Gamification of Incentives and Recognition

I had a conversation with a reward and recognition professional the other day.  They asked me “what do you think of gamification in the recognition world?”  The implied addition to that sentence was, “versus the incentive world.”

My response... “Not good for recognition.  Good for incentive.”

He said – “y’know – that might make a good post.” 

Aaaaaannnnnnnd here we are.

What is Gamification

You’d have to be one of the actors in the GEICO commercials to not have heard about gamification.  Gamification is the new black.  Gamification will cure hiccups.  Gamification is the new “it” girl. 

And like any idea – it can be used for good – or evil.  Here’s a link to a pretty robust article on the gamification craze. 

From the post...

Gamification is:

The use of gameplay mechanics for non-game applications. The term also suggests the process of using game thinking to solve problems and engage audiences. 

And it is expected to be big...

A recent Gartner report from April of this year suggests as much. Analysts predict that by 2015, more than 50% of organizations will gamify their innovation processes.

“By 2014, a gamified service for consumer goods marketing and customer retention will become as important as Facebook, eBay or Amazon, and more than 70% of Global 2000 organizations will have at least one gamified application,” the Gartner report concludes.

Why Incentives And Not Recognition?

If you don’t really believe or understand the difference between incentive programs and recognition programs stop reading now.  The rest of this post will just confuse you and make you mad. 

Or check out some posts on this subject here, here, here, and here, then come back.

 

Incentives+Gamification = Good

Game mechanics – Points, Badgets, Levels, Leaderboards, and Challengaes – apply many of the influence techniques and social psychology things we talk about here on the site, consistency, commitment, scarcity, social proof.  They all play a role in influencing someone’s behavior and can turbo-charge an incentive program.

Now – time to split hairs – but it’s important. 

You can recognize achievements in an incentive program (that’s good) and levels and badges are those events.  They are recognition of specific achievements. 

But... they are not “recognition programs.”  They are recognition events within an incentive.  (Read that again -important concept time.)

 

RecognitionPrograms +Gamification = Bad

Recognition programs – ones that are driven from corporate culture and long-term business and personal values - do NOT lend themselves to overt gamification.

Here’s why...

First of all – they are already “gamified” – but in a more refined manner.

Think about it.  Recognition programs provide levels of achievement.  Recognition is already about assigning someone to a category whether that be “innovator” or “top sales” or “top service rep.”  Recognition programs rest on some of the elements of the gamification foundation.

But... and this is a big but (I cannot lie,) to add a level of “gamification” to an already “gamified” platform is like – well, adding peanut butter to a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.  It is just too much.  It changes the sandwich from something good and gooey to something just gooey.  Adding gamification on top of a high-level recognition program just makes it less good and more gooey.  

Gamification = manipulation. 

If you “gamify” a recognition program – start layering in things that take away from the core values you dilute the real intent.  The real intent of a strategic recognition program is to reinforce a culture – reinforce core beliefs and tenets.  Gamification, in the word itself, communicates that the system can be manipulated.

In addition, gamification is about short-term – it’s about the “next step” – not the big picture.

Strategic corporate recognition programs reward bigger issues than a simple behavior.  Recognition programs – the strategic kind – not the little employee of the month parking space kind – require a more dignified approach (IMHO).

Can you use gamification in an overall recognition strategy?

Sure. 

Will it communicate that you don’t take recognition seriously and you think it is a game to be played versus a business approach to be lived?  Yep. 

Will people be engaged?  Yes. 

Engaged in scamming the system to get the badges, levels, etc., not to be recognized for their connection to the mission and values of the company.

Gamification takes the focus off the outcome and places it squarely on the game.  Recognition should focus squarely on the outcome and take the focus off the game.

So... if your incentive supplier wants to add gaming elements to your incentive program say “Tell me more.”

If they want to add gamification to your strategic recognition program, well, as they say in “The Holy Grail” – RUN AWAAAAAAAY....

(Video below from "The Holy Grail" - some may say NSF, but I think it's okay.  Email and RSS subscribers may need to visit the post on the website here.)

 

 

 

Related articles

• Maritz Says Game Dynamics Will Revolutionize Employee Recognition (prweb.com)
• Combining Recognition Awards & Games in the Workplace (awardemployees.com)
• Major Difference between Incentives or Recognition Programs (awardemployees.com)

Comments

[Bob Cowen]

There are quite a few different definitions of “gamification” that I think need further explanation. This could also make a good post.

The newly created term of “gamification” that is hot at this time relates to the programs such as Farmville that uses social networking. I think this is what Maritz is trying to promote.

Other types of “games” are divided into games of skill (Mario Brothers) and games of chance such as spin-the-wheel. Games of skill should never be used in an incentive or recognition program because they reward the wrong attributes. Games of chance that are truly random (but always a positive outcome) inject another opportunity to reinforce the activity that is desired. Examples include spin-the-wheel, pull a ticket from the fish bowl, select a sealed envelope, etc. Although some of the lower performers will win a big prize, over the long run, the top performers will be the top earners. We have found that those who utilize games of chance in their incentive programs attain significantly higher levels of improvement than those who do not.

