Skip to main content
NCBI home page
F1000Research logoLink to F1000Research
. 2023 Oct 18;12:818. Originally published 2023 Jul 12. [Version 2] doi: 10.12688/f1000research.131579.2

Game on: Can gamification enhance productivity?

Habeeb Ur Rahiman 1,a, Rashmi Kodikal 2, Sucharitha Suresh 3
PMCID: PMC10905147  PMID: 38434668

Version Changes

Revised. Amendments from Version 1

Section Enhancement: We have diligently implemented the changes recommended for the specified section, ensuring that reviewer valuable suggestions have been incorporated effectively. Proofreading and Quality Assurance: In response to reviewer suggestions, we conducted a thorough proofreading of our work, addressing any grammatical and language-related concerns to ensure the utmost clarity and readability. Literature Review: While the journal requested a title labeled as "Background," we have adjusted it to align with reviewer preference, now designating it as "Literature Review" to accurately represent its content and purpose. Methodology Refinement: Following reviewer guidance, we have made the necessary revisions in the methodology section. Specifically, we have provided a detailed breakdown of the sample respondents, highlighting the distribution by country for enhanced clarity and transparency. Discussion Restructuring: We have undertaken a comprehensive restructuring of the discussion section, addressing instances where references were missing and ensuring that all relevant points are now properly cited. Additionally, we have enriched the section by incorporating a more extensive set of references to further elucidate our results. We sincerely hope that these adjustments meet reviewer expectations and align with the standards expected for publication.

Abstract

Background: Research suggests that gamification can increase work engagement by providing employees with a sense of autonomy, competence, and relatedness, and by creating a fun and engaging work environment. Gamification is designed to increase consumer and employee engagement and see that they holistically collaborate to achieve a shared vision. The concept of gamification is as old as learning itself, just that the use of the terminology “Gamification” is of a recent origin.

Methods: This article focuses on the impact of gamification in various organizations and simultaneously sees its relationship with job engagement and productivity. A primary investigation was done to determine the nexus between the various variables and data collection from 400 respondents working in various fraternities of the economy from both public and private domains from countries in the Gulf region. The structural equation model and SPSS has been inferred to analyse the results.

Results: The study results show that variable such as perceived adoption and usefulness in the gamified system is significantly associated with job engagement. Similarly, employee’s recognition and perceived motivation have a positive impact on productivity. The study identified job engagement mediating factor to enhance organisational productivity in a gamified system.

Conclusion: The effectiveness of gamification in enhancing work engagement may depend on factors such as the design of the gamification system, the preferences and motivations of individual employees, and the organizational culture and goals. The findings have significant implications for insight into how employees in the service sector are aware of the gamified working environment and react to the system through work engagement and productivity.

Keywords: Gamification, motivation, adoption, usefulness, productivity, Job Engagement

Introduction

The precipitously changing workforce dynamics paired with digitization and switching work preferences compel the constant evolvement of practices and procedures ( Ashley et al., 2022). In an era of high-speed digitalized technology and a multi-generational capacity team, the scenario has resulted in a struggle for the smarted of the people ( Palmquist, 2020). The critical need for firms to entice talent becomes a fascinating case to embrace innovative operational and recruitment methods, such as gamification ( Morschheuser et al., 2018). Gamification can increase employee engagement by incorporating game-like elements into non-game contexts such as work, to create a more interactive and engaging experience ( Kapp, 2012). By using features such as points, badges, and leader boards, gamification can provide employees with a sense of accomplishment, feedback, and recognition for their work, which can increase their motivation and engagement. The concept of gamification is as old as learning itself, just that the use of the terminology “Gamification” is of a recent origin ( Prince, 2013). To make learning and work interesting, use of non-computer-aided techniques has been seen for centuries. However, in the early 1970s and 80s with video games becoming popular, the gamification concept got coined a new label. The term gamification is the most trending and widely applied concept in a non-game context ( Buckley et al., 2019). Globally, approximately 40% of the fortune 1000 companies successfully applied gamification in the workplace ( Keepers et al., 2022). This progress makes gamification one of the highly important innovative developments in the administration of organizations ( Grünewald et al., 2019; Thompson & Irvine, 2014). Technical progress has led to numerous alterations in areas of human resources management (HRM) to connect with the needs of globalization ( Woodcock & Johnson, 2018). The acceleration of artificial intelligence, the internet of thinking and machine learning, And other advancements in the field of technology. have bought revolutionary changes in industrial routine operations ( Dessureault, 2019; Jia et al., 2017). This digital enhancement affects various stages of organizations, and it needs to adapt to advancements as new methods of working. Human resource (HR) and people management in organizations demand this technology adoption in various modes which has influenced HR operations ( Medeiros et al., 2015). In recent years, several methods have been created to encourage and help the workforce accomplish desired behaviors. Since a human being has an instinctive pleasure of playing, progress in this space that is gradually obtaining consideration is gamification ( Warmelink et al., 2020).

Gamification is applied in several organizational disciplines from manufacturing, operations, and recruitment, staff development activities ( Deif, 2019). Artificial intelligence, machine learning, and the internet of thinking are mostly adopted by organizational routine operations. There is a strong correlation between artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning (ML), and internet of things (IoT) with gamification with various tools which helps to enhance better performance ( Bahadoran et al., 2023; Jacob et al., 2022). Currently, companies are developing frameworks and tools considering AI technology as a form of the game to identify candidate skills and also utilize gamification to avoid recruitment bias. Human resource specialists had reacted to global digitalized transformation all through advanced platform methods known as gamification ( Ramallo-González et al., 2022). Gamification can be started by shifting organization strategy and facilitating the organization in several areas such as operation, recruiting training, and development. Notable organizations like European Central Bank ( Donovan, 2011), SAP ( Kotsis et al., 2021), Samsung ( West & Lockley, 2016), and Apple ( Favorskaya et al., 2015), have applied gamification in their organizational activities and practices. In the human resource system, gamification comprises incorporating gaming elements and motivating techniques for example through leader boards, and points, into HR practices to design routine tasks and procedures that are identified by operators as game-like practices ( Scurati et al., 2020). In addition to companies promoting the enactment of gamification for their workplaces to improve efficiency, productivity, and enthusiasm, some companies also use it for pre-emptive purposes, such as a vendor or competitive analysis) ( Schlömmer et al., 2021). The outcomes of gamification in companies eventually depend on whether the workforce is encouraged to apply it, and whether gamification improves their optimistic opinions related to their employment ( Metwally et al., 2021). If the workforce feels more pride, gratification, and engagement in their task as a cause of gamification, that will reflect in organizational productivity ( Guven & Sakamoto, 2016; Kaur et al., 2021). With the growth of the E-Human resource management system, the digital revolution has transformed the traditional business process by applying game-thinking in the organizational work process ( Behl, Sampat, et al., 2021). To meet organizational goals, one needs to have strong gamification functions that will be utilized during the employment practice and create an advantage for the company and workforce ( Zhang et al., 2021).

Our research instrument was used to understand how industrialists and professionals in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) perceive the concept and practice of gamification. Therefore, our research was taken up to examine how perceived usefulness and perceived adoption of gamification in HRM systems impact the job engagement and productivity of the organization. The primary objective of this research is to identify the role of perceived usefulness, motivation, adoption, and recognition in the organization while adopting gamified tasks in an HR system.

In the first section of the manuscript, the paper reviewed flow theory and gamification, and the components and mechanisms of gamification that exist in this domain. The methodology has been explained in the second section, followed by results, and a discussion was presented. The paper ends with a conclusion and suitable theoretical implications and direction for limitations and future research.

Literature review and background

Numerous studies conducted by researchers globally have discussed that the digital revolution appears to have a significant relationship between efficiency, motivation, work engagement, and productivity. From the review of previously published literature, we can infer the impact gamification will have on organizational operations in various areas.

Flow theory and gamification

Gamification is a mechanism or element of the game to make available affordance for game events in non-game environments ( Brandstätter & Sommerer, 2016; Müller et al., 2016). It is difficult to claim when the idea of gamification surfaced. Several individuals opined that gamification drew its origins in the 20 th century when the boy scouts organization was established ( Gatautis et al., 2021). Since then, gamification has remained trail blazing in web-related fields and elsewhere. Organizations use gamification to maintain workforce engagement ( Prasad et al., 2019), incentivize users ( Naeem et al., 2017), recruit, lead, and enhance productivity ( Silic & Back, 2017). Flow theory suggests that individuals experience a state of optimal experience and engagement when they are fully immersed and focused on an activity that is challenging but within their skill level. Gamification can be designed to enhance the experience of flow by providing users with clear goals, immediate feedback, and a sense of progress and accomplishment ( Hammedi et al., 2021; Murray, 2018). Gamification has in recent times been offered as a favorable prospect to enhance human resource management (HRM) systems and instruments. The purpose of game design components, such as badges ( Lee et al., 2016), leader boards, and points have become a recognized exercise all over society ( Donnermann et al., 2021). Integration of corporate environmental responsibility and pro-environmental action into the gamified system or game design is an essential element of the gamification approach ( Morganti et al., 2017). To enhance environmental performance, it is important to encourage pro-environmental and pro-social behaviour ( Marculescu et al., 2020). Therefore, incorporating pro-social aspects in the gamification process by focusing on the benefits of the elements of the gamified system can increase the likelihood of user engagement in pro-environmental and social aspects. Over the years, an immense quantity of research has been conducted to create structures and categorizations for gamification and game model components ( Patrício et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2021). Researchers have discovered methods, layouts, design, styles, and, most recently, the effects of gamified organizations ( Beard-Gunter et al., 2019; Patrício et al., 2018) in order to popularise the concept of gamification in the field of HRM. Of recently, the research on gamification focuses on involving methods to examine potential consequences of gamifying the HRM system and tools ( Makanawala et al., 2013).

