg brengen en als je dan bezig bent met het veranderproces kan je weer nieuwe problemen tegenkomen. Je moet erg open blijven staan voor wat er is. Zeker als je wat langer in een organisatie meeloopt en dat is wat ik graag doe. Meelopen en kijken en wat er gebeurt. Ook veiligheid en vertrouwen moet er zijn en acceptatie dat je er bent. Daardoor laat men ook vaak meer zien wat er daadwerkelijk aan de hand is. Daardoor is er soms weer een bijstelling nodig voor een doel. Soms heb je een doel bereikt en dan moet je kijken wat heeft nou gemaakt dat dit doel bereikt is. En hoe kunnen we dat nu voor andere vragen toepassen. Dus niet alleen kijken wat is er mis en wat moet beter maar ook waardoor gaat er goed wat er goed gaat. En in die implementatie fase die is er wel en daar zijn prachtige stappenplannen voor. D: Voor mij hoeft het niet allemaal is fases maar wil het meer duidelijk voor mezelf hebben. Je moet echt weten wat er speelt en ze moeten je ook maar vertrouwen. Het is vaak wel een hele grote stap om te veranderen. J: Om in het begin de organisaties bij elkaar te houden omdat er een gemeenschappelijke vijand is of het kan het management zijn, ja het kan van alles en nog wat zij, de concurrent kan het ook zijn. D: In wat voor stadium nemen ze contact met je op? Wanneer realiseren ze zichzelf er moet iets anders? J: kan zijn naar aanleiding van signalen uit de organisatie zelf of omdat iemand ze nekt durft uit te steken.
132
D: Wordt daar dan naar geluisterd? Ik vraag mij af hoe dat dan werkt? J: Mensen zijn vaak bang om dat te zeggen, zijn bang voor hun hachie, don’t shoot the messenger. Een vervolg stap zou kunnen zijn dat je als externe met heel veel kritiek komt. Wat levert het op en wat betekent het. Ik vind het altijd wel weer een vervolgstap dat er blijkbaar toch wel vertrouwen is en dat mensen zich tegen je durven af te zetten. D: Maar dat is toch eigenlijk ook wel weer goed? J: Eerst hebben ze een gemeenschappelijke vijand en dan ben ik aan de beurt en dan heb ik zoiets van, nu zijn we op de goede weg en vervolgens zijn ze in staat om ook naar zichzelf te kijken. Mensen zijn van nature geneigd om het probleem buiten zichzelf te laten. Als het dan hebt over implementeren vind ik ook het reflecteren heel belangrijk. Dus waarom doe ik wat ik doe en daarbij het vermogen van mensen om naar en in zichzelf te kijken wat heel bepalend is voor de communicatie, de sfeer en de cultuur. D: Werknemers hebben er erg veel gevoelens en emotie bij als er grote vernieuwingen zijn hoe speel je daar dan op in zeker als je hebt over principes als gaming waar mensen totaal niet bekend mee zijn. Hoe ga je om met die gevoelens van die mensen? J: Dat is wel heel belangrijk, als je er oog en oor voor hebt. Wat ik heel veel doe is het herstructureren ook dat is een begrip uit de systeem theorieën de communicatie theorie. Het herstructureren is het verwijt omzetten in een wens. Aan mensen de vraag stellen wat ze willen. Een verwijt kan je niet oplossen maar een wens kan je aan voldoen of niet. Het wordt van een onoplosbaar probleem een oplosbaar probleem. En dat is bij herstructureren erg belangrijk. Als iemand overal kritiek op heeft en niets accepteert dan is iemand heel kritisch betrokken om het beste resultaat te halen. D: Dat is dus wat je al toepast binnen de trainingen die je geeft? J: Ja, en vervolgens ook op meta niveau veiligheid te bieden en dat het niet de bedoeling is om iemand onderuit te halen en dat het gaat om dingen te verbeteren. Het doel moet wel helder zijn. En daar vervolgens mee aan het werk te gaan en het wordt misschien ook wel een
133
