Is that whole gamification thing really over? | Hacker News Reader

Is that whole gamification thing really over?

information-age.com

79 pointsjhought347 comments

The elephant in the room is that gamification does not work in the workplace. Work, a place where we spend most of our time and energy in our entire lives, is something most people want to be meaningful and important—treating it like a game is the opposite of purposeful.

On top of that, it's not effective. The idealistic idea that competition breeds productivity and effectiveness is a flat-out lie. Instead, you get in-fighting, unfairness, bitterness, resentment, and incorrect direction. Even in a seemingly simple procedural job like a production line, gamification and management by objective leads to the wrong results. It is extremely difficult to correctly align the objectives with the true goals of the company, and especially difficult to produce quality output.

Instead, what companies need is good leadership, clear communication of common purpose, and ways and motivation to improve both individuals and systems of production constantly. There is no replacement.

Start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming

I'm quite happy to see the natural rejection of this entire industry, it inspires confidence.

You seem to be conflating competitive games with using game mechanics to achieve a result. Gamification goes well beyond points, badges and leaderboards and helps managers tap into intrinsic motivators (like personal satisfaction) to achieve results. Done poorly, its all PBL all day and doesn't work for the reasons you've outlined. I think its fair to say that "bad gamification" doesn't work, but its a big leap to toss out the entire field based on the narrow selection of "bad execution" that you use in your example.

I like to think of "good gamification" as "help people notice the stuff they are actually getting done."

When people notice what is getting done, they'll more likely be able to judge whether it's the right stuff to be done and what actions produce more of it.

A corollary of this is "you get what you measure". Whatever you are rewarding, you'll get more of it.[1]

[1]: Wally from Dilbert: "I'm going to go write me a minivan!" http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1995-11-13/

I agree with you for the most part, but I still think there is value in understanding certain motivating elements of different genres of games, from RPGs to trivia. I think in many cases we can leverage these learning's in workplace activities.

But just slapping some badges on a web profile and putting people in competition based on their everyday work activities is not very productive.

>The elephant in the room is that gamification does not work in the workplace. Work, a place where we spend most of our time and energy in our entire lives, is something most people want to be meaningful and important—treating it like a game is the opposite of purposeful.

Here's a cool, PROFESSIONAL, gamification strategy:

Do something better, more useful: get PAID more.

From working at a giant megacorp I can see three gamification trends:

1) Everything is slower at a big corp than a startup, so they're laughing and onto the next big thing whereas level 7 middle manager at megacorp inc is just implementing it at megacorp inc because they've just caught up to where everyone else was 10 years ago. There's still money to be made, but to slow moving non-tech billion dollar companies not million dollar companies and other tech startups.

2) Managers hate it because employee reward should continue to be based solely on golf games and kissing up and physical attraction and socioeconomic class, just like it has been historically. Having some app decide who's doin it right and who's doin it wrong smacks of replacing that manager with a tiny little shell script, and oddly enough managers don't like the idea of downsizing themselves. Never sell gamification to the manager of "mere resources", sell to the manager's manager or higher.

3) Someone's 3rd party tool is hard to game and manipulate, but something home grown can be screwed around with so the "right" people win, both preselected peons and preselected lower level mgrs. This is crucial. Don't sell an incorruptible black box, nobody wants that. Sell a toolkit, something where you can pick the winners ahead of time and then generate the "proof" you were correct. In other words emphasize customization of algo and ability to run tests on historical data so the customized algo produces the predefined result. This also means gather a lot of data so its always numerologically possible to generate the predetermined result, even if you have to do something weird like divide the coffee budget by the internet bandwidth consumed multiplied by the number of ceiling tiles in the department, this is also called "data mining".

#3 is a very interesting point to be made and something that I (as Ambition co-founder) think about a lot. We've tried to make our product powerful in a responsible way but there's definitely the fine-line of "what's best for the company" and "what's best for the person paying for the product". We receive requests every day from managers asking for the ability to manually manipulate the (objective) data that we're automatically pulling in from CRMs, Phone Systems, Spreadsheets.

I remember talking to PG a couple months ago about how Ambition could potentially decrease office politics and thus "optimize work". Maybe it's a fool's errand given a company of X size or Y age.

Are you sure you want to spend your life catering to corruption? It seems better to resist corruption than to profit from it, both for your own personal life and for the lives of those your product would be influencing.

