4 ms·

Ask HN: Work Gamification

17 points by fbn79 5y ago

Does your company/team has adopted or tried some kind of work gamification (leaderboard, prices, specific rules, perks, etc.)? What do you think about it?

nyellin 5y ago
It's for a different purpose, but we've thought of running a competition to create the most useful devops automation for https://robusta.dev https://robusta.dev to encourage new open source contributors. We're still on the fence though because we want to encourage everyone. Every time there are winners, there are also losers
marquisdepolis 5y ago
Few years ago I tried doing this with fitbits to encourage exercise within my team. Worked a treat for a few months ...
arsalanb 5y ago
I've seen examples of it be done, but think it's a patch that masks a more serious problem with the hiring process. In early stage startups, you should only hire people who are qualified and excited to do the job. At later stage or well-funded companies, the salary and compensation should make it worth working on niche things that are usually hard to be excited about.
trevormcneal 5y ago
I think that this should be called salary.
- azangru 5y ago
  Some also call it job title :-)
  - yitchelle 5y ago
    Job survival is the real game.
- muzani 5y ago
  *bonus
sillysaurusx 5y ago
Thankfully no. My experience with women in tech made it very clear that this would be detrimental. Women usually do not like to aggressively compete for status, and it’s up to us to foster a better environment.
high_byte 5y ago
our small team (~10) got some Ethereum to do anything we want. some invested, some HODLd, some "invested" in risk free-money type of deals but whatever, we were allowed to do anything. whoever has highest ROI after 3 months wins. but most of all it was a great experience to play with defi, talk strategies. great team building.
lnsru 5y ago
I work in slightly dysfunctional division. Going extra mile is not desired and rocking the boat is being punished. I am old fart with a decade experience and want work at my work and play games with whoever I want. That’s where ageism comes, because I see cool startups around packing the same old development tasks into epic events for superheroes. Maybe I spend too much time with GURPS and d20 earlier, but work is work and gamification can stay aside. I wouldn’t do this as a manager either because the new superhero can suddenly start wanting more salary for being so superior. I was involved into a project for subway operator efficiency increase. That was packed as a game where one gets points for braking as less as possible. Union stepped later in and closed the show. Nobody needs extra tension in already stressful job.
- andrei_says_ 5y ago
  You may like Dan Lyon’s Disrupted and Lab Rats.
amriksohata 5y ago
Microsoft tried this years ago under Balmer and they called it Stack Ranking. They stopped doing it when it destroyed morale and they created terrible products like Vista and Zune. Just no. Read team books and do not create dog eat dog environments, we are not sales. We are knowledge workers.
- DarylZero 5y ago
  Gamification doesn't have to be ranking. You can gamify individuals improving their own metrics. Like github showing you your contribution "streak" (number of days in a row with a commit). Software development lacks good metrics, though.
  - willcipriano 5y ago
    > You can gamify individuals improving their own metrics. Here's how that goes. "Daryl we have deadlines and we need you to make sure these tickets get completed!" You burn the midnight oil and then a month later: "Daryl, your productivity metrics are lower than last month, why aren't you a team player?" It's a trap.
    - jstx1 5y ago
      It also creates bad incentives - "oh I need to commit every day? let me spread out today's work over the whole week so I can get a green mark for every day instead of shipping this feature that's ready" Goodhart's law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law) gets repeated a lot in threads like these but it's for a good reason.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
    - DarylZero 5y ago
      If you want to constantly increase output it's obviously impossible. That is just bad gamification. I think gamification has to be progress toward completion, and the difficulty of completion has to be set deliberately so it isn't either easy or daunting. So every 1000 tickets you get a day PTO. More like that. Tickets aren't good metrics, it means prioritizing easy tickets and incentivizing creating more tickets than necessary. There are no good metrics for software work really.
throwaway24124 5y ago
No part of your job should be gamified, or employees start optimizing to win the game and compete with each other instead of collaborating to create a better product/company. However, bug bounties and crypto bounties are a great way to "gamify" work that cannot be done by traditional employees.
- thematrixturtle 5y ago
  Work is very much a game. The reward function is your paycheck, and optimal gaming strategy involves outcompeting others for promotions and warping into new jobs to maximize that paycheck.
  - throwaway24124 5y ago
    I agree, the metagame is your career, and if you're playing the metagame you're incentivized to take projects that look good on your resume, leverage experience for the highest possible offer at the next job, etc. But "gamification" of your tasks at work is not a fun experience and is not a good way to manage a team. It leads to tracking "gamified" metrics that probably aren't closely tied to the success of the business/product.
throwawayvibes 5y ago
These kind of initiatives are extremely cringe worthy, dishonest and unprofessional.
jehb 5y ago
At some point, over tracking metrics becomes effective gamification. The only way I've seen it promote positive behavior are when the goals are shared, and when everyone's participation actually meaningfully contributes to the goal. Otherwise, some people just have a natural leg up by virtue of some aspect of their work that lends itself to getting more "points" in whatever system you devise, and everyone else either becomes resentful or manipulates the system in a way that the points are no longer encouraging the behavior that you would hope they are. The exceptions here might be things that are only work adjacent. I've enjoyed gamified health challenges, fantasy sports, and actual games with coworkers. Because then it's for fun, and not something that's going to impact my paycheck or my perceived value in the organization.
tibu 5y ago
The problem with gamification is that everybody will try to game the gamification system.
meheleventyone 5y ago
I’m a game designer. The best thing you should take from game design in terms of how to improve work is the difference between extrinsic and intrinsic reward. Most gamification focuses on extrinsic rewards such as leaderboards, levelling and achievements. But really they should think about the intrinsic rewards of work and how to improve those. Doing the latter without the former is just running people on a treadmill towards burnout. Focusing on extrinsic rewards also has a lot of negative consequences more generally. People focused on them as individuals often do so to the detriment of the wider organisation. You see that with bonuses as well. And extrinsic rewards can result in lower creativity, less intrinsic motivation and even less satisfaction from social rewards. Basically do the hard thing and make the work inherently better rather than the easy thing of adding hoops to jump through.
- heisgone 5y ago
  Absolutely. I would add to this that everyone is motivated by something different. It's important they let people have the chance to set their own motivation goals. Some people are motivated by helping others, some by solving problems, some by doing quality work. etc.
- seventhtiger 5y ago
  I agree. Another important lesson from game design I think gamification misses is the how much game designers focus on feedback. They design layered loops of feedback, from instant second to second feedback, to task based, to journey-long feedback, so that progress is rewarded at all levels. Very rarely is the result of your actions vague in a game.
plck 5y ago
Luke Hohmann designed "Innovation games" to help with collaborative decision-making during the meetings. It's a set of games that a team and customers/managers play together to build a shared vision. They are most helpful in hierarchical environments when subordinates are reluctant to voice their thoughts against a person's in power opinion (manager, a more senior employee, etc.). Turning the discussion into a game enables everyone to participate without fear of breaking the social tabu of speaking up against the highest-paid person in the room. "Six thinking hats" by Edward de Bono, psychologist, is another tool that helps to "gamify" discussions. I have used Six Hats with excellent outcomes, usually when the team could not agree on a solution. They worked well in fast ("production is down, do we restore from backup or continue migration?") and slow ("what is the next most important thing to do") discussions. Unfortunately, I did not have the opportunity to explore much of "innovation games." The reluctance usually comes from the business folks. Curious to hear if anyone has experience with those methods or knows other collaborative decision-making tools! - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innovation_game https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innovation_game - https://www.slideshare.net/emte69/innovation-games-14009295 https://www.slideshare.net/emte69/innovation-games-14009295 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Thinking_Hats https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Thinking_Hats
aaron695 5y ago

