Skip to main content

Designing Gamification to Guide Competitive and Cooperative Behavior in Teamwork

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Gamification in Education and Business

Abstract

Teamwork and team performance are increasingly important in business organizations. New types of teams are invented to increase effectiveness at work. Ideally a team works towards the optimal outcome, which is achieved when the individual goal of each team member effectively contributes to the collective team goal. However, in practice, individual concerns may lead to sub-optimal teamwork outcomes due to conflicts and group dynamics (e.g., because of hidden agendas). These individual concerns and the resulting behavior tend to be implicit, resulting in a chaotic process and sub-optimal outcomes. In order to deliver optimal outcomes the collaboration between team members needs to be improved. Structuring the process and aligning individual goals with collective goals through gamification may achieve this. In this chapter a framework for gamification of teamwork is introduced and illustrated by real-life cases from industry.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 219.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 279.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 279.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adachi, P. J. C., & Willoughby, T. (2011). The effect of video game competition and violence on aggressive behavior: Which characteristic has the greatest influence? Psychology of Violence, 1(4), 259–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bogost, I. (2007). Persuasive games: The expressive power of videogames. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caillois, R. (1961). Man, play, and games. University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carey, B. (2013) Stanford experiment shows that virtual superpowers encourage real-world empathy. Standford report. Retrieved February 22, 2013 from http://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/january/virtual-reality-altruism-013013.html

  • Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23(3), 239–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Dreu, C. K. W. (2006). When too little or too much hurts: Evidence for a curvilinear relationship between task conflict and innovation in teams. Journal of Management, 32(1), 83–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deterding, S. (2013). Skill atoms as design lenses for user-centered gameful design. CHI’13. Paris, France: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). From game design elements to gamefulness: Defining “gamification. MindTrek’11. Tampere, Finland: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch, M. (2006). Cooperation and competition. In M. Deutsch & P. T. Coleman (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwoldsen, D. R., Eno, C. A., Okdie, B. M., Velez, J. A., Guadagno, R. E., & DeCoster, J. (2012). Effect of playing violent video games cooperatively or competitively on subsequent cooperative behavior. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 15(5), 277–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gajadhar, B. J., de Kort, Y. A. W., & Ijselsteijn, W. A. (2008). Shared fun is doubled fun: Player enjoyment as a function of social setting. Fun and Games.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hackman, R. J. (1969). Toward understanding the role of tasks in behavioral research. Acta Psychologica, 31, 97–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hackman, R. J. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamari, J. (2013). Transforming homo economicus into homo ludens: A field experiment on gamification in a utilitarian peer-to-peer trading service. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 12, 236–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunicke, R., LeBlanc, M., & Zubek, R. (2004) MDA: A formal approach to game design and game research. Proceeding of the AAAI Workshop on Challenges in Game. San Jose, CA: AAAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huotari, K., & Hamari, J. (2012). Defining gamification—A service marketing perspective. MindTrek 2012. Tampere, Finland: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 256–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2006). New developments in social interdependence theory. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 131(4), 285–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kort de, Y. A. W., Ijsselsteijn, W. A., & Poels, K. (2007). Digital games a social presence technology: Development of the social presence in gaming questionnaire (SPGQ). Proceedings of Presence 2007, Barcelona.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kozlowski, W. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7(3), 77–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGonigal, J. (2011). Reality is broken. London: Jonathan Cape.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, T. R., & Daniels, D. (2003). Motivation. In W. Borman, D. Ilgen, & R. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mollick, E. R., & Rothbard, N. (2013). Mandatory fun: Gamification and the impact of games at work. The Wharton School research paper series.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicholson, S. (2012). A user-centered theoretical framework for meaningful gamification. Games + Learning + Society 8.0, Madison.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rahim, M. A. (2002). Toward a theory of managing organizational conflict. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 13(3), 206–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reeves, B., & Read, J. L. (2009). Total engagement: Using games and virtual worlds to change the way people work and businesses compete. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rozendaal, M. C., Braat, B. A. L., & Wensveen, S. A. G. (2010). Exploring sociality and engagement in play through game-control distribution. AI & Society, 25(2), 193–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salas, E., Cooke, N. J., & Rosen, M. A. (2008). On teams, teamwork, and team performance: Discoveries and developments. Human Factors, 50(3), 540–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2004). Rules of play: Game design fundamentals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2005). The game design reader: A rules of play anthology. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schell, J. (2008). The art of game design: A book of lenses. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmierbach, M. (2010). “Killing spree”: Exploring the connection between competitive game play and aggressive cognition. Communication Research, 37(2), 256–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Signature Games. (2009). ‘TeamUp’, TU Delft signature games. Retrieved October 17, 2013, from http://signaturegames.nl/gamelab/game/teamup/

  • van de Vliert, E., & de Dreu, C. K. W. (1994). Optimizing performance by conflict stimulation. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 5(3), 211–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van den Bossche, P., Gijselaers, W. H., Segers, M., & Kirschner, P. A. (2006). Social and cognitive factors driving teamwork in collaborative learning environments. Small Group Research, 37(5), 490–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Visch, V., Vegt, N. J. H., Anderiesen, H., & van der Kooij, K. (2013). Persuasive game design: A model and it definitions. CHI 2013 Workshop Designing Gamification. Paris: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wageman, R. (1995). Interdependence and group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 145–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weibel, D., Wissmath, B., Habegger, S., Steiner, Y., & Groner, R. (2007). Playing online games against computer- vs. human-controlled opponents: Effects on presence, flow, and enjoyment. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 2274–2291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winn, B. M. (2009). The design, play, and experience framework. In R. E. Ferdig (Ed.), Handbook of research on effective electronic gaming in education. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winters, D., & Latham, G. (1996). The effects of learning versus outcome goals on a simple versus a complex task. Group and Organization Management, 21, 236–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zadro, L., Williams, K. D., & Richardson, R. (2004). How low can you go? Ostracism by a computer is sufficient to lower self-reported levels of belonging, control, self-esteem, and meaningful existence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 560–567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Ludwig Hoeksema and Tim Krechting from Berenschot for providing us the Red team case and critically reviewing this chapter. We thank Michael Bas and Dennis Haak from RANJ serious games for sharing their expertise with us, and Linda van Veen and Bas van Nuland from TU Delft Signature Games for providing extensive information about the game TeamUp. This research is funded within the Creative Industry Scientific Program (CRISP). CRISP is supported by the Dutch Ministry of Education.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Niko Vegt .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Vegt, N., Visch, V., de Ridder, H., Vermeeren, A. (2015). Designing Gamification to Guide Competitive and Cooperative Behavior in Teamwork. In: Reiners, T., Wood, L. (eds) Gamification in Education and Business. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10208-5_26

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics