Someone’s Got a Case of the Mondays: How to Motivate Employees With Games (Seriously!)

Playing games and the enjoyment of game play is part of the human experience. Throughout civilizations, humans have played games – for entertainment and storytelling. But games have never been just about fun, they have also been used throughout history for education, training, and other practical purposes. And this is still the case today.

When the British archaeologist Howard Carter discovered Tutankhamun’s tomb in Egypt in 1922, he found among the many buried treasures several boards used to play the game of Senet. Apparently board games were very popular in ancient Egypt: scientists have found Senet boards that date back over 5,000 years.

Fast-forward 2,000 years (give or take a few), and we find ourselves in the fastest-paced society ever. Consumers are permanently connected to the Internet (and each other) through mobile devices and record numbers of marketing messages and distractions. So it’s no surprise that one of the most talked about engagement tactics of the past year has been gamification. This means using game dynamics like competition, collection of rewards such as points, badges or levels, and status on leaderboards to give consumers – and customers – a fun experience that taps into their love of games and keeps them engaged with the brand.

But while much has been written about how to harness the power of gamification to improve the customer experience, there hasn’t been much discussion about how gamification can help companies improve their employees’ experiences.

It’s true that work and play don’t go together very well in most employers’ minds. However, The Daedalus Project, which studied human behavior within the context of massively multiplayer online games (MMOGs), found that players are, in fact, honing work-related skills such as organizing teams, monitoring processes, assigning tasks and tracking budgets.

Who knew?

The Adweek article referenced above also cites a recent global survey by Gallup, which found that a whopping 90% of workers aren’t engaged with their jobs – and that disengagement is costing companies about $2 trillion in lost productivity.

Using Gamification Incentives as a Human Resources Strategy 

In an article for Forbes with predictions for 2014 in talent, leadership, and HR, Josh Bersin writes: “Today’s HR organization is no longer judged by its administrative efficiency – it is judged by its ability to acquire, develop, retain, and help manage talent. And more and more HR is being asked to become ‘Data-Driven’ – understand how to best manage people based on real data, not just judgment or good ideas.” Gamification is an excellent way for companies to tap into their employees’ personalities and interests while also gathering useful data.

Several experts agree that companies need to approach their corporate cultures from a gamified perspective in order to better engage their employees – much the same way they’re using gamification tactics to engage their customers.

I’m trying to imagine what it would be like to implement this kind of initiative at ThinkInk. Maybe create a leaderboard which shows who the fastest employee is? Or perhaps a special perk – say, a monetary bonus or a free lunch – for the employee who gets a thought leadership article or blog post or press release client-ready with the fewest rounds of edits.  Aaaaaahhhhh, the possibilities are endless.

The daily grind can sometimes leave employees feeling disengaged and listless, here at ThinkInk and at every other company. Perhaps if, as bosses and leaders of great teams, we can combine a play ethic with a work ethic, that daily grind can become less grinding and more fun.

It’s food for thought, at the very least.

Has your company implemented gamified initiatives to boost employee engagement? Have they been successful? Share your stories with us in the section below.

Turning A Bad Habit Into A Big Weapon

The following article by Vanessa Horwell, Chief Visibility Officer of ThinkInk, originally appeared on Marketing Daily on 10/19/12.

Two debates down, one to go. And one final opportunity for President Barack Obama to prove he can turn a bad habit into a big re-election weapon.

What habit is this? Considering that my PR hat is never fully removed, even when I'm not in the office, Obama's schizophrenic two debates -- one a massacre and the other a rock-solid performance -- got me thinking about three terms (and not presidential ones): over-promising, over-servicing and over-delivering, and how they relate to the PR profession as well as the POTUS.

Watching the first of three debates, while extinguishing my own professional firestorms, I found myself agitated over what many called Obama's weakest showing. According to CNN, 67% of viewers thought Mitt Romney “nailed it,” versus 25% for Obama. It was as if our eloquent president failed to show up for work, treating supporters to a stunt double -- someone who looks like Obama, but is rightly given no dialogue. Unfortunately, this “stunt double” spoke: Too much professorial style, too much equivocation on what Romney called his over-promised record, and when he did answer back, too many over-serviced responses.

With the Romney rematch, Americans were treated to a different Chief Executive. If anything, this Obama over-delivered. There were times during heated exchanges -- women in the workforce, the Libyan terrorist attack -- that I thought the President would leap from his lionesque stance and pounce on his challenger.

But even an Obama triumph has left some miffed. If on one debate Obama can over-service and another he can over-deliver, what does that say about the President’s true character? And which character will show up on November 6?

Switching over to public relations, over-promising is often the first step on that slippery client-agency slope where saying “Yes” too often cements an expectation that there will never be a “No.” And once you have over-promised, it becomes second nature to over-service, delivering more than what budget lines called for, and more than what can be accomplished in a reasonable timeline.

Agencies that find themselves on this path toward self-destruction, like Obama did in debate one, become their own worst enemies. In a recent article on the subject, Wallop! On Demand, CEO Kristin Jones rightly calls this cycle a “plague” -- and I’m sure many in the PR profession will agree with us both.

Jones offers some straightforward advice for combating the over-servicing affliction that many agencies suffer. Like an insurance claim, documentation is critical -- making sure deliverables are clearly spelled out. That way, when something “extra” is asked from the client, there is data to support your agency’s contention that it wasn't part of the original planning and will cost more.

Tracking goals versus actual results is also vital, as it serves as a check on PR executives’ natural tendency toward being “Yes” people (guilty as charged). You know who you are. You find excitement and exhilaration in the challenge of rising to seemingly impossible heights -- like, say, career-defining political debates.

But in all fairness to this over-servicing malaise, casually dismissing these terms as 100% negative requires a debate-style rebuttal. 

Used in limited proportions, periodic over-reaching is good for the mind, body and soul of an organization. Think of how many people became world leaders (or even CEOs) by just doing what they were told, towing the line, or completing their list of daily tasks and calling it quits? Not many -- and a recipe for mediocrity. Andrew Carnegie, who was known for his strong opinions on hard work and going beyond the call of duty, captured that in his quote: “Do your duty and a little more and the future will take care of itself.”

Translation for PR execs: if you over-promise and over-service, you had better over-deliver. If used in the right amounts, over-servicing can be a helpful weapon in allowing your agency to stand above the crowded rest -- no matter what the short-term balance books say -- instead of a bad habit.

As for this article’s own internal debate, charting the right communications course between Carnegie’s and Jones’ opinions requires careful sounding. Four years ago, President Obama revved up crowds with his campaign slogan, “Yes we can!” And perhaps in three weeks time he will convince enough voters that “yes we still can!” equally applies.

Today, whether you’re the president of the United States, the president of your own company or chief visibility officer of a global PR firm, “No, we can’t” is all right too -- provided you have not over-promised or over-serviced what you can deliver and it isn’t your company’s 24/7 knee-jerk response.

The following article by Vanessa Horwell, Chief Visibility Officer of ThinkInk, originally appeared on Marketing Daily on 10/19/12.