Content uploaded by Iveta Ludviga
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Iveta Ludviga on Feb 23, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
10th International Scientific Conference
“Business and Management 2018”
May 3–4, 2018, Vilnius, LITHUANIA
Section: Contemporary Business Management Challenges and Opportunities
http://www.bm.vgtu.lt
ISSN 2029-4441 / eISSN 2029-929X
ISBN 978-609-476-119-5
eISBN 978-609-476-118-8
doi: 10.3846/bm.2018.45
https://doi.org/10.3846/bm.2018.45
© 2018 The Authors. Published by VGTU Press. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License (CC-BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original author and source are credited.
USE OF GAMIFICATION IN HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT:
IMPACT ON ENGAGEMENT AND SATISFACTION
Daiga Ērgle1, Iveta Ludviga2
1University of Latvia, Riga, Latvia
2Business Department, RISEBA University of Business, Arts and Technology, Meza 3, Riga, Latvia
E-mails: 1Daiga.Ergle@4finance.com (corresponding author); 2iveta.ludviga@riseba.lv
Abstract. The use of games, also called gamification, is innovative an approach in contemporary human
resource management. The aim of this research is to assess whether gamification, if used in HR pro-
cesses, can increase engagement and job satisfaction among employees, as well as to identify which HR
processes respond better to gamification. Using data from CAWI interviews (n = 620) and Structural
Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM) method with smartPLS software, the researchers found a significant
positive impact of gamification on employee job satisfaction, however, no impact on engagement.
Teambuilding and internal communication were identified as HR processes which better respond to
gamification and recommendations for HR managers provided.
Keywords: gamification, human resource management, engagement, job satisfaction, structural equa-
tion modelling.
JEL Classification: M50, M54, M59.
1. Introduction
Gamification refers to the use of games and game-
related components outside the traditional play-
ground with a serious purpose within organisa-
tions or training institutions (Gimson, 2012;
Brownhill, 2013) with an aim to make everyday
duties more attractive and pleasant (Sarangi &
Shan, 2015). In the past few years, gamification
has emerged as a trend within the business and
marketing sectors and has recently grabbed the at-
tention of academics, educators and practitioners
(Seaborn & Fels, 2015). Researchers and practi-
tioners consider that gamification can be used in
any process which involves employees (Callan,
Bauer, & Landers, 2015).
Gamification is not simply playing games.
According to Kim (2015), games create the imag-
inative world, which differs from reality, how-
ever, gamification augments reality with the ele-
ments of a game. Elements of a game beyond
traditional format of the game motivate people to
act and create fun, thus increase participant’s en-
gagement and motivation (Kapp, 2014; Zicher-
mann & Cunningham, 2011). Mollick and Roth-
bard (2014) view gamification from the
perspective of employer – as a tool to engage em-
ployees in some kind of competition and thus con-
tributing to the achievement of organisational
goals.
Research by American Society for Training &
Development in 2013 found that 23% of organisa-
tions use gamification in training and development
process and 99% of them are sure that this method
is effective. Moreover, 4 out of 10 organisations
who do not use gamification stated that they plan to
start using it next year (Oakes, 2014).
Currently, the most common applications of
gamification are in the areas of employee perfor-
mance, innovation management, education, per-
sonal development and customer engagement.
Still, the trend of gamification, as every techno-
logical emerging trend, goes through a cycle of
success and failure. According to Gartner’s hype
cycle, gamification is starting to go through a
‘trough of disillusionment’. This means that the
hype of the trend is over and due to some failures
of gamification there is more awareness of the ad-
vantages and disadvantages of this technology.
People recognize that gamification cannot solve
every problem, that there are limits to the use of
gamification and that improvement is still neces-
sary (Gartner, 2015). According to Gartner (2015)
gamification, applied with correct game design
principles, can and will have a significant impact
in many domains, and in some fields, the use of
game mechanics will have a transformational im-
pact. However, a lot needs to be done. Therefore,
in this stage, there is a pressing need for empirical
D. Ērgle, I. Ludviga
410
studies to validate what effect, and the extent of
the effect, gamification features have on partici-
pants' performance and enjoyment as well as to
identify best practices (Seaborn & Fels, 2015).
