GAMIFICATION IN EMPLOYEE TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT:

MILLENNIAL PERSPECTIVES

A dissertation submitted

by

MARY E. SAUNDERS

June, 2017

to

UNIVERSITY OF THE ROCKIES

Upon the recommendation of the Faculty and the approval of the Board of Trustees, this
dissertation is hereby accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Approved by:

__________________________________

Ella Benson, EdD

Committee Chair

Committee Members:
Michelle Post, PhD
Gwynne N. Dawdy, PhD




ProQuest Number: 10602370




All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.






ProQuest 10602370

Published by ProQuest LLC (2017 ). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.


All rights reserved.
This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.


ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
 Copyright © by

MARY ELIZABETH SAUNDERS

2017

ii
 Gamification in Employee Training and Development: Millennial Perspectives

by

Mary E. Saunders

Abstract

Twenty-first century organizations realize the importance of training and

development in ensuring engagement with a younger workforce. By modernizing their

training and development strategies, organizations may be successful in attracting and

retaining millennial employees. The purpose of this transcendental phenomenological

(descriptive) qualitative study was to understand the lived experiences of millennial

employees with gamified training and development. This study centered on two research

questions: What is the nature of the lived experiences of millennial employees when

gamification is incorporated in their training and development; and what meaning do

millennials ascribe to their lived experiences when using gamification methods in their

training? A purposive sample of nine millennials living in the United States were

interviewed via telephone. Data collected was grouped and analyzed for common themes

using the modified van Kaam approach. The findings indicated that gamification was

associated with feelings of playfulness, fun, excitement, accomplishment, and gratified

competitiveness. Participants also expressed that gamification had helped them to overcome

barriers to work socialization, and had improved their feelings about their employers when

gamification seemed intended to benefit employees. Participants took their experiences of

gamification to mean that their generation learned in different ways than earlier generations,

and that employers were finding appropriate ways to engage them by keeping pace with the

evolution of content-delivery methods. The results of this study may help leaders and

employers to engage millennial employees more effectively by using gamification to

iii
overcome barriers to collaboration, to promote collaboration, and by reinforcing in employee

communications that gamified systems are to help maximize employee learning and

development.

Keywords: engagement, gamification, generation Y, millennials, motivation, retention,

training methods

iv
 Acknowledgements

Firstly, I would like to acknowledge my Advisor, Dr. Ella Benson, whose expertise

and guidance inspired and encouraged me throughout this process; and my Committee

Members, Dr. Michelle Post and Dr. Gwynne Dawdy, whose generosity and support made it

possible for me to complete this doctoral thesis. These wonderful professionals took the time

to reply to my emails, and my texts, and showed great interest in my research. Their valuable

mentoring is greatly appreciated as they were a constant source of motivation for helping me

during this journey.

I am grateful to my research participants for giving their time and interest to

participate in my research. Without their input, this research would not have been

completed.

I would also like to express my gratitude to my family and friends for their

confidence and input in this research. To my husband, Mark, for his input and support, and

to our precious daughter, Abigail, for her patience with mom not being there sometimes

during family time.

Thank you all. I love you.

v
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................1

Background of the Study ...................................................................................................2

The Millennial Demographic .........................................................................................2

Technology and the Millennial Generation.....................................................................3

Can Companies Attract and Retain Millennials? ............................................................3

Statement of Problem ........................................................................................................4

Purpose of the Study..........................................................................................................6

Importance of the Study ....................................................................................................7

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework.............................................................................8

Research Questions ......................................................................................................... 12

Overview of Research Design.......................................................................................... 13

Definitions of Terms........................................................................................................ 15

Assumptions .................................................................................................................... 15

Limitations ...................................................................................................................... 16

Summary ......................................................................................................................... 16

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................. 19

Search Strategy................................................................................................................ 20

Review of Related Research and Literature ..................................................................... 21

Gaps in the Literature .................................................................................................. 21

The World of Gamification .......................................................................................... 23

New Generation of Professionals: Millennials .............................................................. 25

The Future of Work/Generational Shifts ...................................................................... 31

Significance of Gamification in Learning and Development ........................................ 32

Traditional Methods of Training and Development and Its Implications ...................... 36

vi
 Employee Development and the Learning Organization ............................................... 38

Fun at Work: Gamify Your Business/Gamify Your Teaching ...................................... 40

Maximizing Millennials Engagement With Gamification ............................................. 42

Empowering Millennials .............................................................................................. 45

Use of Motivation in Successful Game Design............................................................. 48

Summary ......................................................................................................................... 50

CHAPTER III: METHOD ................................................................................................... 53

Research Method and Justification .................................................................................. 54

Research Design and Justification.................................................................................... 56

Researcher’s Role ............................................................................................................ 61

Study Participants ............................................................................................................ 63

Instrumentation ............................................................................................................... 67

Pilot Study....................................................................................................................... 67

Procedures Followed ....................................................................................................... 68

Data Collection................................................................................................................ 69

Data Analysis .................................................................................................................. 72

Validity ........................................................................................................................... 73

Ethical Concerns ............................................................................................................. 75

Summary ......................................................................................................................... 76

CHAPTER IV: RESULTS .................................................................................................. 77

Pilot Study....................................................................................................................... 77

Sample ............................................................................................................................ 79

Data Collection................................................................................................................ 79

Data Analysis and Results ............................................................................................... 80

Nature of Millennials’ Experience With Training and Development Gamification ....... 82

vii
 Meaning That Millennials Ascribe to Training and Development Gamification ........... 84

Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 85

CHAPTER V: DISCUSSION .............................................................................................. 88

Recap of the Study Background and Research Questions ................................................. 88

Interpretation of Findings ................................................................................................ 90

Limitations of Study ........................................................................................................ 93

Implications for Theory and Research ............................................................................. 94

Implications for Practice .................................................................................................. 95

Recommendations for Further Research .......................................................................... 96

Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 96

REFERENCES.................................................................................................................... 98

viii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Birth Years for the Generations................................................................................2

Table 2: The Nature of Millennials’ Lived Experiences With Gamification ......................... 81

Table 3: The Meaning of Millennials’ Lived Experiences With Gamification ...................... 82

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Impact of gamification on the 21st century organization. ...................................... 50

ix
 APPENDICES

Appendix A: Private Message to Facebook Group Administrators ..................................... 109

Appendix B: Private Message to LinkedIn Group Administrators ...................................... 111

Appendix C: Pilot Study Post – Facebook Participants ...................................................... 113

Appendix D: Pilot Study Post – LinkedIn Participants ....................................................... 114

Appendix E: Letter of Informed Consent ........................................................................... 115

Appendix F: Demographic and Interview Questions .......................................................... 118

x
 CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION

Twenty-first century organizations are starting to rethink their approach to training

and development as a means to engage and retain millennial employees (George, 2015).

Modernizing training and development is necessary for organizations to maintain their

competitive position in the global and competitive marketplace (Eggleston, 2015; Gastich,

2015; George, 2015; Neo, 2015; Ruhi, 2015). At the time of this study, researchers had

forecasted that by 2025, 75% (Napolitano, 2015) of the workforce would include the

millennial generation. Implementing new technologies and innovative strategies to keep

these digital natives engaged in creative ways could improve overall productivity and create

higher returns on investment (Napolitano, 2015). This phenomenological study helped the

researcher understand the lived experiences of millennial employees’ use of gamification in

their training and development. The results of this study may help leaders and employers to

engage millennial employees more effectively by using gamification to overcome barriers to

collaboration, to promote collaboration, and by reinforcing in employee communications that

gamified systems are to help maximize employee learning and development.

Gamification has been defined by researchers as an approach of using game-like

techniques (Radu, Beleiu, & Nistor, 2014) to engage and motivate employees in institutional

and organizational environments. The intent of gamification is to incorporate elements from

games to encourage learners to engage with the content to progress toward a specific goal,

objective, or both (Kapp, Blair, & Mesch, 2014). Based on many favorable studies,

gamification techniques are more beneficial over traditional training methods both in the

institutional and organizational environments as gamification techniques help employees and

students in better retention of knowledge (Kapp, 2012; Kapp et al., 2014; Paul, 2014).

1
Gamification techniques aid in employee engagement during training. While there are

companies that have already gamified their businesses, many companies struggle with how to

integrate gamification into their training and development of employees (George, 2015;

Kapp, 2012; Kapp et al., 2014).

Background of the Study

The background for this study had three main aspects regarding millennials: their

demographics, their use of technology, and what attracts them to work for and stay with a

company.

The Millennial Demographic

The term millennial refers to the demographic cohort of individuals born between

1981 and 1997 (Pew Research Center, 2015). Table 1 compares the birth years and ages of

millennials to earlier generations. As the youngest cohorts of adults, millennials will shape

the 21st-century American workforce.

Table 1

Birth Years for the Generations

Generation Birth years Age of Adults in 2015

Millennials 1981-1997 18-34
Xers 1965-1980 35-50
Boomers 1946-1964 51-69
Silent 1928-1945 70-87
Note. Adapted from “The Generations Defined,” by Pew
Research Center, September 2015, The Whys and How’s of
Generations Research, p. 3.

Some historical events have been crucial in shaping the lifestyles of millennial

employees. These events include: (a) the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States,

2
aka 9/11; (b) the Great Recession; (c) a record amount of student loan debt; (d) a lack of

available employment opportunities; (e) the surging cost of living; (f) the postponement of

starting their own families; and (g) a technological revolution (Gil, 2015).

Technology and the Millennial Generation

Innovation and technology have uniquely aided millennial employees, by opening up

more new opportunities than were available for earlier generations. Because of this

innovation and technology advancement, millennial workers have been characterized as

techno-savvy, highly motivated, and knowledge-driven with a desire to positively impact the

business world and the economy as a whole (Gil, 2015). Ultimately, millennials wish to

leverage their multi-faceted, versatile skill sets and are seeking professional opportunities

that will support this ambition.

Can Companies Attract and Retain Millennials?

Millennials are seeking opportunities where they can advance themselves by

acquiring the necessary training, knowledge, and skills to make a positive impact in the

global business world. The primary concern of millennials in the workplace is adequate

training and development as indicated in The Hartford’s 2014 Millennial Leadership Survey.

It is significant that 21st-century leaders are meeting the needs of millennials by using

innovation and technology to attract, retain, engage, and motivate them (Gil, 2015).

Millennials are seeking opportunities with forward-thinking organizational leaders

who can empower them and further develop their skills. In particular, millennials are seeking

leadership roles where they can offer their perspectives on new and innovative systems and

processes. Thus, it is essential that leaders develop a forward-thinking approach to their

current training and development methods to attract the next generation of employees.

3
 The purpose of this transcendental phenomenological (descriptive) qualitative study

was to understand the lived experiences of millennial employees with gamified training and

development. The millennial generation is influencing the way learning is conducted in the

institutional and organizational environments. Gamification in training and development

may aid in facilitating personalization, collaboration, and ubiquity of learning (Fructuoso,

2015). It is foundational that 21st-century organizations realize that the rapid change in

technology and innovation can help them retain their competitive positions in the global

marketplace. Corporate leaders may be able to incorporate findings from this

phenomenological study to create work environments that help to engage millennial

employees (Farrell & Hurt, 2014; Marcinkus, 2012; Neo, 2015; Ng, Schweitzer & Lyons,

2010). According to studies, employees who are disengaged will cost organizations billions

of dollars on a yearly basis, whereas engaged employees will improve the organization’s

profitability (Gastich, 2015; Korolov, 2012).

Statement of Problem

Researchers assert that millennials, otherwise called Generation Y, will comprise as

much as 75% of the global workforce by 2025 (Cekada, 2012; George, 2015; Napolitano,

2015; Schawbel, 2013). The general problem was that organizational leaders did not know

how to engage, train, and retain millennial employees. Based on a growing body of research,

traditional training and development methods were not as effective for the next generation of

workers (Fry, 2015; Gil, 2015; Taylor & Keeter, 2010; U.S. Chamber of Commerce

Foundation, 2015). In fact, organizational leaders were having difficulty choosing the most

efficient training delivery methods in order to facilitate employee learning and development

(Korolov, 2012; Paul, 2014).

4
 Gamification procedures have turned out to be an effective way to deal with

millennial engagement, and inspiration (George, 2015; Nero, 2015, Ritter, 2015). It was

evaluated that the gamification business sector would develop from $421.3 million to $5.502

billion in 2018 (Rohan, 2015). The effective integration of gamification techniques would

have a significant impact on 21st-century institutions, as well as the economy (Chatfield,

2015; Gamification Corp., 2012; Kapp, 2012). Patten (2015) indicated that a comprehension

of how games persuade the more youthful era’s yearning to overcome hindrances is being put

to better use as organizational leaders take in the force of dynamic rewards. Corporate

leaders who gamify their training programs have seen extensive achievement. Joining

gamification components—for example, levels, points, and badges to empower cooperation,

reward execution, and maintain inspiration—will help employees, as well as an

organization’s performance and profitability (Avantika, 2015). Lozano (2015) recommended

that to utilize gamification to drive engagement and meet learning goals, it was insufficient to

just incorporate a badge.

The specific problem addressed in this study was that although extensive data were

accumulated regarding the positive influence gamification had on business outcomes, to date,

leaders in business could not articulate the phenomenon of the millennial lived experience of

gamification in training and development (Korolov, 2012, Paul, 2014). Failure to address the

training and development needs of millennial workers, or to streamline the training and

development strategies resulted in a disengaged workforce (Gil, 2015). Korolov (2012)

reported that employees who were disengaged would have a significant impact on

organizational costs, bringing about a loss of billions of dollars each year, while a workforce

that is engaged will improve the organization’s profitability.

5
 To ensure a highly competent, motivated, and engaged workforce, corporate leaders

must streamline their training and development strategies to retain their best employees (Gil,

2015). Cheong, Filippou, and Cheong (2014) advocated that a motivated and engaged

workforce would enhance both employee engagement and company results or profitability.

Werbach and Hunter (2012) indicated that the execution of gamification will (a) help

corporate leaders to comprehend the intended interest group, (b) decide how well the players

will perform at work, and (c) utilize the proper diversion components to persuade the players

to act. Farrell and Hurt (2014) and Ng et al. (2010) asserted that enhancing the approach to

the training of millennial workers may help guarantee their engagement and retention (Farrell

& Hurt, 2014; Ng et al., 2010).

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this transcendental phenomenological (descriptive) qualitative study

was to understand the lived experiences of millennial employees with gamified training and

development. This study sought to identify the essence of meaning in such experiences. As

the intent and focus of this study were to understand the phenomenon of the use of

gamification in training and development from the perspective of millennial employees, a

phenomenological research method was the most relevant approach to meet this research

goal.

Participants for this study derived from a purposive sampling process, involving nine

millennial employees. To capture the essence of the experience of gamification in training

and development through the lens of millennial employees, the researcher conducted

in-depth, semistructured interviews to do the study, after she obtained informed consent from

the participants. As indicated by Moustakas (1994), there were no in-advance criteria for

locating and selecting the research participants. For this study, the researcher utilized the

6
purposive sampling process, which considered millennial employees in the age group 18 to

34. Other essential criteria included that the research participants were (a) experienced with

the phenomenon of gamification in training, and development in the workplace; (b) were

intensely interested in understanding its name and meanings; (c) were willing to participate

in a lengthy interview, and (perhaps follow-up interviews); and (d) were willing to grant the

researcher the right to tape-record, and publish the data in this dissertation and other

publications. A full discussion of the method used to conduct this study can be found in

Chapter III.

Importance of the Study

Although some exploration has been committed to gamification, little consideration

has been paid to the way in which corporate leaders can use it to help guarantee engagement

and retention of millennial workers (Farrell & Hurt, 2014; Gamification Corp., 2012;

Korolov, 2012; Marcinkus, 2012; McGonigal, 2010; Wiebenga, 2005). As an example of the

need for engagement, Paliwal (2015) reported that fewer than one in 10 employees in the

workplace were engaged, and that the vast majority were disengaged and lacked motivation.

This study was critical because it gave millennial representatives the chance to voice their

discernments about gamification procedures and advantages in their workplace training and

development. When effectively implemented, gamification may help to engage and retain

millennial employees.

Paul (2014) asserted that it is in corporate leaders’ best interest to train employees

with up-to-date methods of training to help ensure the organization’s bottom line. Thus,

21st-century leaders must modernize their current training and development strategies, and

ensure that the new generation of employees is engaged and motivated. Paul (2014) also

indicated that current workforce training relies on conventional face-to-face interaction in the

7
classroom. However, to remain competitive and survive in the global marketplace,

workplace leaders must implement new methods of training and development, such as

gamification, along with other methods, which will allow organizations to retain their

competitive advantage.

A highly engaged, and motivated workforce would do what it took to increase

productivity and profitability within the organization (George, 2015; Neo, 2015).

Employees, who could provide input and were involved in the decision-making processes

would feel that they were more valued and appreciated, as their contributions would have

made an impact on business results (Neo, 2015). Eggleston (2015) reported that millennials

are more focused on professional development as they want to learn and feel empowered to

lead and help others to be successful.

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework

Two theories were used to support the conceptual rationale for this study. The

principal theory used was Deci and Ryan’s (1977) theory of self-determination (SDT). SDT

is an empirical assessment of human motivation and personality. It affirms the agency of

employees and reassures that their input is taken into consideration by leaders in the

workplace. The concept of gamification is an approach of using “game components,

mechanics or design techniques” (Radu et al., 2014, p. 20) to engage employees. According

to SDT, individuals can (a) experience psychological growth by mastering tasks and learning

different skills (i.e., competence), (b) they need to experience a sense of belonging and

attachment to other individuals (i.e., connection and relatedness), and (c) they need to feel in

control of their behaviors and goals (i.e., autonomy; Deci & Ryan, 2011; Ryan & Deci, 2000,

2008). Based on the SDT theory, Deci and Ryan (2011) advocated that the three

8
psychological needs of the workplace (i.e., competence, autonomy, and relatedness) are

required to ensure greater efficiency and productivity amongst employees.

The self-determination theory identifies two types of motivations. These are intrinsic

motivation and extrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation is internally-focused, not for

monetary gain, but for a sense of self-satisfaction. Extrinsic motivation is externally focused

and often includes financial rewards, praise, or both from another individual (Deci & Ryan,

2011; Kapp et al., 2014; Ryan & Deci, 2000, 2008). Kapp (2012) and Kapp et al. (2014)

noted that gamification has had a significant impact and helped to enhance the motivation

and engagement levels of individuals. A company, such as Deloitte Leadership Academy,

offers innovative digital training programs to individuals, learning institutions, and

organizations worldwide. Deloitte utilizes the concept of gamification, where they employ

the Behavior Platform through Badgeville to enhance positive behaviors and engagement in

individuals (Kapp et al., 2014). In a study by George (2015), the author emphasized the

importance of motivating and engaging millennials in the workplace as this will have a

significant impact on the organization’s bottom line.

George (2015) reported five ways that businesses can help ensure employee

engagement and motivation for better retention and business results. These include (a) social

impact, (b) employee recognition and feedback, (c) career development, (d) socialization and

team building, and (e) flexibility. Neo (2015) posited that forward-thinking corporate leaders

could engage and motivate their workforce by applying new technological and innovative

strategies to ensure better retention rates. Highly engaged employees will result in reduced

turnover and hiring costs, and improvements in performance business growth.

9
 Gamification may have significant potential in traditional education where there is a

need for students and employees to be motivated to be engaged in learning activities

(Harman, Koohang, & Palisziewicz, 2014). The aim of gamification is to ensure that game

elements are incorporated in the teaching process. In the institutional environment,

gamification helps to create a more engaging teaching and learning experience by elucidating

complex subjects, reducing the learning curve and adopting systems thinking (Kapp, 2012).

Farrell and Hurt (2014) contended that game-based learning (GBL) is used by individuals

who have an interest in improving learning through motivation. Furthermore, playing games

can be considered as intrinsically motivated.

According to Kapp (2012), the application of gamification techniques provides

advantages over training content that is presented in a traditional manner. Although gamified

learning produces positive results, those results are contingent upon how the techniques are

applied and incorporated into instructional design processes. The 21st-century leaders must

understand the psychology of learning to effectively apply the appropriate use of games,

technology, and simulations into learning initiatives.

Fructuoso (2015) purported that technology is impacting 21st-century organizations,

and their leaders must adapt to enable organizational long-term survival and success. The

millennial generation has different expectations regarding teaching and learning than that of

the baby-boomer generation and generation X (Fructuoso, 2015). Further, Fructuoso noted

that millennials prefer opportunities in advanced learning where there is (a) collaborative

work and networking, (b) varied activities, (c) communication skills involved, (d)

personalized learning, and (e) a high standard. Fructuoso reported that millennials would

prefer to learn by being actively involved where they can participate, work in teams, and

10
advance their skills for the digital era. Studies indicate that this group of employees are

highly engaged and would prefer using technology and innovative techniques both in the

institutional and organizational environment.

Gamification learning is creating greater successes in both the institutional and

organizational settings. Having the right approach, along with the practical implementation

of the right technologies will aid in better teaching and learning for the future generation of

employees. Fructuoso (2015) recommended 14 current pedagogical approaches that are

required for millennial learners. These include (a) ubiquity and flexibility, (b)

personalization, (c) self-regulated and learner-centered, (d) experimental, (e) real life, (f)

participative and active learning, (g) collaboration, (h) interactivity, (i) social learning and

networking, (j) creativity, (k) reflection, (l) responsibility, (m) digital competence, and (n)

lifelong and lifewide learning. Fructuoso (2015) indicated that the younger generation would

become the future leaders. They will leverage technologies to transform the way of learning

and communicating information. Gamification has had a significant impact and is suitable to

enhance the motivation and engagement levels of individuals both in institutional and

organizational environments (Kapp et al., 2014).

The secondary theory used as a conceptual framework for the study was Bandura’s

(1986) social cognitive theory (SCT). SCT can be defined as the beliefs in one’s capabilities

to organize and execute the course of action required to produce given attainments (Salanova

& Schaufeli, 2011). It is a function of interactions between personal behaviors and

environmental and social contexts (Schunk, 1989).