Components and mechanism of gamification

The engaged workforce tends to be energetic, passionate, and determined to stage their roles. New methods can enable such engagement by establishing resource exchanges, communications, and mutual well-being ( Silic et al., 2020). However, such engagement necessitates careful supervision ( Hammedi et al., 2021). Globally notable companies have implemented and experienced designing fun events as a method for boosting workforce engagement, with the perception that fun can improve employee’s work satisfaction and commitment and eventually enhance their well-being and productivity ( Gatautis et al., 2021).

Several studies believe that an effective work environment is the major indicator of workforce well-being, However, such a reflexive form of well-being can be accompanied by more effective methods, for example, job engagement ( Gerdenitsch et al., 2020). Well-engaged employees have optimistic appraisals of their employment condition, and beyond mere gratification, they are encouraged to disburse strength to achieve a task; they also recognize their inspiration ( Rapp, 2020). Therefore, both work environment and job engagement appear vital for the well-being of the workforce ( Behl, Sheorey, et al., 2021; Patrício et al., 2018). Advanced creative technologies, as well as the attractiveness of digital games, approach a unique opportunity for generating a fun or positive environment in the workplace ( Pierce, 2019). That is, executives can take advantage of game-based project standards and accept the configuration, appearance, and sense of a game to get employee’s skills more constructive, pleasant, and exciting for members of the organisation, which may well improve managerial objectives ( Bouzidi et al., 2019; Browne et al., 2018; Sanmorino et al., 2021).

In gamification, the entertaining and engaging environments usually observed in games are implemented to improve employees’ dedication to and engagement in real-life creative activities ( Mitchell et al., 2020). For example, to enhance the effective learning process, the training and development unit implements certain gaming mechanisms and components to gain potential results ( Leon & Peña, 2022). Team building, communication, logical reasoning, situation analysis, body language theory, and brainstorming activities. are the major components of gamification in a certain organisation ( Silic et al., 2020). Companies utilise gamification in many aspects of the operation aligning with AI to enhance job engagement. Moreover, AI, ML, and IoT provide more opportunities for employees to concentrate on core issues and provide automation in many operational processes ( Marculescu et al., 2020). The combination of gamification with AI, IoT, and ML could create an improved outcome in various tasks. This combination for example in recruitment, many companies use AI and gamification tools to shortlist candidates. Companies may use tools like ‘Scoutible’ a short game developed to determine the ability of the candidates to a particular task. Similarly, tools like Kahoot and Mentimeter are used to improve engagement and enhance interpersonal skills ( Moorhouse & Kohnke, 2020). AL or ML combined games can also predict candidates’ thoughts, personalities, and decision-making capabilities by mapping the metrics required for a particular task and identifying the overlapping skills and qualities ( Kranthi Kumar et al., 2020; Marculescu et al., 2020).

The potential use and benefits of the gamified system are described by flow theory. This theory proposes that an individual could achieve a status of flow, distinguished by the comprehensive concentration in the situation when completely engaged in executing a task ( Moneta & Csikszentmihalyi, 1996). The concept of flow can be felt in several distinct situations. Artists can achieve flow while acting as a character, and athletes might feel it while playing at the boundaries of their physical ability ( Patrício et al., 2018). Likewise, workers can achieve flow by feeling concentration or inclusion, enthusiasm, and enjoyment of the assignment they execute ( Duggal & Gupta, 2020). Thus, we postulated that the beginning of gamification in the human resource management approach may influence employee engagement and productivity through perceived adoption, recognition, usefulness, and motivation ( Brangier & Marache-Francisco, 2020; Whitson, 2013).

Development of hypothesis

Our research proposes that gamified workplace practice could enhance job engagement and productivity of employees through four factors namely perceived adoption, recognition, usefulness, and motivation ( Figure 1). In this research, we examined how these aspects are related to better job engagement and productivity at the workplace and how they help in establishing potential mediating methods through which they correlate to the results. The entire paper was vested around testing the interrelationship between these variables and they are pictorially represented as follows:

Figure 1. Proposed conceptual model.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Source: Authors’ development.

Job engagement has been defined as an ‘individual’s enthusiasm and involvement in a task assigned to them ( Metwally et al., 2021). The highly involved individuals are usually motivated since they are identified in their jobs ( de la Peña et al., 2021). They tend to work more efficiently and productively ( Behl, Jayawardena et al., 2021). Adoption of a gamified task in an employee’s role and applying those features to involve more efficiently in their organizational task ( Moneta & Csikszentmihalyi, 1996) will likely transform the work environment into a productive one, which supports the interconnection between experiencing the game and appreciating work. Therefore, we affirm that if an individual appreciates the gamified HRM or operational method and realizes it is enjoyable, thrilling, or fascinating, applying gamification quickly to their organizational task is likely to improve job engagement. Therefore, Hypothesis 1, states as follows:

H1: Employees’ perceived adoption in the gamified HRM system is significantly associated with job engagement.

Recognition indicates the opinion collected from the society, which causes by kinds of employee engagement that can take up the type of online engagement or accomplishment ( Murray, 2018). A well-structured recognition system helps organizations to enhance productivity ( Kour et al., 2019). Recognition can be merely explained as the explicit opinion collected through an HRM system on job-related activities ( Jeske et al., 2021), and it is designed through the actions that employees examine ( Zitars et al., 2021). Recognition often establishes reciprocal behavior whereby a worker could either obtain or offer feedback ( Magni et al., 2021), which results in generating more respect and advantages for the whole HRM system as additional relationships and community interactions are made ( Ángeles López-Cabarcos et al., 2021). Further gaining positive recognition from colleagues or line managers encourages a worker’s enthusiasm to identify others mutually and reciprocally while utilizing a service, indicating that obtaining recognition generates productivity ( Sadick et al., 2020). The performance of employees is often associated with effective performance appraisal and reward systems ( Adin, 2021). Gamification or gamified HRM systems can positively create an automated recognition environment that results in productive workforce Considering the importance of recognition in the human resource system, Hypothesis 2 is proposed.

H2: Employee recognition in the gamified HRM system has a significant impact on productivity.

Employees’ perceived usefulness of gaming signifies the degree of confidence in job engagement after applying a gamified HRM system ( Küpper et al., 2021). Job engagement is associated with developing the performance and efficiency in job-related responsibilities ( Aubert & Lienert, 2019). Prior findings recognized a relationship between usefulness and job engagement ( Golrang & Safari, 2021). If workers realize that the gamified technique is beneficial to them in their job, it will be possible to also realize their engagement in tasks and productivity to increase as a consequence of the executed approach ( Sanchez et al., 2020). In a gamified system, individual engagement is through internal communication, familiarity with tasks, and enthusiasm for their assignment ( Höllig et al., 2020). For instance, the gamified HRM approach could enable more efficient communication over the shared interaction among the workforce, which relates to the development of the game features ( Mullins & Cronan, 2021). Therefore, due to advanced interaction and usefulness, it is feasible for the workforce to perform their job more effectively and ambitiously, thus developing engagement in the organizational tasks ( Diefenbach & Müssig, 2019). From an organizational view, we are further likely to see a significant influence on job engagement if the organisational system with the gamified mode is employee-friendly to use and beneficial in performing tasks ( Treiblmaier & Putz, 2020). Hence, if gamification is helping the workforce to improve their performance and efficiency in outcomes, it must have the advantage to improve their efficacy and overall enthusiasm. Subsequently, perceived usefulness must be positively impacted by an employee’s job engagement. Accordingly, hypothesis 3 can be proposed as follows.

H3: Employees perceived usefulness in the gamified system is positively associated with job engagement.

Motivation is a vital factor for an individual to convert their energy into a productive outcome ( Jeha et al., 2022). Motivation encourages workforce commitment and engagement in tasks more effectively than unsatisfied or demotivated manpower ( Albro & McElfresh, 2021; Heyns et al., 2021; Owen et al., 2018; Stirpe et al., 2021). Motivation is the intensity of a person’s motivational feel while engaged in an occupation. Prior findings have proved a positive association between motivation and productivity through job engagement ( Tziner & Tanami, 2013). Individuals’ self-motivation often leads to better efficiency and performance in tasks ( Saks, 2021). Therefore, we affirm that when workers are well interested to apply the gamified HRM and operational approach, it provides greater amounts of job engagement and productivity due to the significant impacts of the motivational aspects that enhanced the employee’s well-being and emotional association with the organization. Gamification can be a useful tool for motivating employees inside an organisation, and motivating employees is positively correlated with productivity, a crucial result that companies are interested in. Therefore, hypotheses 4 and 5 are proposed in the following way.

H4: Employees perceived motivation in the gamified system is significantly associated with productivity.

H5: Employees’ Job engagement is mediating factor to enhance productivity.

Methods

Ethical considerations

The adopted questionnaire was submitted to the ‘Academic Integrity and Ethics Committee’ of the College of Business Administration, Kingdom University, and got approved as per the research policy and procedure on 5 th June 2022 with ref. no. (CBA/30/22). The data collected will be used only for academic research purposes. All the respondents who participated in this survey have given their written informed consent to participate in the study and use their feedback to publish in our research publications. The consent of the participants has been asked at the commencement of the questionnaire and the participants responded by accepting the statement in the instrument link “I am willing to participate in this survey”. After expressing their consent, rest of the questionnaire appears for the respondents and data has been considered for analysis. To protect the participants’ interest, personal information is kept confidential.