Someone's 3rd party tool is hard to game and manipulate, but something home grown can be screwed around with so the "right" people win, both preselected peons and preselected lower level mgrs. Don't sell an incorruptible black box, nobody wants that. Sell a toolkit, something where you can pick the winners ahead of time and then generate the "proof" you were correct.

On one hand, this is something people clearly want, and YC's mantra is "make something people want." On the other hand, your life would be subservient. Indeed, you'll be directly subservient in that you'll be answering to the will of those who are corrupt, and indirectly subservient in that you'll be perpetuating corrupt systems.

I use Duolingo ever day. Their app/website is heavily gamified to the point where I think it's part of their tagline. But, at least for me, language learning is fun. When it's not fun it's at least engaging and/or challenging. I don't know if gamification can be painted over fundamentally miserable modus operandi.

This article talks about gamification pretty specifically in the Enterprise sector. Gamification in the consumer sector is definitely still booming

Agreed, gamification might be a bad idea in a work context (where it's imposed on people who are competing with each other), but I think it's still a really useful tool for individuals who need a little extra motivation. I usually classify myself as a person who hates exercise, especially cardio, but I'm playing Zombies Run right now and it's great. I find myself doing more than the workouts require to get the extra bonuses/achievements. Meanwhile my free weights (the only exercise I've voluntarily done, previous to this) are still gathering dust in my closet. (Anyone know a good weight training game? :))

I don't like the idea of gamification. At least the "do stuff -> get points" kind of gamification.

I find that it makes people do the right thing for the wrong reasons. I should work hard because it's what I'm supposed to do. It is the right thing to do! Not to say that these systems can be "gamed" (pun intended). It gets incredibly demoralising for a hard worker, doing stuff by the book, to see a colleague exploiting and cheating the system.

Imagine it with software development. You get points each bug solved. The hard worker will carefully correct it, the right way, with proper testing, acessing impacts, all that stuff. The "exploiter" will just thow around a quick hack so that it works correctly, in about 1/5 of the time. And he can use the remaining 4/5 of the time to solve more bugs, and earning more points!

TL;DR: It encourages people to do stuff for the wrong reasons and, in my opinion, that is bad and wrong.

I also dislike gamification, because it usually puts emphasis on arbitrary metrics that are not necessarily related to success.

Having said that, I want to note that the exploiter you're talking about exists in every organization, whether they use a scoring/ranking system or not. Gamification systems are abusable, but hardly any more abusable than any other human management system.

In my experience, enterprise gamification, like enterprise facebook, enterprise twitter and enterprise wikis are, for the most part me-too bullshit bought and sold without any real justification beyond an easy, hip-sounding KPI for some executive.

That said, underneath all the Gartner (Expensive Cliff's Notes for CTOs) references and stilted 'enterprise' language there's a good point.

"Turning the office into a Chuck E. Cheese isn’t going to hide the fact that Big Brother is watching over them every second of the workday, and they aren’t receiving a single tangible benefit from it."

Exactly.

I've rarely, if ever seen an enterprise that didn't treat its new processes, SLA and policies as utterly one-sided hammers to bludgeon the rank and file with. It's all downside for the employees.

These places don't need leaderboards, they need to remember how invest in their employees and offer tangible incentives.

These places don't need leaderboards, they need to remember how invest in their employees and offer tangible incentives.

Bingo. No one who is savvy wants to be on a leaderboard. That's actually horrible for your career. It doesn't identify you to upper management in any meaningful or positive way (it's "good at grunt work") and it makes you a target later on.

So I have some experience in this, having researched gamification quite heavily as part of my PhD thesis [1]. Note that I am going to talk about gamification as described by Zichermann and as used in this article, not about "gameful interfaces" as used by Jane McGonigal et al. after the "gamification" term was so thoroughly poisoned by gamification companies as mentioned in the OP.

The OP hits on two key points. The first is that employees know bullshit when they see it. The second is that the wrong metrics were often chosen, and that anything that didn't have a easy metric was thrown out.

These two points are symptomatic of the root issue at the heart of this: enterprise gamification companies don't, and never did, care about employee well-being. This was true of every gamification salesperson and author (Zichermann in particular) that I ever came across. They were all snake-oil salesmen selling stuff to CEOs who read about gamification in an airplane magazine. And to be fair to them, they were very good at it, and I guess the smartest ones also took the money and ran.

