Gamification of Labor and the Charge of Exploitation

Abstract

Recently, business organizations have increasingly turned to a novel form of non-monetary incentives—that is, “gamification,” which refers to a motivation technique using video game elements, such as digital points, badges, and friendly competition in non-game contexts like workplaces. The introduction of gamification to the context of human resource management has immediately become embroiled in serious moral debates. Most notable is the accusation that using gamification as a motivation tool, employers exploit workers. This article offers an in-depth analysis of the moral charge of exploitation. This article maintains that there are no clear grounds for believing that gamification of labor is exploitative and that if gamification of labor involves a wrong or vice, it must be something other than exploitation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Game elements include more than the so-called “PBL triad” of points, badges, and leaderboards. Video games also include competition, fun, winning, mastery, accomplishment, a feeling of volition, problem-solving, surprise, rewards, show-offs, likes, dueling, next stage unlocked, karma points, and many more. It is difficult, however, to deny that the PBL triad is the most commonly used game element in the business application of gamification.

  2. 2.

    Not all gamification is used in the context of the workplace. There are other implementations for marketing, non-profit, educational, or public health-related purposes. Since the moral nature of gamification that occurs in a market may be different from that within a firm, and since space is limited, my discussion in this article focuses primarily on ethical issues of gamification that can occur with respect to employees. For a discussion about the ethics of gamification with respect to customers, see Sicart (2014), which critically discusses Nike+.

  3. 3.

    There are important non-normative works on gamification (e.g., Deterding 2014, 2015; Hamari et al. 2014; Mollick and Werbach 2014a, b). This article relies on those descriptive works as background knowledge, but does not directly involve their historical, anthropological, or social scientific issues.

  4. 4.

    D.I.C.E. Summit is an acronym for the Design, Innovative, Communicate, Entertain Summit. It is one of the largest annual meetings for video game developers, held in Las Vegas. More information can be found at http://www.dicesummit.org. Jesse Schell’s talk at 2010 DICE Summit can be found at http://www.ted.com/talks/jesse_schell_when_games_invade_real_life.

  5. 5.

    More detailed information about the conference can be found at http://gamifyforthewin.com.

  6. 6.

    For more statistics, see Werbach’s wrap-up video at https://www.coursera.org/course/gamification.

  7. 7.

    Disneyland introduced a similar type of gamification to laundry staff. The company installed monitors that displayed employees’ names and efficiency rates. The monitors were like leaderboards on which employees could see each other’s scores. One employee criticized this practice as an “electronic whip” (Lopez 2011).

  8. 8.

    One can become an accredited Gamification Designer certified by Gamification Co. by taking courses provided by Engagement Alliance at http://engagementalliance.org/get-certified/get-certified.

  9. 9.

    Of course, one can say that gamification in the Target Checkout Game is voluntary, because the cashiers can always quit the job. But quitting a job to avoid participation in a game seems an unreasonable burden.

  10. 10.

    Some important topics about gamification are beyond the reach of this article. For example, there are debates regarding the definition of gamification. Rather than engaging in the debates, this article will rely upon a standard definition (Deterding et al. 2011a, b), according to which gamification refers to “the use of (rather than the extension) of design (rather than game-based technology or other game-related practices) elements (rather than full-fledged games) characteristics of games (rather than play or playfulness) in non-game contexts (regardless of specific usage intentions, contexts, or media of implementation).” Since well-written works already discuss the details of the definition, I do not explore them here. A more succint scholarly definition of gamification is “the design of services and products with the methods of game design, with the intention of engaging users in ways similar to those games” (Sicart 2014, p. 225). Although the question of what constitutes gamification involves important technical, philosophical, and semantic issues, the primary discussion of this article will be limited to a normative question—namely, whether or not the business practices that are currently classified as gamification sufficiently meet the conditions of the deontically wrongful form of exploitation.

  11. 11.

    Another important Marx commentator, Allen Wood (2004, p. 259), also remarks, “what is wrong with exploitation—why capitalists should not do it, or at least why they should feel guilty about doing it—or why morally motivated social reformers should want to arrange things so that they cannot do it. It is in fact worth noting—and letting sink in, when we read Marx’s writings—that Marx almost never looks at capitalist exploitation from either of these points of view.” In the same vein, Arnerson (1981, pp. 202–203) writes, “The posture he [Marx] adopts is that of the disinterested scientific observer standing among apologists for capital …. Quite obviously exploitation in the Marxian technical sense does not imply exploitation in the ordinary evaluatively charged sense of the term (In this ordinary sense, exploitation involves mistreatment).”