Research design

The current quantitative research explains the casual relation between role of gamification towards productivity and job engagement. The study was conducted from June 2022 to first weeks of February 2023 in Gulf Cooperation Council countries. The entire research framework was based on the primary investigation, and an online survey method was utilized to achieve the objectives of the research work. Data was chosen from various pools of countries located in the gulf region, and the service sector was predominantly chosen for sampling. The multistage sampling method was used for the choice of respondents from public and private domains. The respondents were rendering services in IT, banking, education, and the telecom sector. These respondents were chosen because of their proximity to work with information technology and with gadgets where gamification could be easily made accessible. The countries chosen for sampling were UAE, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Bahrain, Kuwait, and Qatar. Proportional samples have been drawn from countries in the Gulf region. The researcher’s familiarity with regions and their access to organizations enabled a judgment-based sampling. As judgment-based sampling was used to exert discretion in the choice of respondents, only those companies that used gamification concepts in the workplace participated as respondents. Meanwhile the missing data were addressed by deleting the incomplete cases.

Samples and selection criteria

The respondents were chosen from the organizations that adopted the gamification approach in their operations in the Gulf region. The researcher approached the human resource department of the selected companies both private and government ownership and distributed a questionnaire (online link) to respondents in various departments. A total of 600 respondents from all these countries were invited to participate in the survey from June to December 2022, and the researcher managed to receive 400 complete responses based on judgmental sampling methods. The number of samples was determined based on ( Burmeister & Aitken, 2012), considering the number of organizations that adopted gamification in their routine operations. The samples have been distributed based on the population of the respondent's country where gamification has been implemented, as follows: UAE-100, Saudi Arabia-76, Oman-84, Bahrain-44, Kuwait-40, and Qatar-36.

The selection of participants initiated the administering cluster approach since samples were collected from different parts of the gulf countries. To avoid bias in sample selection, we used a multi-stage sampling approach, so that can ensure that the sample is more representative of the population by including a range of different groups or clusters.

Data analysis and interpretation

The data has been analyzed applying SPSS (version 26) and identified descriptive statistics to summarize the characteristics of a quantitative variable, such as the mean, median, standard deviation, and range. Similarly, inferential statistics such as t-tests, ANOVA, regression analysis, and correlation analysis, are used to test hypotheses or make predictions about a population based on a sample of data. Similarly, SPSS Amos version 26 software is used to test complex relationships among variables. The open access alternative for SPSS Amos is Microsoft Excel. Amos also testified the model against the observed data and estimated the model parameters (factor loadings, regression coefficients, and error terms), examined the goodness-of-fit statistics (chi-square, RMSEA, CFI) to determine if the model fits the data.

Instrument and measurement of variables

The research frame comprised a sample set of 400 respondents drawn based on the judgmental sampling method. The questionnaire was distributed to 600 people out of which only 400 responses could be utilized due to faulty filling or lack of response. After removing the invalid responses, statistical analysis was conducted and a pilot study was conducted before reaching out to them. The sample size of 400 demonstrated sufficient statistical control. A 5-point Likert scale has been utilized to understand the opinion of the respondents regarding the variables. The instrument was predominantly adopted from the past literature and each construct was determined with three or four items using a Likert scale in the design ranging from one to five. The research instrument was categorized into four parts: Section 1: Demographic information (six items); Section 2: Gamification questions (three items) adopted from ( Seaborn & Fels, 2015); Section 3: Details about perceived adoption (for example, application of gamification will accomplish tasks, improve my performance, enhance my effectiveness, make my job easy, four items) adopted from ( Hu et al., 2023); Section 4: Details of perceived recognition (for example, colleagues must recognize my performance in newly adopted jobs, considering my feedback in new system etc., four items) adopted from ( Ortiz-Rojas et al., 2019); Section 5: Details of Perceived Usefulness (For example: Using gamified system improves performance, increases productivity, enhances effectiveness in job etc., four items) adopted from ( York & deHaan, 2018); Section 6: Motivation (For example; classified into intrinsic motivation, identified regulation, external regulation, amotivation, four items) adopted from ( Zimmerling et al., 2019); Section 7: Productivity (for example; developed team spirit and believe in achieving business goals; ability to market product; contributing profit generation; ability to make quick and qualitative business decision, four items) adopted from ( Zainuddin et al., 2020); Section 8: Job engagement (for example; exerting full effort into my job; hardest to perform well on job; absorbed by my task job, concentrated on my task etc., eight items) adopted from ( Patricio et al., 2022).

The details of the results, SEM, and the statistical relevance of the tests conducted are summarised in the next few sections.

Results and findings

Demographic details and the relationship of independent variables on the demographic constructs

A glimpse of the descriptive variables in terms of demographic aspects and usage of gamification is listed below in Table 1. As depicted in Table 1, the target respondents mainly comprised of women (60.5%) in the age group of 31 to 40 years old which accounted for the majority of the population. In terms of their educational qualification, 49% had acquired a graduation degree (bachelor’s and post bachelor’s degree) or higher than the graduation degree. It was noted that 61.5% who responded were rendering services in the private sector and were working in the position of a team member and not in a managerial position. The survey-based study also included questions about their opinion about gamification and its usage in their daily life. 82% of the respondents were aware of gamification and 74% of them used gamification in their normal life. But only 9.5% of the respondents used it daily and 14.5% were occasional users and the rest of them hardly used gamification for their daily entertainment. Hence it can be inferred that most of the respondents did not depend upon gamification or any gamification-related mechanism for perceived enjoyment or interactions.

Table 1. Demographic details.

N % of sample
Gender Men 158 39.5%
Women 242 60.5%
Total 400 100.0%
Age Below 20 years 34 8.5%
21 to 30 years 58 14.5%
31 to 40 years 152 38.0%
40 to 50 years 102 25.5%
Above 50 years 54 13.5%
Total 400 100.0%
Education level High school, Diploma, Pre-degrees 42 10.5%
Bachelor’s degree 196 49.0%
Master or Post Graduation 92 23.0%
Doctor of Philosophy 70 17.5%
Total 400 100.0%
Profession Public sector (Government) 154 38.5%
Private sector 246 61.5%
Total 400 100.0%
Position Team member 210 52.5%
Manager or Head of the department 70 17.5%
Director/General Manager 120 30.0%
Total 400 100.0%
Gamification awareness Yes 328 82.0%
No 72 18.0%
Total 400 100.0%
Game at work Yes 296 74.0%
No 104 26.0%
Total 400 100.0%
How often do you play the games in the organisation? Every day 38 9.5%
Once a week 58 14.5%
Once a month 150 37.5%
I rarely apply game 154 38.5%
Total 400 100.0%
Open in a new tab

Source: Data analysis.

To find out the relationship that exists between demographic variables (Independent factors) and the factors chosen for the study namely Perceived adoption, Recognition, Usefulness, Motivation, and Productivity (Dependent factors), the Anova test was conducted. Based on the significant P values and the Partial Eta Squared, the results are summarised as follows.

Only the above given demographic variables (gender, education, and age) had a significant influence on Adoption, Recognition, and Usefulness. Most of the demographic variables did not influence the dependent variables and hence it can be inferred that the variables chosen are not significantly impacted by demographic constructs that are similar irrespective of age, gender, and qualifications.

Descriptive statistical and reliability and validity

The model was analyzed to measure the convergent validity, discriminant validity, and reliability of the constructs. Table 2 illustrates that the loading of each constructed item has outstripped 0.7 ( Esposito et al., 2021), for each construct Cronbach’s alpha was found to be above 0.7 and the aggregate reliability is more than the standard of 0.7, signifying acceptable internal consistency and reliability of the items. Moreover, the average variance extracted (AVE) from each construct is higher than 0.5, indicating an acceptable convergent validity of the manuscript measurement model. The mean and standard deviation values of each item indicate that data are clustered around the mean.

Table 2. Partial Eta Squared values based on ANOVA.

Dependent variable Independent variable P-value Partial Eta Squared Impact
Perceived adoption Age 0.000 0.087 Low
Perceived recognition Education level 0.028 0.039 Low
Perceived usefulness Age 0.021 0.049 Low
Open in a new tab

The model was analyzed to measure the convergent validity, discriminant validity, and reliability of the constructs. Table 3 illustrates that the loading of each constructed item has outstripped 0.7 ( Esposito et al., 2021), for each construct Cronbach’s alpha was found to be above 0.7 and the aggregate reliability is more than the standard of 0.7, signifying acceptable internal consistency and reliability of the items. Moreover, the average variance extracted (AVE) from each construct is higher than 0.5, indicating an acceptable convergent validity of the manuscript measurement model. The mean and standard deviation values of each item indicate data are clustered around the mean.

Table 3. Descriptive statistical and reliability and validity.

Items Loading AVE CR Alpha Mean SD
PA3 <--- PA 0.736 0.745 0.762 0.749 3.61 0.883
PA2 <--- PA 0.777 3.78 0.925
PA1 <--- PA 0.705 3.28 1.194
PA4 <--- PA 0.777 3.54 0.949
PR3 <--- PR 0.842 0.741 0.780 0.789 3.39 0.964
PR2 <--- PR 0.799 3.23 1.058
PR1 <--- PR 0.748 3.62 0.958
PU3 <--- PU 0.816 0.788 0.868 0.863 3.26 1.036
PU2 <--- PU 0.771 3.29 1.039
PU1 <--- PU 0.809 3.35 0.905
PU4 <--- PU 0.755 3.16 1.097
AM3 <--- AM 0.835 0.810 0.884 0.881 3.34 1.190
AM2 <--- AM 0.812 3.63 1.126
AM1 <--- AM 0.731 3.77 1.000
AM4 <--- AM 0.858 3.23 1.126
P2 <--- P 0.842 0.832 0.940 0.938 3.69 1.008
P3 <--- P 0.886 3.64 0.986
P4 <--- P 0.834 3.35 1.081
P1 <--- P 0.859 3.64 0.956
P5 <--- P 0.784 3.53 1.154
P6 <--- P 0.864 3.55 1.054
P7 <--- P 0.743 3.75 0.901
JE2 <--- JE 0.744 0.773 0.779 0.921 3.75 0.933
JE3 <--- JE 0.859 3.59 0.972
JE4 <--- JE 0.714 3.86 0.952
JE1 <--- JE 0.771 3.79 0.825
JE5 <--- JE 0.803 3.88 0.974
JE6 <--- JE 0.78 3.68 0.950
JE7 <--- JE 0.8 3.74 0.989
JE8 <--- JE 0.7 3.67 0.891
Open in a new tab

Note: PA: Perceived Adoption; PU: Perceived Recognition; PU: Perceived Usefulness; AM: Amotivation; P: Productivity; JE: Job Engagement.