Despite the widespread use of gamification,
the research on effects of gamification is still
scarce and there is lack of empirical evidence
about the results. It is not clear should organisa-
tions really use gamification in HR or it is just the
latest management fad. The aim of this research is
to find empirical evidence about the effect of the
use of gamification in HR processes on employee
engagement and job satisfaction. Moreover, the
paper assesses the level of the use of gamification
in different HR processes in Latvian organisations
as well as identifies which generations accept
gamification better.
The paper is structured as follows: in theoret-
ical part first gamification is defined, then its use
in human resource processes discussed and hy-
potheses developed. Further research methodlogy
is described, and findings presented.
2. Gamification defined
Although gamification is a popular word nowa-
days, there are quite a few definitions used (Xu,
2011) and quite some discussion on what the right
definition is. This might be because theoretical
foundations are inconsistently referenced and in-
terpreted. Also, there is a gap between theory and
practice – where theory is empirically unex-
amined and applied work lacks reference to theory
(Seaborn & Fels, 2015, p. 27).
According to Seaborn & Fels (2015) gami-
fication has been largely, though inconsistently,
referred to as the selective incorporation of game
elements into an interactive system without a
fully-fledged game as the product. Gamification
is also described as the use of game design ele-
ments in non-game context (Deterding, Dixon,
Khalad, & Nacke, 2011). An important remark,
however, is the high level of subjectivity in iden-
tifying “gamification”. The concept of ‘game de-
sign elements’ and ‘non-game context’ are both
arguable since there is no universal list of game
elements (Werback, 2014). Therefore, it is not
possible to determine whether a given empirical
system is “a gamified application” or “a game”
without taking recourse to either the designers’
intentions or the user experiences and enact-
ments (Deterding et al., 2011, 2012). To over-
come this problem Werbach (2014) redefines
gamification as ‘a process of making activities
more game-like’. Within this definition it is not
necessary to define a point where the designed
system crosses over in gamification as in the def-
inition of Deterding. Huatari and Hamari (2012)
also don’t agree with the definition of Deterding
because they believe the focus should be more on
the user’s experience. Hence, they define gami-
fication as “a process of enhancing a service with
affordances for game full experiences in order to
support user’s overall value creation” (Huatari &
Hamari, 2012, p. 19). Nevertheless, the defini-
tion of Deterding is the most widespread; there-
fore, for the purposes of this research Deterd-
ing’s definition of gamification is applied: ‘the
use of game design elements in non-game con-
text’ (Deterding et al., 2011).
2.1. Use of gamification in HR
Gamification can be used in any sphere of busi-
ness (Saran, 2013), including human resource
management. Since human capital is the intangi-
ble asset that primarily account for the perfor-
mance of the firms (Mollick & Rothbard, 2014),
companies are looking for new solutions to en-
gage employees and ensure that they work with
greater enthusiasm and contribute to the achieve-
ment of business goals. During the last 5 years or
so, interest of practitioners has spread to use game
applications into different HR processes. Re-
cently, more and more companies are using dif-
ferent gaming technologies, thereby involving
employees and changing their behaviour. HR
function uses different gamification tools to im-
prove induction processes, employee training and
development, team-building, talent management
processes, and performance management (Rob-
erts, 2014). Gamification adds joy to everyday du-
ties which otherwise can be quite boring (Sa-
rangi & Shan, 2015). Researchers and practitio-
ners consider that gamification can be used prac-
tically in any process which involves employees
(Callan et al., 2015).
Meister (2015) states that gamification in-
cludes 75% psychology and 25% technology and
can be applied to any process in real organisation
starting with recruitment and ending with training
and development. From the psychological per-
spective, gamification increases employee en-
gagement through inner motivation, aim setting
and experience of competition (DuVernet &
Popp, 2014). Involvement in games can change
employee behaviour, allow them to view their or-
ganisation from the different perspective
(Hughes & Mccoy, 2015).
In order to find evidence of the effectiveness
of the use of gamification in HR processes it is
USE OF GAMIFICATION IN HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT:
IMPACT ON ENGAGEMENT AND SATISFACTION
411
important to understand how to measure HR pro-
cesses and management, therefore further em-
ployee engagement as the outcome of efficient
HR management is discussed.