Gamification used buzzwords and metrics to provide feedback about employee productivity, but never provided any meaning because no deeper motivation was ever attempted to be tapped. Zichermann was infamous at misrepresenting or ignoring the psychological literature that ran counter to the nonsense he was spouting [2]. He particularly rejected intrinsic motivation, which is pretty much everything anyone ever wants out of their employees, in favor of the extrinsic motivators, which creates this arms race known as the hedonic treadmill [3], where employers would have to offer more and more motivators in order to keep interest. Note that paying people more is a classic extrinsic motivator.

So you have a whole bunch of points and badges and such, but to what end? What do they represent? What do they mean to those that hold them? The value of an Xbox 360 achievement, of a Boy Scout badge, of a Weight Watchers token, was never about the thing at the end, but about the meaningful trip they represented and reminded holders of. Gamification never bothered with that, and enterprise gamification, in particular, couldn't have cared any less. Making employees more productive was never the goal, it was selling stuff while the buzzwords were hot.

Gameful ideas can and do work when employed in a thoughtful, meaningful way that supports the intrinsic motivators of the given task. However, that's very tricky, as it's way too easy to misalign incentives (e.g. giving a badge for archiving email quickly, what's the result going to be?) which is why actual game designs take years to perfect before they are released. There are often simpler, quicker wins for improving employee motivation.

[1] More easily digested book - http://www.amazon.com/Irresistible-Apps-Motivational-Web-bas...

Free dissertation - http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~ejw/dissertations/Christopher-Lewis...

[2] http://gamification-research.org/2011/09/a-quick-buck-by-cop...

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill

It is not titles that honor men, but men that honor titles.

I didn't read the article but I am going to read your thesis. I have a question: Is it possible to have enterprise gamification? What should be the end goals - the achievements so to speak?

Isn't the whole idea of gamification(an idealization that didn't quite happen I guess) is to make crud work seem like fun? But, then, wouldn't repetition of the same joyless task be mundane to the point of being Sisyphean? I agree that a game achievement is fun to get but archiving mail day after day would get old pretty fast(I think).

And as a grad student myself I must ask, have you considered the possibility of gamification systems in academe(school in general)? I guess that's what the trophies(and convocations) are for, right?

So there is evidence that people will go looking for intrinsic motivation. The famous example is that of a car builder as described in relation to Flow Theory [1], where this guy on an assembly line would try and make a game out of his small piece, trying to assemble it faster and faster. However, what happens when you introduce extrinsic motivators into the mix is what is known as the Overjustification Effect, where people start to think they are doing it for the extrinsic motivator and erode their intrinsic motivation. If we gave our car mechanic an extra $20 if he was always in the Top 20% of workers, he's going to start thinking he's doing it for the $20 and not because he wants to do better at his internal game.

So if we assume that people will go looking for intrinsic motivation in even the most tedious jobs, then we can design structures that provide feedback to enhance that motivation. The key to metrics is that they need to provide feedback on the things that the employee cares about and helps them to understand how they are doing in whatever motivates them. For our car mechanic, maybe we want to do things like:

* Show a timer with how long it's taking him to make them, how he's doing over the day, how he's doing in comparison to yesterday

* Show him the cumulative effort, illustrating how many widgets he's put together

* Show him how his work is important to the company (providing him with purpose), maybe with how many cars he's allowed to be built, and which dealerships they go to

None of this is really "gamification" as you'd think of the term. They're means to support the gameful context that the employee can choose to, or not choose to engage in (e.g. the stock market is basically gambling, you choose whether you treat it as a game or not). It is, however, going to help get the sort of output that you wanted when you went looking for gamification.

Notice the risk here: If he's building things faster to play his game, his work might get sloppier. That's why such things need really careful monitoring and tweaking before being deployed. Same thing with the Target checkout thing where it shows how quickly the checkout person is pushing people out the door. My guess Target's real goal isn't getting people out the door, but getting happy customers out the door. If a checkout person is being incentivized to actively not help out customers with problems that require more attention, then it's possible it's working to harm the overall goal.

EDIT: As far as gamifying education, you might be interested in "Punished by Rewards", which is a book about intrinsic motivation in schools, and was published long before gamification appeared on the scene. The book has it's critics, but it's an interesting take.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology) [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overjustification_effect

Very interesting; thank you.

> if we assume that people will go looking for intrinsic motivation in even the most tedious jobs

How safely can we assume that? Is there any research on it?

I don't have research for you off the top of my head, but here's anecdotal support -- there's no way these people can get this good at their tedious menial jobs[1] without finding a strong (superlatively strongest in the world) intrinsic motivation to perform better.