Boyce (2011) purported that applying SCT is significant in improving an individual’s

learning behaviors and attitudes. Bandura’s (1986) SCT can be used to improve education

11
and training in corporate settings because it takes personal actions and contexts into account.

Creating an environment of social learning is significant to employee engagement. As noted

by Boyce (2011), social learning involves positive feedback, which helps to improve

learning, and helps students to develop positive beliefs. Millennial employees who

experience gamification can offer unique insights through their personal accounts as to how

gamification facilitated their training and development.

Research Questions

The purpose of this transcendental phenomenological (descriptive) qualitative study

was to understand the lived experiences of millennial employees with gamified training and

development. According to Moustakas (1994), in phenomenological research, the question

grows out of intense interest in a particular problem or topic. The researcher’s excitement

and curiosity inspire the research. Personal history brings the core of the problem into focus.

A human science research question has definite characteristics:

 It aims to reveal more fully the essences and meanings of human experience;

 It seeks to uncover the qualitative rather than the quantitative factors in behavior
and experience;

 It engages the total self of the research participant, and sustains personal and
passionate involvement;

 It is illuminated through careful, comprehensive descriptions, vivid and accurate

renderings of the experience, rather than measurements, ratings, or scores.

The research questions for this study were thoroughly defined and carefully framed in

accordance with the research paradigm’s principles, while ensuring that the necessity of the

phenomenological approach was met (Reiter, Stewart, & Bruce (2011). In addition, the

research questions were written as broadly as possible and as detailed as necessary (Reiter et

al., 2011).

12
 In transcendental phenomenology, the research questions are the center of an

examination and to aid it the questions must be precisely developed; that is, each word must

be purposely picked and requested so that the essential words show up promptly, catch the

researcher’s consideration, and can help the researcher manage and coordinate the

phenomenological process of seeing, reflecting, and knowing. Each questions is related back

to the inquiry, is created exclusively to enlighten the investigation, and gives a depiction of

the marvel that is fundamental, rich, and layered in its textures and meanings (Moustakas,

1994). The purpose of this study was to answer the following research questions:

RQ1. What is the nature of the lived experiences of millennial employees when
gamification is incorporated in their training and development?

RQ2. What meaning do millennials ascribe to their lived experiences using

gamification methods in their training?

Overview of Research Design

The most suitable approach for this study was qualitative. This research was focused

on the use of gamification in training from the perspectives of millennial employees in the

work environment. The use of qualitative research was a suitable methodology for

incorporating different viewpoints and tending to the issues of philosophy, methodology, and

methods (Singh, 2015). Qualitative research gives a rich and detailed statement of individual

experiences (Guercini, 2014). Qualitative research enlightens the less unmistakable

implications and intricacies of our social world as it offers the likelihood of listening to the

perceptions and experiences of participants in the research (Finlay, 2011). As indicated by

Denzin and Lincoln (2000, 2005), qualitative researchers push the socially developed nature

of reality, as well as the private relationship between the researcher and what is considered.

Such researchers underscore the quality loaded nature of the request. They look for answers

to inquiries that emphasize how social experience is made and is given significance.

13
 Qualitative studies consist of one or more of the following purposes: description,

interpretation, verification, or evaluation. Description reveals the multifaceted nature of

certain situations, settings, processes, relationships, systems, or people. Interpretation

enables a researcher to (a) gain new insights about a particular phenomenon, (b) develop new

concepts or theoretical perspectives about the phenomenon, and (c) discover problems that

exist within the phenomenon (Creswell, 2014). Verification allows a researcher to test the

validity of certain assumptions, claims, theories, or generalizations within real-world

contexts. Evaluation provides a means through which a researcher can judge the

effectiveness of particular policies, practices, or innovations (Denzin, 2000).

In contrast, a quantitative approach was not suitable for this study. Quantitative

methods focus on the estimation and investigation of causal connections between the

variables, not forms. Proponents of such methods assert that their work is done from inside a

quality-free structure (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). Quantitative methods quantify (Hennink,

Hutter, & Bailey, 2011) a research problem and produce measurable outcomes that can be

extrapolated to a broader population.

The transcendental phenomenological (descriptive) design was used in this study, as

it used a qualitative approach and offered the best methodology for measuring participant

experiences to a particular situation (Moustakas, 1994). This design was the most relevant to

understanding the phenomenon of the use of gamification in training and development from

the viewpoint of millennial employees. This design attempts to describe purely personal

experiences of the participants. Whereas van Manen (1990) used hermeneutic

phenomenology (interpretive) to interpret such experiences (Creswell, 2013; Sloan & Bowe,

14
2014), Giorgi (1997, 2007) indicated that phenomenology included an exploration of the

essence of the lived experience.

The phenomenological study captured the essence of an experience, which lent deep

insight into the personal experiences of everyday life (Merriam & Associates, 2002). The

phenomenological method included (a) a description, (b) within the attitude of the

phenomenological reduction, and (c) sought the most invariant meanings for a context. It

included the lived experiences of each participant (Giorgi, 1997).

Definitions of Terms

The following words and terms were defined to facilitate an understanding of how the

terms were used in this study.

Employee engagement: A desirable condition, has an organizational purpose, and

connotes involvement, commitment, passion, enthusiasm, focused effort, and energy. Hence,

engagement has both attitudinal and behavioral components (Macey, 2008).

Employee retention: The policies and practices which lead the employees to be loyal

to an organization for a longer period (Balakrishnan & Vijayalakshmi, 2014).

Game elements: Elements that are characteristic of games (Radu et al., 2014).

Gamification: An approach of using game components, mechanics or design

techniques to engage and motivate people to achieve their goals (Radu et al., 2014).

Millennials: Also known as Generation Y, next gen, dot com generation, net

generation, digital natives, sunshine generation, and other terms that denote their newness

and lifestyle. These are the youngest generation in the workplace (Aruna & Anitha, 2015).

Assumptions

Qualitative research does not enable accurate generalizations because results are

usually embedded in the context of the data sample (Ali & Yusof, 2011). Since the

15
researcher was qualifying the individual experiences of a purposive sample of millennials, it

might be difficult to make broader assumptions of this population group. The researcher

needed to select participants who have direct involvement with the phenomenon, as opposed

to those who have points of view on the experience. In addition, the researcher might have

had difficulty bracketing experiences (i.e., epoché) and deciding how and to what degree

these assumptions were introduced to the study (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005; Moustakas, 1994).

Limitations

While this present phenomenological study was focused on the use of gamification in

training and development from the lived experiences of millennial employees, the study was

not without limitations. First, phenomenological research can be tedious as the interview

process can be extensive. Second, the use of participants for such research requires a

sensitive ethical approach. To manage potential tediousness and to foster an appropriate

approach, participants were allowed to convey what they wanted to without concern toward

any outcomes of their reported experiences to the researcher. Third, although interviews

were conducted to the point of saturation, the small sample size means that caution must be

exercised when attempting to extrapolate the findings to a broader population. Finally, the

researcher’s findings might be skewed by the researcher’s own biases. Identifying her

personal biases helped the researcher to monitor the manner in which she might be shaping

the collection and interpretation of data (Giorgi, 2006; Merriam, 2002).

Summary

The effective integration of innovative methods of training, such as gamification,

might extend the capabilities of the learning organization. Gamification includes the use of

game mechanics to engage and motivate individuals to achieve their goals. Further,

gamification aids in the revitalization of e-learning. The millennial generation is seeking

16
new and innovative ways to acquire the needed skills and to remain motivated and engaged

(Gil, 2015; Paul, 2014). Gamified training and development is one of the latest and most

innovative tools an organization can use to get positive outcomes. Twenty-first century

organizational leaders must modernize their training and development strategies to attract,

retain, and keep the new generation of employees engaged and motivated.

Two theories were used as supporting frameworks for this study; together, these

provided insight and understanding of gamification in training and development. Deci and

Ryan’s (1977) SDT was an empirical assessment of human motivation and personality.

Bandura’s (1986) SCT was used to improve education and training in corporate settings

because it takes personal behaviors and contexts into account. Corporate leaders might find

this study useful in their choice of gamification for 21st-century learning and development

for millennials.

Chapter II outlines discussions of how the literature review was conducted. This

includes search strategies and a review of the literature related to the research to understand:

 gaps in the literature;

 the world of gamification;

 a new generation of professionals known as millennials;

 the future of work/generational shifts;

 the significance of gamification in learning and development;

 traditional methods of training and development and its implications;

 employee development;

 fun at work-gamify your business/gamify your teaching;

 maximizing millennial engagement with gamification;

 empowering millennials;

17
  use of motivation in successful game design; and

 conclusions emerging from the literature review.

Chapter III outlines the method and design for the study. Chapter III also includes the

characteristics of the target population, the data collection procedures that were used, the

interview questions asked of participants, and a description of the process for analyzing the

participants’ interviews. Chapter IV provides the results of the interview-data analysis;

namely the participant demographics and the emergent themes from the study. Chapter V

provides the summary discussion by recapping the need for the study, the purpose of the

research, the research questions that guided the study, the interpretations of findings, the

implications for theory and research, the implications for practice, the recommendations for

further research, and a conclusion.

18
 CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW

The researcher reviewed previous research about the use of gamification in the

workplace from the perspectives of millennial employees (Boote & Beile, 2005). Reviewing

the literature helped the researcher gain more insight into the research topic than would have

been possible by reviewing a solitary observational paper (MacSuga-Gage & Simonsen,

2015). Conducting a phenomenological study involved the review of the professional

research-based literature based on the research questions (Moustakas, 1994). For this study,

the researcher evaluated the design, methodology, and findings of prior studies.

The purpose of this transcendental phenomenological (descriptive) qualitative study

was to understand the lived experiences of millennial employees with gamified training and

development. The literature review resulted in findings about how attracting and retaining

millennials has influenced both instructional and organizational settings and revitalized

e-learning. For example, as noted in Chapter I, in the workplace, millennials are seeking

 new and innovative ways to acquire the skills to remain motivated and engaged
while doing their jobs;

 opportunities where they are can advance themselves through the acquisition of
the necessary training, knowledge and skills in order to make a positive impact in
the global business world;

 opportunities with forward-thinking organizational leaders who are can empower

millennials, and help millennials to develop their skills;

 leadership roles where they can offer their perspectives regarding new and
innovative systems and processes; and

 new and creative ways to acquire the necessary skills and to remain motivated and
engaged.

The literature review also resulted in findings about

 the world of gamification;

 a new generation of professionals—millennials;

19
  the future of work/generational shifts;

 the significance of gamification in learning and development;

 traditional methods of training and development and its implications;

 employee development;

 fun at work-gamify your business/teaching;

 maximizing millennial engagement with gamification;

 empowering millennials; and

 use of motivation in successful game design; and

 gaps in the literature about millennial employees and gamification for workplace
training and development.

Search Strategy

The researcher’s search strategy involved using databases such as Business Source

Complete, and Google Scholar to find textbooks, journals, and online articles relevant to the

study. She reviewed the table of contents, bibliographies, and reference lists of those sources

to narrow her investigation and to focus on gamification, the millennial generation, and

learning styles as it related to technology. The information gathered through the literature

assisted in answering the research questions indicated in this study.

Some of the keywords and phrases that were used to do the literature search included

combinations of the following (such as millennial generation + gamification + job skills):

 millennial generation  gamification

 Generation Y  game dynamics training and development
 workplace fun matters
 motivation  technology
 intrinsic motivation  technological innovations
 extrinsic motivation
 learning strategies
 career development  learning methods
 social role change  knowledge management
 job skills  managing performance

20
  team concepts
 work/life balance  self-determination theory
 team building  social learning theory

Several books on gamification written by Kapp (2012), and Kapp et al. (2014), were

recommended by professionals in the area of study. Kapp (2012), and Kapp et al. (2014)

have made substantial contributions to the technological and innovation field and have

provided new ideas and perspectives on the effectiveness of gamification in training and

development for the 21st century. In sum, the review of the literature helped the researcher

in finding a topic for exploration and in analyzing and synthesizing data that is relevant to

writing and reporting on a topic within a limited timeframe (Cronin, Ryan, & Coughlan,

2008).

Review of Related Research and Literature

The remainder of this chapter is a synthesis of previous research about millennial

employees and the use of gamification for workplace training and development.

Gaps in the Literature

Several researchers identified gaps in the literature, which were also encountered

during the literature review. The first and amongst the most significant gaps in the literature

is that organizational leaders seem to lack effective strategies in training and developing the

millennial generation (Cekada, 2012; Eggleston, 2015; Farrell & Hurt, 2014; Neo, 2015; Ng

et al., 2010; Wiebenga, 2005). Hagel (2014) accentuated the need for business leaders to

think about the manner in which they can get their people connected. Hagel proposed that

organizational leaders give millennials the time and autonomy to develop the skills they

needed to build their network. He argued that this generation of workers tend to move from

one job to another seeking career opportunities where they can network effectively. For

21
example, millennials envisage conferences as critical events to connect with others and to

expand and grow their knowledge base.

By developing their skills and preserving their autonomy, millennials enact what Deci

and Ryan (2002) coined the SDT, or self-determination theory. This theory can be defined as

the interplay of intrinsic and extrinsic factors that motivates human behavior (Deci & Ryan,

2002). The extrinsic factors represent the external conditions, such as conferences and the

work environment, whereas the intrinsic factors are pursued out of enjoyment and

self-fulfillment (Kapp, 2012). As Kapp purported, being externally and internally

self-determined gives individual control of their actions. When combined, external and

internal self-determination enhance competency and support intrinsic motivation.

Marcinkus (2012) identified a second gap in his study on reverse mentoring at work:

fostering cross-generational learning and developing millennial leaders. He advocated that

new recruits with relevant knowledge to share have the capacity to be mentors. These new

recruits may also include generation X or the baby-boomer generations. However, he

proposed that research that is more empirical is needed to aid in the exploration of the impact

of generational differences as well as other individual differences about reverse mentoring.

To continue, the learning styles of millennials is a third gap in the literature. One of

the supporting frameworks for this study is Bandura’s social learning theory. From this

theory, the researcher gains a model of the ways in which individuals learn through

observation through social contexts (Kapp, 2012). This has implications for gamification

training and development methods since millennials desire a sense of belonging, support and

socialization in the workplace. Farrel and Hurt (2014) revealed that there is limited research

on the learning styles of millennials. To address this gap, more research is required to

22
measure the efficacy of different learning methods.

A fourth gap was noted by Frost, Matta, and MacIvor (2015) who noted that the

learning management system would have produced better results had it been designed

primarily for the purpose of gamifying education.

A fifth gap was noted by Cheong et al. (2014) in their article, which outlined the

gamification of learning where students’ perceptions in game elements were investigated.

Cheong et al. (2014) stated that limited data sets could falsify the results of the study. In

addition, they advised on further exploration in using game element ratings and comments by

respondents, which would aid the further analysis of the game elements.

The World of Gamification

The term gamification was probably initially used in 2002. However, it was not until

2010 that the concept of gamification gained popularity and received greater interest when it

attracted the attention of marketers who aimed to use it to influence consumer behavior

(Gatautis, Vitkauskaite, Gadeikiene, & Piligrimiene, 2016). Consequently, corporate leaders

started implementing gamification in their marketing activities and creating platforms of

gamification that were meant to enhance the efficiency of a company’s performance

(Gatautis et al., 2016). In 2010, business leaders at Bunchball, the organization that is the

originator of gamification and current pioneer in the advancement of services related to

gamification, was the first to present the solutions of game design usage as a service to other

companies. In addition, the leaders launched their services to other organizations, the aim of

which was to share the experience and ideas of implementing gamification on internet

websites that were not directly related to games (Gatautis et al., 2016).

Gamification is the use of game elements that are traditionally associated with

gaming to achieve a positive outcome and behavior change (Gauautis et al., 2016). For

23
example, leaderboards have been used to rank lectures and keep a large number of students

excited and motivated (Kapp, 2012). Zamir (2015) indicated that 21st-century leaders now

realize the significance of gamification in training and development and the manner in which

gamification can bring about better results than traditional training and development.

Gamification and its related elements aid in organizational successes, employee engagement,

and motivation (Cook, 2013; Roberts, 2014). Further, the most significant reason

organizational leaders must consider gamification is that it impacts positive behavioral

change within the organization. The use of gamification and its elements have had a major

impact on employee engagement and motivation in the workplace. Incorporating

gamification techniques within the classroom stimulates the teaching and learning experience

(Cook, 2013).

Avantika (2015) advocated that traditional methods of learning are not very

satisfactory in the 21st-century workplace. The alternative, gamification, is the new “secret

sauce” that leads to a more engaged and motivated workforce and further enhances the

learning process within the 21st-century learning organization. The purpose of gamification

typically stems from one of three reasons: (a) a younger workforce demands it, (b) training is

too boring, or (c) more fun is needed to achieve organizational learning outcomes (Zamir,

2015).

Further, corporate leaders should emphasize the use of training games since

gamification has been one of the best tools for achieving behavioral change. As for design,

requests for gamified projects are more focused on games that incorporate an avatar that is

rewarded with badges after tasks are completed. However, the game dynamic and aesthetic

should only form a part of the design planning and should not be the primary objective.

24
 Zamir (2015) suggested some best practices organizational leaders must take into

account when considering the purpose and design of gamification. These best practices

include (a) avoid gamification fatigue, (b) use gamification for engagement, (c) use

gamification for exploration, and (d) use game levels to achieve mastery. The integration of

effective gamification techniques raises the engagement factor of learning and development

opportunities for 21st-century organizations.

New Generation of Professionals: Millennials

Luttrell and McLean (2013) purported that every year, millennials, who are the

leaders of the 21st-century organizations, are joining the workforce, which will result in 40%

of the world’s professionals by the year 2020. Much like the generations before them,

millennials encompass the newest group of thinkers and doers, boasting evolved ideas and a

more advanced skill set. Luttrell and McLean further outlined five easy ways organizational

leaders can work with millennials; namely by offering: collaboration and innovation;

customized jobs and professional development; freedom; mutual respect; and fun at work.

Organizations can no longer pursue the idea of acquiring skills which will last a

lifetime. A relentlessly expanding complexity and rapid technological change at the

workplace call for competencies which respond to changing requirements. Consequently,

organizations can no longer depend on the mere examination of the present abilities required

at the work environment as the premise for designing training programs. What is needed

today is a change of paradigms. Having a comprehension of the dynamics occurring because

of increasing complexity and rapid technological progress at the workplace will help

organizational leaders in designing new technology, such as gamification techniques to

attract the millennial generation (Spöttl & Schulte, 2015).

25
 Collaboration and innovation. Millennials prefer to work in a collaborative work

environment as they do not necessarily subscribe to the culture of a corporate hierarchy.

Thus, creating the right strategies in the training and development of the millennial

generation will enhance their motivation and engagement levels within the organization

(Luttrell & McLean, 2013). Learning leaders have found that incorporating components into

advancement offerings can expand profitability, employee engagement and retention, and

advancement development (Cook, 2013).

Millennials prefer to be involved in work projects and in the framework of ideas for

corporate change. Engaging them in this effort will set the organization apart from its

competitors in the global marketplace. Further, providing millennials with the latest and

up-to-date tools will allow for greater organizational efficiency and effectiveness. Exposure

to professional organizations and being involved in external groups also allows millennials to

build their curiosity and creativity, which aids in promoting their big ideas to the team

(Luttrell & McLean, 2013; VanGorp, 2015).

There are two key trends that will make the inclusion of social technology in society

and in life a necessity: the physical separation amongst groups and the passageway of

millennials into the workplace. These new employees bring together different needs and

desires to their occupations and they frequently encounter a prepared workforce that has

altogether different work styles. New advances permit individuals to bring up issues, to offer

learning and thoughts, and to find relationship-building abilities regardless of hierarchy

(Skaržauskiené, Tamosiûnaitè, & Žaléniené, 2013).

Customized jobs and professional development. The traditional content and

instructional method of courses taught by human resources departments are becoming less

26
efficient. Millennials know how to customize almost anything, which allows them to

custom-build upon their current skills and custom-enhance their professional development.

Further, providing millennials with regular feedback and helping them in defining their goals

gives them opportunities for training and professional improvement (Luttrell & McLean,

2013; VanGorp, 2015).

Millennials are not from a universal system far, far away. They are a heterogeneous

group who have advanced in the data innovation age. These individuals have been brought

up in societies that are globalized and yet, in some cases, also limited, while also inside a

changing economic and social range. The Middle East is receiving creative techniques to

suit the requirements of these new-age learners, who should be willing to learn and make

strides. Some vital central focuses that business leaders in the United Arab Emirates (UAE)

are embracing to prepare millennials successfully include (a) knowing your audience and

understanding what they want, (b) satiating their eagerness to learn and to learn in their own

way, (c) realizing what they require is more than just data, (d) continuing with their past

engagement and grabbing their attention, (e) giving them adequate space and support to do

work their way, (f) perceiving their requirement for input, (g) permitting them to apply the

information, and (h) giving them independence and acknowledging their responsibility

(Chopra, 2016).

Culturally, millennials hold high respect for their seniors; however, they would like to

be dealt with on par mentally. Twenty-first century organizations can anticipate that

millennials will convey results because millennials cherish assuming responsibility. In

addition, millennials are hoping to be prepared and connected to innovation, to experiential

27
learning, to feedback mechanisms, and to experience self-adequacy and self-governance

(Chopra, 2016; Farrell & Hurt, 2014; VanGorp, 2015).

Freedom. The 21st-century workplace is moving from a nine-to-five approach to a

more flexible workplace to attract the best workers. With changes in technology and

innovation, business leaders now realize the ideal work environment in which the next

generation of employees would prefer to work. For example, millennials want an improved

work-life balance. Further, millennials are so tech-savvy that they are always connected to

the workplace, even when they are outside of the work environment (Luttrell & McLean,

2013).

