Archive for March, 2012

The Risks of “Gamification” for the Enterprise

March 29th, 2012

This post was inspired by a discussion I had with Bert Sandie who is the Director of Technical Excellence at Electronic Arts.

It seems as though nowadays everyone is talking about “gamification” for the enterprise.  For those of you not familiar with the concept, gamification is all around taking game mechanics and concepts and applying them to a business setting.  Think of something like an airline loyalty program or a customer service forum where participants are rewarded and recognized for their contributions but applied to the workplace .  Although we throw around the gamification terms haphazardly, the reality is that there is a lot that is required to understand how games work and what makes them successful (just ask Bert over at EA).  People go to to school and study game theory, psychology, and game mechanics to understand what drives people to play games and what makes some games so addictive (and fun).  Why do some games succeed while others fail? You can see that there is a lot that goes into understanding gamification which is why it can be a bit frustrating to hear so many people just throw the terms and concepts around.  It seems as though nowadays everyone is a gamification expert.  I studied a bit of this at UCSC (majored in Psychology and Economics) and was always fascinated by the topic.

In all of our excitement around gamification I have yet to hear anyone step back and think about what the negatives or consequences of gamification for the enterprise can be.  When you think about it, gamification is really a feedback mechanism that positively (or negatively) reinforces individuals and groups.  Reinforcement can be a very very powerful thing.  There are four types of reinforcement: positive, negative, punishment, and extinction.

Positive reinforcement examples include rewarding employees for doing something or exhibiting a desired behavior such as sharing information or being active in a community forum.  Other examples include complimenting our peers for good work, praising kids for doing their chores or giving dogs a treat for performing a trick.  You combine a desired behavior with positive feedback to increase that desired behavior.

Negative reinforcement involves strengthening a behavior by removing something negative.  For example lets say we have an employee that is constantly being asked by a manager to show how productive and active they are at work.  The employee joins an internal community and starts helping his coworkers and peers by answering questions or pointing them to resources.  This employee is now able to show his boss what he is doing at work and the boss stops nagging the employee (which makes the employee continue using this internal community platform).

Punishment involves adding something negative to decrease a behavior.  In this situation let’s say we have an employee who is very active in an internal network and always shares his ideas and thoughts with his peers at work.  Soon he notices that people are taking his ideas and implementing them without giving him the proper credit or recognition.  Eventually the employee stops participating and sharing his ideas.

Extinction involves removing something to decrease a behavior.  In this example that “something” can be attention.  For example let’s say you have an employee who is really trying to show off at work by commenting on every internal discussion topic and idea that employees are submitting even if he doesn’t have much to add.  Eventually other employees realize this and start ignoring his comments and contributions in other words removing their attention so that he stops.

These types of reinforcement can have a dramatic impact on organizations and most of the conversations and discussions around gamification today typically reference (although not explicitly) the concept of positive reinforcement.  If you participate you get put on the leader board, you will get status, you will be rewarded, you will get a badge.

What happens if an organization starts to inadvertently reinforce a behavior that is actually negative?  For example an employee that is so determined to get on the leader board that they spend their off hours in addition to work hours trying to participate in a community and eventually get burned out.  Or an employee that starts to feel left out and isolated because they are not as active as their peers or co-workers (perhaps they are an introvert at work).  What if we have employees that spend so much time on these gamified platforms that they start to neglect many of their other tasks which are required to get their jobs done?  These don’t need to be intentions of the organization; these things can happen inadvertently.

Different rewards or types of reinforcement are not the same for everyone so what one employee perceives as being a great type of positive reinforcement might be perceived as being moderate at best by another employee.  I’ve heard of some companies trying to experiment with financial rewards as well and the challenge with anything of this nature is that it is very difficult to scale across a large organization and that eventually the rewards will start to wear off and will need to be increased to maintain their affect (think of someone that drinks a lot, eventually it will take them more drinks to get the same buzz).  Kathy Sierra also made an excellent observation last month when she talked about the problem of rewarding actions and behaviors that should inherently be rewarding in and of themselves.  For example reading a book, collaborating with employees, or helping peers.  We should be doing these things because they are valuable and good things to do not because we are being rewarded to do them.  The issue of short term reward vs long term risk is still something which is being debated.

Since gamification for the enterprise is still relatively new we haven’t seen these negative examples or discussions come up yet but they will.  I’m not saying gamification for the enterprise is good or bad but I do think there are both pros and cons to going down this road and organizations really need to step back and think about these things before they jump onto the gamification bandwagon.  And while we’re at it, it would be interesting to see vendors and enterprises incorporate some of these other reinforcements as well.