spel dat mensen kijken hoe die patronen onderling lopen. Er er steeds 2 zijn die het woord hebben en de derde kopt de bal in en een vierde buiten spel staat en ik dat zichtbaar maak. D: Als je dus bepaalde systemen van organisaties wil veranderen of interventies waardoor dingen anders gaan is het dan nodig om vooraf trainingen te geven? J: Trainen is niet om het trainen het is geen standaard onderdeel. Maar het is vaak dat mensen niet de competenties of de vaardigheden hebben om het op een andere manier te doen. Dus als ze daarbij extra leermomenten hebben om het goed onder de knie te krijgen. Daar creëer je een soort oefen situatie en dan is het wel een laboratorium situatie. Toch probeer je de werkelijkheid zoveel als mogelijk te benaderen in de vorm van een rollenspel, voorbeelden, met video. Het kan dat mensen niet die vaardigheden hebben en daarom de bijdrage niet hebben die nodig is als het gaat om communicatiesamenwerking. D: Het heft dus niet één doel maar meerdere? J: Als er iets met een bedrijf en je vraagt wat zijn jullie kernwaarden en waar staan jullie voor, dan moeten ze dat vaak opzoeken of sommigen roepen iets als openheid of zoiets en dan vraag ik, dat is allemaal wel aardig maar hoe laat je het zien? Hoe zien mensen aan jou hoe je die kernwaarden uitdraagt? Die kernwaarden zijn alleen waardevol op het moment dat ze ook uitgedragen worden. Hoe merk ik dat als ik jullie opbel of hier kom? Waar ook vaak niet naar gekeken wordt wie zijn nu de interne klanten terwijl er wel oog is voor de externe klant. Soms is dat onkunde en daarom kan een training heel nuttig zijn. D: Wat is dan de rol van de leidinggevende? Is die cruciaal? J: Die speelt daar een hele belangrijke rol in. Nog even terugkomend op die systeemdaling in die organisatie verandering en wat ik nog niet gezegd heb is dat als je de hele club bij elkaar hebt om te kijken hoe de interactie loopt dat de destructieve factoren niet alleen in de individu zit maar in de structuur van het patroon. Zo van dit is al de zesde manager in 3 jaar. Dan heeft het niks met het disfunctioneren van een manager te maken maar de structuur van het systeem. D: Dat wordt vaak niet zo gezien?
134
J: Nee dan wordt er gezegd al weer een slechte manager. Maar dan is die slechte manager ook nodig om het team bij elkaar te houden. Houdt hiermee wel veel andere problemen onder de tafel. D: Je kan dus een goede manager hebben die slecht is voor het systeem? J: Ja dat kan. Zo moet je ook naar groepen of teams of organisaties kijken. In welke fase bevindt zo een organisatie zich. Heeft het een leider nodig die heel sturend is of die coachend is of een leider die er af en toe is maar een visie uitzet naar de jaren dat ie af en toe afwezig is. Maar ook een organisatie gaat een aantal fases door. D: Tijdens de training hoe zie je dan de rol van de leidinggevende in een voorbeeldfunctie? J: Sowieso vind ik dat belangrijk, dat zij model staan. Dat zij achter het verandertraject staan en het uitdragen. Als je veranderingen doorvoert roept dat angst op bij mensen, als dat wat je gewend bent dus ga je in de verdediging. Je wilt niet de hele tijd angst voelen. Dus hebben de mensen vertrouwen nodig in iemand die het uitdraagt en waar ze naar toe kunnen en dat is de taak van de manager. Ook is belangrijk welke leiderschap bij welke fase past en wat heeft het team nodig. En daar valt en staat het succes mee. D: Hoe zorg je dat na zo een reorganisatie traject dat ze het vasthouden om op die manier te blijven werken? J: Dat kan door follow ups en ik was bij een organisatie en die heeft jaarlijks een soort wisseltrofee over wie rondom de verandering het meeste resultaat of meeste initiatief heeft genomen rond of mensen bij de les. Een soort van competitie houden die dat levend houden. D: Het is wel belangrijk dat het vastgehouden wordt en dat ze er in geloven en intrinsiek gemotiveerd blijven. Het lijkt me zo moeilijk te controleren en intrinsieke motivatie is zo moeilijk te sturen en hoe kan je controleren? J: Je kan op heel veel niveaus, terreinen en vormen implementeren en blijft volgen en niet door het er af en toe over te hebben. Blijf mensen bevragen. En heel veel organisaties hebben