Millennials seek freedom and flexibility in working hours as they realize that business

results require work beyond traditional work hours. In addition to an unconventional work

schedule, millennials much prefer to work from home rather than from their desks (Luttrell &

McLean, 2013). By 2020, nearly half of the workforce in the United States will be composed

of millennials. Millennials show such attributes as certainty and resistance, and they trust

that their greatest years are yet to come. They are socially cognizant, peppy, prepared to

tackle challenges, and are constantly open to change. Organizations like Toyota, IBM, and

Deloitte, are as of now spending up to 3% of their income to pull in millennial ability. A few

methods that 21st-century organizational leaders can use to attract millennials include being

(a) where they are, (b) caring, (c) flexible in scheduling, (d) generous, and (e) attentive

(VanGorp, 2015). Further, developing specific strategies to target this millennial talent is a

sound investment. Tapping into their limitless reserves of energy, technical skill,

collaborative tendencies, and entrepreneurial zeal can drive 21st-century organizations

forward (VanGorp, 2015).

28
 Mutual respect. Millennials are the first generation to grow up with nearly

ubiquitous access to technology. They are more proficient in the use of new tools and

technology than an average executive. Millennials offer new, insightful perspectives to

situations that produce meaningful and lucrative outcomes (Luttrell & McLean, 2013;

Murray, 2013). Millennials are often disappointed when they are being set back in their

growth, training and development, which can result in some problems. Millennials would

prefer to contribute to organizational success and to be challenged. By offering opportunities

to contribute and giving them challenges, business leaders may be able to do a better job of

retaining millennial employees who are committed to the organization’s success (Cook,

2013).

Fun at work. A flexible, fun and collaborative work environment brings out the best

in millennials. Infusing fun into the working environment does not mean embedding

recreational offices, nor does it imply that work is not work. Rather, fun in the workplace

involves making a domain where employees can appreciate work, which benefits workers as

well as the whole organization (Houlihan & Harvey, 2015). Parise and Crosina (2012) noted

that the use of digital games in institutions had impacted the manner in which teaching and

learning are conducted. Digital games have resulted in the efficient delivery of online

learning that is active, playful and engaging. Top companies like Zappos and Google

promote work and play dynamics in the work environment.

As stated by Luttrell and McLean (2013), cubicles and computers that are archetypal

of the traditional work environment are no longer the standards for successful businesses.

Millennials prefer to work within an organization that fosters a work-life balance. As

indicated by Cook (2013), corporate leaders who modernize their work environment, and

29
adapt to new and innovative changes can cultivate the next generation of employees into the

world’s greatest leaders.

According to Parise and Crosina (2012), experiential learning has impacted the

manner in which teaching and learning take place in the 21st-century classroom.

Experiential learning has, in fact, challenged traditional delivery models, which have led to

more gaming to promote learning. The use of computer-based games is being used to

motivate students, encourage engagement, and improve overall teaching and learning

outcomes. Games may include multiplayer and single player video games, virtual worlds

such as online simulations, and social media applications, including location-based services

such as Foursquare and Scavenger (Parise & Crosina, 2012).

As millennials become more familiar with video games and social media both in their

professional and personal lives, the use of these games has impacted the manner in which

training is conducted in the modern classroom. Improvements in technology have also

impacted effective gaming environments. Moreover, computer games result in active

learning due to their design elements (Greengard, 2014; Parise & Crosina, 2012).

Some of the characteristics of games include (a) a goal or win condition that players

strive to reach, (b) rules and outcomes that must be adhered to, (c) obstacles or challenges

that need to be overcome, (d) an environment that can be explored and in which one can

succeed, (e) a competitive element where goals act as catalysts for action, and (f) interaction

with others (Parise & Crosina, 2012). The use of game elements or gamification in education

can result in students asking questions in a study group format. Based on the outcomes, the

student would receive medals as rewards for answering questions, and earn badges for

participation and levels of achievement as they progress and help one another. A

30
well-designed game can result in higher student motivation (Parise & Crosina, 2012). As

Sujanksy (2011) asserted, fun and enjoyment are important constructs in the learning process.

Multiplayer computer games have sparked curiosity, imagination, and a sense of play that are

integral to learning. Moreover, computer-based games facilitate an environment conducive

to students having fun, while they are also challenged and rewarded (Greengard, 2014; Parise

& Crosina, 2012).

The Future of Work/Generational Shifts

Organizational leaders who transform and revolutionize their workplaces will see

significant outcomes and successes (Gatautis et al., 2016). Adapting to new technologies and

innovations, and making the necessary changes in the training and development of the next

generation of employees will allow corporate leaders to understand better the significance of

a learning organization (Cook, 2013). Additionally, spotting new opportunities for training

and development of the millennial workforce can significantly impact the bottom line and

help leaders to shape proactively the future of the organization (Hines, 2011).

Hines (2011) purported that generational shifts will impact 21st century workplaces

as more baby boomers are approaching retirement age. Corporate leaders will need to make

the necessary adjustments for Gen X-ers and Gen Y-ers as these individuals ascend to

leadership positions and “bring their different priorities with them” (Hines, 2011, p. 14).

With the many changes in technology and innovation, millennials can make new

improvements to the workplace. Millennials expect and strive for better work environments,

remote collaboration, and work-life balance. Organizational leaders who understand and

adjust to the work habits and values of the next generation of employees can expect higher

rates in productivity and a more dynamic and creative workforce. A competitive advantage

31
could be attained when the organization’s mission is aligned with new training and

development techniques.

Significance of Gamification in Learning and Development

Adopting new technologies such as gamification techniques has had a significant

impact on the interactions, motivations, and participation of individuals in both the

institutional and organizational environments. Increasingly, gaming innovation is being

utilized by organizations to connect with customers or employees, and eventually, to change

their behavior (Roberts, 2014). Gamification practices are aimed at accomplishing specific

purposes to ensure successful outcomes. Good gamification practices include giving the

player an active role such as by collaborating in problem resolution and motivating the player

to achieve the intended goals (Gallego-Gómez & De Pablos Heredero, 2013; Piñeiro-Otero &

Costa-Sánchez, 2015).

Twenty-first century organizations face many challenges due to innovation and

technology. Incorporating the latest technological advances will help organizational leaders

handle these challenges more effectively. MacAulay (2010) reported that Elliot Noss,

President and CEO of Tucows, stated that video games enhanced his leadership skills and

development. Noss indicated that there were similarities among workplace practices and

player-organized events. When individuals work in a collaborative and coordinated manner

to achieve a common goal, more is accomplished as there is adequate preparation and a clear

hierarchy regarding workers’ roles and responsibilities. Providing feedback and promoting

open dialogue are foundational in achieving the goals and objectives of the organization, and

in achieving employee job satisfaction, employee loyalty, and employee retention.

Gamification includes the application of design elements in nongame contexts and

acts as a motivator to encourage individuals to be more participative and collaborative (Radu

32
et al., 2014). The U.S. Department of Education supported the use of open badge (a method

of gamification) to support education reform. Other methods of gamification include the use

of scores, levels, and points. Considering badges from different perspectives such as

motivation, pedagogy, and credential—or “mind frame” of gamification—can help educators

identify and resolve problems. Investment in open badges has assisted in developing and

enhancing skills in the institutional environment (Ahn, Pellicone, & Butler, 2014).

To fully understand the use of badges, business leaders must consider three general

themes. These include (a) badges as a motivator of behavior, (b) badges as pedagogical

tools, and (c) badges as a signifier or credential, which is linked to economic and social

opportunity. Incorporating badges in learning can be beneficial for students and employees

as this can capture the experience and potential of learning activities (Ahn et al. 2014). The

practical design of any system is essential to ensure better outcome and success.

Gamification is used to enhance employee skills and behavioral outcomes. A

well-designed gamification system results in greater collaboration, motivation, engagement,

participation, and teamwork. The designing of games for training must be aligned to the

training goals to achieve the intended purpose. Selecting the most appropriate gamification

elements is essential to ensure the goals and strategies are achieved. Various elements of

gamification such as “progress mechanics, player control, and problem solving” (Adams &

Makramalla, 2015, p. 11) must be considered when designing games for training.

Mulqueen and Wolfson (2015) recommended four training techniques that business

leaders can incorporate to enhance employees’ development, attitudes, or behaviors. These

include (a) show and tell, (b) relate information to what learners already know, (c)

incorporate stories, and (d) have students set goals. These techniques help in retention of

33
knowledge, collaboration, participation, motivation, engagement, and aid in meeting the

overall objectives of the organization. Incorporating different approaches to training will

help leaders optimize the quality of the training experience by increasing learning time while

decreasing costs (McDonald, 2015).

There are five elements of customized e-learning that can help corporate leaders

optimize training and business. These include (a) emphasize your subject, (b) flexibility, (c)

personalization, (d) quality of training, and (e) brand integration. Organizations can benefit

from e-learning solutions as e-learning enhances employees’ performance, and productivity,

while ensuring success in the organization’s bottom line (Remis, 2015). A pilot study that

involved 24 mid-level managers was conducted at Vistaprint. Topics discussed included

“learning styles, effective listening, coaching, providing feedback, executing productive

one-on-one meetings and time management” (Remis, 2015, p. 2). Based on the findings,

managers were able to set a clear mission and vision for their organizations, and provide

support and encouragement for their subordinates through empowerment. According to

Pajaron (2015), identifying training needs will help executives in addressing gaps that exist

in current training and to focus on techniques that will help organizations thrive long term.

Incorporating best practices will aid in organizational leaders being more prepared in

recruitment and retention strategies for the new generation of workers entering the

workforce. Strategies such as reverse mentoring, where millennials work alongside

baby-boomers can enhance interaction and social learning. Millennials can adapt to the

lifestyles of organizations, where there are clear paths for millennials to develop their skills

and their career progression (Hershatter & Epstein, 2010). Mentoring training programs help

managers to practice a more personal leadership style while providing a more supporting

34
environment for millennial mentees. Aubrey McClendon, CEO of Chesapeake &

Performance Consulting, suggested that collaborative work environments are foundational to

intergenerational harmony. Millennials are seeking employer relationships in which

organizations provide a secure and positive atmosphere that is conducive to an employee’s

professional development (Hershatter & Epstein, 2010).

According to Masie (2013), it is necessary to update the learning system that supports

on-the-job training (OJT). Masie (2013) advocated that organizational leaders take a “fresh

and modernized look at OJT” (p. 10). Times are changing and so is the need for

organizations to change. Adapting to new technology and innovation will help organizations

to remain competitive and thrive in the global business environment. Masie outlined five

examples of the changes that will be in effect for 21st-century organizations to succeed:

 Job posters (print and digital)—the use of infographics and 3-D presentations will
help workers enhance new skills and acquire the knowledge needed to carry out
their roles successfully.

 Video-based OJT—this technology does not require employees to be in the same

workplace. An employee’s coach can be anywhere, connected by desktop or
device-based video. Further, this technology can frequently be accessed as the
worker attempts new roles.

 Badges for small skills—jobs can be broken down into a series of micro-skills and
managers can give badges to employees when they use their skills, and they help
each other to master their tasks. The badges can provide a focus for building
skills and for helping peers.

 Gamification—in this aspect, one might consider leveraging a gaming approach

to OJT, where workers gain recognition or even points toward a free cappuccino
in the cafeteria when they demonstrate a new competency.

 Teachable skills—incorporate OJT skills into job descriptions for managers and
line employees. Skills can then be broken down into simple steps that can be
modeled, reinforced and assessed in performance reviews.

Masie (2013) further advised that OJT is significant in helping employees transfer

new skills to the work setting. Thus, business leaders must modernize employee training and

35
development programs to ensure worker interaction, engagement, and motivation.

Traditional methods of learning and development are phased out. Therefore, adapting to new

learning methods to ensure employee engagement will help in organizational and business

outcomes. Further, engaging with gamification is significant to retention of customers and

retention of employees. Leaders should plan on using gamification to engage customers to

ensure clients’ loyalty, satisfaction, and retention (“Engaging With Gamification,” 2015).

Traditional Methods of Training and Development and Its Implications

Twenty-first century organizational leaders cannot afford to manage their

organizations in a conventional manner. The enormous demographic changes within

21st-century organizations are resulting in many challenges for organizations and their

leaders. Given the combination of the rise in the retirement of baby boomers, three

generations of workers coexisting in the workplace, and the rise in competition, innovations,

and technologies, leaders have to develop new approaches to remain competitive and thrive

in the global marketplace. The millennial generation of workers can best be described as the

“emergent workforce.” Modernizing training and development is significant to help ensure

the newest employees stay motivated by a new value system and their professional

aspirations (Green & Roberts, 2012; Tadimeti, 2014).

Green and Roberts (2012) stated, “Emergent employees (88%) believed that loyalty

was not related to employment length while Traditional employees (94%) viewed loyalty as

the willingness to stay with an employer for the long term” (p. 82). Technology and

innovation have forced the emergent workforce to seek careers that are more fulfilling.

Additionally, the emergent workforce is more motivated by different leadership styles. For

instance, Generation Y-ers do not thrive under authority leadership style. Green and Roberts

36
purported that millennials are seeking to work with organizations that possess the

postmodern leadership approach, which is an organization with eight attributes:

 adaptable

 spiritually focused

 tolerant of ambiguity in life

 entrepreneurial in their approaches

 service-oriented

 accountable for action

 life-long learners

 participatory

Incorporating the above attributes within 21st-century organizations will allow for a

more engaged and motivated workforce and result in long-term organizational success.

Millennial employees are the future clients and staff of 21st-century organizations.

Therefore, developing new strategies and modernizing training and development will not

only benefit these talented group of workers but will aid in improved organizational

outcomes (Gil, 2015). The traditional style of learning and development does not appeal to

millennial employees. Corporate leaders have to find new and innovative ways to attract

millennials as employees to the field. Real world experience is more valuable than

classroom instructions (Tadimeti, 2014). Millennials are seeking to work with organizations

that are adaptive to the development of skills through mentoring programs, internships,

recruitment strategies, social media, and other methods of learning and development.

Furthermore, organizational leaders must utilize the skills of millennials within their

organizations, open the lines of communication, and provide training and development

programs that will allow the team to retain their best talents.

37
 According to Tadimeti (2014), though traditional training methods are interactive and

motivating, they suffer from certain disadvantages. These include (a) huge expenses, such as

classroom material, travel, and accommodation involved in training a large group of people

who are geographically distributed; and (b) loss of main work days when trainees take time

off their busy schedules to attend the training sessions. This prompts loss of man days and

managers are hesitant to support their employees for training.

Green and Roberts (2012) argued that creating new and innovative strategies within

the 21st-century organization will allow for:

 a demonstrated, flat, organizational structure;

 a self-directed, empowered, and self-motivated workplace;

 more emphasis on employee self-motivation and responsibility for life-long

learning;

 a more vibrant horizontal hyper-mobility;

 employee emphasis on self-development and self-actualization;

 a desire for stimulating a vibrant community; and

 work-life balance and the freedom to weave personal and work lives together.

Employee Development and the Learning Organization

McDonald (2015) advocated the need for organizational leaders to develop well-

designed e-learning programs. According to Rahman, Rahman, Ali and Khan (2016), current

learning is critical for the survival of any organization. Modified training programs help in

worker engagement and motivation. Further, effectively implemented training and

development programs are foundational to employees’ commitment and loyalty, retention of

knowledge, and successful organizational outcomes. According to the social learning theory,

38
employees are best able to recall what they have learned when they emotionally connect to

the content (McDonald, 2015).

Training and development ventures of an organization, influence its creative

execution by advancing different learning practices (Sung & Choi, 2014). According to

Patten (2015), e-learning will have a significant impact on employee learning and

development and the future success of the organization. Patten (2015) stated, “With 77% of

U.S. companies currently offering online corporate training programs, e-learning is rapidly

becoming an essential tool for employee training and business performance organization”

(p. 1).

Patten (2015) suggested several ways e-learning strategies can benefit 21st-century

workplaces to increase the efficiency of their corporate employee training programs. For

example, the e-learning strategies could focus on (a) being customized to the company, (b)

recruiting staff, (c) being economical and efficient, (d) having a global reach, and (e)

boosting staff involvement. An effectively implemented e-learning program helps in

enhancing the skills of employees making them better prepared to handle challenges.

Effective e-learning programs must be tailored to include required instructions with personal

development. An engaged and motivated workforce will have a long-term commitment to

the organization as a whole.

Traditional methods of training and development no longer fit in 21st-century

organizations. The next generation of employees wants to develop their skills and

knowledge. Leaders who help these individuals will be better able to recruit, retain, and earn

the loyalty of millennials (Patten, 2015; Rahman et al., 2016; Sung & Choi, 2014). Green

39
and Roberts (2012) suggested that employee development is foundational to 21st-century

organizations. Employee development includes:

 Redesigning management development programs to meet the needs of younger

generations.

The learning styles and methods of most leadership development programs are
tailored to baby boomers learning preferences. Redesigning for millennials
involves more group-based, collective training with an entrepreneurial focus. It
also entails employing more modular web-based distance learning programs to
promote asynchronous learning opportunities for millennial employees. For
in-class training, it means incorporating action learning models using team-based
approaches.

 Engaging in systematic mentoring of millennial generation employees.

Younger employees desire more frequent performance feedback than is typically

provided by the yearly performance appraisals.

 Utilizing the advanced technology competencies of millennials to provide reverse

mentoring, by having younger employees train older employees on technology
skills.

Reverse mentoring provides an avenue for the millennial and Generation X

employees to exert leadership and to enhance their skills, status, and visibility.

Fun at Work: Gamify Your Business/Gamify Your Teaching

According to Hout (2015), organizational leaders can combat disengagement by

gamifying their businesses. A disengaged workforce has adverse effects on employees and

the bottom line. Leaders realize the need for gamification and other game elements to ensure

a more productive and engaged workforce. Taking advantage of intrinsic motivators can

result in significant benefits to the organization. Leaders who ensure the desires of

employees are taken into consideration by tracking progress, encouraging competition,

posing creative challenges, and fostering a sense of accomplishment, will contribute

significantly to the success of the organization, as well as to the retention of the

organization’s top talents (Hout, 2015).

40
 Games go hand-in-hand with fun. The strategies to consolidate work and recreation

generally differ in degree and application. However, a few Wyomingites are examining the

pattern of gamification to make work all the more compensating, or, if nothing else, all the

more enthralling (Wilcox, 2014). Leaders at the Badgeville organization advance employee

engagement through gamification stages, which include the utilization of diversion strategies

to persuade laborers by giving them virtual remuneration for completing assignments

(“Surveys Say Workers Value Recognition, Virtual Rewards More Than Financial

Incentives,” 2013). Organizational leaders will have a better understanding of what works

for their employees and what motivates them when these leaders have full knowledge of their

workers. Implementing different strategies that will aid in employee development and

training will result in higher employee retention and employee satisfaction (Hout, 2015).

Zeroing in on the primary business objectives is significant to organizational

sustainability and survival. Effective integration of gamification will (a) aid new behavior

changes, (b) aid development of employees’ skills, and (c) increase innovation. More than

five in 10 people expressed interest in working for a company that has incorporated gaming

techniques as a way to increase productivity. It is also proposed that workers, who are

engaged, are more productive than those who are not. Similarly, students, who are engaged

get better grades than those who are disengaged (Erenli, 2013).

Educators who restructure and reorganize their curriculum to allow for more

creativity see better results in their students’ grades, attendances, and motivational approach

to learning. Erenli (2013) asked, “Is it possible to develop a game framework for educational

purposes, which can be customized by educators for individual use?” (p. 22). A project team

was formed where gamification methods and tools were identified to test its effectiveness.

41
Based on the results, the development of a game framework such as QuizeRo is a proven

gamified approach.

Maximizing Millennials Engagement With Gamification

Published research about gamification is focused on efforts in organizations, to

implement new technological and innovative techniques that will enhance 21st century

learning and training and development for the new generation of workers (Farrell & Hurt,

2014; Radu et al., 2014; Vinke, Orhei, & Bibu, 2012; Westfall, 2014). In a study on training

the millennial generation, and the implications of training for the organizational climate,

Farrell and Hurt (2014) emphasized the need for organizational leaders to have a clear

understanding of the training design preferences of millennials. Millennials have a different

mindset and preferences regarding their training and developmental needs. The development

of effective strategies for designing training will allow leaders to be successful, in managing

the transition between the baby boomer generation, and the millennial generation.

Maximizing the contributions of millennials will help organizational leaders gain a

better understanding of this generation of workers, and how they fit into the workforce. In

addition, understanding the characteristics, tendencies and needs of the millennial generation

are necessary to ensure better retention rates (Cheong et al., 2014; Cohen, 2011; Eggleston,

2015; Farrell & Hurt, 2014; George, 2015; Patten, 2015). There have been significant

organizational successes in the use of gamification in training and development (Patten,

2015). For example, Patten (2015) revealed the impact of gamification in training, and its

usefulness in the workplace. Patten (2015) purported that an effectively integrated

gamification system will increase employee engagement and organizational outcomes. The

implications are that gamification should emulate the design of modern video games to create

an innovative reward system.

42
 Gamification techniques can be effectively applied to employee training and

development, which will help in the retention and motivation of millennials. The application

of gamification to everyday work and training will lead to employees developing advanced

knowledge and skills, which is needed to support complex challenges in the workplace.

Kapp (2014) and Patten (2015) agreed on the use of game designs as a reward and the

manner in which companies such as SAP and DeLoitte have gamified their training programs

to increase employee and organizational performance. Employees can gain advanced

knowledge and skills with the use of gamification techniques, which will allow them to

handle complex issues in the workplace. Rewarding employees for their efforts will help in

employee satisfaction and retention. Patten (2015) noted that gamification techniques bring

about better training results, as it is not just a game per se, but a system that provides rewards

as employees progress through their tasks.

Two questions and six characteristics were pointed out by Farrell and Hurt (2014) on

training the millennial generation, and its implications for the organizational climate. The

questions included (a) “What are the learning characteristics of the millennial generation, and

what implications do these characteristics have on training development and design?” and,

(b) “What are the risks of failing training development and design?” The six characteristics

of the millennials included (a) ability to multi-task, (b) desire for structure, (c)

achievement-focused, (d) technology-savvy, (e) team-oriented, and (f) seeking attention and

feedback.