  12. 12.

    Here, I assume that a normative statement cannot be drawn from a set of only descriptive statements (Donaldson 1994). One might disagree with the fact/value distinction, believing like Hilary Putnam (2004) that the term exploitation is a “thick” concept that contains both the normative and the descriptive. But those who agree with Putnam can still accept that Marx’s account of exploitation is not itself clearly normative, because Premise 2 above (what Marx means by the term exploitation) is clearly not thick enough to be evaluative.

  13. 13.

    One might admonish that, descriptively, gamification of labor is not a form of exploitation from the beginning and that it is nonsense to examine a descriptively non-exploitative practice through existing normative accounts of exploitation. I have two responses. First, the debates in gamification communities center around the term “exploitation,” so it is practically useful to engage the debates with the same language, unless the language is seriously misguided. Second, their choice of the term is not seriously misguided. Wood (2004, p. 246) descriptively defines “[e]xploitation of a person, or a person’s labor” as “our use of the person, or their labor, which has been made possible for us by some way in which they are vulnerable to us.” Contemporary workers like the employees in Checkout* face a certain condition that can make them vulnerable to employers who have the power and resources to implement gamified elements. Then, in what sense are workers still vulnerable to employers? Many employees do not find their work meaningful and fun, are not satisfied with their jobs, and experience stress, boredom, etc. Employers can take advantage of this dissatisfaction. In fact, most advocates of gamification of labor begin their lectures or books by emphasizing how stressful, unsatisfactory, not fun, boring, and meaningless most workplaces are. It is no surprise that most working conditions that employers want to gamify—for instance, that of the Target cashiers—are boring, monotonous, and potentially meaningless. It strikes me as plausible to say that this is precisely the sort of vulnerability that companies can take advantage of or leverage through gamification. But, of course, a descriptively exploitative work is not necessarily normatively exploitative. Therefore, we need to examine Checkout* with normative accounts.

  14. 14.

    Wertheimer (1996, p. 231) himself acknowledges that an application of his view would be not straightforward to cases like “the hypothetical market price for an autographed first edition of A Theory of Justice.”

  15. 15.

    A similar rights-violation based account is found in Hillel Steiner’s (1984) liberal theory of exploitation. Steiner’s account states that a transaction between A and B is exploitative if any historically previous transactions that led A or B to the current transaction involved a rights violation with C. Zwolinski’s account differs from Steiner’s historical account, because for Zwolinski, exploitation itself is addressed by rights violation, whereas for Steiner, exploitation is a result of a previous rights violation. Since we are concerned mainly about whether the employment that uses gamification itself is wrongful or not, in this article, I do not discuss Steiner’s account.

  16. 16.

    Wertheimer also makes a similar distinction between wrongful exploitation and a permissible form of exploitation. See Wertheimer (2011, Ch. 5).

  17. 17.

    Underlying Zwolinski’s argument is Wertheimer’s (1996) “non-worseness principle,” which holds that “in cases where A has a right not to transact with B, and where transacting with B is not worse for B than not transacting with B at all, then it cannot be seriously wrong for A to engage in this transaction, even if its terms are judged to be unfair by some external standard” (Zwolinski 2008, p. 357). For-profit companies like Microsoft in the Language Quality Game obviously have a right not to provide gamification for employees, and providing the testing workers with an option of gamification is not worse for employees than not providing it, as I discussed earlier. Therefore, it cannot be seriously wrong for the company and the testing workers to agree upon a labor transaction that involves gamification.

  18. 18.

    A distinction is often made between moral autonomy and personal autonomy. For instance, Joseph Raz (1986, p. 371) says that “[p]ersonal autonomy” is “a particular ideal of individual well-being” and it “should not be confused with the only very indirectly related notion of moral autonomy” which he believes “originates with the Kantian idea that morality consists of self-enacted principles.” For a review about different accounts of personal autonomy, see Buss (2013).

  19. 19.

    For more information about Target Cashier job descriptions, see http://www.job-applications.com/target-cashier/.

  20. 20.

    For a comprehensive analysis of the existing literature about exploitation, see Ferguson (2013) and Wertheimer and Zwolinski (2012).