135
tegenwoordig medewerkers-tevredenheids-onderzoeken. En ook dat zijn uitkomsten die je kan gebruiken in zo een traject. D: Ben je dan niet bang dat er dan gewenste antwoorden gegeven worden. J: Eigenlijk moet je die falsificaties van het onderzoek er uit halen het moet wel valide en betrouwbaar zijn. Je moet er voor zorgen dat de sociale wenselijkheid er af gehaald wordt. Je moet dus mensen bevragen en aanspreken van wat is er en dat hoeft dus niet alleen door die manager te worden bijgesteld of bijgestuurd, maar ook onderling elkaar vragen van ik zie dat het terugloopt en ik kom niet meer vrolijk binnen en ik zie dat je werk blijft liggen en er is chaos op je bureau, wat is er aan de hand? Of iemand komt het niet na. Ik werk nu ergens en afspraak is afspraak kennen ze niet en ook deadlines zijn geen deadlines mensen zijn elkaar wel meer gaan aanspreken. En nu in de wandelgangen “afspraak is afspraak” en er wordt om gelachen. Het verandert wel. D: Wat doe als er werknemers zijn die zich afzetten en compleet tegendraads zijn. We willen dit niet. J: Mensen die zoveel negatieve kritiek hebben of niet op de juiste plek zitten kunnen niet gelukkig zijn in hun werk. En als ze dan uiteindelijk niet mee willen dan moet de manager met die persoon in gesprek om te kijken wat zou nou een plek kunnen zijn waar je wel tevreden bent en tot je recht komt. En het kan ook betekenen dat mensen afscheid nemen. Of formeel worden aangesproken. Het kan dus dat mensen niet mee kunnen en iets anders moeten gaan doen. Je kan niet altijd iedereen aan boord houden. Soms kunnen 1 of 2 personen in een groep zo destructief zijn en zo een macht hebben. D: Wat mis je binnen de huidige wijze waarop verandertrajecten worden toegepast? Natuurlijk sta je achter je eigen werkwijze maar waar liggen de kansen voor de toekomst? J: Wat ik wel eens lastig vind is de drang naar snel en laakbaar resultaat. Terwijl als een proces al 10 jaar niet goed loopt kan je niet verwachten dat het binnen 3 maanden met een training van twee dagen en een follow up na 3 weken een hele cultuuromslag kunt maken. dat vind ik wel eens lastig. Verandering gaat langzaam zeker als in de implementatiefase blijkt dat het niet een lapmiddel is. Dat vind ik zelf wel eens moeilijk in mijn werk om een organisatie daar van te overtuigen dat het lijkt dat het lang of veel uren in beslag neemt. En
136
wat het op kan leveren in efficiency en effectiviteit juist omdat veel organisaties moeite hebben met aandacht geven aan de zachtere schalen omdat ze zeggen dat de cijfers en resultaat en de omzet als dat goed is dan gaat het goed. En dat is ook maar een moment opname de kwaliteit zit ook op de zachte schalen als sfeer en communicatie, cultuur en ga je met plezier naar je werk en heb je lol met je collega’s en als er wat is kan je het er over hebben. Het gebeurt wel veel meer, een aanspreek cultuur maar eigenlijk niet goed weten hoe! En dan moet er een cursus feedback of vergadertechniek komen. Soms wordt de werkelijkheid wel wat gesimplificeerd en dan is het wel lastig en je wilt het niet te problematisch maken en therapeutisch proces met elkaar in. D: Hoe pak je dat dan aan? J: Ik probeer heel goed te luisteren en heel goed in te schatten, ook zelf, waar staat het management of mijn opdrachtgever? Het kan zelfs zijn dat die deel van het probleem