As Lewisham puts it, structure to maximize enjoyment of their intrinsic games is the best. Ideally, find out directly from the employees (or by being them for a while) what intrinsic games they play for their tedious tasks, and then try to build structure around making it more fun -- there's essentially 4 parts to it - holistic goals, performance stats, realtime feedback (these 3 are mentioned by example by Lewisham), and the hardest-to-implement, fun interactions.

The last is complicated, but for example, it's the reason why a clickety mechanical keyboard may be more fun to type on than one of those polymer rollable keyboards, if you have an employee whose job is to type all day [you and me probably]. Sometimes workers find ways to turn their interactions with their work fun on their own (like those in [1]), but for the less intrinsically motivated, employers facilitating it can have a huge effect.

[1] http://www.collegehumor.com/post/6319342/goodatjobs

Even further than just the Overjustification Effect, it is important to point out that as soon as you introduce the concept of work-as-game, you turn work into a competition, where you are specifying a successful outcome. Then the players(employees) have to choose rational strategies to "win".

A major problem in enterprise gamification efforts is when the rules, strategies, and outcomes conflict with the ultimate business objectives in the first place. Others here are correct to cite examples where optimal strategy to win a game differs from the goal of the company. e.g. to rank customer service agents based on customer calls handled, not the outcome of the calls.

Ultimately, additional complexity added to almost any job will backfire in some way. Creating a situation where employees need to both do the job and win the game is problematic, made worse when you are already providing them with the compensation for them to do the job, and the game mechanics that favor winning the game.

There is a parallel here between Gamification of Work, and Enterprise Social Networks (Yammer, Chatter, etc.) where these collaboration suites have had trouble catching on, since they were additive to the existing process of email. It tends not to matter much that the UI/features are better for a wider array of collaborative tasks if they have to be used in addition to the pre-existing systems. Collaboration software competes with time spent collaborating by other means, gamification competes with time spent working toward other (more relevant goals).

I don't think it's over at all. Look at 'Target' - when you check out notice the employees have like V and G's all on their screen like GGGVGG. That shows how well their doing. G means they did good. V (or R I don't remember) means that they were too slow. The goal is to get all Gs. Call it gamification if you want. I think its not a 'new thing' anymore, its becoming to the point where it's commonplace and not really mentionable. Acceptance Apathy or whatever you want to call it.

*edit: Here's a link. It's 'R'

http://www.levelspro.com/targets-cashier-game-is-it-really-a...

I worked at the cash register in Hollister in 2006 and we were already getting graded based on how fast and accurate our checkouts were. If you were an 'A' you could process returns without getting a manager's permission. Checkout employees being graded isn't a new thing at all, nor did it come from this gamification trend.

Speaking of cash registers, I have an anecdote that shows you don't have to actually look at the data as a manager, just publish it.

More than 20 years ago a giant poster at a grocery store I worked at as a student, displayed the delta between a cash registers contents and the computers theory of how much cash was there, per cashier. With the obvious implication a large string of large negatives would be detected. So nobody swiped cash out of the register, they're looking too closely.

The act of generating the data and publishing it was enough to get the result without ever taking action. I would imagine there are enterprise level gamification implications here. Put the call center stats on the big screen for all to see and the mgmt can simply ignore the stats, more or less, assuming the employees fall for it.

I worked in fast food eons ago.

Pretty much every fast food place has a counter on the drive thru that starts when a car pulls up and ends when the car pulls away from the food window. It displays the average time for the shift when no car is ordering. Here's the really stupid thing about it - it is supposed to be a useful metric and is taken really seriously but it measures almost nothing useful. Often (most of the time?) a car pulls up and just sits at the menu board because they aren't ready to order yet. The best "hold on, we've never been here before." If you haven't been here before WHY ARE YOU GOING THROUGH THE DRIVE THRU! Drive thru is not for that! They can take up the entire "goal" time just sitting at the menu board. People pull up on their phones and act annoyed I am disturbing their phone call when I try to take their order. I actually had someone sit at the menu board for like 10 minutes on their phone having a real serious fight with their girlfriend and I'm pretty sure they broke up on at the menu board. He started crying and then pulled away without ordering anything. Then when they get to the window they can take a long time to get their money out and after they get their food they often sit at the window for another minute to put their wallets away or root through the bag or whatever. You also can't control what a drive thru person will order, if it takes 30 seconds to pack or if it takes 2 minutes to pack. I've had people come through the drive thru with $50-$100 orders. I don't care who you are - you aren't taking and packing that order in 2 minutes 30 seconds. Or people who want 3 separate orders which takes a much longer time. Then if you have a slow day and only have like 10 drive through customers and one takes like 10 minutes it will screw up your average considerably even if you are the best at drive thru ever. The best are "pull-aways" - people who pull up, change their mind, and pull away without ordering anything. This happen more than you'd think. Their "order" is clocked in at like 50 seconds and brings your average down especially on slow days. On really slow days employees have been known (I did it) to go outside and just drive around the drive thru several times to get the average down. At the same time I've been yelled at when the counter is reading 7 minutes and I've working on their order. "What's taking so long in the drive thru!!?" Um... well this guy has 100 questions about the menu and took 5 of those minutes to order, but just go ahead and yell at me. That accomplishes something.