2.2. Engaged employees as a result of effective
management
Researchers and practitioners agree that engaged
employees are better performers. For example,
Mihalicz found that productivity of engaged em-
ployees is 21% higher, profitability 22% higher
and customer ratings are 10% higher (Mihalicz,
2018). Moreover, Harter and Adkins (2015) re-
search found that managers account for 70% of
the variance in employee engagement. Conse-
quently, employee engagement is frequently re-
garded as one of the most significant measure-
ments for management efficiency (Ergle, 2015).
Engaged employees as those who are ac-
tively involved in and enthusiastic about their
work and organisation (SHRM, 2014). It is man-
agers job to create and foster employee engage-
ment (Harter & Adkins, 2015).
Robinson defines engagement as a ‘positive
attitude towards the organisation and its values’
(Robbins & Coulter, 1999). Similarly, engage-
ment is defined as “a positive, fulfilling, work-re-
lated state of mind” (Schaufeli, Bakker, & Sa-
lanova, 2006). Engagement happens when
“organisation members harness their full selves in
active, complete work role performances by driv-
ing personal energy into physical, cognitive and
emotional labours” (Rich, Lepine, & Crawford,
2010).
Engagement is closely connected to job sat-
isfaction. Both constructs are important for HR
but are not the same (ADP Research Institute,
2012). Researchers consider job satisfaction as
part of, or component of engagement (Morgan,
2015) while others state that satisfaction is ante-
cedent of engagement (Markos & Sridevi, 2010).
According to recent research in Latvia satisfaction
appeared to be a component of engagement
(Ludviga & Kalvina, 2016), therefore both con-
structs are selected as outcome variables in this re-
search.
2.3. Linking gamification to employee
engagement
Businesses currently are looking for new innova-
tive ways to engage employees and gamification
is one such option. Researchers have found that
playful activities and well-developed gamifica-
tion as part of HR process can decrease employee
burnout (Sarangi & Shan, 2015) as well as can
have far-reaching benefits, for example, increase
in retention and satisfaction, improved communi-
cation, employees will become open to taking
risks and more creative (Smith & Meyerson,
2015).
Gamification was found to be an effective
component of learning and development process
(Whyte, 2016), it can improve organisational cul-
ture, reveal talents, foster innovation and engage-
ment (Kumar & Raghavendran, 2015).
In line with the theory the following hypoth-
eses are formulated:
H1: Use of Gamification in Human Resource
Management processes has a positive impact on
Employee Engagement level;
H2: Use of Gamification in Human Resource
Management processes has a positive impact on
Employee Satisfaction level.
2.4. Gamification and structure
of the workforce
Use of gamification is promoted also due to gen-
erational shift since forward-thinking companies
are adapting themselves to the demands of new
generation by embracing the process of gamifica-
tion (Savitz, 2012).
Millennials (born between early 1980ies and
2000) and Generation Z (born between 1996 and
2010) has entered the labour market and these
people are used to spend part of their free time
playing digital games (Kastner, 2013), so it can be
expected that gamification will engage them in
their working life. The popularity of video games
is growing, and video game industry revenue has
surpassed the Hollywood. Looking at the statis-
tics, the average age of the player is 37 years
(Brownhill, 2013). Researchers have found that
engaging millennials include co-creation of expe-
riences that may also take place in or be facilitated
in the virtual world (Skinner, Sarpong, & White,
2018).
Data shows that there is a significant rela-
tionship between the following: the more people
play games outside of working hours, the greater
the likelihood that they engage in games while
work (Mollick & Rothbard, 2014).
In line with the theory the following hypoth-
eses are formulated:
H3: Younger employees (millennials & genera-
tion Z) respond better to gamified HRM processes
in terms of engagement
H4: Younger employees (millennials & genera-
tion Z) respond better to gamified HRM processes
in terms of satisfaction
D. Ērgle, I. Ludviga
412
3. Methodology
The quantitative research design was chosen to
prove the hypotheses. Data was gathered in Latvia
using CAWI interviews: number of respondents
620, general pool of respondents – individuals
employed in Riga and Riga region, age group be-
tween 18 and 65 years old.