Thus, traditional styles of training would be largely uninspiring (Farrell & Hurt,

2014) for the millennial. Focusing on effective training designs, and the use of technology,

are essential mechanisms that organizations could consider when developing and designing

43
training for their audience. Further, Farrell and Hurt advocated that technology-oriented

environments present the most favored opportunities for organizations to retain their best and

brightest talents. Based on Farrell and Hurt’s findings, millennials have different workplace

expectations, as they act as change agents, who have a strong desire for achievement, and

fulfillment. Malmros (2015) stated: “building a successful game means strong integration of

learning goals, relevant content, and a better experience than one would find in a traditional

slide-based e-learning schedule” (p. 1). Gamification can be used to (a) engage, (b) enrich,

(c) enhance, and (d) evaluate training efforts allowing organizations and its employees to

retain their competitive advantage globally.

In a similar study, Drell (2014) purported that leaders within the pharmaceutical

industries are confident that the integration of gamification will help to handle the biggest

problems in healthcare, namely, “patient adherence” (p. 25). Patient adherence takes into

consideration the choices patients make to ensure better health and longevity of life. Drell

stated that one way gamification was helpful in addressing this challenge was through the

construction of a virtual environment in which patients can be engaged and empowered.

Drell (2014) pointed out that an enjoyable gaming experience, will allow patients to be more

engaged, and improve their overall health.

Ritter (2014) declared that the traditional approach of training relies on judgment and

assumptions made in hindsight. Ritter suggested that productive performance metrics require

a workforce that is engaged, and where performance reviews are done on a regular basis.

According to research, 70% of U.S. employees indicated a lack of engagement. Conversely,

only 40% of the Global 1000 IT organizations will consider the implementation of

44
gamification as their primary tool for employee engagement, and for improving

organizational outcomes.

Empowering Millennials

There is a need for 21st-century corporate leaders to create a work environment,

where learning is continuous, and where employees are actively involved in mentoring and

coaching (Eggleston, 2015). Developing a culture where employees are empowered to help

others, and to raise the bar on employee engagement, talent management, recruitment and

retention strategies, social equity and diversity, and productivity is significant in greater

organizational outcomes (Marcinkus, 2012). Neo (2015) described the manner in which

employee engagement leads to a more productive workforce. Neo (2015) further suggested

that employee engagement ranked 71% as paramount among executives. Low employee

engagement results from a lack of education and from feeling undervalued or unappreciated.

DeVaney (2015) recommended that it is necessary for organizations to have an

understanding of the millennial generation, who currently are at 77 million of the workforce,

are one-and-one-half times as large as Generation X, and are almost equal in size to the

baby-boomer generation. According to Farrell and Hurt (2014), millennials are said to be

native to the digital world. Marcinkus (2012) described the benefits of reverse mentoring,

which is an innovative strategy, used to encourage learning, and to facilitate cross-

generational relationships. Reverse mentoring involves a collaborative learning technique,

which includes a younger, junior employee acting as a mentor to share expertise with an

older, senior colleague as a mentee. Utilizing reverse mentoring will enable organizations to

foster cross-generational learning, which will help organizations to develop their current and

future leaders.

45
 Employers can attract and retain millennials by ensuring quality training, and

team-building opportunities. Developing new recruitment and training strategies is essential

if organizational leaders are to retain millennial employees (Ferri-Reid, 2012). In another

study on preparing the most techno-savvy, and media-social generation to lead, Ferri-Reid

(2013) indicated the need for corporate leaders to understand how a collaborative

environment can attract millennial employees, and to understand how to create new strategies

for new millennial supervisors. Ferri-Reid purported millennial supervisors and managers

will steadily replace baby-boomers and Generation X-ers.

Older employees suspect that newly appointed millennial supervisors may lack the

work ethic required to drive organizational success. This creates room for misunderstanding

and mistrust. Similarly, millennials may view older employees as bound to the status quo.

Millennials may become the CEOs of the future, where they can lead confidently their

organizations to greater heights. Facebook’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Clara Shih, cofounder

of Hearsay Social, San Francisco 49ers CEO, Jed York, and Daniel Ek, CEO and cofounder

of Spotify are scoring big successes in the corporate world (Ferri-Reid, 2013).

Cekada (2012) asserted that it is necessary, for training a multigenerational

workforce, to understand the fundamental needs, and learning styles of each generation.

Cekada noted training practices and challenges for organizations were different among the

generations of employees. Training approaches were suggested for the different groups,

which included structured classes, workshops, and the use of multimedia, and mobile

devices. Cekada emphasized the need for corporate leaders to evaluate comprehensively

their workforces to incorporate the right training strategies, which will facilitate better

collaboration as well as learning styles.

46
 Organizational leaders must fully understand the types of learning activities, which

are most effective for engaging millennial employees. Used by itself, technology is not

enough to engage learning; it is the learning activity that provides the most engagement.

Employees who are engaged in a collaborative, and team-oriented approach, can share

learning experiences with peers, and further increase their knowledge base, which will

enhance their learning (Cekada, 2012; “Surveys Say Workers Value Recognition, Virtual

Rewards More Than Financial Incentives,” 2013).

Ng et al. (2010) revealed that millennials have high expectations in advancing their

careers. These individuals seek rapid advancement and the development of new skills.

Organizational leaders, fail to understand the importance of technology, and of effective

training techniques, which will help in retaining millennials. Having a better understanding

of millennials’ career expectations will help organizational leaders create work environments

that are more likely to engage and retain millennial employees. Hauw and Vos (2010)

explored the effect of generational, contextual, and individual differences in millennials’

career expectations. Based on Hauw and Vos’s (2010) findings, millennials expectations

regarding job content, training, and career development remain high, which is an indicator

that these concepts, are mostly embedded within this generation of employees. It is

significant that leaders focus their limited resources during times of recession on meeting

expectations in training and development, and on career development of the millennial

generation.

In a more recent study, Hedderly and Scott (2015) described the effectiveness of

video training through technology-based education. Hedderly and Scott identified six

elements of training evaluation. These include (a) participant satisfaction with the training,

47
(b) learning achieved by participants, (c) pedagogical coherence of the training process, (d)

transfer of training on to the workplace, (e) impact of training on organizational outcome,

and (f) profitability of training for the organization.

Hedderly and Scott (2015) focused on the first element—the participants’ satisfaction

with the training—and its effectiveness in the delivery of instructions in the workplace.

There are implications for practitioners to consider regarding establishing training and

development that is based on the particular needs of the organization, the context in which

the organization operates, the features and skills of the workforce, the learning objectives,

and the styles of learning. Implementing effective training strategies will help in greater

efficiency and employee motivation.

Innovation and technology are important factors to consider in the recruitment and

training of millennial employees. Organizational leaders must rethink their current strategies

and employ new methods to get millennials connected. Giving millennials room to develop

their skills will enable higher retention and organizational success (Hagel, 2014; Radu et al.,

2014). New technology and innovation are impacting 21st-century organizations, where

practitioners and organizational leaders must change the way they recruit and train millennial

employees. Generation Y is known for being techno-savvy and talented (Farrell & Hurt,

2014; Marcinkus Murphy, 2012), and they understand how games motivate a desire, which

allows them to overcome organizational challenges (Patten, 2015). Gamification techniques

can help to strengthen learning and interactivity, and also aid in job satisfaction and retention

(Avantika, 2015; Broderick, 2015; Khurgin, 2015).

Use of Motivation in Successful Game Design

An objective to consider when designing gamification methods is to understand the

learners’ experiences and motivations. Three important considerations that must be taken

48
into account to ensure proper implementation of gamification include (a) understanding the

target audience, (b) determining what these players should do, and (c) using appropriate

game elements to motivate players to act (Cheong et al., 2014). Cheong et al. examined the

usefulness of gamification, of game features, and of games and learning to improve the

learning environment. They used a questionnaire survey consisting of two sections about the

participants’ demographics and their attitudes towards gamification.

The aim of the Cheong et al. (2014) study was to gain an in-depth understanding of

students’ perceptions of gamification so that the study results could be used to help guide the

development of gaming systems for learning. Cheong et al found that the majority of

undergrad IT male students were exposed to playing computer games on a regular basis.

Although only 49% had previous gaming experience, 60.78% expressed interest in using

games in the learning experience. According to results from a recent survey, 55% of people

would be interested in working for organizations that increase productivity through the use of

games or through the use of gamification techniques (Cheong et al., 2014).

In a similar study on designing gamification the right way, Kim (2015) accentuated

the importance of setting a clear goal for any gamification project, of considering both the

audience type and their characteristics. User type includes “achievers, explorers, socializers,

and killers” (Kim, 2015, p. 30). These categories serve as a framework for the efficient

design of gamification. Effective gamification design must appeal to the target group and

provide rewards that will motivate, and engage the group. Based on the findings in Kim’s

study, for gamification to be successful, the target audience’s buy-in must be considered,

since they would ultimately be the game players.

49
 The goals of gamification must align with the aims of the player for gamification to

be successful. Aligning the goals of gamification with that of the players minimizes any

potential adverse effect of gamification on intrinsic motivation. Figure 1 illustrates the

impact of game mechanics on behavior about the outcomes, visions, or both, to be met in the

21st-century organization.

Behaviors
• points • results
• badges & levels • collaboration • targets/goals met
• status • interaction
• empowerment
Game
Vision
Mechanics

Figure 1. Impact of gamification on the 21st century organization.

Summary

The millennial generation needs control over choosing what innovations they use in

the work environment. In spite of the fact that businesses may find that not practicing

control can be a danger, they ought to likewise take the chance to find whether the new

generation’s inclinations can improve organization operations. Keeping in mind the end goal

to select and retain the best employees, organizational leaders must comprehend the

50
advancements that the new workforce expects, and figure out how to bolster their employees,

and without compromising enterprise security (Moran, 2009).

Organizational leaders and training professionals may choose to adapt to the digital

revolution, and the learner-centered movement, or, they will remain bound to the status quo,

at the risk of becoming noncompetitive (Pobst, 2015). Twenty-first century organizational

leaders must embrace new changes in technologies and innovations for their organizations to

thrive in the globally competitive marketplace. Further, creating a culture of change helps in

retention of the millennial generation, who possess the necessary skills to help in

organizational competitiveness and global success.

George (2015) purported that training employees with gamification increases their

knowledge retention and skill development, and increases positive organizational outcomes.

Further, gamification methods of learning results in better knowledge transfer and retention

than traditional classroom learning. The use of gamification in training and development

aids in employee engagement and long-term commitment to the organization. Theodotou

(2015) pointed out that by transforming the three major tenets of the organization (i.e.,

people, process, and technology), millennial employees are disrupting the manner in which

business is conducted.

The adequacy of gaming will rely on careful planning around well-defined business

goals (Roberts, 2014). The solution for fusing recreational elements into the bigger

educational programs of an organization is to use gamification (Kapp, 2012). Gamification

is utilizing diversion based mechanics, style, and amusement intuition to draw in individuals,

inspire activity, advance learning, and take care of issues. It gives the designer, or trainer the

apparatuses to consider learning from the point of view of engagement and action, but

51
without the huge scale interest in the development of a full-blown instructional game. It

provides the learner with an engaging, relevant learning experience, without the heavy

commitment necessary to play most games (Kapp, 2012).

The popularity of gaming with millennials (Generation Y) cannot be questioned.

Innovation and Internet gaming have been a contributory element for planning content that

speaks to today’s technically, knowledgeable learners. By 2025, millennials will make up

75% of the work force. Based on the outcomes from research, training and development are

amongst the most vital elements for millennials when choosing an employer. In addition,

millennials anticipate that learning will be engaging and fun (Roberts, 2012).

Next, Chapter III outlines the method and design for the study. Chapter III also

includes the characteristics of the target population, the data collection procedures that were

used, the interview questions asked of participants, and a description of the process for

analyzing the participants’ interviews. Chapter IV provides the results of the interview-data

analysis; namely the participant demographics and the emergent themes from the study.

Chapter V provides the summary discussion by recapping the need for the study, the purpose

of the research, the research questions that guided the study, the interpretations of findings,

the implications for theory and research, the implications for practice, the recommendations

for further research, and a conclusion.

52
 CHAPTER III: METHOD

The purpose of this transcendental phenomenological (descriptive) qualitative study

was to understand the lived experiences of millennial employees with gamified training and

development. The results of this study may help leaders and employers to engage millennial

employees more effectively by using gamification to overcome barriers to collaboration, to

promote collaboration, and by reinforcing in employee communications that gamified

systems are to help maximize employee learning and development.

The transcendental phenomenological (descriptive) approach was used to understand

gamification in training and development from the viewpoint of millennial employees

because that approach helped the researcher to describe the purely personal experiences of

the participants, as opposed to the van Manen (1990) hermeneutic phenomenological

interpretive approach (Moustakas, 1994; Sloan & Bowe, 2014). Because it is used to

evaluate the contextual features of an experience, the van Manen interpretive approach would

have been less effective than the chosen descriptive approach for addressing the actual lived

experiences of participants (Matua & Van, 2015; Moustakas, 1994; Sloan & Bowe, 2014).

Moustakas (1994) concentrated on one of Husserl’s ideas, epoché (or bracketing), in

which researchers set aside their encounters, however much as could reasonably be expected

to take a new viewpoint toward the phenomenon of interest. Using epoché and the

transcendental approach helped this researcher see the phenomenon from a new point of

view, as though surprisingly.

As the experiences on the use of gamification methods in training and development

from millennial employees’ perspective are understood, organizational leaders can modernize

their current training and development programs, to help ensure employee retention and

positive organizational outcomes. Training technology is fundamental in all industries.

53
Corporate leaders, who gamify, and integrate training technology to do so, increase their

chances of helping the organization to remain competitive and successful in the global

business environment (Broderick, 2015).

Participants for this study derived from a purposive sampling process involving nine

millennial employees. The sampling criteria for this study included millennial employees

who participated in training and development that involved the use of gamification. As the

transcendental phenomenological (descriptive) study was to gain an understanding of

gamification in training and development from the viewpoint of millennial employees, the

researcher conducted in-depth, semistructured interviews for this purpose. After analyzing

and interpreting the data, the researcher used the results to frame the study conclusion,

implications, and recommendations. This chapter outlines the methodology used to collect

the data to answer the research questions, which included:

RQ1. What is the nature of the lived experiences of millennial employees when
gamification is incorporated in their training and development?

RQ2. What meaning do millennials ascribe to their lived experiences using

gamification methods in their training?

Research Method and Justification

The research approach that was selected for this study was qualitative. This approach

was chosen to collect information from participants who currently utilized gamification

practices in the workplace. According to Holliday (2007), qualitative research looks

profoundly into the nature of social life and takes place inside specific settings which give

chances to investigating all conceivable social variables, and sets sensible limits. In addition,

the initial venture into the social setting prompts further scientific investigation as themes

and focuses emerge.

54
 Qualitative research is surrounded by why questions that reference motivational

exploration, and the proposal that the researcher can get to deeper levels through such

interrogative techniques (Barnham, 2015; Patterson & Malpass, 2015). As indicated by

Denzin and Lincoln (2005), qualitative researchers may use an extensive variety of

interconnected interpretive practices to help increase their comprehension of the research

topic.

The qualitative method was the best approach for this study, as it helped to highlight

the less noticeable implications and intricacies of the social world of workplace gamification

from the perspective of the participants’ lived experiences. Qualitative research aims to be

inductive and exploratory, commonly asking what and how, and suggesting questions related

to description and understanding (Finlay, 2011). Quantitative research, conversely, seeks to

explain and prove.

For example, in quantitative research, hypothesis-testing is used to the point of

demonstrating or refuting; for instance, the researcher asks why or whether one treatment is

more viable than another (Finlay, 2011). Holliday (2007) indicated that quantitative research

uses insights and replicability to accept speculation from overview tests and investigations.

In addition, it attempts to diminish contaminating social variables.

Qualitative research, however, is a human science rather than a natural science

(Vallack, 2010). The purpose of qualitative research is to investigate the textured importance

and subjective translations of a fluid, uncertain world. It utilizes interviews, member

perceptions, focus groups, and innovative and projective methods. In contrast, quantitative

research strives for objectivity. The methods employed are straightforward, and include

55
either analysis (for instance, comparing the results of treatment group A with control group

B) or with attitude surveys and questionnaires (Finlay, 2011).

Research Design and Justification

This study used the phenomenological methodology to describe the lived experiences

of millennials who used gamification in their workplace training and development. The

phenomenological methodology was developed from the works of Edmund Husserl, of

Amedeo Giorgi, of C. E. Moustakas, of Snygg and Combs, and of Richards, Richards, and

Combs. The goal was to capture the essence of nonphysical experiences in a scientific

manner. Phenomenological research offered a way to examine the human experience in a

subjective, nonquantitative, and holistic way (Woodard, 2012).

Phenomenology includes an exploration of the essence of the lived experience

(Giorgi, 1997; 2006; 2007). This phenomenological study captured the core of an experience

(the millennials and gamification), which lent deep insight into the personal experiences of

everyday life (Creswell, 2013; 2014; Merriam & Associates, 2002). Finlay (2011) expressed

that the aim of phenomenology is to describe the lived world of everyday experience.

Phenomenological research into individual encounters gives knowledge into, and

comprehension of, the human condition. The researcher’s choice in the phenomenological

design for this study deepened her understanding of gamification in training and development

of her participants.

Phenomenological research is potentially transformative for both researcher and

participant. It offers study participants the chance to be seen as far as they can tell, and

permits them to “offer voice” to what they are experiencing (Finlay, 2011).

Phenomenological research (a) may help researchers to consciously suspend their

assumptions, so they can see through the eyes of participants; (b) is typically conducted using

56
small sample sizes; and (c) can help to make sense of a phenomenon according to the

participants’ terms so as to identify the essence or real meaning of the phenomenon under

investigation (Fatime, 2010). The phenomenological method used for the current study

included (a) a description, (b) within the attitude of the phenomenological reduction, and (c)

seeking for the most invariant meanings for a context regarding the lived experiences of each

participant (Giorgi, 1997, 2006, 2007; Moustakas, 1994). Modification of the van Kaam

(1966) approach by Moustakas (1994) was used to analyze the data for this study. The

modified van Kaam approach included asking the study participants to share their personal

experiences, documenting the participants’ statements and meanings, and describing the

essences of their lived experiences (Creswell, 2007; Moustakas, 1994).

This design of inquiry was derived from philosophy and psychology, in which the

researcher depicted the lived experiences of participants regarding a phenomenon, as

described by the participants. The design included strong philosophical underpinnings, and

involved conducting interviews (Giorgi, 1997, 2007). According to Denzin and Lincoln

(2005), this design helps a researcher to give a rich account of the phenomenon and permits

readers to vicariously encounter the phenomenon through the eyes of the participants. By

conducting a phenomenological study, the researcher captured the essence of an experience,

which lent deep insight into the personal experiences of everyday life (Merriam &

Associates, 2002; Woodward, 2012). As discussed next, other qualitative designs, such as

narrative, grounded theory, ethnography, and case study would have been less effective for

this study.

Narrative research. The purpose of narrative research is to understand the human

experience through interpreting narrative forms of qualitative data. Other qualitative

57
research traditions may also use narrative data rather than approach the research from a

narrative perspective (Hays & Wood, 2011).

Narrative inquiry is used to comprehend the social connections portrayed and the

individual importance participants attribute to their encounters. The narrative methodology

is, in essence, a collaborative effort that produces shared understandings of a particular topic.

Typically, however, the final research does not necessarily mirror the negotiated

understandings that emerge through that dialogue. The positioning of the researcher as an

authoritative figure may even silence the personal experiences of participants whose

perspectives are, apparently, represented in the research report (Medeiros, 2015).

This study’s intent was to understand the meaning of the lived experiences of

millennial employees who were using gamification in their workplace training and

development. The narrative methodology would not have been suited for this study, as it

would have tended to focus on the main turning points in individuals’ lives, not just one

event (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000, 2005; Holliday, 2007).

Grounded theory. This method of inquiry had its starting point in 1967 when it was

developed by sociologist Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss to advance the separation of

theory from data. The essential technique recognized in the use of grounded theory is the

general method of comparative analysis (GMCA). The GMCA includes an examination of

certainties across cases to evaluate likenesses and contrasts to help the researcher find the

generalizability and limited states of an idea (Glaser & Strauss, 2015). The purpose of

grounded theory is to create information that is based or grounded in participant encounters

and points of view, with an ultimate objective of hypothesis improvement (Hays & Wood,

2011).

58
 Denzin and Lincoln (2005) indicated that this method of inquiry is based on a set of

analytic guidelines that enable researchers to focus their data collection, and to build

inductive middle-range theories, through successive levels of data analysis and conceptual

development. According to Creswell (2014), the grounded theory method includes a

configuration of the request from humanism in which the researcher infers a general,

conceptual hypothesis of procedure, activity, or collaboration that is grounded in the

perspective of participants. This method includes different phases of information

accumulation and refinement to find the interrelationship of classifications of data. In

addition, the grounded theory method of inquiry is where the enquirer generates a general

explanation of a process, action, or interaction that is shaped by the views of a larger number

of participants.

Grounded theory is a methodology based on information that is methodologically

assembled and analyzed (Holliday, 2007). Grounded theory is explicitly eminent, as it does

not test a hypothesis; rather, grounded theory sets to reveal what hypothesis represents the

exploration circumstance (Martin & Woodside, 2011).

The intent of this phenomenological study was to understand the meaning of the lived

experiences of millennial employees who were using gamification in their training and

development, and not to discover how a process, action, or interaction is shaped by a group

of people. As a result, the phenomenological methodology was a more appropriate design

for this study than grounded theory would have been.

Ethnography. Ethnography inquiry renders express connections shaped between the

ethnographer and informant who engaged in ethnographic dialogue to create a world of

shared intersubjectivity (Hampshire, Iqbal, Blell, & Simpson, 2014). Ethnography focuses

59
on culture, social patterns, and community orientation that is associated with participants

(Hays & Woods, 2011). Ethnography is the examination outline of human sciences, and is

embraced by sociologists, educators, nurses, and others intrigued by the way of life and

social connections of gatherings (De Chesnay, 2014).