Structural equation model for the model developed

Amos-SEM was administered in the study to understand gamification’s influence on productivity and job engagement. Figure 2 illustrates the path coefficient for the research model and all the coefficients relate to the gamified model were significant. The recommended p values for average path co-efficient and average-square must be significant at 0.05 level ( Cameron, 2013). Results indicate adequate model fit since the p-value for both these is lower than 0.05 (0.01 and 0.00) respectively. The association between perceived adoption and job engagement (H1) (β=0.017; p=0.005), perceived recognition and productivity (H2) (β=0.639; p=0.000), perceived usefulness, and job engagement (H3) (β=-0.782; p=0.000) and perceived motivation and job engagement (H4) (β=0.834; p=0.000) found to be a significant association and all four hypotheses accepted. On the other hand, mediating variables are vital factors to enhance productivity and results show in perceived adoption (H5a), job engagement mediates to enhance productivity, in contrast, is perceived recognition (H5b), perceived usefulness (H5c), and perceived motivation (H5d) job engagement does not mediate to enhance productivity. Table 4 summarizes the results of the hypothesis.

Figure 2. Structural equation model.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

Source: Data analysis.

Table 4. Summary of hypotheses tested.

Statement Status P-value
H1 Employees perceived adoption of the gamified HRM system is significantly associated with job engagement. Accepted <0.001
H2 Employee recognition in the gamified HRM system has a significant impact on productivity. Accepted <0.001
H3 Employees perceived usefulness in the gamified system is positively associated with job engagement. Accepted <0.001
H4 Employees perceived motivation in the gamified system is significantly associated with productivity. Accepted <0.001
H5 Employee Job engagement is a mediating factor to enhance productivity. Accepted <0.001
Open in a new tab

The percentage of variance covered by the calculated population covariance is known as the (Adjusted) Goodness of Fit. Comparable to R2, the recommended GFI and AGFI values are >0.95 and >0.90, respectively ( Marsh et al., 2019). A parsimony-adjusted index is the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation. Values that are nearer to 0 indicate a good fit. It should be either 0.05 or 0.08. The NFI has been updated to become the Comparative Fit Index. Unresponsive to sample size ( Althoff & Neiva, 2021). evaluates how well a target model fits in comparison to a null, or independent, model. It should be > 0.90 ( Marcoulides et al., 2020). The model exhibits that the CMIN/DF: is 4.580 and the p-value is <0.001. It indicates that the model is fit. The other parameters of the model are Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI)=0.686, Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI)=0.648, and Comparative Fit Index (CFI)=0.776. These parameters are above the threshold level. Based on the parameters of model results, the study concluded that the factors, perceived adoption, perceived recognition, perceived usefulness, and perceived motivation significantly influence the enhancement of job engagement and organizational productivity.

The major finding of the study notifies that 82% of the respondents are aware of gamification and are working in the private sector with minimum graduation as their qualification and in team personnel positions. Similarly, the demographic variables do not influence the dependent variables and are similar in terms of their influence. The employees perceived adoption of the gamified human resource management system is significantly associated with work engagement. In the outcome, employee recognition in the gamified HRM system also has a significant impact on productivity. The result further notifies that employees’ perceived usefulness in a gamified system has been significantly correlated with job engagement. The employees’ perceived motivation in the gamified system is also significantly associated with productivity. The outcome of the dependent variable also amplifies the similar outcome by revealing that employee job engagement is a mediating factor to enhance productivity. Overall, the factors, perceived adoption, perceived recognition, perceived usefulness, and perceived motivation significantly influence the enhancement of job engagement and organizational productivity. The underlying data and questionnaire are publicly available ( Rahiman et al., 2023a, 2023b).

Discussion

Past literature emphasizes the efforts of industries to enhance employee engagement and productivity with innovative operational practices. In this framework, studies report gamification as a predominant theoretical framework that identifies and conceptualize significant mechanism to influence organizational performance and workforce engagement through various methodologies ( Gimenez‐Fernandez et al., 2021; Kim, 2021; Sam-Epelle et al., 2022; Wong et al., 2022).

This study identified the role of gamification to enhance productivity and individual job engagement in various organizations. Although gamification gained popularity in various countries and notable organizations like Google, Apple, Microsoft, Cisco, and Samsung, in their operation, training and development, and human resource activities like recruitment and selection, comprehensive implementation and adoption of gamification in organizational supply chain system remain challenging ( Alhammad & Moreno, 2020). It would be challenging for the organizations in the Gulf region to implement gamification in organizational operational activities due to its low popularity ( Chun et al., 2016; El-Kot et al., 2022; Hoshang et al., 2018). This challenge remains at the industry level where the Gulf region is dominated by energy and power sectors, and transportation and logistics in which gamification isn’t much entertained in operational level ( Mekler et al., 2017; Mitchell et al., 2017). Another vital justification for this challenge was that individuals who work in knowledge-intensive industries or companies have tasks that are naturally fun or creative where gamified systems are considered to have lesser scope. As per past studies, at the institutional level, it is challenging to integrate gamification in large firms due to the regulations ( Sailer et al., 2017). On the other hand, in small firms, gamification is an unwanted overhead since the outcome of post-implementation is not attractive ( Bogost, 2015). Since samples representing both from public and private organisation, our study observed that it is exceedingly challenging to apply gamification in ministry or government organizations in GCC due to regulatory and security challenges in modifying their routine system. This observation supports the GCC digital policy in government institutions. Meanwhile, previous studies have revealed that at a strategic level, leadership-concerned challenging aspects had mostly to do with the perception of higher management of an organization ( Hammedi et al., 2021). Most of these studies opine that the top management must be tolerant enough to expect outcomes that usually do not happen in most organizations.

Research has proposed five hypothesis that determines how application of gamification in various GCC organizations impacts job engagement and productivity. The research identified that perceived adoption of the gamified HRM system is significantly associated with job engagement. This outcome correlated to that result found by Rivers (2016) noticed positive correlation between gamification in HR practices and employee engagement. The study found that employees who interacted with gamified HR systems reported higher levels of job engagement. Productivity is another outcome of gamified HRM identified by our study. Research found that employee’s recognition in the gamified HRM system has a significant impact on productivity. Effective adaptation of gamification in HRM systems often incorporates reward systems, including badges, points, and leaderboards. These outcomes correlate a finding of Ikhide et al. (2023) which explores the role of rewards and recognition as intrinsic motivators within gamified contexts. The study further identified the role of perceived usefulness in gamified systems in enhancing job engagement. The result explored that employee perceived usefulness in the gamified system is positively associated with job engagement. The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) proposed by Davis et al. (2023) suggests that perceived usefulness is a critical determinant of an individual's intention to use technology. When employees perceive a gamified system as useful for their tasks, they are more likely to engage with it. Similarly, our findings resembling the results of Werbach et al. (2012) explored that employees perceived the gamified elements are useful in enhancing their work experience, it can boost their engagement. The results further explored that perceived motivation in the gamified system enhancing productivity of employees. This outcome backs support of Self-determination theory proposed by the Vallerand (2000), highlights that Intrinsic motivation supports enhanced productivity. A well-designed gamified system valve into intrinsic motivation by making tasks enjoyable and rewarding ( Deterding et al., 2011). Finally, the outcome of our study identifies the mediating factor of employee job engagement and productivity. The results explore that effective job engagement in the gamified system enhances the productivity of the employees. Many studies have consistently shown that higher job engagement is associated with increased productivity ( Marikyan et al., 2022; Vogel et al., 2022). The notable studies outcome supports this claim notifying that when employees perceive their work as a part of an engaging game, they are more likely to be absorbed in their tasks, which positively impact their productivity ( Deterding et al., 2011; Vallerand, 2000; Werbach et al., 2012).

Key findings

  • a)

    82% of the respondents are aware of gamification and are working in the private sector with minimum graduation as their qualification and in team personnel positions.

  • b)

    The demographic variables do not influence the dependent variables and are similar in terms of their influence.

  • c)

    Employees perceived adoption in the gamified HRM system is significantly associated with job engagement.

  • d)

    Employee recognition in the gamified HRM system has a significant impact on productivity.

  • e)

    Employees perceived usefulness in the gamified system is positively associated with job engagement.

  • f)

    Employees perceived motivation in the gamified system is significantly associated with productivity.

  • g)

    Employee Job engagement is a mediating factor to enhance productivity.

  • h)

    The factors, perceived adoption, perceived recognition, perceived usefulness, and perceived motivation significantly influence the enhancement of job engagement and organizational productivity.

Gamification is a popular concept in the current new trends in HR. based on empirical evidence it has been proven that gamification contributes to increasing in productivity and job engagement. This research paper has shown that gamification has an impact on work engagement and productivity through pursued adoption, recognition, usefulness, and Amotivation in the organization system. Depending on the size, type, and nature of the organization the impact of gamification varies.