I notice a sign now in some drive thrus that says "please have your money out when you get to the window." Yeah, ok, because I'm supposed to locate my wallet, get my money out and count it all while operating a motor vehicle... sounds realistic. I know, I know, it it meant for when there is someone sitting at the window in front of you but still...

Note that the "article" is sourced from a "gamifier" called http://ambition.com Sounds a bit like second generation gamification for enterprise. First gen companies included companies such as: Badgeville, bunchball, Gigya.

Ambition's tagline? Ambition Makes Companies More Money: Transparency increases efficiency, competition boosts production.

We did source this piece a few days ago - we think the industry can deliver a lot more actionable impact moving forward (specifically to enterprise/ smb's).

Our mission is to build more productive, enjoyable, & inspiring work environments... because life is too short for work to suck. (tagline still WIP)

Obviously the article talks about a very specific example of how gamification could be applied. In fact, the implementation discussed seems more like Big Data, the gamification merely present in 'displaying' this big data.

This is all fine, but then the article starts to get into what 'gamification companies should be doing' because "specific-example-A doesn't work". That is funky.

The definition of gamification is: "the use of game design elements in non-game contexts". Unlike what this article implies, using big amounts of data or 'data analysis' is not per se an integral part of gamification.

Gamification can be the use of social elements within a digital system; avatars, chat, social boards, the creation of your own character; reward systems such as receiving company points for each sale; visualisations such as translating the amount of steel produced today as how many % of an aircraft carrier is completed, etc.

The issue that gamification is not necessarily positive or useful is very valid. It does not mean that there are nog positive gamification examples or that it is dead however.

I completely agree. I also agree with the author that companies should be doing more to tell the employees and managers WHY they are doing good/bad. However, I don't think thats gamification...that's basically Business Intelligence

Why certain behaviour is desirable in companies and other behaviour isn't might not be a gamification, but one could most certainly use gamification to communicate it.

The first step in any gamification effort is feedback. The second step is offering "what to do next".

This can be achieved with or without PBL (points, badges, leaderboards). If the PBL stuff doesn't connect to feedback, if the feedback is overwhelming or the calls to action are too cumbersome, unattractive or obscure, "Gamification" fails.

I work better and harder when I'm actually playing a game.

Pomodoros, sprints and CrossFit all take work and turn it into an actual game.

If you are doing well you feel a surge of pride that the drudgery of typical 'work' can not provide.

Gamification is bullshit because it is not making the activity a game. It is just assigning a thin game layer on top of mundane tasks.

Pomodoros, sprints and CrossFit are not games, just structure (that many people find useful).

CrossFit is literally a game. The metcon at the end of every class is scored, and there's often a leader board. (I'd argue this is why people, included myself, get so addicted)

I'd argue that Sprints can be a game where the score is velocity.

And a Pomodoro is a game if you try and get done in 25 minutes the thing you set out to do.

This seems to be a popular, if misguided meme. I actually wrote a response to this on our blog when it reared it's head in Fortune a month ago: http://www.bunchball.com/blog/post/1462/gamification-just-ge...

I've been living and breathing this for 7 years now. Like anything else, when executed well it works, and there is ample evidence of that, which is why companies like SAP, Applebee's, Marriott, Chevron, Coca-Cola, Urban Outfitters, and Adobe are all customers of ours.

btw - I also wrote a book on the topic: http://loyalty30.com

This article is right on time with me as I'm working to figure out if the gamification in our internal website is really worth it.

Here is the premise: Anyone can create an event and based on the type and duration its assigned a score. Once the person attends the event they are given a secret keyword to prove they were actually at the event. Then they go back online and enter the keyword and get points.

The idea of the points is to use them to enter contests for prizes and such, hopefully making attending events more enticing.