Thanks,

Bob

Robert Cowen
Snowfly - Improving Employee Performance Every Day
1-248-324-1161
[email protected]
www.Snowfly.com
manager of "Contact Center Incentives" at LinkedIn

[Paul Hebert]

Don't disagree at all Robert - my point was that gamification has a place (as you've shown in some of company's applications) but when it comes to a recognition strategy - one that involved overall corporate mission/values - it cheapens the process and the program and communications a bad message. Until research shows me different - that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

[Michpoko]

Hi Paul. This will be a long response, but I respectfully disagree. While you may feel yours is an unbiased position, I believe it is a bit uninformed. At least in the case of Maritz, we are integrating game science (game dynamics and mechanics) into our client's program experiences... not 'games'. Big difference. The purpose is to make the program, the activities and behaviors associated with it more engaging, social, interactive, immersive, rewarding and - fun. We are clear with clients and shared at RPI (referenced link to this post, got only positive feedback from practitioners and providers in attendance) this is not about manipulation or coersion. In fact, we use a process called persuasive design to help identify the activities and behavior that people/employees/participants already want to do, would help them be successful, and identify where game dynamics and mechanics could help. For example, a client has a recognition solution but limited participation from part or all of the employee audience. We assume people want to recognize and be recognized, and can employ game dynamics and mechanics to encourage it. So, I might give someone a 'warm fuzzy' badge for their first recognition, and I might share that accomplishment in a newsfeed that everyone can see. Nice reinforcement for the giver, opportunity to give them some recognition for recognizing, potential to further engage them in the program and what else might be going on. If well designed (as with any program), the mechanics and what you are driving, rewarding, encouraging people to do can and should be aligned to corporate values and mission.... everything from what might knowingly or surprisingly 'level you up' to what you get back from the experience. E.g. if I have read up on recognition, taken the opportunity to complete leadership encouragement training, given three recognition and gotten two - this might flag me to be in a focus group for the recognition advocacy team where best practices are shared and plans made. What do I get? Additional status, an opportunity to shape and create the recognition experience and practices in my organization, bonding experience with others, maybe a badge or virtual reward, etc. Game science works because of what our brains like... Several examples, including Ford Focus who has a graphical flower on the dashboard that either flourishes or withers based on how economically you drive. It's not manipulative, you can let the flower die, but you likely are reminded of your desire to drive economically/save $ with that game mechanic in play. Using the same thinking to motivate employee behavior in a more engaging, effective and fun way that creates value for both the employee and the employer is a win-win. We will have a microsite out with our POV on game science soon, I'll be sure to share, and happy to show you what we are up to in the meantime. Thanks Paul.

[Paul Hebert]

Unbiased. Usually. Uniformed - sometimes. But not in this situation.

I appreciate the time you took to respond. Thanks - it's comments like your's that make this a great discussion.

First of all - I agree almost 100% with what you've said. What you're calling gamification - I call using positive social psychology and behavioral economics. I've gone on record saying we should include more of those things in our programs (things like: consensus and social proof - what you might call "badges") to drive behaviors.

Gamification - as you outlined, includes many of psychological triggers I would recommend top my clients. In fact, all of the things you mentioned in your comments on how to get people to participate in a recognition program I have recommended (to one degree or another) in the past - I just wasn't cool enough a couple of years ago to call it gamification - I called it social psychology, influence and communications.

What I am suggesting is that creating a "game" (one that would include the game mechanics you mention and I would subscribe to with different monikers) would hurt an overall recognition strategy - but potentially could have value in an incentive program. I'm concerned that since "gamification" is the new "social network" and we'll end up polluting a well-designed recognition strategy with a "Presidents Council In Farmville During Mafia Wars 2011 Trip to Hawaii" program in order to include the hot new thing - "gamification" - in the program.

Just word to the wise or unwise as the case may be.

Gamification, meh.

I think Shakespeare said it best... a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. Elements of gamification is just good program design - but creating games may not be.

Thanks again... it's these types of discussions that tease out the nuances of how programs are designed.

[Michpoko]

Hi Paul. Pretty passionate about this so suffer my response again! Making a game of recognition=bad. 'Gamifying' the experience, program, activities that make recognition and culture of an organization come to life=good. We are trying to move away from the word games and gamification to persuasive design based on game science for that very reason - what we are doing is misunderstood. Agree, much of the human sciences explain why these game dynamics (insert human desires...e.g. achievement, reward, status, self-expression, etc.) and mechanics (points, levels, challenges, etc.) work... they tap into our innate drives, which gets our attention and interest. Lots of ways to intentionally design for that, and lots of powerful strategies and tools to help people accomplish what they want to accomplish in the context of a client business environment that are leveraged from good game design. We offer this as an ongoing engagement strategy, not a self-contained game (though that might be a single mechanic). We are seeing very positive results with participation and engagement measures, which is the very reason for doing this. Hope that helps clarify.

[Paul Hebert]

I think we are in violent agreement Michpoko (if that is your real name :) )

I started this firm to do exactly what you've outlined - move engagement away from "program of the month" to a more structured and scientifically based influence strategies. I don't even use the words incentive and recognition if I can help it - those are simply structured ways to influence behavior.

What organizations should be looking at is an "influence strategy."

All organizations could do with some good ole fashioned edumakashun on what influences behavior - and how to include that in program design, communications, management behaviors, etc.

Thanks again for taking the time to engage here - you have officially earned the "Commenter Commissar" badge on my blog!

[Chris Ferdinandi]

Wow - Great discussion going on here, Paul!

I love the idea of making work more fun, playful and engaging. As you and others have noted, nothing really new there other than the buzzword. I am worried about the Farmvillification of everything though, just as we currently see people trying to ram "social" into every aspect of a business.

Great post! Lots of food for thought...

[Paul Hebert]

I like making work fun and engaging too. I don't like trivializing important work related recognition. That's my concern. In the quest for the newest idea firms may be suggesting bad design in order to take advantage of the newest new thing. Like you said... Social is cool therefore we MUST include it - even when it makes no sense.

[Michpoko]

Hi again Paul. Michpoko (aka Michelle Pokorny) here. I think social must be included because we are human and naturally social creatures... and it is cool, like your blog:-) Nice game mechanic and recognition with the Commentar Commissar badge. Thanks!