The structured questionnaire was designed
according to the research model. The model was
designed with two dependent variables: engage-
ment and satisfaction. Four factors were designed
as independent variables which impact engage-
ment and satisfaction: job itself, management,
colleagues and character of the employee. Re-
spondents were asked to state the level of their
agreement with the statement. All variables were
measured using 10-point Likert type scale, where
1 was assigned to “completely disagree” and 10 to
“completely agree”.
The survey was prepared in Latvian language
and included demographic variables like respond-
ents’ gender, age and whether they are currently
employed. Only those who approved their employ-
ment were asked to continue. Further, information
about the industry sector, the size and age of the
organisation were asked. Further the constructs,
their coding, number of corresponding statements
and samples are described. Engagement (ENG)
was measured with 7 statements and sample state-
ment is “I invest more effort in my job than my di-
rect responsibilities require”. Satisfaction was
measured with 5 statements, including overall sat-
isfaction with the level of stress, payment, environ-
ment, and workload. Similarly, colleagues, man-
agement and job itself was measured with 6, 5 and
5 statements respectively. Since it might be as-
sumed that only employees with positive character
respond positively to use of gamification in HR, the
character traits of the respondent were measured
with 7 statements and sample statements are “I am
satisfied with my life” and “I am an optimistic per-
son who usually expects positive outcomes”.
Use of gamification in HR functions was
measured with yes/no type question where “yes”
was coded as 1 and “no” as 2. Respondents were
asked to identify whether gamification is being
used in their organisations in recruitment and
onboarding; performance management; reward
and recognition; learning and development; inter-
nal communication; teambuilding and other.
Questionnaire scales, coding and number of state-
ments per scale and internal consistency reliabil-
ity of the scales (Cronbach’s Alpha) are seen in
Table 1.
Table 1. Internal consistency measures
of the construct scales
Variables and their
codes No. of
items Cronbach’s
Alpha
Character (CAR) 7 0.847
Colleagues (COL) 6 0.914
Job (JOB) 5 0.860
Management (MNG) 5 0.932
Satisfaction (SAT) 5 0.852
Engagement (ENG) 7 0.898
4. Analysis and Findings
Data was analysed with SPSS and smartPLS soft-
ware. Data available in Table 2 and Figure 1 show
that gamification in Latvian organisations is more
used for learning and development purposes, fol-
lowed by internal communication and teambuild-
ing. Since us of gamification in HR processes was
yes/no type question, Figure 1 presents the per-
centage of respondents who answered “yes”
meaning that gamification is used in the respec-
tive HR process in their organisation.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics of the construct scales
(n = 620)
Variables Mean
values Standard
deviation
Character (CAR) 7.05 1.52
Colleagues (COL) 6.79 1.81
Job (JOB) 7.24 1.75
Management (MNG) 6.85 2.16
Satisfaction (SAT) 6.67 1.91
Engagement (ENG) 6.80 1.82
Use of gamification in HR process:
recruitment and onboarding
(HR_RO) 1.79 0.40
performance management
(HR_PM) 1.73 0.45
rewards and recognition
(HR_RR) 1.68 0.47
learning and development
(HR_LD) 1.63 0.48
Internal communication
(HR_IC) 1.64 0.48
teambuilding (HR_TB) 1.66 0.47
Other (HR_OTHER) 1.80 0.40
To evaluate whether the use of gamification
in HR processes creates differences in satisfaction
and engagement, nonparametric test Mann-Whit-
ney Test for mean differences is used. Learning
USE OF GAMIFICATION IN HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT:
IMPACT ON ENGAGEMENT AND SATISFACTION
413
and development appeared to be the HR process
in which gamification is used more than in other
processes (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. Use of gamification in HR processes
in Latvian organisations (“yes” answers in %)
Use of gamification in all HR processes cre-
ates statistically significant differences in engage-
ment and satisfaction of the respondents (p < 0,
05) However, differences in recruitment and
onboarding (RO) process are statistically signifi-
cant only at 90% confidence (p < 0.1). Figures 2
and 3 below present the differences in engage-
ment and satisfaction between respondents who
claim that gamification is used and those who
claim that it is not used in HR processes.