is. D: Maar dat is toch niet een onderbuik gevoel? J: Onderbuik gevoel is eigenlijk hel belangrijk. D: Is dat gebaseerd ik denk wel dat het zo is, maar je hebt natuurlijk erg veel ervaring dus dat scheelt wel. J: De keren dat ik het laat lopen het onderbuik gevoel of intuïtie en ik noem het zelf liever patroonherkenning dat je door de levenservaring, werkervaring en studies, observeert en dingen signaleert dat je daarmee een snel patronen of mensen herkent. En dat noemen we onderbuik gevoel maar is wel erg belangrijk, dat is niet zomaar. Je moet er op proberen te vertrouwen en kom je bij, en dat is zo mooi van de systeem theorie, de timing, heel belangrijk is wanneer zeg je wat. D: Dat is wel makkelijk gezegd maar. J: Dat is wel te ontwikkelen, maar dat is in het spel ook zo, dat alert reageren soms met timing en inschatting te maken heeft. Is dat een antwoord op de vragen.
137
D: Ja het maar ik ben wel nieuwsgierig hoe zit zich gaat ontwikkelen en waar gaat het naar toe. J: Als ik kijk naar mijn vak, dan moeten mensen je vertrouwen en je op een bepaalde manier aardig vinden en je moet een bepaalde deskundigheid hebben. En dat moet je kenbaar en zichtbaar maken en dat kan door de dingen die je al gedaan hebt en door hoe je er over praat met elkaar. Dat is ook als je met de opdrachtgever om tafel zit moet er een gevoel zijn van hem vertrouw ik het toe. Vertrouwen is een wezenlijk element in elke relatie dus ook binnen organisaties. Dus als een manager alles zelf in de hand wil houden en een ander niets toevertrouwd dan voelen mensen zich niet verantwoordelijk en gaan ze zich er ook niet naar gedragen. En zo een manager zegt dan, zie je wel, ze kunnen het niet. Het is dan eigenlijk een soort spiraal. D: Als we het zouden samenvatten hoe zou je dan zo een traject van begin tot eind beschrijven? J: Je begint met vraagstelling of probleemstelling. De communicatie vaardigheden moeten goed ontwikkeld zijn ook van de organisatie veranderaar. Goed kunnen doorvragen en goed kunnen luisteren met name. Ook naar wat niet gezegd wordt. De dingen te horen maar nog niet te gebruiken, dus de timing. Je hebt dus een soort fasering waar het gaat om helder te krijgen wat het probleem is. Maar ook werken aan de relatie en het opbouwen van vertrouwen. Maar daarbij ook in het oog hoeden dat door de vraagstelling je al een verandering teweeg kan brengen. En in het vervolgtraject begin ik bovenaan de organisatie de directie en management en dan de medewerkers en dan zeg ik ook altijd informeer mensen vanaf het begin ook al weet je het nog niet precies. D: Dat het er aan gaat komen? J: Ja dat we begonnen zijn en dat de medewerkers betrokken zullen worden en dat eerst het management en dat er verder over de inhoud nog niet veel te vertellen is> veel directies maken de fout dat ze het eerst helemaal duidelijk moeten voordat ze het naar buiten brengen. Ook als je het nog niet weet, dat is ook duidelijk. Neem mensen mee in het traject en dat is heel belangrijk voor het slagen van een veranderingsproces dat de mensen geïnformeerd worden. Het er toe doen en mee te kunnen doen. En ook uitkomsten nog niet vastleggen. Ik ben ook niet iemand van hele strakke rapporten waarin aanleiding, oorzaak, probleem, hoe we
138