Theoretical implications

The findings have significant implications for insight into how employees in the service sector are aware of the gamified working environment and react to the system through work engagement and productivity. These findings could be beneficial to industrial practitioners particularly human resources to consider certain key aspects while adopting gamified working practices. Gamification is an emerging trend in the field of human resources. Most organizations are opting for the implementation of gamification with the intention to enhance employee engagement. From application to enhance employee wellness to performance tracking gamification has been applied in every arena of HR. This research article substantiates that gamification has an impact on work engagement and productivity. However, to be effective implementation top management support and cooperation are essential. The implication of this system also differs in terms of the size and needs and resources of the organisation.

It is essential to recognize that managers should recognise the requirements of the workforce and needs to devote time to know which form of engagement procedures would be appropriate and most excellent for employee productivity. A suitable need-based execution strategy should be constructed by the organisation and pretesting of gamified sections must be performed on smaller events to commence with feasibility and effectiveness to enhance engagement and performance. These requirements and plans to change generation-wise and industry-wise, as already considered in the earlier parts of this manuscript. Finally, as gamification approaches vary among companies, personnel, and their employment profile, it is important for companies to put these elements on a canvas to assist the organizations in vigorously choosing strategies to apply the proper game mechanics. This will improve and benefit them accomplish sustainability by applying gamification for employee productivity and job engagement.

Conclusion

People are coded genetically, just like computers and various permutations and combinations play an important role in improvising their productivity in terms of work. Gamification no doubt has been a recently sought-out tool to improve the job engagement of employees that further enhances productivity, but nevertheless, it is not the only relevant tool. In an IT-enabled work environment, gamification has shown a positive impact, but in the case of pure services like academics, and hospitals it is yet to make a mark. In order to check its relevance, the psychological perspective of individuals has to be tapped on. The study shows that there are people who have performed well though they have not used gamification. Newer methodologies or technological innovations may be needed to use gamification for different industries. That necessitates a new breed of gamification technologies that are tailor-made to suit the needs of different classes of employees. Further research may be warranted in this perspective of widening the scope of gamification.

Limitations & future research

The research limitations should be taken into account when interpreting the results. The research was conducted via an electronic survey, which is susceptible to frequent method bias. Data were only collected in Gulf countries only, which limits the generalizability of the findings. The study was based on a sample survey and was not experimental, hence it does not fall under the gamut of causality. Further, the empirical study is based upon only those institutions and organizations which included gamification as a part of their work. Respondents who were working in an organization without gamification would have increased their knowledge with regard to the impact of gamification on productivity.

In conclusion, it can be written that gamification is quite a new terminology and hence it warrants full-fledged research in this domain. This research paper is an attempt to showcase the usage of gamification in a single sector and can prove to be a vital point for further research.

Authors’ contributions

Habeeb Ur Rahiman: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Supervision, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Rashmi Kodikal: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Dr. Sucharitha Suresh: Software, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Review & Editing

Acknowledgments

We hereby acknowledge Kingdom University for their support to carried out research and all the institutions that provided data as open-source and experts who shared their views.

Funding Statement

The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

[version 2; peer review: 1 approved

Data availability

Underlying data

Figshare: Game on: Can gamification enhance productivity?, https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.22083158 ( Rahiman et al., 2023a).

The project contains the following underlying data:

  • -

    Gamification and Productivity Data.sav (Questionnaire responses)

Extended data

Figshare: Questionnaire. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.22262974 ( Rahiman et al., 2023b).

The project contains the following extended data:

  • -

    Questionnair Gamification.pdf

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero “No rights reserved” data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication).