Figure 2. Engagement when gamification is used
or not used in HR processes (mean values)
Figure 3. Satisfaction when gamification is used or
not used in HR processes (mean values)
This conclusion might lead to the acceptance
of H1 (Use of Gamification in Human Resource
Management processes positively influence Em-
ployee Engagement level) and H2 (Use of Gamifi-
cation in Human Resource Management pro-
cesses positively influence Employee Satisfaction
level); however, the test for mean differences does
not indicate anything about the influence. There
might be other factors, which are not included in
the analysis which influences the level of engage-
ment and satisfaction. Put it differently, organisa-
tions which use gamification in HR process are
generally better in HR, they do the other entire
thing better, they have more advanced HR func-
tion, therefore the level of satisfaction and en-
gagement of their employees is generally higher.
4.1. Structural Equation Modelling Results
Further variance based Structural Equation Mod-
elling (PLS-SEM) method was used to prove or
reject the hypotheses since it is applicable for rel-
atively small samples and when research area is
relatively new (Ringle, Wende, & Becker, 2014).
Besides this technique allows exploring a larger
number of relationships simultaneously (Hair &
Ringle, 2011). The statistical objective of PLS-
SEM is to maximize the explained variance of en-
dogenous latent constructs (independent varia-
bles), or exogenous constructs (dependent varia-
bles), in this research satisfaction and enga-
gement.
Before drawing any conclusion regarded re-
lationships between constructs, the model reliabil-
ity and validity were assessed with Smart PLS
software and algorithms calculated (see Figure 4).
The measurement model (outer model) showed
that loadings of all manifest variables are above
the minimum threshold value 0.708. Thus, all the
manifest variables exhibit outer loadings high
enough and are a good measure of their latent var-
iables.
Internal consistency reliability was assessed
using Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability
and average variance extracted (AVE).
Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the model are
all above 0.8, thus the scales exhibit good internal
consistency reliability (see Table 1).
Composite Reliability is an estimate of con-
structs` internal consistency and should be above
threshold level 0.7. Composite reliability scores
of the model are in between 0.88 and 0.95, what
is well above the minimums thus indicating suffi-
cient reliability.
Convergent Validity of the reflective con-
structs is examined with average communality or
AVE (average variance extracted). It should be at
least higher than 50%. All AVE scores are above
0.5 and thus are acceptable.
D. Ērgle, I. Ludviga
414
Discriminant Validity represents the extent to
which measures of a given construct differ from
measure of other constructs in the same model.
Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) ratio of correla-
tions is used to measure discriminant validity
(Hair & Ringle, 2011). HTMT is a ratio of the
within construct correlations to the between con-
struct correlations. All HTMT values should be
lower than 0.85 for conceptually distinct con-
structs, such as work management perceptions
and compensation, and lower than 0.9 for similar
constructs. Since all values are lower than 0.85
thus the validity is confirmed. Besides Bias Cor-
rected confidence intervals showed that neither
the high nor the low confidence intervals include
a value of 1. Thus, the discriminant validity is
demonstrated by the HTMT method.
Collinearity statistics revealed that all values
are in between 1.408 and 4.306, thus they are less
than 5, thus indicating that collinearity is not a
problem for the model.
As calculated by PLS algorithm, R2 values
(R2 satisfaction = 0.423; R2 engagement = 0.612),
the model explains 42% of satisfaction and has
moderate predicting capacity. The model explains
61% of engagement, thus showing moderate to
high predicting capacity for this construct. An-
other measure which allows evaluating the good-
ness of fit of the model is PMS theta and values
below 0.14 provide support for model fit (Becker,
Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2017). For the model pre-
sented in Figure 4 PMS theta = 0.018, thus the fit
of the model is good.
The higher-order model approach was used
for gamification in HR processes – the higher-or-
der component (GAM-HR) was introduced using
repeated indicators approach. Reason for using
higher-order model is, according to Becker, to re-
duce the number of inner model relationships
(Becker et al., 2017). Due to measurement specif-
ics, negative path coefficient shows the positive
impact of the use of gamification in HR on en-
gagement and satisfaction.
Bootstrapping results and path coefficients
show that relationship between gamification and
engagement (GAM_HR -> ENG path coefficient
–0.003; p = 0.89) is not significant, thus H1
should be rejected. Relationship between gamifi-
cation and satisfaction (GAM_HR –> SAT path
coefficient –0.061; p = 0.069< 0.1) is statistically
significant at 90% confidence. Thus, H2 can be
accepted.