er aan werken en op welke termijn etc. Ik doe dat wel in grote lijnen maar blijf het werkende weg aanpassen, aanvullen, bijstellen. Mensen willen natuurlijk wel graag weten hoe lang het gaat duren en en hoeveel investering het gaat kosten, maar dat is vaak ook een beetje natte vingerwerk. Soms gaan dingen veel sneller dan je verwacht had en soms zit er onderhuids wel zo een conflict en je moet niet bang zijn om de confrontaties daar in aan te gaan. Soms moet je risico nemen en het avontuur aangaan. Dus hoe verloopt zo een proces. Er zit een kop, romp en een staart aan. 3 fasen; inventariseren, probleemstelling er aan werken en uiteindelijk evaluatie met borging. En implementatie dat is theoretisch de scheiding of een arbitraire maar in wezen loopt het allemaal door elkaar en daarom maak ik ook wel gebruik van plan, do, check en act van Dewing. D: Het ligt eigenlijk best wel voor de hand? Natuurlijk is het heel complex of het uiteindelijk behaalt wordt en hoe het verloopt. Wilde ook niet vragen die ik op kan zoeken in een boek. Ben nieuwsgierig of de praktijk anders is dan de theorie. J: Ja ik denk dat ik wel mijn eigen methode heb, die wel mede gevormd is door de literatuur maar ook door te doen. En denk aan succes door mensen die bezig zijn met verandering, coaching en trainingen, steeds andere verhalen maar er is wel een zelfde rode draad. Waardoor veranderen mensen en je zei zelf al, ze moeten gemotiveerd zijn. Bedrijven zijn systemen en zijn net als gezinnen en families zelfde patronen zie je ook daar weer terug. Het zijn allemaal parallellen die je trekken rondom functioneren van systemen. En dat kan ook met een groep apen of dolfijnen bijvoorbeeld. Ook dat zijn systemen. leiders en volgers. D: Heb af en toe het gevoel dat het makkelijk over komt maar eigenlijk heel complex is. J: In het vak is het natuurlijk de bedoeling om die complexiteit die er wel is te ontrafelen en te kunnen uitleggen zodat de mensen in het bedrijf het kunnen herkennen en dat zijn wel verschillende lagen waar je mee werkt. Je speelt eigenlijk op verschillende borden. Het ene moment kies je en dat is niet altijd duidelijk of te legitimeren vooraf waarom je doet wat je doet. Soms is de legitimatie er pas achteraf duidelijk. Dus je doet het op dat moment en had je dat vooraf nou allemaal bedacht? Je bereid het allemaal voor, maar dat je tijdens een proces dingen doet achteraf pas duidelijk worden waarom je het gedaan hebt. Dat lef moet je ook hebben.
139
D: Accepteren de mensen dat vaak wel? Ben jij de enige die dat zo ziet? J: Er zijn sommige mensen die in die weerstand blijven zitten. De grootste groep is vaak opgelucht. Is het je wel eens opgevallen datb als veranderingen komen dat mensen weer een training moeten volgen er heel erg sceptisch en met cynisme wordt gereageerd. Ach wat een onzin zeggen ze dan, daar gaan we weer en als de baas het wil dan zit ik er wel. Wat ik altijd wel probeer is om bij mensen te komen, zodat het wat oplevert. D: Staan er wel open voor en er zit vaak wel een negatieve laag omheen. J: Er is natuurlijk nogal wat geld in omgegaan met soms interim en heidagen, cultuuromslagen. D: Mensen denken vaak we organiseren een leuk dagje uit en dan is alles wel weer goed. J: Zoals ik net al zei, die versimpeling van een complex probleem of we gaan die vervangen of die rotte appel moet er uit. D: Heb je echt van die organisaties gehad die dat eerst zo hebben gedaan en hoe komen ze er achter dat dat niet werkte en is het dan niet te laat? J: Soms komt het door nieuwe mensen die binnenkomen en het aankaarten en die een ervaring bij een vorig bedrijf hebben en dar niet mee willen blijven rondlopen. Is erg verschillend en zijn de verwachtingen hoog. Soms zijn er wel wat dingen maar niet zo vastgeroest waardoor het onwrikbaar blijkt. D: Misschien begrijp ik het niet goed. Maar je doet voornamelijk al die trainingen en daar doen die mensen nieuwe inzichten op en krijgen ze door waarom. En is het een omslag in hun bezieling of manier van perceptie of wat dan ook. Betekent dan toch niet meteen dat het werk ook meteen anders gedaan wordt. J: Nee klopt. D: Hoe maak je dan die brug van die training naar de praktijk?