17 points by fbn79 5y ago

Does your company/team has adopted or tried some kind of work gamification (leaderboard, prices, specific rules, perks, etc.)? What do you think about it?

nyellin 5y ago

It's for a different purpose, but we've thought of running a competition to create the most useful devops automation for https://robusta.dev https://robusta.dev to encourage new open source contributors. We're still on the fence though because we want to encourage everyone. Every time there are winners, there are also losers

marquisdepolis 5y ago

Few years ago I tried doing this with fitbits to encourage exercise within my team. Worked a treat for a few months ...

arsalanb 5y ago

I've seen examples of it be done, but think it's a patch that masks a more serious problem with the hiring process. In early stage startups, you should only hire people who are qualified and excited to do the job. At later stage or well-funded companies, the salary and compensation should make it worth working on niche things that are usually hard to be excited about.

trevormcneal 5y ago

I think that this should be called salary.

azangru 5y ago
Some also call it job title :-)
- yitchelle 5y ago
  Job survival is the real game.
muzani 5y ago
*bonus

sillysaurusx 5y ago

Thankfully no. My experience with women in tech made it very clear that this would be detrimental. Women usually do not like to aggressively compete for status, and it’s up to us to foster a better environment.

high_byte 5y ago

our small team (~10) got some Ethereum to do anything we want. some invested, some HODLd, some "invested" in risk free-money type of deals but whatever, we were allowed to do anything. whoever has highest ROI after 3 months wins. but most of all it was a great experience to play with defi, talk strategies. great team building.

lnsru 5y ago

I work in slightly dysfunctional division. Going extra mile is not desired and rocking the boat is being punished. I am old fart with a decade experience and want work at my work and play games with whoever I want. That’s where ageism comes, because I see cool startups around packing the same old development tasks into epic events for superheroes. Maybe I spend too much time with GURPS and d20 earlier, but work is work and gamification can stay aside. I wouldn’t do this as a manager either because the new superhero can suddenly start wanting more salary for being so superior. I was involved into a project for subway operator efficiency increase. That was packed as a game where one gets points for braking as less as possible. Union stepped later in and closed the show. Nobody needs extra tension in already stressful job.

andrei_says_ 5y ago
You may like Dan Lyon’s Disrupted and Lab Rats.

amriksohata 5y ago

Microsoft tried this years ago under Balmer and they called it Stack Ranking. They stopped doing it when it destroyed morale and they created terrible products like Vista and Zune. Just no. Read team books and do not create dog eat dog environments, we are not sales. We are knowledge workers.