Internal communication (IC) and team-build-
ing (TB) are HR processes which show a statisti-
cally significant impact on GAM-HR. Moreover,
total indirect effect, which includes the effect of
the manifest variable on the dependent variable
through independent variables, of teambuilding
(TB) on satisfaction is statistically significant:
(HR_TB –> SAT path coefficient –0.045;
p = 0.073<0.1). This allows concluding that use of
gamification in HR process teambuilding has a
positive and statistically significant impact on em-
ployee satisfaction.
Figure 4. Model with Gamified HR processes (PLS algorithm)
USE OF GAMIFICATION IN HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT:
IMPACT ON ENGAGEMENT AND SATISFACTION
415
4.2. Multigroup analysis by generations
To draw conclusions regarding H3 and H4 mul-
tigroup analysis using age as grouping variable
was performed. Respondent belonging to millen-
nials and generation Z (n = 241) were compared
with generations X and Baby Boomers (n = 379).
Results show that path from GAM_HR-
>SAT is stronger for older respondents and differ-
ences are statistically significant. For younger
group relationship appeared to statistically insig-
nificant (path coefficient –0.01; p = 0.85), how-
ever for the older group it was significant (path
coefficient –0.1; p = 0.023). Moreover, differ-
ences between groups appeared to be statistically
significant (path coefficient difference 0.09;
p = 0, 09). Thus, H3 and H4 should be rejected.
Interestingly, that the opposite appears to be true:
older employees (generations X & BB) respond
better to gamified HRM processes in terms of sat-
isfaction. This might be explained by the fact that
a younger employee play games outside the job
and therefore the use of gamification at work does
not provide any additional satisfaction for them.
Whereas older employees are not used to games,
therefore gamification at work seem innovation
and appears to be interesting for them.
The findings provided the following conclu-
sions about the hypotheses:
H1: Use of Gamification in Human Resource
Management processes has a positive impact on
Employee Engagement level (rejected);
H2: Use of Gamification in Human Resource
Management processes has a positive impact on
Employee Satisfaction level (accepted);
H3: Younger employees (millennials & gen-
eration Z) respond better to gamified HRM pro-
cesses in terms of engagement (rejected);
H4: Younger employees (millennials & gen-
eration Z) respond better to gamified HRM pro-
cesses in terms of satisfaction (rejected).
5. Discussion and Conclusions
This research aimed to provide empirical evidence
about the effect of the use of gamification in HR
processes. The level of the use of gamification in
different HR processes in Latvian organisations
was evaluated and generational differences in re-
spect to acceptance of gamification identified.
In Latvian organisations gamification is pri-
marily used in learning and development pro-
cess – 67% of respondents approved this. This
finding is in line with DuVernet and Popp who
identified that learning and development is one of
the HR processes where gamification is frequently
used. In all other HR processes use of gamifica-
tion is below 36%. Thus, it can be concluded that
gamification is entering HR in Latvian organisa-
tions, however, not widely used yet.
Influence of gamified HR processes on em-
ployee engagement was not identified in Latvian
organisations. This result contradicts findings by
Jensen, who regarded gamification as next big
hope in fostering employee engagement (Jen-
sen, 2012) and Sarangi and Shan who have de-
veloped which demonstrates the impact of gami-
fication on employee engagement (Sarangi &
Shan, 2015). The result of this research in Latvia
might be explained by the fact that in Latvia Gam-
ification is a very new phenomenon and not
widely used, except learning and development
process. Consequently, the impact on engagement
is not felt yet. Other reason might be related to the
complicity of this approach. Several authors have
identified negative outcomes of gamification if
not used correctly (e.g. Bogost, 2015). For exam-
ple, Callan and colleagues stated the importance
of fit between organisational aims and players
aims (Callan et al., 2015) and Kastner (2013)
stressed that weak application of gamification can
even hurt the reputation of the organisation.
The positive influence of the use of gamifi-
cation in HR processes on satisfaction was found.
Among HR processes which better respond to
gamification appeared to be team-building and in-
ternal communication, moreover, team-building
showed a significant indirect impact on satisfac-
tion. The impact of learning and development,
which was the most frequently gamified HR pro-
cess in Latvian organisations, on job engagement
and satisfaction, according to the analysis, ap-
peared to be insignificant. Thus, the findings of
this research lead to a recommendation t Moreo-
ver, since older generation focus on team-building
and internal communication.