References

  1. Adin CA: Addressing Unsatisfactory Performance in Employees. Vet. Clin. N. Am. Small Anim. Pract. 2021;51(5):1061–1069. 10.1016/j.cvsm.2021.04.022 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Albro M, McElfresh JM: Job engagement and employee-organization relationship among academic librarians in a modified work environment. J. Acad. Librariansh. 2021;47(5):102413. 10.1016/j.acalib.2021.102413 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Alhammad MM, Moreno AM: Challenges of gamification in software process improvement. J. Softw.: Evol. Process. John Wiley and Sons Ltd.;2020;32(6). 10.1002/smr.2231 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Althoff D, Neiva L: Goodness-of-fit criteria for hydrological models: Model calibration and performance assessment. J. Hydrol. 2021;600(May):126674. 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.126674 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Ángeles López-Cabarcos M, Vázquez-Rodríguez P, Quiñoá-Piñeiro LM: An approach to employees’ job performance through work environmental variables and leadership behaviours. J. Bus. Res. 2021;140:361–369. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.11.006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Ashley TD, Kwon R, Gourisetti SNG, et al. : Gamification of Cybersecurity for Workforce Development in Critical Infrastructure. IEEE Access. 2022;10:112487–112501. 10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3216711 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Aubert AH, Lienert J: Gamified online survey to elicit citizens’ preferences and enhance learning for environmental decisions. Environ. Model Softw. 2019;111:1–12. 10.1016/j.envsoft.2018.09.013 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Bahadoran MR, Ghasemi H, Farahani A, et al. : The effect of gamification on improving the performance of organizations by mediation of knowledge management. Int. J. Hum. Cap. Urban Manag. 2023;8(1):43–54. 10.22034/IJHCUM.2023.01.04 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Beard-Gunter A, Ellis DG, Found PA: TQM, games design and the implications of integration in Industry 4.0 systems. Int. J. Qual. Serv. Sci. 2019;11(2):235–247. 10.1108/IJQSS-09-2018-0084 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Behl A, Jayawardena N, Ishizaka A, et al. : Gamification and gigification: A multidimensional theoretical approach. J. Bus. Res. 2021;139:1378–1393. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.09.023 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Behl A, Sampat B, Raj S: Productivity of gig workers on crowdsourcing platforms through artificial intelligence and gamification: a multi-theoretical approach. TQM Journal. 2021. 10.1108/TQM-07-2021-0201 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Behl A, Sheorey P, Jain K, et al. : Gamifying the gig: transitioning the dark side to bright side of online engagement. Australas. J. Inf. Syst. 2021;25:1–34. 10.3127/ajis.v25i0.2979 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Bogost I: Why gamification is bullshit. The Gameful World: Approaches, Issues, Applications. 2015;65:65–79. 10.7551/mitpress/9788.003.0005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Bouzidi R, De Nicola A, Nader F, et al. : A systematic literature review of gamification design. In G. R. (Ed.). 20th International Conference on Intelligent Games and Simulation, GAME-ON 2019. EUROSIS;2019; pp.89–93. [Google Scholar]
  15. Brandstätter U, Sommerer C: Productive gaming. In M. R., W. G., Y. H.-S., H. H., K. S., & L. A. (Eds.). 15th IFIP TC 14 International Conference on Entertainment Computing, ICEC 2016: Vol. 9926 LNCS. Springer Verlag;2016; pp.260–265. 10.1007/978-3-319-46100-7_27 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Brangier E, Marache-Francisco C: Measure of the Lived and Functional Effects of Gamification: An Experimental Study in a Professional Context.In R. F. & S. M.M. (Eds.). AHFE International Conference on Ergonomics in Design, 2019. Vol.955. Springer Verlag;2020; pp.242–253. 10.1007/978-3-030-20227-9_22 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Browne R, Raeside L, Gray G: Gamification in education: Productivity and motivation through gamified time management software. In C. M. (Ed.). 12th European Conference on Game Based Learning, ECGBL 2018. Dechema e.V.;2018; Vols.2018-Octob: pp.867–871. [Google Scholar]
  18. Buckley P, Noonan S, Geary C, et al. : An empirical study of gamification frameworks. J. Organ. End User Comput. 2019;31(1):22–38. 10.4018/JOEUC.2019010102 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Burmeister E, Aitken LM: Sample size: How many is enough? Aust. Crit. Care. 2012;25(4):271–274. 10.1016/j.aucc.2012.07.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Cameron S: Single-equation regression models. Introductory Econometrics: A Practical Approach. 2013.
  21. Chun WHK, Grusin R, Jagoda P, et al. : The dark side of the digital humanities. Debates in the Digital Humanities. 2016; pp.493–509. 10.5749/j.ctt1cn6thb.41 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Davis FD, Granić A, Marangunić N: The technology acceptance model 30 years of TAM. Technology. 2023. [Google Scholar]
  23. Peña D, Lizcano D, Martínez-Álvarez I: Learning through play: Gamification model in university-level distance learning. Entertainment Computing. 2021;39:100430. 10.1016/j.entcom.2021.100430 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Deif A: Impact of gamification on learning and motivation of workforce: A student-based study. The Wiley Handbook of Global Workplace Learning. Wiley;2019; pp.577–590. 10.1002/9781119227793.ch30 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Deterding S, Sicart M, Nacke L, et al. : Gamification. using game-design elements in non-gaming contexts. CHI’11 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems. 2011; pp.2425–2428. [Google Scholar]
  26. Dessureault S: Rethinking Fleet and Personnel Management in the Era of IoT, Big Data, Gamification, and Low-Cost Tablet Technology. Min. Metall. Explor. 2019;36(4):591–596. 10.1007/s42461-019-0073-7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Diefenbach S, Müssig A: Counterproductive effects of gamification: An analysis on the example of the gamified task manager Habitica. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. 2019;127:190–210. 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2018.09.004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Donnermann M, Lein M, Messingschlager T, et al. : Social robots and gamification for technology supported learning: An empirical study on engagement and motivation. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2021;121(March):106792. 10.1016/j.chb.2021.106792 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Donovan K: Chapter-4-Mobile Money for Financial Inclusion. Mobile Money For Financial Inclusion. 2011;61–74. [Google Scholar]
  30. Duggal K, Gupta LR: Hope Enabler: A Novel Gamification-Based Approach to Enhance Classroom Engagement. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems. Vol.121. Springer;2020; pp.501–519. 10.1007/978-981-15-3369-3_38 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. El-Kot G, Leat M, Masry S: Digital human resource management in Egypt.In HRM in the Global South: A Critical Perspective. Springer;2022; pp.371–398. [Google Scholar]
  32. Esposito C, Napoli I, Martino S, et al. : The I COPPE Scale Short Form for measuring multidimensional well-being: Construct validity and reliability from US, Argentinian, and Italian large samples. J. Community Psychol. 2021;50:696–711. 10.1002/jcop.22659 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Favorskaya M, Sharma D, Jain LC, et al. : Advances in smart, multimedia and computer gaming technologies. Intell. Syst. Ref. Libr. 2015;84. 10.1007/978-3-319-14645-4_1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Gatautis R, Banytė J, Kuvykaitė R, et al. : Gamification and Consumer Engagement: Creating Value in Context of ICT Development. Progress in IS. 2021. 10.1007/978-3-030-54205-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Gerdenitsch C, Sellitsch D, Besser M, et al. : Work gamification: Effects on enjoyment, productivity and the role of leadership. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 2020;43:100994. 10.1016/j.elerap.2020.100994 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Gimenez-Fernandez E, Abril C, Breuer H, et al. : Gamification approaches for open innovation implementation: A conceptual framework. Creativity and Innovation Management. 2021;30(3):455–474. 10.1111/caim.12452 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Golrang H, Safari E: Applying gamification design to a donation-based crowdfunding platform for improving user engagement. Entertain. Comput. 2021;38:100425. 10.1016/j.entcom.2021.100425 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Grünewald H, Kneip P, Kozica A: The use of gamification in workplace learning to encourage employee motivation and engagement. The Wiley Handbook of Global Workplace Learning. Wiley;2019; pp.557–575. 10.1002/9781119227793.ch29 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. Guven A, Sakamoto A: Do rising class differentials in earnings increase productivity? Evidence for non-production and production employees in U.S. manufacturing industries. Res. Soc. Stratif. Mobil. 2016;45:41–50. 10.1016/j.rssm.2016.08.005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Hammedi W, Leclercq T, Poncin I, et al. : Uncovering the dark side of gamification at work: Impacts on engagement and well-being. J. Bus. Res. 2021;122:256–269. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.08.032 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Heyns MM, McCallaghan S, Wet EH: The role of supervisor support and basic psychological needs in predicting work engagement, burnout and turnover intentions in a medical contract research service setting. Res. Soc. Adm. Pharm. 2021;18:2981–2988. 10.1016/j.sapharm.2021.07.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Hoshang S, Tamimi H, Mohammad H, et al. : Factors influencing the adoption of education gamification within Abu Dhabi/UAE higher education institutions. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Education Technology and Computers. 2018; pp.145–151. [Google Scholar]
  43. Höllig CE, Tumasjan A, Welpe IM: Individualizing gamified systems: The role of trait competitiveness and leaderboard design. J. Bus. Res. 2020;106:288–303. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.10.046 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Hu B, Liu Y, Yan W: Should I scan my face? The influence of perceived value and trust on Chinese users’ intention to use facial recognition payment. Telematics Inform. 2023;78:101951. 10.1016/j.tele.2023.101951 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. Ikhide JE, Timur AT, Ogunmokun OA: A balanced perspective on the affordance of a gamified HRM system for employees’ creative performance. Personnel Review. 2023;52(3):631–648. 10.1108/PR-01-2021-0062 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  46. Jacob A, Faatz A, Knüppe L, et al. : The Impact of Gamification on Macro- and Micro-level Social structures—The Case of an Industrial Organization. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Int. 2022;38(7):614–630. 10.1080/10447318.2021.1952804 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Jeha H, Knio M, Bellos G: Chapter 11 - The Impact of Compensation Practices on Employees’ Engagement and Motivation in Times of COVID-19. S. B. T.-C.-19: T. G. P. through S. and S. T. Chatterjee, Ed. Academic Press;2022; pp.131–149. 10.1016/B978-0-323-85844-1.00004-0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. Jeske T, Würfels M, Lennings F: Development of Digitalization in Production Industry – Impact on Productivity, Management and Human Work. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2021;180:371–380. 10.1016/j.procs.2021.01.358 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. Jia Y, Liu Y, Yu X, et al. : Designing leaderboards for gamification: Perceived differences based on user ranking, application domain, and personality traits. 2017 ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 2017. 2017;1949–1960. 2017-May. 10.1145/3025453.3025826 [DOI]
  50. Kapp KM: Games, gamification, and the quest for learner engagement. T+ D. 2012;66. [Google Scholar]
  51. Kaur M, Sinha R, Chaudhary V, et al. : Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on the livelihood of employees in different sectors. Materials Today: Proceedings. 2021;51:764–769. 10.1016/j.matpr.2021.06.229 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Keepers M, Nesbit I, Romero D, et al. : Current state of research & outlook of gamification for manufacturing. J. Manuf. Syst. 2022;64:303–315. 10.1016/j.jmsy.2022.07.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  53. Kim S: How a company’s gamification strategy influences corporate learning: A study based on gamified MSLP (Mobile social learning platform). Telemat. Inform. 2021;57: 101505. 10.1016/j.tele.2020.101505 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  54. Kotsis G, Paschinger A, Strauss C: Gamification and Application Features for Collaborative Environments.In L. Y. (Ed.). 18th International Conference on Cooperative Design, Visualization, and Engineering, CDVE 2021: Vol. 12983 LNCS. Springer Science and Business Media Deutschland GmbH;2021; pp.1–12. 10.1007/978-3-030-88207-5_1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  55. Kour J, El-Den J, Sriratanaviriyakul N: The Role of Positive Psychology in Improving Employees’ Performance and Organizational Productivity: An Experimental Study. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2019;161:226–232. 10.1016/j.procs.2019.11.118 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  56. Kranthi Kumar M, Praveen ET, Thrisul Kumar J, et al. : IOT embedded login for stepper motor speed control. Int. J. Adv. Sci. Technol. 2020;29(5 Special Issue):902–911. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
  57. Küpper DM, Klein K, Völckner F: Gamifying employer branding: An integrating framework and research propositions for a new HRM approach in the digitized economy. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 2021;31(1):100686. 10.1016/j.hrmr.2019.04.002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  58. Lee H, Shin J, Jung C, et al. : On the gamification for the automotive manufacturing environment. 36th FISITA World Automotive Congress, 2016. 2016.