DarylZero 5y ago
Gamification doesn't have to be ranking. You can gamify individuals improving their own metrics. Like github showing you your contribution "streak" (number of days in a row with a commit). Software development lacks good metrics, though.
- willcipriano 5y ago
  > You can gamify individuals improving their own metrics. Here's how that goes. "Daryl we have deadlines and we need you to make sure these tickets get completed!" You burn the midnight oil and then a month later: "Daryl, your productivity metrics are lower than last month, why aren't you a team player?" It's a trap.
  - jstx1 5y ago
    It also creates bad incentives - "oh I need to commit every day? let me spread out today's work over the whole week so I can get a green mark for every day instead of shipping this feature that's ready" Goodhart's law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law) gets repeated a lot in threads like these but it's for a good reason.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - DarylZero 5y ago
    If you want to constantly increase output it's obviously impossible. That is just bad gamification. I think gamification has to be progress toward completion, and the difficulty of completion has to be set deliberately so it isn't either easy or daunting. So every 1000 tickets you get a day PTO. More like that. Tickets aren't good metrics, it means prioritizing easy tickets and incentivizing creating more tickets than necessary. There are no good metrics for software work really.

throwaway24124 5y ago

No part of your job should be gamified, or employees start optimizing to win the game and compete with each other instead of collaborating to create a better product/company. However, bug bounties and crypto bounties are a great way to "gamify" work that cannot be done by traditional employees.

thematrixturtle 5y ago
Work is very much a game. The reward function is your paycheck, and optimal gaming strategy involves outcompeting others for promotions and warping into new jobs to maximize that paycheck.
- throwaway24124 5y ago
  I agree, the metagame is your career, and if you're playing the metagame you're incentivized to take projects that look good on your resume, leverage experience for the highest possible offer at the next job, etc. But "gamification" of your tasks at work is not a fun experience and is not a good way to manage a team. It leads to tracking "gamified" metrics that probably aren't closely tied to the success of the business/product.

throwawayvibes 5y ago

These kind of initiatives are extremely cringe worthy, dishonest and unprofessional.

jehb 5y ago

At some point, over tracking metrics becomes effective gamification. The only way I've seen it promote positive behavior are when the goals are shared, and when everyone's participation actually meaningfully contributes to the goal. Otherwise, some people just have a natural leg up by virtue of some aspect of their work that lends itself to getting more "points" in whatever system you devise, and everyone else either becomes resentful or manipulates the system in a way that the points are no longer encouraging the behavior that you would hope they are. The exceptions here might be things that are only work adjacent. I've enjoyed gamified health challenges, fantasy sports, and actual games with coworkers. Because then it's for fun, and not something that's going to impact my paycheck or my perceived value in the organization.

tibu 5y ago

The problem with gamification is that everybody will try to game the gamification system.

meheleventyone 5y ago

I’m a game designer. The best thing you should take from game design in terms of how to improve work is the difference between extrinsic and intrinsic reward. Most gamification focuses on extrinsic rewards such as leaderboards, levelling and achievements. But really they should think about the intrinsic rewards of work and how to improve those. Doing the latter without the former is just running people on a treadmill towards burnout. Focusing on extrinsic rewards also has a lot of negative consequences more generally. People focused on them as individuals often do so to the detriment of the wider organisation. You see that with bonuses as well. And extrinsic rewards can result in lower creativity, less intrinsic motivation and even less satisfaction from social rewards. Basically do the hard thing and make the work inherently better rather than the easy thing of adding hoops to jump through.

heisgone 5y ago
Absolutely. I would add to this that everyone is motivated by something different. It's important they let people have the chance to set their own motivation goals. Some people are motivated by helping others, some by solving problems, some by doing quality work. etc.
seventhtiger 5y ago
I agree. Another important lesson from game design I think gamification misses is the how much game designers focus on feedback. They design layered loops of feedback, from instant second to second feedback, to task based, to journey-long feedback, so that progress is rewarded at all levels. Very rarely is the result of your actions vague in a game.

plck 5y ago

Luke Hohmann designed "Innovation games" to help with collaborative decision-making during the meetings. It's a set of games that a team and customers/managers play together to build a shared vision. They are most helpful in hierarchical environments when subordinates are reluctant to voice their thoughts against a person's in power opinion (manager, a more senior employee, etc.). Turning the discussion into a game enables everyone to participate without fear of breaking the social tabu of speaking up against the highest-paid person in the room. "Six thinking hats" by Edward de Bono, psychologist, is another tool that helps to "gamify" discussions. I have used Six Hats with excellent outcomes, usually when the team could not agree on a solution. They worked well in fast ("production is down, do we restore from backup or continue migration?") and slow ("what is the next most important thing to do") discussions. Unfortunately, I did not have the opportunity to explore much of "innovation games." The reluctance usually comes from the business folks. Curious to hear if anyone has experience with those methods or knows other collaborative decision-making tools! - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innovation_game https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innovation_game - https://www.slideshare.net/emte69/innovation-games-14009295 https://www.slideshare.net/emte69/innovation-games-14009295 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Thinking_Hats https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Thinking_Hats

aaron695 5y ago