Abstract
This chapter studies the effect of group commitment on open strategizing in gamified organizing. Based on a 39-month ethnographic field study of five Massive Multiplayer Online Game (MMO) raid organizations, we argue that both strategy formation and implementation are shaped by the collective commitment of organizational sub-groups. Building on Tuomela’s theory of social practice we argue this collective commitment is either a we-mode, a pro-group mode or an I-mode commitment. When one of these is dominant, it guides how an organization’s ethos is enacted. Strategy in such organization is formatted by entering action proposals onto a public bulletin board. Groups then evaluate the proposals and possibly commit to implement them under the guidance and constraints of the organizational ethos. Each action on the organization’s bulletin board, such as the choice of which game content to tackle next, is one step in a chain of decisions that makes up the organization’s life. What is central is that the collective commitment and organizational ethos empower and constrain both open strategy formation and implementation in distinct ways. Our findings have wider implications for understanding the relationship between open strategizing and sustainability in gamified organizing.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Alvesson, M., & Kärreman, D. (2004). Interfaces of control. Technocratic and socio-ideological control in a global management consultancy firm. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 29(3–4), 423–444.
Boellstorff, T., Nardi, B., Pearce, C., & Taylor, T. L. (2012). Ethnography and virtual worlds: A handbook of method. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Castelló, I., Etter, M., & Årup Nielsen, F. (2016). Strategies of Legitimacy Through Social Media: The Networked Strategy. Journal of Management Studies, 53(3), 402–432. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12145
Castelló, I., Morsing, M., & Schultz, F. (2013). Communicative Dynamics and the Polyphony of Corporate Social Responsibility in the Network Society. Journal of Business Ethics, 118(4), 683–694. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1954-1
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc.
De Matos, J. A., & Clegg, S. R. (2013). Sustainability and organizational change. Journal of Change Management, 13(4), 382–386.
Deterding, S. (2014). The ambiguity of games: Histories and discourses of a gameful world. In S. Waltz & S. Deterding (Eds.), The gameful world: Approaches, issues, applications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Deterding, S. (2015). The lens of intrinsic skill atoms: A method for gameful design. Human–Computer Interaction, 30(3-4), 294–335.
Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). From game design elements to gamefulness: Defining “gamification”. In Proceedings of the 15th international academic MindTrek conference: Envisioning future media environments (pp. 9-15).
Dobusch, L., Dobusch, L., & Müller-Seitz, G. (2019). Closing for the benefit of openness? The case of Wikimedia’s open strategy process. Organization Studies, 40(3), 343–370.
Evered, R., & Louis, M. R. (1981). Alternative perspectives in organizational sciences: “Inquiry from the inside” and “Inquiry from the outside”. Academy of Management Review, 6(3), 385–395.
Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (2007). Ethnography: Principles in practice (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Hautz, J., Seidl, D., & Whittington, R. (2017). Open strategy: Dimensions, dilemmas, dynamics. Long Range Planning, 50(3), 298–309.
Huotari, K., & Hamari, J. (2012). Defining gamification: a service marketing perspective. In Proceeding of the 16th international academic MindTrek conference (pp. 17-22).
Iedema, R. (2003). Discourses of post-bureaucratic organization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. ProQuest Ebook Central.
Kalberg, S. (1980). Max Weber’s types of rationality: Cornerstones for the analysis of rationalization processes in history. American Journal of Sociology, 85(5), 1145–1179.
Kärreman, D., & Alvesson, M. (2004). Cages in Tandem: Management control, social identity, and identification in a knowledge-intensive firm. Organization, 11(1), 149–175.
Lusiani, M., & Langley, A. (2013). Professionals as Strategists? In Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 2013, No. 1, p. 15426). Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510: Academy of Management.
Maravelias, C. (2003). Post-bureaucracy – Control through professional freedom. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 16(5), 547–566.
Meijer, A. J. (2008). E-mail in government: Not post-bureaucratic but late-bureaucratic organizations. Government Information Quarterly, 25, 429–447.
Michel, A., Todnem By, R., & Burnes, B. (2013). The limitations of dispositional resistance in relation to organizational change. Management Decision, 51(4), 761–780.
Nardi, B. (2010). My life as a night elf priest: An anthropological account of World of Warcraft. Michigan: University of Michigan Press.
Stead, J. G., & Stead, W. E. (2014). Sustainable strategic management. New York, NY: Routledge.
Sydow, J., & Helfen, M. (2020). Work and employment in fluid organizational forms. In B. Hoffman, M. Shoss, & L. Wegman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of the changing nature of work (Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology) (pp. 214–236). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Thakhathi, A., le Roux, C., & Davis, A. (2019). Sustainability leaders’ influencing strategies for institutionalising organisational change towards corporate sustainability: A strategy-as-practice perspective. Journal of Change Management, 19(4), 246–265.
Tkacz, N. (2012). From open source to open government. Ephemera, 12(4), 386–405.
Tuomela, R. (2002). The philosophy of social practices: A collective acceptance view. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tuomela, R. (2005). We-intentions revisited. Philosophical Studies, 125(3), 327–369.
Tuomela, R. (2007). The philosophy of sociality: The shared point of view. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Van Maanen, J. (1979). The Fact of Fiction in Organizational Ethnography. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), 539–550.
Vesa, M., Hamari, J., Harviainen, J. T., & Warmelink, H. (2017). Computer games and organization studies. Organization Studies, 38(2), 273–284.
Vesa, Mikko, & J. Tuomas Harviainen. (2019). Gamification: Concepts, Consequences, and Critiques. 128–130.
Whittington, R., Cailluet, L., & Yakis-Douglas, B. (2011). Opening strategy: Evolution of a precarious profession. British Journal of Management, 22(3), 531–544.
Whelan, G., Moon, J., & Grant, B. (2013). Corporations and Citizenship Arenas in the Age of Social Media. Journal of Business Ethics, 118(4), 777–790. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1960-3
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Vesa, M., Krohn, M. (2021). Open Strategizing and Gamified Organizing: A Bulletin Board View. In: Spanellis, A., Harviainen, J.T. (eds) Transforming Society and Organizations through Gamification. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-68207-1_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-68207-1_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-68206-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-68207-1
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementBusiness and Management (R0)