The essential strategy of ethnography is hands-on work. The ethnographer watches

and in shifting degrees takes part in the society being studied, while also relying upon reason

and connection; the ethnographer also meets with key social witnesses who can instruct the

ethnographer about the society, and audits whatever other material that appears to be

pertinent to the motivation behind the study (De Chesnay, 2014). Ethnographical research

focuses on how members view social life; that is, the mechanism by which members

concretely construct and sustain social entities, such as gender, self, or family (Holliday,

2007).

The researcher’s intent for this phenomenological study was to understand the

meaning of the lived experiences of millennial employees who were using gamification in

their training and development, and not millennial employees’ culture. Therefore,

ethnography was not an appropriate method for this study.

Case study. This type of research is used to produce an in-depth analysis of a

phenomena in context, to bolster the advancement of chronicled points of view, and to help

ensure high inside legitimacy, which is to say, that the observed phenomena are genuine

representations of reality. The case study method is, however, tedious for both the researcher

and the participants. In addition, the external validity of the results may be problematic, for

it is troublesome for one researcher to recreate a contextual analysis. The case study method

has critical inadequacies regarding the generalizability of the outcomes (Gagnon, 2010).

60
Researchers who want to use case studies are encouraged to collect the information online,

which can make it possible to include a broader sample and to use more strategies to dissect

information (Wahyuni, 2012).

Case study was not as appropriate as the phenomenological design, as case study was

more applicable to understanding how particular circumstances might change an individual

or program, and was usually examined over a designated period. As the intent of this study

was to understand the meanings of the lived experiences of millennial employees who were

using gamification in their training, a case study would have been too limited in scope, as

cases usually explored a single concept or theory.

Researcher’s Role

Finlay (2011) specified that the researcher’s role in qualitative research differed from

that of the quantitative researcher. In qualitative research, the relationship between

participants, researchers, and their social world are adequately recognized. The researcher

for the present study accomplished this by perceiving her role as a codeveloper of provisional

information, where she was required to reflectively investigate the data collected by

objectively looking from the inside-out. Conversely, quantitative researchers assume

themselves as objective outsiders, looking in, and their role is to obtain hard data to analyze.

For the present study, the researcher strove for objectivity, detachment, and neutrality to

understand the lived experiences of the participants and not to collect hard data.

The researcher’s role in the data collection procedure was necessary, as she remained

involved in varied interactions with research participants. The interview process began after

obtaining informed consent from the participants (Fisher, 2008), participants expressed their

eagerness to partake and permit the researcher to record the interview, and after participants

were guaranteed the secrecy of their data (Keshtiaray & Akbarian, 2012). As the primary

61
data collection instrument for this study, the researcher listened as participants described

their everyday experiences related to gamification in their training and development. It was

also important that she remained alert for subtle, yet meaningful cues in participants’

expressions, pauses, questions, and occasional sidetracks.

As the primary data collection instrument, the researcher collected data from

participants through the use of open-ended questions, which she developed. A description of

the researcher’s experience and role was explored, as these elements were important in a

phenomenological study to establish standards of quality and credibility. Readers wanted to

know about the researcher and what prompted interest in the topics investigated.

The researcher was a female American graduate student, who was pursuing a Doctor

of Philosophy in Organizational Development and Leadership from the University of the

Rockies. She earned her master’s degree in Health Care Administration from Ashford

University. She took the qualitative research design and methods course, which helped her

choose her study approach. Her interest in the use of gamification in training and

development was sparked when she completed her final in-residency in Advanced Topics in

Organizational Development and Leadership, and also a course in Advanced Instructional

Systems Theory and Design, which included gamification in training and development.

To deepen her knowledge of the lived experiences of participants’ use of

gamification, the researcher adopted the transcendental phenomenological (descriptive)

approach. This method was used to seek and gain an in-depth understanding of how

individuals experience a phenomenon and to explore accounts of experiences and their

meanings from participants’ personal words, descriptions, reflections, and perspectives on

the phenomenon (Holliday, 2007).

62
 The researcher interviewed and collaborated with each participant on their lived

experience in their training and development with gamification. Using purposive sampling,

the researcher made contact with Company X via telephone and by letter to allow her to

interview millennial employees from within the organization. Individuals interviewed were

currently using gamification in their training and development. To protect the rights of her

participants, the researcher gained permission and approval from the University of the

Rockies Institutional Review Board (IRB) to conduct the research. To ensure confidentiality

of participants, all identifying information was removed from the examples of coded

transcribed interviews.

Qualitative researchers gather data through multiple forms, such as interviews,

observations, and documents. Collaborating with and interviewing participants allowed the

researcher to collect and review data to make sense of such, as well as to organize the data

into themes. Qualitative research was conducted through complex reasoning using the

inductive logic where the researcher built patterns and themes to organize the data. Through

collaboration with participants, the researcher shaped the themes that emerged from the data

analysis process (Holliday, 2007).

Study Participants

As noted in Chapter I, there were no in-advance criteria for locating and selecting the

research participants. For this qualitative phenomenological study, the researcher used the

purposive sampling method. The sampling criteria for this study included millennial

employees within the United States who participated in training and development that

involved the use of gamification. Other essential criteria included that the research

participants (a) experienced the phenomenon of gamification in training and development in

the workplace; (b) were intensely interested in understanding its name and meanings; (c)

63
were willing to participate in a lengthy interview and perhaps follow-up interviews; and (d)

were willing to grant the researcher the right to tape-record and to publish the data in a

dissertation and other publications (Moustakas, 1994).

Participants were chosen in view of their lived experiences and their knowledge of

the gamification phenomenon. The sample size detailed the experience of participants so the

individual experience could be thoroughly analyzed for depth of the phenomenon, as

opposed to an expansive scope of different portrayals of the phenomenon (Giorgi, 2007). In

this study, all participants had experience in the use of gamification in their training. A

sample size of nine participants, aged 18 to 34, were obtained for this study.

The number of participants recruited for qualitative studies was guided by a

theoretical principle known as saturation (Hennink et al., 2011). Information that was

collected during the interview process might become saturated or redundant. This would

guide the researcher when she needed to stop gathering information. The intent of qualitative

research was not to generalize the information, but to elucidate the particular and the specific

information.

The researcher obtained permission from the University of the Rockies IRB prior to

beginning interviews with participants. The demographic and interview questions guide (see

Appendix F), which were developed by the researcher, were used in this process. The

interview guide consisted of nine open-ended questions and allowed the researcher to obtain

rich data for this study.

Following the University of the Rockies IRB approval, the researcher validated the

interview questions for clarity and relevance by carrying out a pilot study with one research

participant. This process was intended to serve as the primary source for validating the

64
instrument being utilized. Validation of data was imperative in this phenomenological

qualitative study to search for the meaning of participants’ lived experiences in gamification

in training and development. In addition, the pilot study was carried out by the researcher to

reveal any deficiencies in the study design. The use of preliminary analysis helped the

researcher determine the wording and order of the interview questions presented to the

interviewees. The pilot study procedure involved noting the time a participant took to

complete the interview and any queries about the wording.

Therefore, after the IRB provided conditional approval of the study, the researcher

needed to secure the Facebook and LinkedIn permissions. Upon approval from the IRB, the

researcher sought approval from Facebook and LinkedIn group administrators to post a

question to obtain participants who currently used gamification in their training and

development (see Appendix A and Appendix B).

Upon receipt of group administrators’ approvals and IRB approval, the researcher

posted a request for a volunteer for the pilot study (see Appendices C and D). The first

qualified respondent for this population was chosen to participate in the pilot study. The

respondent was a LinkedIn member. The researcher emailed the Letter of Informed Consent

(see Appendix E) to the pilot participant, which included the purpose of the study,

information about the researcher, the process of the interview, the approximate timeframe for

the interview, and assurance of participant confidentiality. Upon receipt of the signed

informed consent form from this participant, the researcher began the interview.

After completion of the pilot study interview, the researcher transcribed the interview

using the procedures described in the Data Collection section of this chapter. The data were

categorized into an Excel spreadsheet to ensure the interview questions obtained the type of

65
data needed for the official study. Upon analysis of the pilot study, the researcher found that

no adjustments needed to be made to the interview questions or to the data analysis

procedure before the official study could be undertaken. The pilot data collected were

maintained and secured in a locked file cabinet in the researcher’s home. The data collected

will be kept for five years. After the 5-year period has elapsed, the researcher will destroy

the data.

After completing the pilot study, the researcher began the official study. Nine

participants who currently used gamification in their training and development were selected.

Although recruitment was attempted through both Facebook and LinkedIn, all nine

participants for the official study responded from the LinkedIn recruitment efforts; there were

no respondents from Facebook. These individuals did not have personal contact with the

researcher prior to the study. The data collected in the pilot study were not used in the

analysis of the official study. Each participant was informed of the expected extent of their

involvement for the study. Participants were sent the letter of informed consent (see

Appendix E) through personal emails. Upon receipt of the participants’ approval of informed

consent via email with an electronic signature, the demographic and interview questions (see

Appendix F) were then emailed to each participant. The researcher also emailed a list of

times for participants to choose from and to set up his or her telephone interview.

Participants’ names and times of interviews were updated by the researcher in a Word

Document, which was kept private and confidential from other participants.

Each audio interview was between 45 to 60 minutes. After each interview, the

researcher immediately transcribed each of the interviews to maintain the participant’s exact

wording. The researcher will keep all data, such as audio-tapes, transcription, and master

66
lists, for at least five years. After the 5-year timeline has elapsed, the researcher will then

destroy all data, audio-tapes, and master lists.

Instrumentation

Interview guides can be utilized as part of qualitative research and serve as

instruments. The interview guide consisted of nine open-ended questions that were asked of

all participants (see Appendix F), which allowed the researcher to obtain rich data (Crouse,

Doyle, & Young, 2011) for this study. Each of the questions related to a particular focus on

the experience of the use of gamification in training and development, as perceived by

millennial employees. The guide served as a structure to evoke participant reactions, keeping

in mind the end goal to answer the inquiries that this investigation sought to answer

(Moustakas, 1994). Interviews lasted between 45 and 60 minutes, were audio-recorded, and

were transcribed verbatim.

Pilot Study

The pilot testing process was the primary source for validating the instrument being

utilized (Tirgari, 2012). Following the University of the Rockies IRB’s approval, the

researcher validated the interview questions for clarity and relevance from the perspective of

the target population. Validation of data was imperative (Moustakas, 1994) in this

phenomenological qualitative research to search for the meaning of participants’ lived

experiences in gamification in training and development.

Before the actual interviews, a pilot study was carried out by the researcher to reveal

any deficiencies in the study design. The purposeful sampling was used to select the initial

participant for the pilot interviews. The pilot study was administered to one participant who

had experienced gamification in his training and development in the work environment. The

use of preliminary analysis helped determine the wording and order of the interview

67
questions presented to the interviewee. The pilot study procedure involved noting the time a

participant took to complete the interview and any queries about the wording.

The researcher sought approval from Facebook Group Administrators (see Appendix

A) and also LinkedIn Group Administrators (see Appendix B) to obtain participants for her

study. Upon receipt of approval from these professionals and the University’s IRB, the

researcher contacted participants who were willing to volunteer to participate in the pilot

study. The first qualified participant was chosen for the pilot study.

The participant received a consent form agreeing to be interviewed. Upon receipt of

the signed consent form from the participant (Fisher, 2008), agreeing to share his specific

lived experiences, the researcher began the pilot interview process. The researcher asked the

participant a few demographic questions at the start of the interview. These included gender,

age, educational level, employment status, and state of residence. The interview questions

were those presented in Appendix F.

After completion of the interview with the participant, the researcher transcribed the

interview using the procedures described in the Data Collection section of this chapter. The

data were categorized into an Excel spreadsheet to ensure the interview questions obtained

the type of data needed for the official study. Upon analysis of the pilot study, the researcher

found that no adjustments needed to be made to the interview questions or to the data

analysis procedure before the official study could be undertaken.

Procedures Followed

Although recruitment was attempted through both Facebook and LinkedIn, all nine

participants responded from the LinkedIn recruitment efforts; there were no respondents

from Facebook. Screening questions were asked after obtaining signed informed consent

forms from participants. The procedures for this research were designed to help ensure

68
purposive sampling, to recruit volunteer participants, and to set their expectations and protect

their privacy. To accomplish this:

1. After obtaining signed informed consent from each participants, each individual
was contacted and screened to ensure he or she currently utilized gamification
practices in training and development. In screening participants, the researcher
asked questions about their use of gamification in training, which determined
whether participants were suited for the study.

2. Participants were provided with adequate information about the purpose, and
expectations of the study. Verbal and written consent were obtained from each
participant.

3. Date and time of interviews were set with each participant.

4. Phone interviews were conducted with each participant.

5. Conversations were recorded using a small audio recording device.

6. Interviews were transcribed into written format.

7. Data from the interviews were collected and analyzed for patterns and themes.
Themes were divided into categories that described the overall concept that
emerges.

Data Collection

In a phenomenological study, the process of collecting information involved

primarily in-depth interviews (Creswell, 2007; Moustakas, 1994) with as many as 10

participants. The important point was to describe the meaning of the phenomenon for a small

number of individuals who have experienced it. In this study, the transcendental descriptive

phenomenological approach was applied to the data collection process. The researcher was

the primary data collection instrument for this study. The methods chosen for sampling and

data collection were critical to the quality and application of the study (Gibbs et al., 2007).

The secondary data collection instrument included the demographic and interview

questions (see Appendix F), where the researcher gained in-depth insights into participants’

experiences and interpretations on the use of gamification in training and development.

69
Throughout the data collection process, the researcher suspended any preconceived notions

or personal experiences that might unduly influence what she heard the participants saying.

This suspension was referred to as bracketing or epoché (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005; Hays &

Woods, 2011; Moustakas, 1994; Vallack, 2010). Suspending any preconceived notions or

personal experiences was necessary for the researcher to gain an understanding of the typical

experiences that participants have had (Woodard, 2012).

Upon approval from the University of the Rockies IRB, the researcher sought

permission from participants to partake in this study. A letter of informed consent (see

Appendix E) outlined the interview protocol. This letter was emailed to each participant

confirming their participation. Upon receipt of signed consent forms from each participant,

the researcher began the interview process.

The researcher conducted a semistructured interview. Interviews were conducted

over the telephone, where each interview was between 45 to 60 minutes. Participants were

told that they would be engaging in audio recorded interviews and that participation

remained voluntary. The researcher sought to understand millennials’ experiences with

gamification in their training and development through their perspectives, as these

individuals have direct, immediate experiences with gamification. As the researcher moved

back and forth with the interview questions, she looked for the quintessences of the

experiences, as well as variations of the experiences (Moustakas, 1994) being investigated.

Merriam (2002) posited that interviews could range from a structured (formal)

approach to an unstructured (informal) approach to a semistructured approach. In structured

interviews, specific questions are formulated and asked in an orderly manner; whereas, in an

informal approach, topic areas were explored and the order of the questions were not

70
predetermined. The researcher sought to understand the lived experiences of participants in

the use of gamification in training and development by asking open-ended questions, which

allowed participants to share relevant information for this study. Arvidson (2013) and

Hennink et al. (2011) indicated that open-ended questions enabled the researcher to build

continued rapport with participants, which helped participants have confidence in telling their

perspectives.

For the purpose of recording interviews, the researcher utilized the Nuance Dragon

equipment. This device helped in faster and more accurate reports of each participant’s

interviews. A second device that the researcher utilized was the Sony ICD PX333 Digital

Voice Recorder with expandable memory. This recorder recorded each participant’s

interviews, and these were included in a large, easy-to-read LCD display that could display

the wordings of each interview. These two devices were used to ensure accurate recordings.

The researcher transcribed all interviews within 24 to 48 hours of each interview. Once

interviews were transcribed, the researcher emailed each participant a copy of his or her

transcribed interview for final review. Each participant was asked to review and approve the

transcription via electronic signature.

Further, all identifying information such as participants’ names, and their

organizations were removed and replaced with coded information. In addition, all participant

information was password-protected on the researcher’s personal computer. All information

was kept in a secured locked file cabinet in the researcher’s home. No one, except the

researcher, had access to this file cabinet. Participants’ names and their organizations were

not used in this study. The researcher coded participants as Participant 1, Participant 2, and

so on to ensure confidentiality. None of the data provided for this study and for publication

71
in the researcher’s dissertation could be used to identify participants’ names. The researcher

will keep data, such as audio-tapes, transcription, and master lists, in a locked cabinet

securely for five years. After the 5-year timeline has elapsed, the researcher will then destroy

all data, audio-tapes, and master lists.

Data Analysis

Organization of information began when the researcher put the translated interviews

before her and studied the material through the strategies and systems of phenomenal

analysis (Moustakas, 1994). Analyzing data helped the researcher gain access (Broom,

Cheshire & Emmison, 2009) to participants’ understandings of gamification practices in

training and development. The interview guide consisted of nine open-ended questions. The

guide served as a structure to evoke participant reactions, keeping in mind the end goal to

answer the inquiries that this investigation sought to answer (Moustakas, 1994).

The researcher chose a phenomenological approach, since it was aligned to the

study’s aim to catch the quintessence of how individuals translate, process, and experience

gamification in their training and development (Iwamoto, Negi, Partiai, & Creswell, 2013).

Phenomenological research was viewed as a thorough and intensive exploratory technique

for examination plans, to investigate, and look for the encounters that contained both the

outward appearance and internal cognizance taking into account the recollections, pictures

and implications (Moustakas, 1994). Phenomenological research helps to clarify the

covered- up and complex aspects of a phenomenon and was reasonable for investigating

gamification in training and development from the perspective of millennial employees since

the gamification experience is rapid, liquid, and multidimensional formative (Iwamoto et al.,

2013).

72
 Phenomenological data analysis procedures were implemented in this study. The

ultimate level of examination was to discover, list, and recognize critical articulations of the

participants by using the procedure of horizontalization (Moustakas, 1994; Vallack, 2010).

The researcher identified and extricated every huge proclamation that mirrored the

participants’ gamification training and development experience.

Modification of the van Kaam (1966) approach by Moustakas (1994) was used to

analyze data. This approach included (a) study participants sharing personal experiences, (b)

documentation of statement and meanings, and (c) description of the essences of lived

experiences (Creswell, 2007; Moustakas, 1994). The phenomenological study approach to

data analysis was used to help the researcher understand the lived experiences of the

participants. The data analysis approach also helped ensure rigor, as the researcher

conducted each step of the process independently and compared the results until 100%

agreement was achieved. There were four steps in the data analysis process, as follows.

1. The researcher bracketed her experiences (i.e., epoché), where she refrained from
adding her judgment about the phenomenon (gamification).

2. For each interview transcript in a process known as horizonalization, she

identified all non-repetitive and non-overlapping statements relevant to the
experience under investigation (i.e., invariant meaning units).

3. The researcher related and clustered the invariant meaning units to describe the
textures (meaning and depth) of the experience, in what was referred to as textural
description.

4. Finally, the researcher sought multiple meanings and tensions in the textual
descriptions, and created a structural description. She chose to develop a list or
visual model to represent participants’ experiences, creating a composite
textural-structural description.

Validity

Qualitative validity includes checking for the accuracy of the findings by utilizing

certain methods. Validity is viewed as one of the strengths of qualitative research as this

73
seeks to determine whether the findings are accurate from the point of view of the researcher

and the participant (Skiba & Disch, 2014). Several procedures to expand the validity of a

study include triangulation, member checking, and clarification of bias. To ensure that the

findings are transferable between the researcher and the participants for this present study,

thick description was necessary (Creswell, 2007). To obtain rich data (Crouse et al., 2011)

for this study, the researcher conducted interviews over the telephone using an interview

guide (see Appendix F). The validity of the information was derived from the richness of the

discussions during the interviews with the participants of this study (Creswell, 2007).

Truth value was critical in the precise portrayal of lived encounters by the

participants. Truth value in qualitative study was found in the precise portrayal of human

encounters as these were lived and perceived by participants in the study. For this study, the

researcher transcribed the audio recorded interviews and emailed each participant’s transcript

to the participant to examine the transcription for accuracy (Tirgari, 2012). Upon the

participant’s validation of the transcription content, the data analysis process began.

The above steps of data clarification guaranteed the information gathered from

millennial workers provided an unmistakable, genuine, and the most precise representation of

each of the participant’s view of the experience of gamification in training and development,

which helped to ensure the validity of this study. Findings were trustworthy and believable

in that the findings reflect the participants’ and not the researcher’s experiences with a

phenomenon (Tirgari, 2012).

The steps of the research process were detailed in an audit trail. The audit trail

contained evidence of movement from the interview data to categories and codes to themes

(Carcary, 2009). The process, documented in the audit trail, showed how the researcher

74
formed a viable interpretation of the findings (Sackett & Lawson, 2016). Qualitative

researchers must bracket their biases in an effort to remain objective, a process known as

epoché (Moustakas, 1994). This researcher bracketed all biases to remain objective.

Ethical Concerns

Human science researchers are guided by the moral standards of research that

involves humans (Moustakas, 1994). Qualitative research includes a new landscape of

ethical issues, and their utilization requires the reexamination of how to apply established

ethical principles and standards (Haverkamp, 2005). Drew, Duncan, and Sawyer (2010)

pointed out that ethics approval be established by the Institutional Review Board (IRB)

before any interviews can be conducted. Researchers are to be concerned with ethical issues

when designing, conducting, and reporting on their study.

Flicker, Haans, and Skinner (2004) indicated that there are three situations to be taken

into consideration regarding ethical practices in research. These include (a) enrolling

research participants, (b) protecting participants from risk or harm, and (c) linking public and

private data. Four ethical principles of autonomy—non-maleficence, justice, and

beneficence—must be considered when selecting and interviewing participants for the study.