140
J: In de training zit al heel veel praktijk voorbeelden maar aan de andere kant ben ik nu ook in een organisatie met werkprocessen bezig op basis van uitkomsten van een training daar zit ik dan niet bij maar dan zeggen ze daar loop we tegen aan of ik geef twaalf groepen een training en zie ik gemeenschappelijke dingen in de uitkomsten en dat is dan weer wat ik communiceer waardoor die processen worden opgepakt. En het komt ook wel eens voor dat sommige mensen heel moeilijk functioneren en dat komt in zo een groep ook wel naar voren en dat kan dan individueel coaching brengen. Het is niet zozeer dat je zegt daar is het nu klaar het is een onderdeel ik heb bijvoorbeeld in een organisatie een keer eerst discussie rondes gehouden wat begon met directie en management en vervolgens medewerkers. En in die discussie rondes gevraagd wat vinden jullie er nu van en hoe gaat het hier nu en een aantal vragen. D: Dat is best wel confronterend. Misschien zijn er wel mensen die er al langer mee lopen. Ben jij dan een soort mediator? Of hoe noem zo iemand die dat aanstuurt? Of laat je dat juist een manager van hun doen. J: Soms is de verleiding groot om en wordt je uitgedaagd om het ontbrekende puzzelstukje te worden in een organisatie dus je moet heel erg nabij kunnen zijn. D: Dat lijkt me heel erg lastig. J: Maar met voldoende distantie om er geen onderdeel van te worden. Ik vind het zo een lastig gesprek als jij dat nou doet. En als ik dat doe kan ik nooit meer weg. En als ik het niet doe dan zeggen ze daar zit je hier toch voor. D: Hoe doe je dat dan? J: Het herstructureren dat ik begrijp en waardeer en hun kwaliteiten zie en dat ik heel goed begrijp dat het lastig is en dat ik het graag zou doen maar dat, dat niet helpt als ik het zou doen. Soms help het ook om dat ze op meta niveau kunnen kijken wat er gebeurt en dat is heel erg leuk voor mensen. D: Daar worden volgens mij erg vaak spellen voor gebruikt dat mensen leren begrijpen wat doen we hier nu eigenlijk en dat is wel mega interessant.
141
J: Laatste nam ik allemaal vellen papier mee en moesten mensen rondjes uitknippen van hun team ook qua grote van hun invloed en ze moesten ze op een tafels en dat waren de kaders neerleggen waar staat iedereen. D: Het lijkt een soort familie opstelling. J: De directeur werd tegen iemand aan geplaatst die helemaal niet goed functioneerde en die altijd de hand boven het hoofd werd gehouden. En die persoon had een brute grote mond en die werd constant onder een vergrootglas gelegd met alles wat hij deed. Het werd zichtbaar toen die mensen dat neerlegde en heel dicht tegen die directeur aan en die had het zelf nog helemaal niet gezien. En wat je kan doen is; hoe is de situatie nu en hoe zouden jullie het willen? En hoe komen we van A naar B? D: Dan slaan ze allemaal dicht? J: Nou, dat valt wel mee. Dat kan praktisch zijn. Borging van resultaat is echt belangrijk. Implementatie of borging dat ze niet weer terug in het oude vervallen.
142