There are two things we need to keep in mind, the first is that gamification won’t solve all of your problems at work, if employees don’t like their jobs and the culture at your organization is deteriorating then gamification won’t all of a sudden make your company a fantastic place to work.

The second thing to keep in mind is that gamification on the surface is about making work more fun and enjoyable but the reality is that we are dealing with the behaviors and emotions of our employees and these can both be delicate things, tread carefully.

The Cost of a Disengaged Employee

March 23rd, 2012

I’ve had a lot of interesting discussions lately around employee collaboration and one of the topics I’ve been having conversations around is employee engagement.  Now before I go into more detail I want to stress that engagement in this case doesn’t refer to activity on a platform such as submitting ideas, commenting, sharing status updates or anything else of that nature.  That’s typically something that some vendors in the industry like to focus on but in my opinion it’s wrong.  Activity is not the same thing as engagement.  In this case engagement refers to employees being passionate about the work they do and the feeling of being connected to the company.  So the question becomes, is engagement a fundable business case for employee collaboration? (even though the benefits of employee collaboration extend far beyond just engagement).

It’s a similar discussion we had in the social media space a while ago, why do we want engaged customers?  Well because they stay loyal, refer their friends, can help shape future products, and keep spending.  But what about employees?

Those of you familiar with what is happening with Goldman Sachs these days will recall the recent article published by a former Goldman Sachs employee who resigned from the company in a very public way while detailing some of the poor practices and culture of the firm.  It’s now being estimated that this disengaged employee cost Goldman Sachs over $2 billion.

As I’ve said many times, we have spent so much time talking about the voice of the customer that we forgot about the voice of the employee.  Of course what happened to Goldman is perhaps on the extreme end of the spectrum but it certainly proves to be a valuable example of why engaged employees are so important and what can happen with disengaged employees.  Consider some of the following statistics:

  • The lost productivity of actively disengaged employees costs the US economy $370 BILLION annually. (Gallup)
  • 70% of engaged employees indicate they have a good understanding of how to meet customer needs; only 17% of non-engaged employees say the same. (Wright Management)
  • 78% would recommend their company’s products of services, against 13% of the disengaged. (Gallup)
  • Engaged employees advocate their company or organization – 67% against only 3% of the disengaged. (Gallup)
  • 86% of engaged employees say they very often feel happy at work, as against 11% of the disengaged. 45% of the engaged say they get a great deal of their life happiness from work, against 8% of the disengaged. (Gallup)
  • Higher levels of engagement are strongly related to higher levels of innovation. 59% of engaged employees say that their job brings out their most creative ideas against only 3% of disengaged employees. (Gallup)
  • 18% of dis-engaged employees actually undermine their co-workers’ success. (Gallup)
  • 72% of US workers are not engaged in their work. Defined as essentially sleep walking throughout their day. (Gallup)
  • This is just a small sample of figures, more stats compiled at “The Social Workplace

The same customer revolution that many have touted for the past few years in the social media space is quite applicable to the enterprise as well.  Employees also have a voice and you can be that they are going to use it

So getting back to the question, is engagement a fundable business case for employee collaboration?  I certainly think so.

Collaboration: Let’s Start Focusing on the How-To’s

March 19th, 2012

There are a lot of great and valuable resources that talk about why collaboration is important (customer, partner, and employee) and why it’s valuable to organizations.  While these conversations are still important to have I think we’ve reached a time when we need to start focusing more on the strategic and tactical side of how [...]

I Found a Chief Collaboration Officer and his name is Todd

March 16th, 2012

I think at this point it’s safe to say that I’ve worked with, researched, and communicated with hundreds of companies around how they are leveraging emergent tools and strategies to impact their business.  A few weeks ago I asked if we need a chief collaboration officer which received a lot of attention.  Out of all of these [...]

The Business Value of Social CRM and Common Use Cases

March 15th, 2012

Chess Media Group has teamed up with Avectra to bring a series of educational resources around Social CRM for associations.  We’re really excited to be working with Avectra on this because associations are the original social networking communities; tightly knit groups formed to carry on activities primarily for the benefit of their members.  This educational [...]

What is the Future of Email?

March 13th, 2012

Gartner has an interesting graphic they created which I stumbled upon after reading a CMSWire article.  The image helps explain the email paradox which is email is not the best method for information sharing and distribution yet it’s not going to go away.  The image compares email with social networking and looks at several variables.  The most [...]