  59. Leon A, Peña M: Gamification tools in the learning of shipbuilding in the undergraduate marine engineering education. Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ. 2022;30(2):458–471. 10.1002/cae.22465 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  60. Magni D, Scuotto V, Pezzi A, et al. : Employees’ acceptance of wearable devices: Towards a predictive model. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2021;172:121022. 10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121022 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  61. Makanawala P, Godara J, Goldwasser E, et al. : Applying gamification in customer service application to improve agents’ efficiency and satisfaction.s 2nd International Conference on Design, User Experience, and Usability: Health, Learning, Playing, Cultural, and Cross-Cultural User Experience, DUXU 2013, Held as Part of 15th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, HCI Int. 2013: Vol. 8013 LNCS. Springer Verlag;2013; IssuePART 2: pp.548–557. 10.1007/978-3-642-39241-2_60 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  62. Marcoulides KM, Yuan K, Marcoulides KM: Using Equivalence Testing to Evaluate Goodness of Fit in Multilevel Structural Equation Models Using Equivalence Testing to Evaluate Goodness of Fit in Multilevel Structural Equation Models. Int. J. Res. Method Edu. 2020;1–13. 10.1080/1743727X.2020.1795113 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  63. Marculescu R, Marculescu D, Ogras U: Edge AI: Systems Design and ML for IoT Data Analytics. Proceedings of the ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. 2020; pp.3565–3566. 10.1145/3394486.3406479 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  64. Marikyan D, Papagiannidis S, Rana OF, et al. : “Alexa, let’s talk about my productivity”: The impact of digital assistants on work productivity. J. Bus. Res. 2022;142:572–584. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.01.015 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  65. Marsh HW, Guo J, Dicke T, et al. : Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling (ESEM), and Set- ESEM: Optimal Balance Between Goodness of Fit and Parsimony Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), Exploratory Structural Equation and Parsimony. Multivar. Behav. Res. 2019;55:102–119. 10.1080/00273171.2019.1602503 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Medeiros DB, Neto PDADS, Passos EB, et al. : Working and Playing with Scrum. Int. J. Softw. Eng. Knowl. Eng. 2015;25(6):993–1015. 10.1142/S021819401550014X [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  67. Mekler ED, Brühlmann F, Tuch AN, et al. : Towards understanding the effects of individual gamification elements on intrinsic motivation and performance. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2017;71:525–534. 10.1016/j.chb.2015.08.048 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  68. Metwally AHS, Nacke LE, Chang M, et al. : Revealing the hotspots of educational gamification: An umbrella review. Int. J. Educ. Res. 2021;109:101832. 10.1016/j.ijer.2021.101832 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  69. Mitchell R, Schuster L, Drennan J: Understanding how gamification influences behaviour in social marketing. Australas. Mark. J. 2017;25(1):12–19. 10.1016/j.ausmj.2016.12.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  70. Mitchell R, Schuster L, Jin HS: Gamification and the impact of extrinsic motivation on needs satisfaction: Making work fun? J. Bus. Res. 2020;106:323–330. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.11.022 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  71. Moneta GB, Csikszentmihalyi M: The Effect of Perceived Challenges and Skills on the Quality of Subjective Experience. J. Pers. 1996;64(2):275–310. 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1996.tb00512.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  72. Moorhouse BL, Kohnke L: Using Mentimeter to Elicit Student Responses in the EAP/ESP Classroom. RELC J. 2020;51(1):198–204. 10.1177/0033688219890350 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  73. Morganti L, Pallavicini F, Cadel E, et al. : Gaming for Earth: Serious games and gamification to engage consumers in pro-environmental behaviours for energy efficiency. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2017;29:95–102. 10.1016/j.erss.2017.05.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  74. Morschheuser B, Hassan L, Werder K, et al. : How to design gamification? A method for engineering gamified software. Inf. Softw. Technol. 2018;95:219–237. 10.1016/j.infsof.2017.10.015 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  75. Müller BC, Reise C, Duc BM, et al. : Simulation-games for Learning Conducive Workplaces: A Case Study for Manual Assembly. In S. G., K. H., & M. J. (Eds.). 13th Global Conference on Sustainable Manufacturing, GCSM 2015. Vol.40. Elsevier B.V.;2016; pp.353–358. 10.1016/j.procir.2016.01.063 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  76. Mullins JK, Cronan TP: Enterprise systems knowledge, beliefs, and attitude: A model of informed technology acceptance. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2021;59:102348. 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102348 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  77. Murray S: Carrot: Productivity apps and the gamification of shame. Appified: Culture in the Age of Apps. University of Michigan Press;2018; pp.72–81. [Google Scholar]
  78. Naeem U, Islam S, Sharif MS, et al. : Taskification - Gamification of tasks. 2017 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing and ACM International Symposium on Wearable Computers, UbiComp/ISWC 2017. 2017; pp.631–634. 10.1145/3123024.3124423 [DOI]
  79. Ortiz-Rojas M, Chiluiza K, Valcke M: Gamification through leaderboards: An empirical study in engineering education. Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ. 2019;27(4):777–788. 10.1002/cae.12116 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  80. Owen DC, Boswell C, Opton L, et al. : Engagement, empowerment, and job satisfaction before implementing an academic model of shared governance. Appl. Nurs. Res. 2018;41:29–35. 10.1016/j.apnr.2018.02.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  81. Palmquist A: The first rule of gamification is “Don’t talk about gamification”: Discussions about gamified workforce retraining in the age of digitalization.In J. Koivisto, M. Bujic, & J. Hamari (Eds.). 4th International GamiFIN Conference, GamiFIN 2020. Vol.2637. CEUR-WS;2020; pp.1–10. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
  82. Patrício R, Moreira AC, Zurlo F: Gamification approaches to the early stage of innovation. Creat. Innov. Manag. 2018;27(4):499–511. 10.1111/caim.12284 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  83. Patricio R, Moreira AC, Zurlo F: Gamification in innovation teams. Int. J. Innov. Stud. 2022;6(3):156–168. 10.1016/j.ijis.2022.05.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  84. Pierce KR: Gamification for learning and workforce motivation. The Wiley Handbook of Global Workplace Learning. wiley;2019; pp.539–556. 10.1002/9781119227793.ch28 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  85. Prasad KDV, Mruthyanjaya Rao M, Vaidya R: Gamification and resource pooling for improving operational efficiency and effective management of human resources: A case study with an ecommerce company. Int. J. Manag. 2019;10(6):76–87. 10.34218/IJM.10.6.2019.008 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  86. Prince JD: Gamification. Journal of Electronic Resources in Medical Libraries. 2013;10(3):162–169. 10.1080/15424065.2013.820539 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  87. Rahiman H, Kodikal R, Suresh S: Game on: Can gamification enhance productivity?[Data]. Figshare. 2023a. 10.6084/m9.figshare.22083158 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  88. Rahiman H, Kodikal R, Suresh S: Questionnaire.[Data]. Figshare. 2023b. 10.6084/m9.figshare.22262974 [DOI]
  89. Ramallo-González AP, Bardaki C, Kotsopoulos D, et al. : Reducing Energy Consumption in the Workplace via IoT-Allowed Behavioural Change Interventions. Buildings. 2022;12(6). 10.3390/buildings12060708 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  90. Rapp A: An exploration of world of Warcraft for the gamification of virtual organizations. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 2020;42:100985. 10.1016/j.elerap.2020.100985 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  91. Rivers L: The impact of gamification on employee engagement in advertising agencies in South Africa.2016. http://hdl.handle.net/2263/52304
  92. Sadick A-M, Kpamma ZE, Agyefi-Mensah S: Impact of indoor environmental quality on job satisfaction and self-reported productivity of university employees in a tropical African climate. Build. Environ. 2020;181:107102. 10.1016/j.buildenv.2020.107102 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  93. Sailer M, Hense JU, Mayr SK, et al. : How gamification motivates: An experimental study of the effects of specific game design elements on psychological need satisfaction. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2017;69:371–380. 10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.033 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  94. Saks AM: Caring human resources management and employee engagement. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 2021;32:100835. 10.1016/j.hrmr.2021.100835 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  95. Sam-Epelle I, Olayinka O, Jones P: The Evolution of Enterprise Gamification in the Digital Era and the Role of Value-Based Models. Sustainability (Switzerland). 2022;14(15). 10.3390/su14159251 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  96. Sanchez DR, Langer M, Kaur R: Gamification in the classroom: Examining the impact of gamified quizzes on student learning. Comput. Educ. 2020;144:103666. 10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103666 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  97. Sanmorino A, Marnisah L, Sunardi H: A gamification framework for research productivity enhancement on the higher education institution. Int. J. Eval. Res. Educ. 2021;10(2):706–713. 10.11591/ijere.v10i2.21694 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  98. Schlömmer M, Spieß T, Schlögl S: Leaderboard positions and stress—experimental investigations into an element of gamification. Sustainability (Switzerland). 2021;13(12). 10.3390/su13126608 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  99. Scurati GW, Ferrise F, Bertoni M: Sustainability awareness in organizations through gamification and serious games: A systematic mapping. Mortensen NH, Hansen CT, Deininger M, editors. 13th Biennial NordDesign Conference, NordDesign 2020. The Design Society;2020. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
  100. Seaborn K, Fels DI: Gamification in theory and action: A survey. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 2015;74:14–31. 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2014.09.006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  101. Silic M, Back A: Impact of gamification on user’s knowledge-sharing practices: Relationships between work motivation, performance expectancy and work engagement.In B. T.X. & S. R. (Eds.). 50th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, HICSS 2017. IEEE Computer Society;2017; Vols.2017-Janua: pp.1308–1317. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
  102. Silic M, Marzi G, Caputo A, et al. : The effects of a gamified human resource management system on job satisfaction and engagement. Hum. Resour. Manag. J. 2020;30(2):260–277. 10.1111/1748-8583.12272 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  103. Stirpe L, Profili S, Sammarra A: Satisfaction with HR practices and employee performance: A moderated mediation model of engagement and health. Eur. Manag. J. 2021;40:295–305. 10.1016/j.emj.2021.06.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  104. Thompson MF, Irvine CE: CyberCIEGE scenario design and implementation. 2014 USENIX Summit on Gaming, Games, and Gamification in Security Education, 3GSE 2014. 2014.
  105. Treiblmaier H, Putz L-M: Gamification as a moderator for the impact of intrinsic motivation: Findings from a multigroup field experiment. Learn. Motiv. 2020;71:101655. 10.1016/j.lmot.2020.101655 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  106. Tziner A, Tanami M: Examining the links between attachment, perfectionism, and job motivation potential with job engagement and workaholism. Revista de Psicología Del Trabajo y de Las Organizaciones. 2013;29(2):65–74. 10.5093/tr2013a10 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  107. Vallerand RJ: Deci and Ryan’s self-determination theory: A view from the hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Psychol. Inq. 2000;11(4):312–318. [Google Scholar]
  108. Vogel RM, Rodell JB, Agolli A: Daily engagement and productivity: The importance of the speed of engagement. J. Appl. Psychol. 2022;107(9):1579–1599. 10.1037/apl0000958 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  109. Warmelink H, Koivisto J, Mayer I, et al. : Gamification of production and logistics operations: Status quo and future directions. J. Bus. Res. 2020;106(February 2018):331–340. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.09.011 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  110. Werbach K, Hunter D, Dixon W: For the win: How game thinking can revolutionize your business. vol.1. Philadelphia: Wharton Digital Press;2012. [Google Scholar]
  111. West D, Lockley A: Implementing digital badges in Australia: The importance of institutional context. Foundation of Digital Badges and Micro-Credentials: Demonstrating and Recognizing Knowledge and Competencies. 2016. 10.1007/978-3-319-15425-1_26 [DOI]
  112. Whitson JR: Gaming the quantified self. Surveill. Soc. 2013;11(1–2):163–176. 10.24908/ss.v11i1/2.4454 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  113. Wong D, Liu H, Meng-Lewis Y, et al. : Gamified money: exploring the effectiveness of gamification in mobile payment adoption among the silver generation in China. Inf. Technol. People. 2022;35(1):281–315. 10.1108/ITP-09-2019-0456 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  114. Woodcock J, Johnson MR: Gamification: What it is, and how to fight it. Sociol. Rev. 2018;66(3):542–558. 10.1177/0038026117728620 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  115. York J, deHaan JW: A constructivist approach to game-based language learning: Student perceptions in a beginner-level EFL context. Int. J. Game-Based Learn. 2018;8. 10.4018/IJGBL.2018010102 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  116. Zainuddin Z, Chu S, Shujahat M, et al. : The impact of gamification on learning and instruction: A systematic review of empirical evidence. Educ. Res. Rev. 2020;30:100326. 10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100326 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  117. Zhang L, Shao Z, Li X, et al. : Gamification and online impulse buying: The moderating effect of gender and age. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2021;61(October):102267. 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102267 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  118. Zimmerling E, Höllig CE, Sandner PG, et al. : Exploring the influence of common game elements on ideation output and motivation. J. Bus. Res. 2019;94:302–312. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.02.030 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  119. Zitars J, Spadafore B, Coulombe S, et al. : Understanding the psycho-environmental potential functions of a green building to promote employee health, wellbeing and productivity: A theoretical perspective. Build. Environ. 2021;205:108268. 10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.108268 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
F1000Res. 2024 Feb 21. doi: 10.5256/f1000research.157243.r225218