References

  1. Arnerson, R. J. (1981). What’s wrong with exploitation? Ethics, 91, 202–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Arnold, D. G. (2003). “Exploitation” and “the sweatshop quandary”: Exploitation by Alan Wertheimer; The Sweatshop quandary: Corporate responsibility on the global frontier by Pamela Varley. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13, 243–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Arnold, D. G. (2010). Working conditions: Safety and sweatshops. In G. G. Brenkert & T. L. Beauchamp (Eds.), The oxford handbook of business ethics. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Arnold, D. G., & Bowie, N. E. (2003). Sweatshops and respect for persons. Business Ethics Quarerly, 13, 221–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Arnold, D. G., & Bowie, N. E. (2007). Respect for workers in global supply chains: Advancing the debate over sweatshops. Business Ethics Quarterly, 17, 135–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bogost, I. (2011a). Persuasive games: Exploitaionware. Retrieved from Gamasutra: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/6366/persuasive_games_exploitationware.php.

  7. Bogost, I. (2011b). Gamification is bullshit. Retrieved from The Atlantic: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/08/gamification-is-bullshit/243338/.

  8. Bogost, I. (2014). Why gamification is bullshit. In S. P. Walz & S. Deterding (Eds.), The gameful world: Approaches, issues, and applications. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Brenkert, G. G. (1983). Marx’s ethics of freedom. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Brousell, L. (2015). How DirectTV used gamification to overcome the fear of failure. Retrieved from CIO: http://www.cio.com/article/2872110/gamification/how-directv-used-gamification-to-overcome-the-fear-of-failure.html.

  11. Buss, S. (2013). Personal autonomy. Retrieved from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/personal-autonomy/.

  12. Carse, J. (1986). Finite and infinite games: A vision of life as play and possibility. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Cohen, G. A. (1979). The labor theory of value and the concept of exploitation. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 8, 338–360.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Cohen, G. A. (2008). More on exploitation and the labour theory of value. Inquiry, 26, 309–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Connolly, T. M., Boyle, E. A., MacArthur, E., Hainey, T., & Boyle, J. M. (2012). A systematic literature review of empirical evidence on computer games and serious games. Computers & Education, 59, 661–686.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Deardorff, N. (2015). Future of EdTech 101: Automation, curation and gamification. Retrieved from Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/berlinschoolofcreativeleadership/2015/01/16/future-of-edtech-101-automation-curation-and-gamification/.

  17. Deloitte. (2012). Deloitte review. Deloitte.

  18. Deloitte. (2013). Tech trends 2013: Elements of postdigital. Deloitte.

  19. Deterding, S. (2014). The ambiguity of games: Histories and discourses of a gameful world. In S. P. Walz & S. Deterding (Eds.), The gameful world: Approaches, issues and applications. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Deterding, S. (2015). The lens of intrinsic skill stoms: A method for gameful design. Human-Computer Interaction, 30, 294–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. E. (2011a). From game design elements to gamefulness: Defining “gamification.” In MindTrek ‘11 Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments. New York: ACM.

  22. Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. E. (2011b). Gamification: Toward a definition. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI. Vancouver: ACM.

  23. Donaldson, T. (1994). When integration fails: The logic of prescription and description in business ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4, 157–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Duggan, K., & Shoup, K. (2013). Business gamification for dummies. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Edery, D., & Mollick, E. R. (2009). Changing the game: How video games are transforming the future of business. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Elster, J. (1986). Karl Marx: A reader. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Ferguson, C. J. (2007). The good, the bad, and the ugly: A meta-analytic review of positive and negative effects of violent video games. Psychiatry, 78, 309–316.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Ferguson, B. (2013). The paradox of exploitation: A new solution. London: London School of Economics PhD Dissertation.

  29. Fleming, N. (2012). Gamification: Is it game over? Retrieved from BBC Future.

  30. Goodin, R. (1986). Protecting the vulnerable: A re-analysis of our social responsiblities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Goodin, R. (1988). Reasons for welfare: Economic, sociological, and political-but ultimately moral. In J. Moon (Ed.), Responsibility, rights & welfare: The theory of welfare state. Boulder: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Grant, R. W. (2002). The ethics of incentives: Historical origins and contemporary understandings. Economics & Philosophy, 18, 111–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Grant, R. W. (2012). Strings attached: Untangling the ethics of incentives. Peinceton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Greenwald, M. (2014). Gamification in everything: The range and when and why it’s so effective. Retrieved from Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/michellegreenwald/2014/09/15/gamification-in-everything-the-range-and-when-and-why-its-so-effective/.