An interesting finding is related to age – alt-
hough it was hypothesised that younger genera-
tion responds better to use of gamification in HR,
it appeared to be vice versa. The older generation
(generations X & BB) respond better to gamified
HRM processes in terms of satisfaction.
Regarding managerial implications, manag-
ers should acknowledge the possibilities offered
by the use of gamification in HR processes, es-
pecially it is recommended to use it for team-
building purposes. Moreover, since older gener-
ation responds to gamification even more favour-
D. Ērgle, I. Ludviga
416
ably than younger ones, it might be recom-
mended to use gamification, especially with
older employees.
However, gamification should be used care-
fully, and proper game design ensured. Since the
purpose of this research was not related to the
identification of effective game design and game
content, this could be proposed as the subject of
future research.
The findings should be considered in light of
the research limitations. The electronic survey
method was used, and it might be affected by
common method bias. The second limitation is re-
lated to geographical coverage, data was gathered
only in Latvia and this limits the generalizability
of the findings. Moreover, the result was meas-
ured only as respondent’s perception and the num-
ber of independent variables was limited. Further
studies could be extended to other locations and
include more manifest variables.
Disclosure Statement
Authors declare no competing financial, profes-
sional, or personal interests from other parties.
References
ADP Research Institute. (2012). Employee Satisfaction vs.
Employee engagement: Are they the same things?,
ADP inc.
Becker, J.-M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). PLS-
SEM using SmartPLS 3 foundations. Hamburg, Ger-
many: Northern Institute of Technology.
Bogost, I. (2015). Gamification is bullshit. In S. P. Walz &
S. Deterding (Eds.), The gameful world: Approaches,
issues, applications (pp. 65-79). Cambridge: The MIT
Press.
Brownhill, I. (2013). Does gaming have a role to play in em-
ployee engagement?. Strategic HR Review, 12(1), 5-8.
Callan, R. C., Bauer, K. N., & Landers, R. N. (2015). How to
avoid the dark side of gamification: Ten business sce-
narios and their unintended consequences. In
T. Reiners & L. C. Wood (Eds.), Gamification in Edu-
cation and Business (pp. 553-568). New York:
Springer International Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10208-5_28
Deterding, S. (2012). Gamification: designing for motiva-
tion. Interactions, 16(4), 14-17.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2212877.2212883
Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khalad, R. & Nacke, L. (2011). From
game design elements to gamefulness: defining Gamifi-
cation. In Proceedings of the 15th International Aca-
demic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media
Environments (pp. 9-15). Tampere, Finland: ACM.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2181037.2181040
DuVernet, A. M., & Popp, E. (2014). Gamification of work-
place practices. TIP: The Industrial-Organizational
Psychologist, 52(1), 39-44.
Ergle, D. (2015). Fostering employee engagement through
gamification: AirBaltic forecast tool. Management,
10(3), 219-234.
Gartner (2015). Gartner Hype Cycle. Retrieved from
http://www.gartner.com/technology/research/method-
ologies/hype-cycle.jsp
Gimson, A. (2012). Game on for virtual work and play: En-
gaging learners’ interest with online role‐play. Devel-
opment and Learning in Organizations, 27(1), 22-24.
https://doi.org/10.1108/14777281311291259
Hair, J. F., & Ringle, C. M. (2011). PLS-SEM; indeed a silver
Bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice,
19(2), 139-151.
https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202
Harter, J., & Adkins, A. (2015). What great managers do to
engage employees. Retrieved from
https://hbr.org/2015/04/what-great-managers-do-to-
engage-employees
Huatari, K., & Hamari, J. (2012). Defining gamification – a
service marketing perspective. In Proceedings of the
16th International Academic MindTrek Conference (pp.
17-22), 03-05 October 2012. Tampere, Finland.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2393132.2393137
Hughes, A., & Mccoy, K. (2015). Planning, developing, im-
plementing serious game. Training Industry Maga-
zine – Fall, pp. 16-19.