Adhering to ethical guidelines in research involving human agents was important in

the research process. Ethical principles included regard for participants, informed consent,

specific permission required for sound or video recording, voluntary participation and no

coercion, participant’s right to withdraw, no harm to participants, no utilization of misleading

information, the assumption and safeguarding of anonymity, participant’s right to check and

change a transcript, confidentiality of personal matters, data protection, ethical governance,

and a full reporting of techniques. Conflicts of interest, moral risk, and obligation of

75
consideration were also considered (Creswell, 2007; Moustakas, 1994; Vanclay, Baines, &

Taylor, 2013).

The researcher obtained informed consent from participants before the interviews

(Fisher, 2008). Informed consent forms were emailed to each participant. Upon receipt of

signed informed consent forms from the participants, the researcher contacted participants

via telephone to conduct interviews. Participants were informed about the purpose of the

study, possible risks or harms, and benefits of participation, confidentiality and privacy

protocols, how the information was used, what their rights and responsibilities included, and

withdrawal procedures (Creswell, 2007; Flicker et al., 2004). Reported results of the study

did not breach confidentiality to participants.

Summary

This chapter outlined the research methodology used to answer the following research

questions:

RQ1. What is the nature of the lived experiences of millennial employees when
gamification is incorporated in their training and development?

RQ2. What meaning do millennials ascribe to their lived experiences using

gamification methods in their training?

In addition, the chapter presented the research design, participant selection, interview

protocol, and the approaches that were being taken to use for data collection, and data

analysis. The results and findings of this study are discussed in Chapter IV. Chapter IV

provides the results of the interview data analysis; namely the participant demographics and

the emergent themes from the study. Chapter V provides the summary discussion by

recapping the need for the study, the purpose of the research, the research questions that

guided the study, interpretations of findings, implications for theory and research,

implications for practice, recommendations for further research, and a conclusion.

76
 CHAPTER IV: RESULTS

The purpose of this chapter is to present the results of the analysis of the data that

were gathered using the method described in Chapter III. A discussion of these results is in

Chapter V. The present chapter includes a description of the pilot study; a description of the

study participants’ demographic characteristics; a description of the implementation of the

data collection and data analysis procedures that were outlined in Chapter III; a presentation

of the results of the analysis of the data; and a conclusion that summarizes the results.

The purpose of this transcendental phenomenological (descriptive) qualitative study

was to understand the lived experiences of millennial employees with gamified training and

development. The term millennial refers to the demographic cohort of individuals born

between 1981 and 1997 (Pew Research Center, 2015). The term gamification refers to the

use of game components, mechanics, or design techniques to engage and motivate people to

achieve their goals (Radu et al., 2014). The following research questions guided this study:

RQ1. What is the nature of the lived experiences of millennial employees when
gamification is incorporated in their training and development?

RQ2. What meaning do millennials ascribe to their lived experiences of using

gamification methods in their training?

Pilot Study

The researcher carried out a pilot study to reveal any deficiencies in the study

design. The pilot study was administered to one participant who had experienced

gamification in his training and development in the work environment. The pilot study was

designed to help the researcher refine the wording and order of the interview questions

presented to the interviewee. During the pilot study, the researcher noted the time the

participant took to complete the interview and was also prepared to note the participant’s

requests for clarification of the wording of the interview questions.

77
 Before starting the pilot study, the researcher sought approval from Facebook Group

Administrators (see Appendix A) and LinkedIn Group Administrators (see Appendix B) to

obtain participants for her study. Upon receipt of approval from the group administrators and

from the University’s IRB, the researcher contacted volunteers who had expressed a

willingness to participate in the pilot study. The first qualified participant was chosen for the

pilot study.

Qualified participants were those who were (a) millennial employees within the

United States, and (b) participated in training and development that involved the use of

gamification. Other essential criteria included that the research participant had (a)

experienced the phenomenon of gamification in training and development in the workplace,

(b) was intensely interested in understanding its name and meanings, (c) was willing to

participate in a lengthy interview and (perhaps follow-up interviews), and (d) granted the

researcher the right to tape-record the interview and to publish the data in a dissertation and

other publications (Moustakas, 1994).

The participant was given a consent form (see Appendix E). After the participant

signed this consent form, indicating his agreement to share his specific lived experience, the

researcher began the pilot interview process. The interview questions the researcher asked

are presented in Appendix F.

After completion of the interview with the pilot study participant, the researcher

transcribed the interview using the procedures described in the Data Collection section of

Chapter III. The data were also organized into an Excel spreadsheet to ensure that the

interview questions had elicited the data needed for the official study. Upon analysis of the

78
pilot study, the researcher found that no adjustments needed to be made to the interview

questions or to the data analysis procedure before the official study could be undertaken.

Sample

The sample included nine U.S. millennial employees who had taken part in workplace

training and development that involved the use of gamification. Although recruitment was

attempted through both Facebook and LinkedIn, all nine participants responded from the

LinkedIn recruitment efforts. Five of the employees (55%) identified as male, and the

remaining four identified as female. Ages of the participants ranged from 23 to 34 years,

with a mean age of 26.9 years. Six participants (67%) had a bachelor’s degree only, two had

a master’s degree, and one was a juris doctor.

Data Collection

The researcher was the primary data collection instrument for this study. The

secondary data collection instrument consisted of the Demographic and Interview Questions

(see Appendix F), which the researcher used to gain in-depth insights into participants’

experiences and interpretations of the use of gamification in training and

development. Throughout the data collection process, the researcher bracketed preconceived

notions and personal experiences that might have unduly influenced the data obtained. The

researcher conducted one semistructured interview with each of the nine participants. The

interview guide consisted of nine open-ended questions that were asked of all participants

(see Appendix F). Each of the questions related to a particular focus on the experience of the

use of gamification in training and development as perceived by millennial employees.

Interviews were conducted over the telephone, as the geographic distribution of the

participants made this the only workable means of gaining access to them. Each interview

took between 45 and 60 minutes to conduct. All interviews were audio-recorded, with the

79
participants’ consent, using the Sony ICD PX333 Digital Voice Recorder with expandable

memory. No unusual circumstances were met during data collection. Each interview was

transcribed verbatim into a Microsoft Word document and then imported into an NVivo

project file for systematic analysis of the collected data whereby similar patterns were

grouped into codes that were relevant to participants’ experiences. Analysis results indicated

that data saturation had been achieved with nine interviews, as no new codes emerged from

the analysis of data from the ninth interview.

After the data were transcribed by the researcher, the transcripts were sent to the

participants through their personal emails for verification of the accuracy and completeness

of responses. The researcher was prepared to make any changes to the transcribed data that

the participants requested, but the participants approved the data as it had been transcribed.

The approval was confirmed through their personal emails.

Data Analysis and Results

The researcher next related and clustered invariant meaning units to describe the

textures (meaning and depth) of each participant’s experience, and then grouped the meaning

units into textual descriptions. Finally, the researcher sought multiple meanings and tensions

in the textual descriptions; and created a structural description. Tables 2 and 3 depict the

results of the analysis.

80
Table 2

The Nature of Millennials’ Lived Experiences With Gamification

Structural Textual
Description Descriptions Invariant Meaning Units Sample Quotation

Nature of the Feelings Motivation, gratification, “In the moment, [gamification]

lived experiences generated by high gain/low risk, silly or was exciting and it did yield
of millennial gamification pointless, attitude change, positive results. I did feel more
employees when mixed feelings, positive connected to my colleagues.”
gamification is information retention (Participant 4)
incorporated in
their training and Feelings about Different emphases, “I appreciated them trying to
development employer (due to ambivalence, increased make things fun for me and it was
gamification) engagement, agency better than just reading and
influence, appreciation, training, finding your game and
employer cares, mixed doing that.” (Participant 9)
feelings

Feelings about Enjoyment, doing versus “The feelings were just that it
work thoughtfully doing, not didn't feel so, like, boring. I'm
environment (due much, virtual work actually excited to do the
to gamification) environment, playfulness, trainings when I know they're set
connection up that way. I get more into it.”
(Participant 6)

Effect of Stronger networker, based “[Gamification] basically

gamification on on client demands, same encourages me to do things, and
job functions work different approach, that makes me be more prepared
minimal effect, higher to do my job.” (Participant 9)
motivation, better prepared

Influence of Positive higher interaction, “[Gamification has] kept me

gamification on competition, breaking more in touch with some people.”
social interaction down barriers, limited (Participant 5)
at work experience

Feedback on Using program as “Feedback's interesting because

experience with benchmark, becomes there's not necessarily a ton of
gamification in second nature, follow-up feedback that goes into that
training survey, multiple feedback experience for me personally
types, not sure/not invited within the program.”
(Participant 1)

Autonomy in the Not much to say, high and “Everybody has to do training,
workplace more independent, right? But gamification makes it
reduced, more choice more individualized.”
(Participant 9).

81
Table 3

The Meaning of Millennials’ Lived Experiences With Gamification

Structural Textual
Description Descriptions Invariant Meaning Units Sample Quotation

Meaning Evaluations of Effect on learning, when “I think gamification does have a

millennials gamification in gamification works best, valuable place in the workplace.”
ascribe to their the workplace shouldn’t be used as a (Participant 4).
lived experiences performance metric,
of using excited about potential,
gamification worth the investment,
methods in their effective, proper time and
training place, limited value

Structural description was used to organize the results. The structural descriptions

that emerged during the analysis corresponded to the research questions:

RQ1. What is the nature of the lived experiences of millennial employees when
gamification is incorporated in their training and development?

RQ2. What meaning do millennials ascribe to their lived experiences using

gamification methods in their training?

Nature of Millennials’ Experience With Training and Development Gamification

During data analysis, seven textual descriptions emerged that described the nature of

the lived experiences of millennial employees when gamification is incorporated into their

training and development. The textual descriptions about the structural "nature of" were

 feelings generated by gamification,

 feelings about the employer,

 feelings about the work environment,

 effect of gamification on job functions,

 influence of gamification on social interaction at work,

 feedback on experience with gamification in training, and

82
  autonomy in the workplace.

The nature of the lived experience of gamification was characterized for participants

by a variety of feelings, perceptions, and outcomes. Participants associated gamification

with feelings of playfulness, fun, excitement, accomplishment, and gratified

competitiveness. The competition with coworkers was considered “healthy,” and this

allowed the contests to lead to improvements in workplace teamwork and collaboration. The

perceptions of employers that resulted from the experience of gamification depended on

participants’ estimations of their employers’ intentions in implementing the

system. Participants who believed that gamification had been implemented for their benefit

had more positive perceptions of their employers than the participant who suspected that the

system had been implemented in order to gather performance metrics or the participant who

found the presentation of the exercises patronizing. Participants who had positive

perceptions reported greater feelings of engagement with and pride in their employer. All

participants reported that gamification had made them feel better about their work

environment by imbuing it with a sense of fun, collaborativeness, engagement, and play.

Gamification improved workplace socialization in ways that extended beyond the

game for the three participants who reported that the system had helped them to overcome

barriers to socialization, including personal barriers. Such as introversion, and external

barriers, such as the challenges of collaborating with coworkers who were located in a

different country. Participants who reported no barriers to workplace socialization indicated

that workplace interactions originating in gamified systems tended to remain limited to

communications about the game. Participant responses further indicated that gamification

improved their performance of collaborative job functions but had no effect on their

83
performance of solitary job functions. Workplace autonomy was perceived to increase when

greater autonomy depended on more effective collaboration, on having options within the

gamified system, or on receiving the necessary encouragement to take advantage of existing

opportunities. For four participants out of nine, however, gamification had either a negligible

or negative effect on perceived autonomy.

Participants’ perceptions of the degree to which they were able to give feedback to

their employers concerning their gamification experiences depended on the level of access

they were given to the gamified system’s designers and on their perceptions of the value of

that access. Participants who appeared to feel that the standard surveys about the experience

had minimal value felt that their ability to give feedback was minimal, while a participant

who felt that the survey responses affected the system was enthusiastic about being able to

offer feedback in this way. Participants who reported the most satisfaction with their ability

to give feedback associated their satisfaction with the opportunities they had been given to

speak directly with the gamified system’s designers. All participants who reported that they

were satisfied with their ability to give feedback on their experiences of gamification

reported that gamification had increased their and their coworkers’ workplace

autonomy. Only one participant reported both an inability to give feedback on the

gamification experience and an increase in personal workplace autonomy that the participant

associated with gamification.

Meaning That Millennials Ascribe to Training and Development Gamification

During data analysis, just one textual description—"evaluations of gamification in the

workplace"—emerged that described the structural meaning of the lived experiences of

millennial employees when gamification is incorporated into their training and development.

84
 One of the meanings participants ascribed to their experiences of gamification was

that their generation had a learning style that was different from those of previous

generations, and that teaching methods were evolving to keep up with them. To three

participants, the experience of gamification meant that employers might need to exercise

caution, either because the game might become an end in itself, or because the gamified

systems might generate performance metrics that were irrelevant to real-world performance,

or because the gamified system might be so appealing that workers would become dependent

upon that method of content delivery even in contexts where it was not effective. The

experience of gamification meant to all participants that teaching methods were changing,

and that the change was ongoing.

Conclusion

The purpose of this transcendental phenomenological (descriptive) qualitative study

was to understand the lived experiences of millennial employees with gamified training and

development. To achieve this, the researcher conducted one-on-one, in-depth, semistructured

telephone interviews with nine U.S. millennial employees who had participated in workplace

training and development that involved the use of gamification. The first research question,

RQ1, that guided the study was: What is the nature of the lived experiences of millennial

employees when gamification is incorporated in their training and development?

The nature of the lived experience of gamification was characterized for participants

by a variety of feelings, perceptions, and outcomes. Gamification was associated by

participants with feelings of playfulness, fun, excitement, accomplishment, and gratified

competitiveness. All participants reported that gamification had made them feel better about

their work environment by imbuing it with a sense of collaborativeness and play.

85
 Gamification improved workplace socialization in ways that extended beyond the

game for participants who reported that the system had helped them to overcome barriers to

socialization. However, participants who reported no barriers to workplace socialization

indicated that workplace interactions originating in gamified systems tended to remain

limited to communications about the game. Participant responses further indicated that

gamification improved their performance of collaborative job functions but had no effect on

their performance of individual job functions.

Workplace autonomy was perceived to increase when greater autonomy depended on

more effective collaboration, on having options within the gamified system, or on receiving

the necessary encouragement to take advantage of existing opportunities. All participants

who reported that they were satisfied with their ability to give feedback on their experiences

of gamification reported that gamification had increased their and their coworkers’

workplace autonomy. Only one participant reported both an inability to give feedback on the

gamification experience and an increase in the workplace autonomy associated with

gamification.

The second research question, RQ2, that guided this study was: What meaning do

millennials ascribe to their lived experiences of using gamification methods in their

training? One of the meanings participants ascribed to their experiences of gamification was

that their generation had a learning style that was different from those of previous

generations, and that teaching methods were evolving to keep up with the millennial learning

style. To three participants, the experience of gamification meant that employers might need

to exercise caution, either because the game might become an end in itself, or because the

gamified systems might generate performance metrics that were irrelevant to real-world

86
performance, or because the gamified system might be so appealing that workers would

become dependent upon that method of content delivery even in contexts where it was not

effective. The experience of gamification meant to all participants that teaching methods

were changing, and that the change had not come to an end yet.

Next, Chapter V has a discussion of the interpretations and implications of the study

results.

87
 CHAPTER V: DISCUSSION

Chapter IV included a presentation of the results of the analysis of the data that were

gathered according to the method described in Chapter III. This chapter includes a summary

of the results presented in Chapter IV, interpretations of those results, a discussion of the

limitations of this study, a discussion of the implications of this study’s results for future

theory and research, a discussion of the implications of this study’s findings for future

practice, and recommendations for further research, and a conclusion.

Recap of the Study Background and Research Questions

Researchers forecast that by 2025, 75% of the workforce will be composed of

millennials (Napolitano, 2015). Millennials are defined as the demographic cohort of

individuals born between 1981 and 1997 (Pew Research Center, 2015). Implementing new

technologies and innovative strategies to keep these digital natives engaged in creative ways

will improve overall productivity and create higher returns on investment (Napolitano,

2015). Gamification is one technique that employers have implemented as a means of

keeping millennials engaged (George, 2015; Nero, 2015; Ritter, 2015); researchers have

defined gamification as the use of game-like techniques to engage and motivate employees in

institutional and organizational environments (Radu et al., 2014).

Although past researchers have extensively studied the positive impact gamification

has on business outcomes, little consideration has been given to the ways in which corporate

leaders can integrate gamification into workplace training and development to promote the

engagement and retention of millennial workers (Farrell & Hurt, 2014; Gamification Corp.,

2012; Korolov, 2012; Marcinkus, 2012; McGonigal, 2010; Wiebenga, 2005). Developing a

better understanding of strategies for engaging this large and growing part of the workforce is

critical, given that fewer than one out of every 10 employees in the workplace is engaged

88
(Paliwal, 2015). Employees who are disengaged may cost organizations billions of dollars

each year (Gastich, 2015; Korolov, 2012).

The purpose of this transcendental phenomenological (descriptive) qualitative study

was to understand the lived experiences of millennial employees with gamified training and

development. The following research questions guided this study:

RQ1. What is the nature of the lived experiences of millennial employees when
gamification is incorporated in their training and development?

RQ2. What meaning do millennials ascribe to their lived experiences of using

gamification methods in their training?

To answer these questions, the researcher conducted one-on-one, in-depth,

semistructured telephone interviews with nine U.S. millennial employees who had

participated in workplace training and development that incorporated gamification. The

nature of the lived experience of gamification was characterized for participants by a variety

of feelings, perceptions, and outcomes. Gamification was associated with feelings of

playfulness, fun, excitement, accomplishment, and gratified competitiveness. Participants

also expressed the perception that gamification had helped them to overcome barriers to

work socialization, and had improved their feelings about their employers when gamification

seemed intended to benefit employees.

Additionally, participants perceived that gamification had improved their

performance of collaborative job functions, had imbued their work environments with an

atmosphere of engagement and play, and, in five cases out of nine, had increased their

perceived autonomy in the workplace. Gamification did not appear to improve performance

in solitary job functions, nor did it appear to enhance workplace socialization in areas

unrelated to the gamified system when barriers to communication were not present. Five

participants out of nine reported that they had little or no input in the ongoing development of

89
the gamified systems they used, and four of these five participants reported that gamification

had a negligible or negative impact on their perceived autonomy in the workplace.

Participants took their experiences of gamification to mean that their generation

learned in different ways than earlier generations and that employers were finding

appropriate ways to engage them. Participants also saw their experiences of gamification as

signifying that the evolution of content delivery methods was ongoing, and that the potential

for further advancements was great. However, participants also took their experiences to

mean that overreliance on gamification was a danger, for both employers and employees, and

that careful, systematic monitoring of the outcomes of gamification was necessary to ensure

that the instructional method was not used in inappropriate or ineffective ways.

Interpretation of Findings

The principal theory used to support the conceptual rationale for this study was Deci

and Ryan’s (1997) theory of self-determination (SDT). Deci and Ryan (2011) argued that

workers have three basic psychological needs that should be met by the work environment:

the need for competence, or for the development of mastery skills; the need for autonomy, or

for control of their own behaviors and goals; and the need for relatedness, or for a sense of

belonging and attachment to other individuals. The findings of the present study indicated

that gamification may meet millennial workers’ need for competence in relation to skills that

are employed collaboratively, and may also help to meet these workers’ needs for relatedness

when internal or external obstacles to the fulfillment of these needs arise. The findings of the

present study also suggest, however, that millennial workers may not seek to derive a sense

of enhanced autonomy from the gamification experience. This inference is suggested by the

finding that the failure of gamification to enhance some participants’ feelings of autonomy

90
was not related in most instances to negative feelings about gamification or to negative

feelings about the employer.

The findings in the present study may also shed light on the relationship between

Kapp’s (2012) finding that gamification has enhanced employers’ motivation and the

contention of Deci and Ryan (2011) that motivation can be extrinsic (related to external

reinforcements) or intrinsic (when the activity is its own reward). Participants described

gamification as providing a system of desirable rewards within the gamified system itself,

such that engagement with the gamified system was its own reward and intrinsic motivation

was enhanced. Internal reinforcements (such as badges or medals) or with the progress of

play itself (when it involved competing with colleagues), rather than with extrinsic rewards

such as increased knowledge or increased status in the workplace. The findings from this

study indicated, then, confirmed by Farrell and Hurt (2014) that game-based learning is

intrinsically motivated.

The secondary theory that served as a conceptual framework for this study was the

Bandura (1986) social cognitive theory (SCT). Through the lens of SCT, learning is seen to

occur through the individual’s continual negotiation with his or her environmental and social

contexts (Salanova & Schaufeli, 2011). Positive feedback from the social or physical

environment enhances learning by reinforcing behaviors (Boyce, 2011). Farrell and Hurt

(2014) recently reported that there has only been limited research on the learning styles of

millennials. Fructuoso (2015) later noted that millennials prefer to learn through methods

that involve (a) collaborative work and networking, (b) varied activities, (c) communication

skills, (d) personalized learning, and (e) a high standard. The results of the present study

confirm some of Fructuoso’s finding, as participants expressed a strong preference for

91
collaborative learning activities and for personalized learning that engaged them as active

participants. The present study may add to the work of Fructuoso and begin to address the

gap identified by Farrell and Hurt with the finding that participants expressed a strong

preference for learning methods that they believed were tailored to their learning style and

implemented for their benefit. In other words, the findings of the present study suggest that

millennials are most responsive when they feel catered to.

Hout’s (2015) contention that organizational leaders can combat disengagement by

implementing gamified systems that track progress, encourage competition, pose creative

challenges, and foster a sense of accomplishment was confirmed in most respects by the

findings of the present study. The positive reactions of participants to gamification were

associated most strongly with the capacity of the gamified system to allow cumulative

progress over multiple sessions of “play” and with features of the system that allowed

participants to compete against colleagues. Participants also valued the sense of

accomplishment they associated with in-game rewards (such as badges), but none of the

participants appeared to value the system for the challenges (creative or otherwise) that

gamification posed. Participants’ silence about the challenges the gamified system presented

may have been due to a tendency for the satisfaction of overcoming challenges to be an

individual enjoyment, rather than a social experience; or that participants valued the system

most for its contributions to teamwork and collaboration, including contributions made

through the facilitation of healthy competition. These findings suggest that there may be

some tension between two of the goals of gamification posited by Hout, namely, that when

workers compete via the results of individualized play, then the social, competitive aspect of

92
the experience may eclipse the intrinsic value of the challenges that may be addressed in

solitary play in order to advance in the competition.