  35. Greenwood, M. R. (2002). Ethics and HRM: A review and conceptual analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 36, 261–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Greenwood, M. R. (2013). Ethical analysis of HRM: A review and research agenda. Journal of Business Ethics, 114, 355–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Guyer, P. (2006). Kant. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Hamari, J., Koivisto, J. & Sarsa, H. (2014). Does gamification work? A literature review of empirical studies on gamification. In Proceddings of the 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Science.

  39. Herger, M. (2014). Enterprise gamification: Engaging people by letting them have fun. EGC Media.

  40. Hill, T. E., Jr. (1973). Servility and self-respect. Monist, 57, 87–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Hill, T. E., Jr. (2000). Respect, pluralism and justice. New York: Oxford University.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Kant, I. (1990). Foundations of the metaphysics of morals. (L. W. Beck, Trans.). New York: Macmillan.

  43. Kim, T. W. (2015). Gamification ethics: Exploitation and manipulation. In Proceedings of ACM SIGCHI Gamifying Research Workshop.

  44. Kim, T. W., & Werbach, K. (2016). More than just a game: Ethical issues in gamification. Ethics and Information Technology, 18(2), 157–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Knowledge@Wharton. (2011a). Can gamification advance to the next level? Retrieved from Knowledge@Wharton: http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/can-gamification-advance-to-the-next-level-2/.

  46. Knowledge@Wharton. (2011b). The dangerous side of online gaming. Retrieved from Knowledge@Wharton: http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/the-dangerous-side-of-online-gaming/.

  47. Korsgaard, C. M. (1996). The sources of normativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Korsgaard, C. M. (2009). Self-constitution: Agency, identity, and integrity. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Kramer, M., Simmonds, N. E., & Steiner, H. (2000). A debate over rights: Philosophical enquiries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Kücklich, J. (2005). Precarious playbour: Modders and the digital games industry. The Fibreculture Journal, 5.

  51. Latham, G. P. (2005). Work motivation theory and research at the dawn of the twenty-first century. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 485–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Latham, G. P. (2012). Work motivation: History, theory, research and practice (2th ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

  53. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). Work motivation and satisfaction: Light at the end of the tunnel. Psychological Science, 1, 240–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Lopez, S. (2011). Disneyland workers answer to ‘electronic whip.’ Retrieved from Los Angeles Times: http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/19/local/la-me-1019-lopez-disney-20111018.

  55. Marx, K. (1867/1976). Capital (Vol. 1). (B. Fowkes, Trans.). New York: Penguin.

  56. Megget, K. (2014). SMARTECH: Gamification is no longer child’s play Retrieved from PharmaTimes: http://www.pharmatimes.com/Article/14-09-11/SMARTTECH_Gamification_is_no_longer_child_s_play.aspx.

  57. Merrett, R. (2014). Macquarie university takes gamification to new level. Retrieved from CIO: http://www.cio.com.au/article/556253/macquarie-university-takes-gamification-new-level/.

  58. Mollick, E. R., & Rothbard, N. (2014). Mandatory fun: Consent, gamification and the impact of games at work. The Wharton School Research Paper Series.

  59. Mollick, E., & Werbach, K. (2014a). Gamification and the enterprise. In S. P. Walz & S. Deterding (Eds.), The gameful world: Approaches, issues and applications. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Mollick, E., & Werbach, K. (2014b). Gamification and the enterprise. In S. P. Walz & S. Deterding (Eds.), The gameful world: Approaches, issues and applications. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  61. O’Neil, O. (2002). Autonomy and trust in bioethics. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Plummer, D. C., Bona, A., Steenstrup, K., Marriott, I., Casonato, R., Lapkin, A., et al. (2013). Gartner’s top predictions for IT organizations and users, 2013 and beyond: Balancing economics, risk, opportunity and innovation. Gartner.

  63. Powell, B., & Zwolinski, M. (2012). The ethical and economic case against sweatshop labor: A critical assessment. Journal of Business Ethics, 107, 449–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Putnam, H. (2004). The Collapse of the fact/value dichotomy and other essays. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  65. PWC. (2012). Technologyforecast. PWC.