I'm not so sure the gamification is worth it. If the event is good enough it should warrant attendance based on a persons interest. Anyone have any thoughts on this?

My landmark book on gamification in the enterprise was just published and I am talking extensively about intrinsic/extrinsic motivations, the problem with rewards and competition, and how to tackle blue collar workers. Exactly all those questions that you raise. And with tons of examples.

Enterprise Gamification by Mario Herger http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00LO5W6L6/ref=cm_sw_r_tw_dp_oO1Vtb...

I worked at a game company where "they" brought in someone to teach us to game-ify our work. We rejected it during the meeting. We already make games for a living, we don't need to add another layer of gaming on top of that.

The basic concept of competition WITHIN the company is counterproductive to a creative workplace. We should ALL be working TOGETHER to make the best product. We have plenty of competitors outside the building, don't need to add to the list.

"The numbers are looking good and we haven't even added any gamification [to our game] yet" - a Chief Product Officer

We can't paint with too broad a brush. Gamification doesn't work for all situations but does for some. Our sales reps love the leaderboards and will make extra calls or a come in a bit early to be #1.

Consumer products use gamification well in a few cases (Duolingo, Carrot app etc).

So is the whole gamification thing really over? No. Are we getting smarter and trying not to cram it into every place where it doesn't belong? Hopefully.

Gamification doesn't work where the mechanics for point accumulation takes time away from getting things done. Which is why incentive/reward schemes where the point accumulation is calculated from business metrics (sales is a favourite) are more popular in corporate situations. They have been around for years, they just didn't have the cool buzzword and association with game mechanics.

I built the initial (could still be the same code for all I know) reward calculation engine of accumulate.com.au back in 2002/03 and sites like Red Balloon work much the same.

"Our sales reps love the leaderboards and will make extra calls or a come in a bit early to be #1."

Because the top few sales people are treated like royalty and almost always directly benefit from each extra sale (usually via commission, also through network effects).

"Consumer products use gamification well in a few cases (Duolingo, Carrot app etc)."

Because people want to learn a language, get fit, etc. We already have the desire and know the huge benefits and these gamification products help make the journey a bit easier.

The reason enterprise style gamification doesn't work is because cranking out an extra 5 widgets a day doesn't improve the employees life one little bit. The incentives are all wrong.

I can either:

1) bust my ass off putting 100% effort into getting an extra 10-20% done each day then be too worn out to do anything else. Upside is I might be a little bit less likely to get fired and I might get a bonus bottle of wine each month.

2) stay in the middle of the pack and invest my energy and determination into my side projects and l&d. Upside is in the long term I can fairly safely double or even triple my pay.

Not a hard choice and gamification isn't going to stop anyone from picking option 2.

Just adding to the discussion: Stack Exchange had a whole (Q&A) website dedicated to gamification. Didn't passed the beta due to low activity.

"The Gamification site didn't have enough activity during the beta, and has been closed."

http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/44478/gamification

The term and the idea of gamification is good but making it really stick the creative genius must be applied to an appropriate product to make it really work. Otherwise it looks like you are just trying too hard.

Don't know about enterprise gamification in general, but in the context of health, gamification is just taking off (especially in places with employer-based health insurance).

If the energy in an office is lethargic and employees are struggling, there’s a deeper problem there that an office competition likely won’t resolve.

::Reaches for the "no fucking shit" red button.::

Here’s the dirty little secret of gamification software: most are inherently disrespectful towards their users. They are designed to manipulate employees, not empower them.

Executives think of "their" people as children, not adults who want respect, meaningful work, autonomy, fair pay and reasonable job security... and who can be very clever in striking back when they're being denied those things. The ones who disengage and draw a salary while doing no work? Those are the nice ones.

It's amazing to me that, every time the people in the organization act in their own interests instead of falling for some grandiose executive plan that offers nothing for the careers of those who have to implement it, upper management is always like "WTF the furniture is MOVING up in this bitch".

Here's why gamification doesn't work. If someone went to Vegas with a year's salary and gambled it all away, you wouldn't care what the end result was. Some would come back with 5 years' pay. Some would be bankrupt. But you'd consider it pathological.

When that much income is on the line, when someone's career is on the line, it's not a fucking game. Workplace "gamification" takes injury (managerial oversight, anxiety, micromanagement) and adds insult by presenting it as "fun". (What do you mean, you don't like "story points"? Doesn't everyone like a bedtime story?) It's fucking sick.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com