Limitations of Study

Although this phenomenological study advanced the understanding of gamification in

training and development from the viewpoint of millennial employees, there were identified

practical limitations in the research method: sample size, the use of a single instrument, and

potential researcher bias.

Regarding sample size, phenomenological studies often use small sample sizes

because this allows the researcher to reach data saturation, provided the respondents have

characteristics that are aligned with the requirements of the purpose and research questions of

the study. It is possible that despite reaching data saturation, more findings would have

emerged with additional participants. Interviews were conducted until data saturation was

achieved, but caution must be exercised in any attempt to generalize the findings to a broader

population.

Another limitation was the sole use of semistructured interview questions as a means

of acquiring data. An additional, potentially useful way of accessing the lived experiences of

participants might have been to ask them to answer journal or essay questions on the topic

and compare those answers to their verbal responses as a means of triangulation.

Finally, the researcher, as the human instrument, had personal biases and opinions

regarding the phenomenon and problem of interest in the study. To counter this limitation,

the researcher acknowledged that her personal interest in gamification in business settings

had led to the focus of her study. This identification allowed the researcher to monitor the

way in which she was shaping the collection and interpretation of data (as recommended by

Giorgi, 2006; Merriam, 2002). Measures were taken to ensure that the data analysis was not

93
compromised, though these measures did not ensure objectivity. These measures included a

review of the research questions and of the analysis of the data, the researcher keeping a

methodological journal, and the incorporation of member-checking.

Implications for Theory and Research

As discussed earlier, Deci and Ryan (2011) argued that workers have three basic

psychological needs that should be met by the work environment: the need for competence,

or for the development and mastery of skills; the need for autonomy, or for control of their

own behavior and goals; and the need for relatedness, or for a sense of belonging and

attachment to other individuals. Findings from the present study may inform existing theory

by indicating that, among millennials, the need for autonomy may be satisfied by

opportunities to be heard by managerial personnel, who have real discretion in determining

behaviors and setting goals in the work environment. Participants’ responses suggested that

the need for autonomy was satisfied by the opportunity to express opinions about the

gamified system to programmers and managers, independently of whether this feedback

resulted in changes to the system.

Thus, while worker needs for competence and relatedness remained strong and

needed to be met by actual skill-development and interpersonal attachments, the need for

autonomy was satisfied without feedback (in the form of recommendations being

implemented in the system). The implication of this finding for Deci and Ryan’s (2011)

self-determination theory is that, while workers needs for relatedness and competence should

be taken literally, the need for autonomy may potentially be satisfied without conceding

actual autonomy to employees. The needs of participants appeared to be for competence,

relatedness, and expression, with expression being independent of the need for corresponding

alterations to working conditions that true autonomy would seem to imply.

94
 Implications for Practice

The findings of this study suggest that employers can use gamification to engage

millennial workers with job functions and work environments most successfully by

attributing certain purposes to the gamified system and by using the system in certain

circumstances. Millennial employees find gamification more engaging when they believe

that the system exists for their benefit; accordingly, employers might maximize the benefits

of such a system by presenting it to millennial employees as a content delivery method that

has been tailored to their learning style in order to develop them and meet their needs. The

tendency of gamification to promote collaboration can beneficially be disclosed to millennial

employees, as past research and the findings of the present study have indicated that this

demographic group places a high value on networking and collaboration; accordingly, they

may find gamification more engaging if they are apprised that it contributes to these

experiences.

As a corollary of the finding that millennials may find gamification more engaging if

they believe it is made for them, millennials may also find the gamified system more

engaging if they are assured that it is not being used by their employers as a means of

measuring and judging them. The perception that the gamified system is being used by

employers as an oversight tool may sour the experience for millennials, and may exacerbate

any latent antagonism toward the system itself and toward the employer, such that further

disengagement might result.

Employers can also maximize the benefits of gamification by implementing the

system when barriers to collaboration exist. Gamification may be an ideal means of fostering

collaboration in virtual work environments, where employees may find it difficult to develop

rapport, and in international or cross-cultural work teams. The gamified system may also be

95
used as a rehearsal space in which an organization’s management can allow future leaders to

develop leadership skills such as proposing and advocating effectively for

innovations. Finally, employers may benefit from monitoring the outcomes of gamification,

to ensure that the system is applied only in contexts where it is demonstrably effective, and to

ensure that employees do not “game the system” by using it in ways that accomplish

subsidiary in-game goals but detract from overarching organizational goals.

Recommendations for Further Research

For future research on gamification in training and development from the viewpoint

of millennial employees, the researcher suggests recruiting and interviewing a larger sample

of participants in order to allow for the possible emergence of additional findings. Doing so

might allow a greater ability to generalize the findings to a larger population. Future

researchers might also employ quantitative methods, with large samples, to ascertain which

features of gamified systems tend to maximize the workplace engagement of millennial

employees. Researcher observations of participants engaging in training exercises, or asking

millennials to respond to journal or essay questions on the topic, might allow triangulation of

interview or quantitative data, leading to a richer understanding of the nature of the lived

experiences of millennial employees with gamification.

Conclusion

The purpose of this transcendental phenomenological (descriptive) qualitative study

was to understand the lived experiences of millennial employees with gamified training and

development.

The findings indicated that gamification was associated with feelings of playfulness,

fun, excitement, accomplishment, and gratified competitiveness. Participants also expressed

the perception that gamification had helped them to overcome barriers to work socialization,

96
and had improved their feelings about their employers when gamification seemed intended to

benefit employees. Participants took their experiences of gamification to mean that their

generation learned in different ways than earlier generations and that employers were finding

appropriate ways to engage them by keeping pace with the ongoing evolution of content-

delivery methods. The results of this study may help leaders and employers to engage

millennial employees more effectively by using gamification to overcome barriers to

collaboration, to promote collaboration, and by reinforcing in employee communications that

gamified systems are to help maximize employee learning and development.

97
 References

Adams, M., & Makramalla, M. (2015). Cybersecurity skills training: An attacker-centric

gamified approach. Technology Innovation Management Review, 5(1), 5-14.

Ahn, J., Pellicone, A., & Butler, B. S. (2014). Open badges for education: What are the
implications at the intersection of open systems and badging? Research in Learning
Technology, 22. doi: 10.3402/rlt.v22.23563

Arvidson, M. (2013). Ethics, intimacy and distance in longitudinal, qualitative research:

Experiences from reality check Bangladesh. Progress in Development Studies, 13(4),
279-293. doi:10.1177/1464993413490476

Avantika, N. (2015). Gamification really works. Retrieved from

http://www.trainingindustry.com/content-development/articles/gamification
-really-works.aspx

Balakrishnan, L., & M, V. (2014). A study on retention strategy's followed by education

institutions in retaining qualified employees. SIES Journal of Management, 10(1),
69-80.

Barnham, C. (2015). Quantitative and qualitative research. International Journal of Market

Research, 57(6), 837-854. doi:10.2501/IJMR-2015-070

Boote, D. N., & Beile, P. (2005). Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the
dissertation literature review in research preparation. Educational Researcher, 34(6),
3-15.

Boyce, T. E. (2011). Applying social learning theory. Training Journal, 31-34.

Broderick, M. (2015). Gamification and engagement improve EMS training. Retrieved from
http://www.trainingindustry.com/content-development/articles
/gamification-and-engagement-improve-ems-training.aspx

Broderick, M. (2015). Three ways to strengthen learning with gamification and interactivity.
Retrieved from http://www.trainingindustry.com/learning-technologies/articles
/3-ways-to-strengthen-learning-with-gamification-and-interactivity.aspx

Broom, A., Cheshire, L., & Emmison, M. (2009). Qualitative researchers’ understandings of
their practice and the implications for data archiving and sharing. Sociology, 43(6),
1163-1180.

Carcary, M. (2009. The research audit trial—Enhancing trustworthiness in qualitative

inquiry. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 7(1), 11-23.

Cekada, T. L. (2012). Training a multigenerational workforce. Professional Safety, 57(3),

40-44.

98
Chatfield, T. (2015, February 19). 7 ways games reward the brain. Retrieved from
https://blog.captainup.com/best-ted-talks-about-gamification-from-education
-to-motivation/

Cheong, C., Filippou, J., & Cheong, F. (2014). Towards the gamification of learning:
Investigating student perceptions of game elements. Journal of Information Systems
Education, 25(3), 233-244.

Chopra, P. (2016). Give them what they want. TD: Talent Development, 70(5), 36-40.

Chwalisz, K., Shah, S. R., & Hand, K. M. (2008). Facilitating rigorous qualitative research in
rehabilitation psychology. Rehabilitation Psychology, 53(3), 387-399.
doi:10.1037/a0012998.

Cohen, A. M. (2011). The gamification of education. The Futurist, 45(5), 16-17.

Cone, J. D., & Foster, S. L. (2006). Dissertations and theses from start-to-finish (2nd
ed.).Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Cook, W. (2013). Five reasons you can't ignore gamification. Chief Learning Officer, 12(5),
46-55.

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design. Choosing among five
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cronin, P., Ryan, F., & Coughlan, M. (2008, January 1). Undertaking a literature review: A
step-by-step approach. British Journal of Nursing, 17(1), 10-23.

Crouse, P., Doyle, W., & Young, J. D. (2011). Workplace learning strategies, barriers,
facilitators and outcomes: A qualitative study among human resource management
practitioners. Human Resource Development International, 14(1), 39-55.
doi:10.1080/13678868.2011.542897

De Chesnay, M. (2014). Nursing research using ethnography: Qualitative designs and

methods in nursing. New York, NY: Springer.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A macro-theory of human

motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne,
49(3), 182. doi:10.1.1.517.3731

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2002). Self-determination theory. Handbook of Theories of

Social Psychology, 1, 416-433.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2011). Self-determination theory. Handbook of theories of social
psychology, 1, 416-433.

99
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (2000). Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (2005). The sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

DeVaney, S. A. (2015). Understanding the millennial generation. Journal of Financial

Service Professionals, 69(6), 11-14.

Drell, L. (2014). Let the gamification begin. Marketing Health Services, 34(1), 24-27.

Drew, S., Duncan, R., & Sawyer, S. (2010). Visual storytelling: A beneficial but challenging
method for health research with young people. In SAGE Biographical Research (Vol.
20, pp. v4-189-v4-209). London, England: Sage.

Eggleston, M. (2015). How millennials view leadership. Retrieved from

http://www.trainingindustry.com/blog/blog-entries/how-millennials-view
-leadership.aspx

Engaging with gamification. (2015). Convenience Store Decisions, 26(6), 14.

Erenli, K. (2013). Gamify your teaching—Using location-based games for educational

purposes. International Journal of Advanced Corporate Learning, 6(2), 22-27.
doi:10.3991/ijac.v6i2.2960

Farrell, L., & Hurt, A. C. (2014). Training the millennial generation: Implications for
organizational climate. E Journal of Organizational Learning & Leadership, 12(1),
47-60.

Fatime, B. K. (2010). The definitions and preferences of science teacher candidates

concerning web 2.0 tools: A phenomenological research study. TOJET: The Turkish
Online Journal of Educational Technology, 9(2).

Ferri-Reed, J. (2012). Three ways leaders can help millennials succeed. Journal for Quality
& Participation, 35(1), 18-19.

Ferri-Reed, J. (2013). Preparing the most techno-savvy and media-social generation to lead.
Journal for Quality & Participation, 36(3), 1-3.

Ferri-Reed, J. (2015). "Millennializing" the work environment. Journal for Quality &
Participation, 37(4), 17-18.

Finlay, L. (2011). Phenomenology for therapists: Researching the lived world. Hoboken,
GB: Wiley-Blackwell.

Fisher, M. A. (2008). Protecting confidentiality rights: The need for an ethical practice
model. American Psychologist, 63(1), 1-13. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.63.1.1

100
Flicker, S., Haans, D., & Skinner, H. (January 2004). Ethical dilemmas in research on
Internet communities. In J. Hughes (Ed.), Sage internet research methods (Vol. 14,
pp. 221-233). London, England: Sage.

Frost, R. D., Matta, V., & MacIvor, E. (2015). Assessing the efficacy of incorporating game
dynamics in a learning management system. Journal of Information Systems
Education, 26(1), 59-70.

Fructuoso, I. N. (2015). How millennials are changing the way we learn: The state of the art
of ICT integration in education (Como los millennials estan cambiando el modo de
aprender: Estado del arte de la integracion de las tic en educacion). Revista
Iberoamericana De Educación a Distancia, 18(1), 45-65.

Gagnon, Y. (2010). The case study as research method: A practical handbook. Québec: Les
Presses de l'Université du Québec.

Gallego Gómez, C., & De Pablos Heredero, C. (2013). La gamificación y el enriquecimiento

de las prácticas de innovación en la empresa: Un análisis de experiencias. Intangible
Capital, 9(3), 800-822. doi:10.3926/ic.377

Gamification Corp. (2012). GCO. Retrieved from http://www.gamification.co/

Gastich, D. (2015). A culture of learning is a competitive advantage. Retrieved from

http://www.trainingindustry.com/workforce-development/articles/a-culture-of
-learning-is-a-competitive-advantage.aspx

Gatautis, R., Vitkauskaite, E., Gadeikiene, A., & Piligrimiene, Z. (2016). Gamification as a
mean of driving online consumer behavior: SOR model perspective. Engineering
Economics, 27(1), 90-97. doi:10.5755/j01.ee.27.1.13198

George, J. P. (2015). How to engage millennials in the workplace. Retrieved from

http://www.trainingindustry.com/workforce-development/articles/how-to-engage-
millennials-in-the-workplace.aspx

Gibbs, L., Kealy, M., Willis, K., Green, J., Welch, N., & Daly, J. (2007). What have
sampling and data collection got to do with good qualitative research? Australian &
New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 31(6), 540-544.
doi:10.1111/j.1753-6405.2007.00140.x

Gil, L. (2015). Millennials. National Underwriter/Life & Health Financial Services, 119(9),
54-62.

Giorgi, A. (1997). The theory, practice, and evaluation of the phenomenological method as a
qualitative research procedure. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 28(2),
235-260.

Giorgi, A. (2006). Concerning variations in the application of the phenomenological method.

Humanistic Psychologist, 34(4), 305-319. doi:10.1207/s15473333thp3404_2

101
Giorgi, A. (2007). Concerning the phenomenological methods of Husserl and Heidegger.
Collection du Cirp, 1, 63- 78. Retrieved from
http://www.cirp.uqam.ca/documents%20pdf/Collection%20vol.%201/5.Giorgi.pdf

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2015). The practical use of awareness theory. Grounded
Theory Review, 14(2), 22-30.

Green, D. D., & Roberts, G. E. (2012). Impact of postmodernism on public sector leadership
practices: Federal government human capital development implications. Public
Personnel Management, 41(1), 79-96.

Greengard, S. (2014). Work at play; play at work. Baseline, 1.

Guercini, S. (2014). New qualitative research methodologies in management. Management

Decision, 52(4), 662.

Hagel, J. (2014). Meeting the challenge of the young and the restless. Journal of
Accountancy, 217(5), 20-21.

Hampshire, K., Iqbal, N., Blell, M., & Simpson, B. (2014). The interview as narrative
ethnography: Seeking and shaping connections in qualitative research. International
Journal of Social Research Methodology, 17(3), 215-231.
doi:10.1080/13645579.2012.729405

Hauw, S., & Vos, A. (2010). Millennials’ career perspective and psychological contract
expectations: Does the recession lead to lowered expectations? Journal of Business &
Psychology, 25(2), 293-302. doi:10.1007/s10869-010-9162-9

Haverkamp, B. E. (2005). Ethical perspectives on qualitative research in Applied

Psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 146-155.
doi:10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.146

Hays, D. G., & Wood, C. (2011). Infusing qualitative traditions in counseling research
designs. Journal of Counseling & Development, 89(3), 288-295.

Hedderly, D. J., & Scott, H. (2015). Measuring the effectiveness of video training through
technology-based education. SAM Advanced Management Journal (07497075), 80(1),
41-50.

Hennink, M., Hutter, I., & Bailey, A. (2011). Qualitative research methods. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.

Hershatter, A., & Epstein, M. (2010). Millennials and the world of work: An organization
and management perspective. Journal of Business & Psychology, 25(2), 211-223.
doi:10.1007/s10869-010-9160-y

Hines, A. (2011). A dozen surprises about the future of work. Employment Relations Today
(Wiley), 38(1), 1-15. doi:10.1002/ert.20326

102
Holliday, A. (2007). Doing and writing qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.

Houlihan, M., & Harvey, B. (2015). Creating a positive work culture. Health Care
Registration: The Newsletter for Health Care Registration Professionals, 24(9), 3-5.

Hout, N. (2015). How to combat disengagement by gamifying your business. Retrieved from
http://www.trainingindustry.com/content-development/articles/how-to-combat
-disengagement-by-gamifying-your-business.aspx

Iwamoto, D. K., Negi, N. J., Partiali, R. N., & Creswell, J. W. (2013). The racial and ethnic
identity formation process of second-generation Asian Indian Americans: A
phenomenological study. Journal of Multicultural Counseling & Development, 41(4),
224-239.

Kapp, K. M. (2012). Games, gamification, and the quest for learner engagement. T+D, 66(6),
64-68.

Kapp, K. M., Blair, L., & Mesch, R. (2014). The gamification of learning and instruction
fieldbook. Ideas into practice. New York, NY: Wiley and Sons.

Kapp, K. M. (2012). The gamification of learning and instruction: Game-based methods and
strategies for training and education. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

Keshtiaray, N., & Akbarian, A. (2012). Internet users lived experiences of cultural (values,
norms and verbal symbols) changes in Iran higher education: Ethics and philosophy
topics. Electronic Journal of Information Systems Evaluation, 15(3), 269-275.

Khurgin, A. (2015). Are you training your employees to leave or developing them to stay?
Retrieved from http://www.trainingindustry.com/workforce-development/articles
/are-you-training-your-employees-to-leave-or-developing-them-to-stay.aspx

Kim, B. (2015). Designing gamification in the right way. Library Technology Reports, 51(2),
29-0_3.

Korolov, M. (2012) Gamification of the enterprise. Network World, 29(15), 30-36.

Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2013). Practical research: Planning and design (10th ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Liamputtong, P. (2009). Qualitative data analysis: Conceptual and practical considerations.

Health Promotion Journal of Australia, 20(2), 133-139.

Lorente, L., Salanova, M., Martínez, I. M., & Vera, M. (2014). How personal resources
predict work engagement and self-rated performance among construction workers: A
social cognitive perspective. International Journal of Psychology, 49(3), 200-207.
doi:10.1002/ijop.12049

103
Luttrell, R., & McLean, D. (2013). A new generation of professionals: Working with
millennials in 5 easy steps. Public Relations Tactics, 20(4), 15.

MacAulay, M. (2010). Integrating lessons from other disciplines. The Open Source Business
Resource, 10-15.

MacSuga-Gage, A. S., & Simonsen, B. (2015). Examining the effects of teacher-directed

opportunities to respond on student outcomes: A systematic review of the literature.
Education and Treatment of Children, 38(2), 211-239.

Malmros, K. (2015). Driving engagement with gamification: An approach for training about
policies, processes and guidelines. Retrieved from
http://www.trainingindustry.com/content-development/articles/driving-engagement
-with-gamification-an-approach-for-training-about-policies-processes-and
-guidelines.aspx

Marcinkus Murphy, W. (2012). Reverse mentoring at work: Fostering cross-generational

learning and developing millennial leaders. Human Resource Management, 51(4),
549-573. doi:10.1002/hrm.21489

Martin, D., & Woodside, A. G. (2011). Gestalt modeling of international tourism behavior:
Applying dimensional qualitative research in constructing grounded theory.
Psychology & Marketing, 28(10), 998-1026. doi:10.1002/mar.20425.

Masie, E. (2013). On-the-job learning renewed. Chief Learning Officer, 12(11), 10.

Matua, G. A., & Van, D. W. (2015). Differentiating between descriptive and interpretive
phenomenological research approaches. Nurse Researcher, 22(6), 22.
doi:10.7748/nr.22.6.22.e1344

McDonald, K. (2015). Creating a well-designed e-learning program. Retrieved from

http://www.trainingindustry.com/blog/blog-entries/creating-a-well-designed
-e-learning-program.aspx

McDonald, K. (2015). How your company can benefit from customized e-learning. Retrieved
from http://www.trainingindustry.com/content-development/articles/how-your
-company-can-benefit-from-customized-elearning.aspx

McGonigal, J. (2010). Gaming can make a better world. TED [Producer]. Retrieved from
http://www.ted.com/talks/jane_mcgonigal_gaming_can_make_a_better_world.html

Medeiros, P. (2015). Issues of representation in narrative methodology in health research.

Narrative Inquiry, 25(2), 361-371. doi:10.1075/ni.25.2.09med

Merriam, S. B. (2002). Qualitative research in practices. Examples for discussion and

analysis. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

104
Moran, W. (2009). Workers' view of technology: Let's do it my way! Practicing CPA,
33(10), 1-3.

Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mulqueen, C., & Wolfson, N. (2015). Four principles for effective training design based on
neuroscience. Retrieved from http://www.trainingindustry.com/workforce
-development/articles/4-principles-for-effective-training-design-based-on
-neuroscience.aspx

Murray, E. J. (2013). Generational differences: Uniting the four-way divide. Nursing

Management, 44(12), 36-41. doi:10.1097/01.NUMA.0000437771.48521.6c

Napolitano, A. (2015). Defining the generations: What makes each tick and thrive. Retrieved
from http://www.trainingindustry.com/workforce-development/articles/defining-the
-generations-what-makes-each-tick-and-thrive.aspx

Napolitano, A. (2015). Six strategies to fuel innovation in your company. Retrieved from
http://www.trainingindustry.com/leadership/articles/6-strategies-to-fuel-innovation
-in-your-company.aspx

Neo, S. (2015). How employee engagement leads to a more productive workforce. Retrieved
from http://www.trainingindustry.com/workforce-development/articles/how
-employee-engagement-leads-to-a-more-productive-workforce.aspx

Ng, E., Schweitzer, L., & Lyons, S. (2010). New generation, great expectations: A field study
of the millennial generation. Journal of Business & Psychology, 25(2), 281-292.
doi:10.1007/s10869-010-9159-4

Pajaron, T. (2015). How to identify training needs at your organization. Retrieved from
http://www.trainingindustry.com/leadership/articles/how-to-identify-training-needs
-at-your-organization.aspx

Paliwal, S. (2015). Gamification in HR. Retrieved from http://elearningindustry.com/power

-gamification-in-hr

Parise, S., & Crosina, E. (2012). How a mobile social media game can enhance the
educational experience. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 8(3), 209.