Reviewer response for version 2

John Aliu 1

Introduction:

  1. In the second sentence of introduction section, it says….”In an era of high-speed digitalized technology and a multi-generational capacity team, the scenario has resulted in a struggle for the smarted of the people”… That should be ‘smartest’ Grammar should be amended.

  2. Use active voice where possible to enhance the directness and clarity of your statements.

  3. Also, maintain consistency in verb tense throughout the introduction. For example, if discussing past research findings, use the past tense consistently.

Literature review:

  1. Define acronyms upon first use to facilitate understanding, for example, AI, ML, and IoT.

  2. Expand on the explanation of how gamification is applied in HRM systems. Provide examples or case studies to illustrate its practical implementation and impact

Research Methodology:

  1. Explain the rationale behind choosing the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries for the study. Discuss why the selected sectors (IT, banking, education, and telecom) were deemed relevant to the research objectives.

  2. Clarify the steps involved in the multistage sampling method. Provide details on how companies were selected within each sector and how judgment-based sampling was applied.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes

Reviewer Expertise:

Sustainable construction, Construction Digitalization

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

F1000Res. 2023 Dec 18. doi: 10.5256/f1000research.157243.r225213

Reviewer response for version 2

Martin Kiselicki 1

The article is focused on researching the usefulness of gamification implementation in various industries in the GCC region. The authors did diligent work on the introductory and literature review sections of the paper, clearly demonstrating the power of gamification and various scientific research focused on the model. The most important elements, mechanisms and dynamics of gamification are clearly outlined. 

Regarding the primary research, authors are focusing on a survey questionnaire and statistical analysis of the data. The proposed methodology is consistent with previous research on the topics, as well as the SEM model and related hypothesis. I would only point out that the research has been done in other regions (as well as on a global scale), so there is only partial contributions to further the field. 

Since the methodology section is transparently explained, other authors can contribute by utilizing the same research design in similar research. Results are in line with the raw data, as well as the relevant statistical metrics and levels of relevance.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Partly

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes

Reviewer Expertise:

Organizational sciences, Gamification in education

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

F1000Res. 2023 Sep 8. doi: 10.5256/f1000research.144432.r189162

Reviewer response for version 1

Ola Olayinka 1

Interesting paper covering gamification and its application in organisations in the gulf region. The paper was mostly well written and clear to read with some recent papers in the field cited.

However, there are a number of issues that need to be clarified or better presented.

  1. ".. our research was taken up to examine the impact of gamification in various organizations and simultaneously see its relationship with job engagement and productivity. The primary objective of this research is to identify the role of perceived usefulness, motivation, adoption, and recognition in the organization while adopting gamified tasks in an HR system." It is not entirely clear what the focus of the paper is, examining impact of gamification in organizations, examining its relationship with engagement and productivity or identifying the role of perceived usefulness, motivation, adoption, and recognition in when gamification is used, or a combination of three of them.

    From the hypothesis, it is clear that you are trying to understand how perceived usefulness and perceived adoption of gamification in HRM systems influences engagement and motivation. I will suggest that it is made clear in the above quote.

  2. I will suggest general proof-reading of the article as there are some grammatical errors that can make reading the article a bit difficult to understand.

  3. I will suggest the inclusion of a detailed literature review section that critically assesses and discusses other similar research.

  4. A bit more needs to be done in the methodology section. There needs to be more information provided about the research sample and its appropriateness.  How many respondents were from each country? The lack of clarity allows for the generalisability of the results to be questioned even in the gulf region.

  5. There are a number of sentences (or claims) in the discussion section that you need to justify with appropriate references.

    e.g. "In this framework, studies report gamification as a predominant theoretical framework that identifies and conceptualizes a significant mechanism to influence organisational performance and workforce engagement through various methodologies." What studies are these?

    "It would be challenging for the organisations in the Gulf region to implement gamification in organisational operational activities due to its low popularity. " Please provide a reference.  

    "On the other hand, in small firms, gamification is an unwanted overhead since the outcome of post-implementation is not attractive. ". Please provide a reference.

  6. Some parts of the discussion were not clear. e.g. "Our study drew a difference between government and private organizations in which respondents believe that it is exceedingly challenging to apply gamification in ministry or government organizations since they do not understand this process." How was this done? It was not clear from the methodology or objectives that this was a goal.

  7. There needs to be more discussed about the findings in the discussion section. This section seems quite weak and omits key findings that the reader would like to know.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Partly

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Partly

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

No

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

No

Reviewer Expertise:

Gamification,  information systems, research methods and qualitative research.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above.

F1000Res. 2023 Oct 8.
Habeeb Ur Rahiman 1

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to express our deep gratitude for your invaluable feedback and the dedicated time you invested in reviewing our research. Your insightful comments have played a pivotal role in guiding our efforts to enhance the overall quality and rigor of our study. Below, we provide comprehensive responses to each of the points you raised.

Section Enhancement: We have diligently implemented the changes recommended for the specified section, ensuring that your valuable suggestions have been incorporated effectively.

Proofreading and Quality Assurance: In response to your suggestions, we conducted a thorough proofreading of our work, addressing any grammatical and language-related concerns to ensure the utmost clarity and readability.

Literature review: While the journal requested a title labeled as "Background," we have adjusted it to align with your preference, now designating it as "Literature Review" to accurately represent its content and purpose.

Methodology Refinement: Following your guidance, we have made the necessary revisions in the methodology section. Specifically, we have provided a detailed breakdown of the sample respondents, highlighting the distribution by country for enhanced clarity and transparency.

Discussion Restructuring: We have undertaken a comprehensive restructuring of the discussion section, addressing instances where references were missing and ensuring that all relevant points are now properly cited. Additionally, we have enriched the section by incorporating a more extensive set of references to further elucidate our results.

We sincerely hope that these adjustments meet your expectations and align with the standards expected for publication. If you find the need for any further modifications or have additional suggestions, please do not hesitate to communicate them to us. Your continued guidance is highly valued and greatly appreciated.

Warm regards,

F1000Res. 2023 Jul 31. doi: 10.5256/f1000research.144432.r186391

Reviewer response for version 1

Easwaramoorthy Rangaswamy 1

The manuscript focuses on one of the contemporary issues, which I think is very interesting and a complex issue too. The authors have managed to articulate the issue reasonably well in the introduction.

The introduction part can have a subsection about the research problem and can also show the research questions clearly.

The conceptual model can be aligned with the Literature review and the proposed hypotheses. Also, ensure that the latest literature is provided. There are not many 2022/2023 reviews provided.

Methodologically, the paper does not lack rigour, but it needs more clarity on the sample selected, demographics and also potential limitations due to the methodology. It does not mention the “representativeness of the sample”. The methodology section need also to include details about the research design, research philosophy, research approach, etc. Provide a clear and detailed explanation of the research design and methodology employed in the study. Clearly state the research approach and justify its suitability for addressing the research questions.

The section “Ethical Considerations” mentioned, “The data collected will be used only for academic research purposes”. It is suggested to write in the past tense, as the data collected is not in the report stage.

The results and findings section should go beyond a mere summary and interpretation of the findings. Provide an in-depth analysis of the data, relating it back to the research questions and objectives. Clearly explain the implications of the findings and their significance in the context of the prevailing literature available. Additionally, discuss any unexpected or contradictory findings and offer potential explanations. I see that certain findings are discussed but I also see a sub-section named “key findings” in section Discussion. Looks duplicated. Also, avoid point-wise writing in “key findings”.

The discussion section should include a comprehensive review and synthesis of relevant literature. Compare the findings of the study with existing research in the research area. Identify areas of agreement or divergence and discuss the potential reasons behind these differences. This will strengthen the validity and generalizability of the study's findings.

Review the manuscript for coherence and flow, ensuring the content is well-organized and logically structured.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Partly

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Partly

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly

Reviewer Expertise:

Management

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Data Citations

    1. Rahiman H, Kodikal R, Suresh S: Game on: Can gamification enhance productivity?[Data]. Figshare. 2023a. 10.6084/m9.figshare.22083158 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
    2. Rahiman H, Kodikal R, Suresh S: Questionnaire.[Data]. Figshare. 2023b. 10.6084/m9.figshare.22262974 [DOI]

    Data Availability Statement

    Underlying data

    Figshare: Game on: Can gamification enhance productivity?, https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.22083158 ( Rahiman et al., 2023a).

    The project contains the following underlying data:

    • -

      Gamification and Productivity Data.sav (Questionnaire responses)

    Extended data

    Figshare: Questionnaire. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.22262974 ( Rahiman et al., 2023b).

    The project contains the following extended data:

    • -

      Questionnair Gamification.pdf

    Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero “No rights reserved” data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication).

    Articles from F1000Research are provided here courtesy of F1000 Research Ltd

    RESOURCES