Jensen, M. (2012). Engaging the learner: Gamification
strives to keep the user’s interest. T+D Magazine,
66(1), 41-44. Retrieved from http://td.org
Kapp, K. (2014). Gamification of learning. Retrieved from
http://www.lynda.com/Higher-Education-tutori-
als/Gamification-Learning/173211-2.html
Kastner, N. (2013). Gamification: from the arcade to the
bank. ABA Bank Marketing, 45(10), 20-23.
Kim, B. (2015). The Popularity of gamification in the mobile
and social era. Library Technology Reports, 51(2), 5-9.
Kumar, H. & Raghavendran, S. (2015). Gamification, the
fine art: fostering creativity and employee engagement.
Journal of Business Strategy, 36(6), 3-12.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JBS-10-2014-0119
Ludviga, I. & Kalvina, A. (2016). Exploring the relationships
between job satisfaction, work engagement and loyalty
of academic staff. International Journal of Social, Be-
havioural, Educational, Economic, Business and In-
dustrial Engineering, 10(1), 99-105.
Markos, S. & Sridevi, M. S. (2010). Employee engagement:
The key to improving performance. International Jour-
nal of Business and Management, 5(12), 89-96.
Meister, J. (2015). Future of work: Using gamification for
human resources. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com
Mihalicz, D. (2018). Employee engagement – solutions that
work. Retrieved from http://www.effectivemanag-
ers.com/dwight-mihalicz/employee-engagement-solu-
tions-that-work/
Mollick, E. R., & Rothbard, N. (2014). Mandatory fun: Con-
sent, gamification and the impact of games at work. Phil-
adelphia: The Wharton School Research Paper Series.
Morgan, C. A. (2015). Employee satisfaction surveys: Meas-
uring staff engagement. Retrieved from https://www.
b2binternational.com/publications/employee-satisfac-
tion/
Oakes, K. (2014). The evolution of the training profession. In
E. Biech (Ed.), ASTD Handbook: The definitive refer-
ence for training & development (pp. 40-56). Alexan-
dria: ATD Press.
USE OF GAMIFICATION IN HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT:
IMPACT ON ENGAGEMENT AND SATISFACTION
417
Rich, B., Lepine, J., & Crawford, E. (2010). Job engagement:
antecedents and effect on job performance. Academy of
Management Journal, 53(2), 617-635.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.51468988
Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Becker, J.-M. (2014). SmartPLS.
Hamburg: Smart-PLS.
Robbins, S. P., & Coulter, M. (1999). Management (6 ed.).
Prentice Hall.
Roberts, B. (2014). Gamification: Win, lose or draw?. HR
Magazine, 59(5), 29-35.
Saran, C. (2013). A business case for gameplay at work.
Computerweekly.com, 19, pp. 19-22.
Sarangi, S. & Shan, S. (2015). Individuals, teams and organ-
izations score with gamification. Human Resource
Management International Digest, 23(4), 24-27.
https://doi.org/10.1108/HRMID-05-2015-0074
Savitz, E. (2012). Let’s play: To keep gen Y staffers, gamify
their work. Forbes.
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The
measurement of work engagement with a short ques-
tionnaire. Educational and Psychological Measure-
ment, 66(4), 701-716.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282471
Seaborn, K., & Fels, D. (2015). Gamification in theory and
action: A survey. International Journal of Human-
Computer Studies, 74, 14-31.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2014.09.006
SHRM. (2014). Employee job satisfaction and engagement:
Optimising organisational culture for success. SHRM.
Skinner, H., Sarpong, D., & White, G. R. (2018). Meeting the
needs of the millennials and Generation Z: gamifica-
tion in tourism through geocaching. Journal of Tourism
Futures, 4(1), 93-104.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JTF-12-2017-0060
Smith, J. L., & Meyerson, D. (2015). Strategic play.
Wordzworth Publishing.
Werback, K. (2014). (Re)Defining gamification: A process
approach. University of Pennsylvania.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07127-5_23
Whyte, D. (2016). Training trends for 2016. Retrieved from
www.trainingjournal.com
Xu, Y. (2011). Literature review on web Application Gami-
fication and Analytics. CSDL Technical report 11-05.
Zichermann, G., & Cunningham, C. (2011). Gamification by
design. Canada: O’Reilly Media.