  66. Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Raz, J. (1986). The morality of freedom. Oxford: Clarendon.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Rey, P. J. (2012). Gamification, playbor & exploitation. Retrieved from The Society Pages: http://thesocietypages.org/cyborgology/2012/10/15/gamification-playbor-exploitation-2/.

  69. Rey, P. J. (2014). Gamification and post-fordist capitalism. In S. P. Walz & S. Deterding (Eds.), The gameful world: Approaches, issues, and applications. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Robertson, M. (2010). Can’t play, won’t play. Retrived from Hide&Seek: http://hideandseek.net/2010/10/06/cant-play-wont-play/.

  71. Roemer, J. E. (1985). Should marxists be interested in exploitaton? Philosophy & Public Affairs, 14, 30–65.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Sample, R. (2003). Exploitation: What it is and why it’s wrong. Lanham, ML: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Selinger, E., Sadowski, J., & Seager, T. (2014). Gamification and morality. In S. P. Walz & S. Deterding (Eds.), The gameful world: Approaches, issues, and applications. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Sicart, M. (2013). The ethics of computer games. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Sicart, M. (2014). Playing the good life: Gamification and ethics. In S. P. Walz & S. Deterding (Eds.), The gameful world: Approaches, issues, and applications. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Snyder, J. (2009a). Efficiency, equity, and price gouging. Business Ethics Quarterly, 19, 303–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Snyder, J. (2009b). What’s the matter with price gouging? Business Ethics Quarterly, 19, 275–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Snyder, J. (2010). Exploitation and sweatshop: Perspectives and issues. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20, 187–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Snyder, J. (2013). Exploitation and Demeaning Choices. Politics, Philosophy & Economics, 12, 345–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Steers, R. M., & Shapiro, D. A. (2004). The future of work motivation theory. The Academy of Management Review, 29, 379–387.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Steiner, H. (1984). A liberal theory of exploitation. Ethics, 94, 225–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Valdman, M. (2009). A theory of wrongful exploitation. Philosopher's Imprint, 9(6), 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Walz, S. P., & Deterding, S. (2014). The gameful world: Approaches, issues, and applications. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Werbach, K. (2014a). Gamification. Retrieved from Coursera: https://class.coursera.org/gamification-003/lecture/preview.

  85. Werbach, K. (2014b). ( Re)defining gamification: A process approach. Persuasive Technology: Lecure Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 8462, pp. 266–272).

  86. Werbach, K., & Hunter, D. (2012). For the win: How game thinking can revolutionize your business. Philadelphia: Wharton Digital Press.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Wertheimer, A. (1992). Unconscionability and contracts. Business Ethics Quarerly, 2, 479–496.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Wertheimer, A. (1996). Exploitation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Wertheimer, A. (2011). Rethinking the ethics of clinical research: Widening the lens. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Wertheimer, A., & Zwolinski, M. (2012). Exploitation. In: E. N. Zalta, (Eds.), Retrieved from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/exploitation/.

  91. Wolff, J. (1999). Marx and exploitation. The Journal of Ethics, 3, 105–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Wood, A. (1999). Kant’s ethical thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Wood, A. (2004). Karl Marx (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Wood, A. (2011). Humanity as end in itself. In D. Parfit & S. Scheffler (Eds.), On what matters (Vol. Two). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Zicherman, G., & Linder, J. (2013). The gamification revolution: How leaders ieverage game mechanics to crush the competition. Rockefeller: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  96. Zichermann, G. (2012). The coe of gamification ethics. Retrieved from GCO: Gamification corp. http://www.gamification.co/2012/12/10/code-of-gamification-ethics/.

  97. Zwolinski, M. (2007). Sweatshops, choice, and exploitation. Business Ethics Quarterly, 17, 689–727.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Zwolinski, M. (2008). What’s the matter with price gouging? Business Ethics Quarterly, 18, 347–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Zwolinski, M. (2009). Price gouging, non-worseness, and distributive justice. Business Ethics Quarterly, 19, 295–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Zwolinski, M. (2012). Structural exploitation. Social Philosophy and Policy, 29, 154–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tae Wan Kim.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kim, T.W. Gamification of Labor and the Charge of Exploitation. J Bus Ethics 152, 27–39 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3304-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Gamification of labor
  • Gamification ethics
  • Labor relations
  • The ethics of human resource management
  • Incentives
  • Motivation
  • Exploitation