Patten, B. (2015). How e-learning can increase employee training in your company.
Retrieved from http://www.trainingindustry.com/learning-technologies/articles/how
-e-learning-can-increase-employee-training-in-your-company.aspx

Patten, B. (2015). How gamification is changing employee training. Retrieved from

http://www.trainingindustry.com/content-development/articles/how-gamification-is
-changing-employee-training.aspx

105
Patterson, S., & Malpass, F. (2015). The influence of Bill Schlackman on qualitative
research. International Journal of Market Research, 57(5), 677-700.
doi:10.2501/IJMR-2015-058

Paul, T. V. (2014). An evaluation of the effectiveness of e-learning, mobile learning, and

instructor-led training in organizational training and development. The Journal of
Human Resource and Adult Learning, 10(2), 1-13.

Piñeiro-Otero, T., & Costa-Sánchez, C. (2015). ARG (alternate reality games). Contributions,
limitations, and potentialities to the service of the teaching at the university
Level/ARG (juegos de realidad alternativa). Contribuciones, Limitaciones y
Potencialidades Para La Docencia Universitaria. Comunicar, 22(44), 141-148.
doi:10.3916/C44-2015-15

Pobst, G, (2015). Nurturing organizational change through a learning culture. Retrieved

from http://www.trainingindustry.com/workforce-development/articles/nurturing
-organizational-change-through-a-learning-culture.aspx

Radu, M., Beleiu, I., & Nistor, R. (2014). Game-based learning of project management
competences. Managerial Challenges of the Contemporary Society, 7(1), 203-206.

Rahman, H., Rahman, W., Ali, N., & Khan, F. (2016). Organizational learning culture and
employees' career development: Empirical evidence from Colleges of Malakand
Division of Pakistan. Journal of Managerial Sciences, 10(1), 15-29.

Reiter, S., Stewart, G., & Bruce, C. (2011). A strategy for delayed research method selection:
Deciding between grounded theory and phenomenology. Electronic Journal of
Business Research Methods, 9(1), 35-46.

Remis, J. (2011). Creating a managerial development program to help move your company
forward. Retrieved from http://www.trainingindustry.com/leadership/articles/creating
-a-managerial-development-program-to-help-move-your-company-forward.aspx

Ritter, C. (2015). Replacing the employee performance review via gamification. Retrieved
from http://www.trainingindustry.com/training-outsourcing/articles/replacing-the
-employee-performance-review-via-gamification.aspx

Roberts. B. (2014, May). Gamification: Win, lose, or draw for HR? HR Magazine,
59(5)8-35.

Roberts, J. (2015). Game theory. E.Learning Age, 36-37.

Ruhi, U. (2015). Level up your strategy: Towards a descriptive framework for meaningful
enterprise gamification. Technology Innovation Management Review, 5(8), 5-16.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68.
doi:10.1.1.335.6945

106
Sackett, C. R., & Lawson, G. (2016). A phenomenological inquiry of clients' meaningful
experiences in counseling with counselors-in-training. Journal of Counseling &
Development, 94(1), 62-71. doi:10.1002/jcad.12062

Salanova, M., Llorens, S., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2011). 'Yes, I can, I feel good, and I just do
it!' On gain cycles and spirals of efficacy beliefs, affect, and engagement. Applied
Psychology: An International Review, 60(2), 255-285.
doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2010.00435.x

Schunk, D. H. (1989). Social cognitive theory and self-regulated learning. In Self-regulated

learning and academic achievement (pp. 83-110). New York, NY: Springer New
York.

Singh, K. D. (2015). Creating your own qualitative research approach: Selecting, integrating
and operationalizing philosophy, methodology and methods. Vision (09722629),
19(2), 132-146. doi:10.1177/0972262915575657

Skaržauskiené, A., Tamosiûnaitè, R., & Žaléniené, I. (2013). Defining social technologies:
Evaluation of social collaboration tools and technologies. Electronic Journal of
Information Systems Evaluation, 16(3), 232-241.

Skiba, J. M., & Disch, W. B. (2014). A phenomenological study of the barriers and
challenges facing insurance fraud investigators. Journal of Insurance Regulation,
3387-114.

Sloan, A., & Bowe, B. (2014). Phenomenology and hermeneutic phenomenology: The
philosophy, the methodologies, and using hermeneutic phenomenology to investigate
lecturers' experiences of curriculum design. Quality and Quantity, 48(3), 1291-1303.
doi:10.1007/s11135-013-9835-3

Spöttl, G., & Schulte, S. (2015). Work process based learning and serious games—Didactical
concepts and objectives for competency development. International Journal of
Advanced Corporate Learning, 8(3), 50-53. doi:10.3991/ijac.v8i3.4915

Sujansky, J. G. (2011). "Cool" is the new recruiting tool. Nonprofit World, 29(3), 19.

Surveys say workers value recognition, virtual rewards more than financial incentives.
(2013). Report on Salary Surveys, 20(7), 15.

Tadimeti, V. (2014). E-soft skills training: Challenges and opportunities. IUP Journal of Soft
Skills, 8(1), 34-44.

Theodotou, M. (2015). Millennials, uberization and apps: The people, process and
technology drivers of L&D disruption. Retrieved from
http://www.trainingindustry.com/workforce-development/articles/millenials,
-uberization-and-apps-the-people,-process-and-technology-drivers-of-ld
-disruption.aspx

107
Tirgari, V. (2012). Information technology policies and procedures against unstructured data:
A phenomenological study of information technology professionals. Academy of
Information & Management Sciences Journal, 15(2), 87-106.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation. (2015). The millennial generation research review.
Retrieved from
http://www.uschamberfoundation.org/millennial-generation-research-review

Vallack, J. (2010). Subtextual phenomenology: A methodology for valid, first-person

research. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 8(2), 106-118.

Vanclay, F., Baines, J. T., & Taylor, C. N. (2013). Principles for ethical research involving
humans: Ethical professional practice in impact assessment Part I. Impact Assessment
& Project Appraisal, 31(4), 243-253. doi:10.1080/14615517.2013.850307

VanGorp, D. (2015). Developing the right strategy to attract millennial talent. Hotel
Management (21582122), 230(5), 12.

Vinke, J., Orhei, L., & Bibu, N. (2012). Grounded action research on gyroscopic
management. Managerial Challenges of the Contemporary Society, (4), 196-200.

Wahyuni, D. (2012). The research design maze: Understanding paradigms, cases, methods
and methodologies. Journal of Applied Management Accounting Research, 10(1),
69-80.

Westfall, C. (2014). Never stop learning. Financial Executive, 30(3), 6.

Wiebenga, S. R. (2005). Guidelines for selecting, using, and evaluating games in corporate
training. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 18(4), 19-36.

Wilcox, M. (2014). Gamification seeks to make work more fun. Wyoming Business Report,
15(10), 3-33.

Woodard, F. J. (2012). A phenomenological study of spontaneous experiences in a 21st

century sample of normal people. Psychological Reports, 110(1), 73-132.
doi:10.2466/02.09.PR0.110.1.73-132

Zamir, R. (2015). Merging purpose with design in the world of gamification. Retrieved from
http://www.trainingindustry.com/blog/blog-entries/merging-purpose-with-design-in
-the-world-of-gamification.aspx

108
 Appendix A: Private Message to Facebook Group Administrators

Dear Mr. /Mrs. ______________________________,

My name is Mary Saunders, and I am a doctoral student in Organizational Leadership

At University of the Rockies, Denver, Colorado. I am seeking participants for my study

titled, Gamification in Training and Development from the Perspectives of Millennial

Employees. I am writing to you to request permission to post the following in your

Facebook group in order to find qualified participants:

Are you an employee between the ages 18 to 34 who currently use gamification in
training and development? For the purpose of this study, gamification is an approach
of using game components, mechanics or design techniques to engage and motivate
individuals to achieve their goals.

Would you like to share your experience about your personal and professional needs
in your current work position? Understanding gamification from the viewpoints of
employees in the workplace can create an awareness of how business leaders can
incorporate this technique to allow for a more engaged and interactive workforce for
the 21st-century.

I am a doctoral candidate seeking participants who live in the United States.

Participation for this dissertation research requires approximately 60 minutes for a
telephone interview. All information you provide will be protected and coded to
ensure confidentiality. All risks and benefits will be adequately identified, evaluated,
and described. The risk to you will be minimal. You will not be compensated for
participating in this study. All information shared by you will remain confidential.

You will be reminded that your participation is voluntary, and that you are free to opt
out at any time without penalty. Similarly, you will be reminded that you have a right
to refuse to answer any question. The only risk involve may be the time you spend to
participate in this study. Yes, you want to be heard, however, there may be the issues
of using your time in this study. There is also a possibility of you being embarrassed,
or even misunderstood. There are no physical nor medical risks involved in this
study, and you will not be in any danger in participating in this study.

The benefits may include you sharing your feelings on the researcher’s topic and
wanting your views to be heard. You will not be compensated for your participation.
Another benefit may include the contribution to organizational literature and in
understanding the manner in which gamification is impacting millennials and 21st
century organizations.

109
 If you are interested, please send a private message through my Facebook page, or
email at [email protected]. Thank you for your time and interest.

For the purpose of this research, I will ask participants for their personal email

addresses, and eventually, for their phone numbers in order to send them research materials

(Letter of Informed Consent and Interview Questions) and to perform the phone interview

necessary for part of this study. Confidentiality of all participants is of the utmost

importance to this study. I will not use their information for any other purpose except for the

expressed components of this study. I will inform all who are interested what participation in

in the study entails and that he/she may opt out at any time without penalty.

Please reply to this post advising whether you approve. If you have any inquiries

concerning this study, please contact me at [email protected] or xxx-xxx-xxxx.

You may also contact my Dissertation Chair, at [email protected]. You

may also contact the University’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) at xxx.xxxxxxx.xxx if

you desire to verify the legitimacy of the study. The IRB Number is 16-051-O.

Sincerely,

Primary Researcher

110
 Appendix B: Private Message to LinkedIn Group Administrators

Dear Mr. /Mrs. ______________________________,

My name is Mary Saunders, and I am a doctoral student in Organizational Leadership

at University of the Rockies, Denver, Colorado. I am seeking participants for my study

titled, Gamification in Training and Development from the Perspectives of Millennial

Employees. I am writing to you to request permission to post the following in your

LinkedIn group in order to find qualified participants:

Are you an employee between the ages 18 to 34 who currently use gamification in
training and development? For the purpose of this study, gamification is an approach
of using game components, mechanics or design techniques to engage and motivate
individuals to achieve their goals.

Would you like to share your experience about your personal and professional needs
in your current work position? Understanding gamification from the viewpoints of
employees in the workplace can create an awareness of how business leaders can
incorporate this technique to allow for a more engaged and interactive workforce for
the 21st-century.

I am a doctoral candidate seeking participants who live in the United States.

Participation for this dissertation research requires approximately 60 minutes for a
telephone interview. All information you provide will be protected and coded to
ensure confidentiality. All risks and benefits will be adequately identified, evaluated,
and described. The risk to you will be minimal. You will not be compensated for
participating in this study. All information shared by you will remain confidential.

You will be reminded that your participation is voluntary, and that you are free to opt
out at any time without penalty. Similarly, you will be reminded that you have a right
to refuse to answer any question. The only risk involve may be the time you spend to
participate in this study. Yes, you want to be heard, however, there may be the issues
of using your time in this study. There is also a possibility of you being embarrassed,
or even misunderstood. There are no physical nor medical risks involved in this
study, and you will not be in any danger in participating in this study.

The benefits may include you sharing your feelings on the researcher’s topic and
wanting your views to be heard. You will not be compensated for your participation.
Another benefit may include the contribution to organizational literature and in
understanding the manner in which gamification is impacting millennials and 21st
century organizations.

If you are interested, please send a private message through my LinkedIn page, or
email at [email protected]. Thank you for your time and interest.

111
 For the purpose of this research, I will ask participants for their personal email

addresses, and eventually, for their phone numbers in order to send them research materials

(Letter of Informed Consent and Interview Questions) and to perform the phone interview

necessary for part of this study. Confidentiality of all participants is of the utmost

importance to this study. I will not use their information for any other purpose except for the

expressed components of this study. I will inform all who are interested what participation in

the study entails and that he/she may opt out at any time without penalty. Similarly,

participants will be reminded that they have a right to refuse to answer any question.

Please reply to this post advising whether you approve. If you have any inquiries

concerning this study, please contact me at [email protected], or

xxx-xxx-xxxx.

You may also contact my Dissertation Chair at [email protected].

You may also contact the University’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) at

[email protected] if you desire to verify the legitimacy of the study. The IRB Number is

16-051-O.

Sincerely,

Primary Researcher

112
 Appendix C: Pilot Study Post – Facebook Participants

I am searching for one volunteer for a pilot study for the following:

Are you an employee between the ages 18 to 34 who currently use gamification in training
and development? For the purpose of this study, gamification is an approach of using game
components, mechanics or design techniques to engage and motivate individuals to achieve
their goals.

Would you like to share your experience about your personal and professional needs
in your current work position? Understanding gamification from the viewpoints of
employees in the workplace can create an awareness of how business leaders can incorporate
this technique to allow for a more engaged and interactive workforce for the 21st-century.

I am a doctoral candidate seeking participants who live in the United States.

Participation for this dissertation research requires approximately 60 minutes for a telephone
interview. All information you provide will be protected and coded to ensure confidentiality.
If you are interested, please send a private message through my Facebook page, or my email
at [email protected]. Thank you for your time and interest.

For the purpose of this research, I will ask you for your personal email address, and
eventually, for your phone number in order to send you research materials (Letter of
Informed Consent and Interview Questions) and to perform the phone interview necessary
for part of this study. Confidentiality is of the utmost importance to this study. I will not use
your information for any other purpose except for the expressed components of this study. I
will inform you what participation in the study entails and that you may opt out at any time
without penalty. Similarly, you will be reminded that you have a right to refuse to answer
any question.

Please reply to this post advising whether you approve. If you have any inquiries
concerning this study, please contact me at [email protected], or
xxx-xxx-xxxx.

You may also contact my Dissertation Chair at [email protected].

You may also contact the University’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) at
[email protected] if you desire to verify the legitimacy of the study. The IRB Number is
16-051-O.

113
 Appendix D: Pilot Study Post – LinkedIn Participants

I am searching for one volunteer for a pilot study for the following:
Are you an employee between the ages 18 to 34 who currently use gamification in
training and development? For the purpose of this study, gamification is an approach of
using game components, mechanics or design techniques to engage and motivate individuals
to achieve their goals.
Would you like to share your experience about your personal and professional needs
in your current work position? Understanding gamification from the viewpoints of
employees in the workplace can create an awareness of how business leaders can incorporate
this technique to allow for a more engaged and interactive workforce for the 21st-century.
I am a doctoral candidate seeking participants who live in the United States.
Participation for this dissertation research requires approximately 60 minutes for a telephone
interview. All information you provide will be protected and coded to ensure confidentiality.
If you are interested, please send a private message through my LinkedIn page, or my email
at [email protected]. Thank you for your time and interest.
For the purpose of this research, I will ask you for your personal email address, and
eventually, for your phone number in order to send you research materials (Letter of
Informed Consent and Interview Questions) and to perform the phone interview necessary
for part of this study. Confidentiality is of the utmost importance to this study. I will not use
your information for any other purpose except for the expressed components of this study. I
will inform you what participation in the study entails and that you may opt out at any time
without penalty. Similarly, you will be reminded that you have a right to refuse to answer
any question.
Please reply to this post advising whether you approve. If you have any inquiries
concerning this study, please contact me at [email protected], or xxx-xxx-xxxx.
You may also contact my Dissertation Chair at [email protected]. You
may also contact the University’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) at [email protected] if
you desire to verify the legitimacy of the study. The IRB Number is 16-051-O.

114
 Appendix E: Letter of Informed Consent

Dear (Participant);
Thank you for your interest in participating in this study. My name is Mary
Saunders, and I am a doctoral student in the School of Organizational Leadership at
University of the Rockies.
I am writing to invite you to participate in a research study titled, Gamification in
Training and Development from the perspectives of Millennial Employees. This study is for
my dissertation, and the purpose of the study is to add to the growing body of knowledge
about the significance of gamification in the 21st-century organization. The University
requires that you give your signed agreement to participate in this project. If you choose to
participate in this study, I will hold conversations with you for no more than an hour through
the telephone.
If you are not clear on any of the content in this letter, please feel free to contact the
researcher at email: [email protected], or telephone xxx-xxx-xxxx.
Study Procedure:
• Participant reads Letter of Informed Consent.
• Send your signed copy of approval of the Letter of Informed Consent in a
reply to this email, [email protected]
• Choose date and times from a list that will be sent to you by the researcher for
a telephone interview, which will last no more than one hour. Researcher will
give you several time options in the event your first choice has already been
chosen by another participant.
• Review the interview questions that will be sent to you in a confirmation
email with the interview date and time. You may contact the researcher at
[email protected] or by telephone xxx-xxx-xxxx if you need to
change the interview date and time.
• Complete 60-minute telephone interview with the researcher.
• The interview transcription will be emailed to you in a locked file. The
researcher will provide you with the password in a separate email. Review the
final transcription of the telephone interviews and communicate your approval
to the researcher via a reply to the email containing the final transcription.
Risks:
All risks and benefits will be adequately identified, evaluated, and described. The
risk to you will be minimal. You will not be compensated for participating in this study. All
information shared by you will remain confidential. You will be reminded that your
participation is voluntary, and that you are free to opt out at any time without penalty.

115
Similarly, you will be reminded that you have a right to refuse to answer any question. The
only risk involve may be the time you spend to participate in this study. Yes, you want to be
heard, however, there may be the issues of using your time in this study. There is also a
possibility of you being embarrassed, or even misunderstood. There are no physical nor
medical risks involved in this study, and you will not be in any danger in participating in this
study.
Benefits:
There is no monetary compensation for participating in this study other than time
spent. The benefits may include you sharing your feelings on the researcher’s topic and
wanting your views to be heard. You will not be compensated for your participation.
Another benefit may include the contribution to organizational literature and in
understanding the manner in which gamification is impacting millennials and 21st century
organizations.
Privacy and Confidentiality:
Interviews will be conducted over the telephone. Each interview will last between 45
to 60 minutes. The researcher will immediately transcribe each of the interviews in order to
maintain your exact wording. You will receive a copy of your transcribed interview through
your email, where you will be able to verify the content and make any necessary changes.
Upon verification of the content by you, which will be indicated through your email, the
researcher will make the necessary changes. You will also be provided the opportunity to
learn about the results of the study once it is completed. The researcher will email a copy of
the results of the study to you once it is completed.
Your information will be coded and password-protected on the researcher’s personal
computer. Your name will not be used in this study. The researcher will be coding you as
for example, Participant One, Participant Two, etc. in order to ensure confidentiality. All data
provided for this study and for publication in the researcher’s dissertation will not identify
your name nor the name of your company. All audio recordings, transcribed interviews and
master lists will be kept in a secured file cabinet in the researcher’s home. No one except the
researcher will have access to this file cabinet. The researcher will keep data such as
audio-recordings, transcription, and master list for at least five years. After the five-year
timeline has elapsed, the researcher will then destroy all data, audio-recordings, and master
lists.
Persons to Contact:
You may contact the researcher at any time with questions about the study at
[email protected], or xxx-xxx-xxxx. If you have any further inquiries
concerning this study, please contact my advisor at [email protected]. To
ensure the legitimacy of this study, you may also wish to contact the University’s
Institutional Review Board (IRB) at email [email protected]. The IRB Number is
16-051-O.

116
 A copy of this consent form will be provided to you.
Consent:
I understand the above information and voluntarily consent to participate in this
study. I understand that I may discontinue to participate at any time without penalty, and that
I also have the right to refuse to answer questions.
Please indicate with a check mark below if you agree to the recording of your
interview responses.
□ I agree to the recording of my interview responses.

Signature of Participant: ____________________________ Date: ____________

IRB Approval Number: 16-051-O IRB Expiration Date: __________

117
 Appendix F: Demographic and Interview Questions

Thank you for participating in this study. You have been identified as an employee who

realizes the importance of the use of gamification in training and development in ensuring

engagement in the 21st century organization. For the purpose of this study, gamification has

been defined as an approach of using game-like techniques to engaged and motivate

employees in both the institutional and organizational environments. The intent of

gamification is to incorporate elements from games to encourage learners to engage with the

content to progress towards a specific goal, objective, or both.

1. Are you able to relate to gamification and how this has impacted your personal and
professional experience?

2. Are you a male or female?

3. How old are you?

4. What State within the United States do you currently reside?

5. What is your highest level of education?

6. Tell me about your personal and professional experience when gaming methods are
used in your training and development?

7. What feelings were generated by this experience?

8. What feelings about your employer were generated regarding your experience of
gamification?

9. What feelings about your work environment were generated regarding your
experience of gamification?

10. How has gamification affected your day-to-day job functions?

11. How has your experience with gamification influenced your social interaction in the
work environment?

12. How are you able to give feedback regarding your experience with gamification in
training?

13. How has this experience affected your feeling of autonomy in the workplace?

14. Is there anything else you would like to share with me?

118