Content uploaded by Debolina Dutta
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Debolina Dutta on Nov 08, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Article
Millennials and
Gamification: Guerilla
Tactics for Making
Learning Fun
Aman Jain1
Debolina Dutta2
Abstract
Gamification, as a technique to engage members of the millennial generation, has
gained considerable traction at workplace. The purpose of this study is to provide
a contextual overview of gamification as an effective mechanism aligned with the
learning preferences and characteristics of the millennial cohort. The suggested
framework helps organizations effectively design and incorporate learning
mechanisms appropriate to new cohort entering and dominating the workforce.
The insights developed are critical for learning and development professionals and
instructional designers in enabling them to create effective and gamified training
modules for this cohort.
Keywords
Millennials, Generation Y, learning styles, gamification, experiential learning,
technology-enabled learning
Introduction
As millennials are likely to constitute nearly 75 per cent of the workforce by
2025 (Culiberg & Mihelic, 2016), a greater understanding of millennials and
millennial behaviours is an area of interest. Older generations must interact with
1 Research Scholar, Indian Institute of Management Kashipur, Kundeshwari, Kashipur, Udham Singh
Nagar, Uttarakhand, India.
2 Research Scholar, Indian Institute of Management Udaipur, Balicha, Udaipur, Rajasthan, India.
Corresponding author:
Aman Jain, Research Scholar, Indian Institute of Management Kashipur, Kundeshwari, Kashipur,
Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand 244713, India.
E-mail: aman.efpm1711@iimkashipur.ac.in
South Asian Journal of Human
Resources Management
1–16
The Author(s) 2018
Reprints and permissions:
in.sagepub.com/journals-permissions-india
DOI: 10.1177/2322093718796303
http://journals.sagepub.com/home/hrm
2 South Asian Journal of Human Resources Management 6(1)
the millennial cohort as they join workplaces and academic institutions
(A. Rodriguez & Rodriguez, 2015). The complexities and tensions associated
with managing a cross-generational workplace have been well documented and
are likely to continue (Hershatter & Epstein, 2010). HR practitioners and organi-
zations must evaluate and implement new strategies to motivate, engage, lead
and inspire this cohort.
The millennial generation has gathered a lot of attention for their unique
characteristics compared with that of previous generations. Research has focused
on the behaviours commonly demonstrated by the millennials (Eddy, Schweitzer,
& Lyons, 2010; Myers & Sadaghiani, 2010). However, changes in learning
mechanisms such as “gamification”—most relevant to the millennials have not
been extensively researched. A notable difference is that the millennials were born
into the world of technology, where its utility is omnipresent. Described as “digital
natives” (Autry & Berge, 2011; Hershatter & Epstein, 2010), that is, cohort or
generation which has never experienced a world without computers or other
handheld electronic devices, millennials demonstrate the ability to absorb
information quickly through technology. The onus on learning and development
professionals is to recognize and understand this new generation of learners and
to educate, engage, work and lead them effectively.
Instructional technology is not an unknown or inexperienced concept, but in
the past few years, learning and development practitioners and academicians
have increasingly sought to fuse technology with instructional and classroom
trainings, thus leading to positive performance-based outcomes and learnings and
enhancing connect with the millennial learners (Buzzard, Crittenden, Crittenden,
& McCarty, 2011). The objectives of this article are to theoretically ground the
concepts of gamification as a method of instructional technology and integrate
with millennial learning characteristics. The recommendations from this article
find applicability within human resource functions across training, development
and workforce engagement.
Millennials at the Workplace
Generations exposed to and experiencing similar social, technological and
historical events, tend to demonstrate commonalities of behaviours and ideologies
(Twenge, Campbell, Hoffman, & Lance, 2010). Following Generation X are the
demographic cohort of millennials or Generation Y. The “no future” Generation
X has given way to the “has no clue where we are going” Generation Y (Miller,
Shapiro, & Hilding Hamann, 2008). Howe and Strauss (1991) are often credited
with coining the word “Millennials.” However, there is considerable confusion
on the exact year span which encompass the millennial generation. While Howe
and Strauss (1991) defined the millennial cohort as consisting of individuals
born between 1982 and 2004, the ranges of 1982–2000 (McCrindle, 2015),
1980–1995 (Eddy et al., 2010) and 1980–2000 (Farell & Hurt, 2014), etc. have
also been found to apply to the millennials. A study by PricewaterhouseCoopers1
with the University of Southern California and the London Business School has
defined millennials as those born in the period 1980–1995. The differences in
Jain and Dutta 3
outlook between the various generations is given in Table 1 and demonstrates the
challenges of working effectively in a multi-generation environment. With
increasing population of the millennials in the workforce (Culiberg & Mihelic,
2016; Farell & Hurt, 2014), there has been an increased interest in the behaviours
which typify this cohort of new workers (Eddy et al., 2010).
Concerns emerge with some research citing dysfunctional behaviours of the
millennials such as self-centredness associated with the “Look at Me” generation
(Myers & Sadaghiani, 2010). The millennials are also reported to be disrespectful,
disloyal and lacking in work ethic on the other hand (Myers & Sadaghiani, 2010),
which reinforce the challenges perceived by organizations in managing multi-
generational workforce, their expectations and interactions. (Hershatter &
Epstein, 2010). The behavioural and attitudinal differences of millennials is
often attributed to the socio-economic and technologically different environment
that the millennials have grown up in and are commonly exposed to (Eddy et al.,
2010; Hershatter & Epstein, 2010). Millennials have better understanding of
media and digital technology and are considered to be tech savvy (Eddy et al.,
2010; Feiertag & Berge, 2008; Hershatter & Epstein, 2010; Twenge et al., 2010).
The amount of information the millennials receive from the Internet, mainly
social media network sites and similar mobile apps, makes them feel that they
must be heard when they speak. In the VUCA (volatile, uncertain, complex and
ambiguous) world presently, the technology usage is an important and it appears
to be the key to ensuring knowledge transfer (A. Rodriguez & Rodriguez, 2015).
Millennials demonstrate higher levels of self-confidence (Bohl, 2009; Myers
& Sadaghiani, 2010). Millennials are often termed as multitaskers as they
perform tasks simultaneously and believe their performance excels in this
manner (Bohl, 2009; Feiertag & Berge, 2008). Millennials process new
information in a more practical and “hands on” manner (Skiba & Barton, 2006;
Wesner & Miller, 2008).
Rewards for participating in activities, rather than the rewards for achievement
is an expectation of the millennials (Meister & Willyerd, 2010). Immediate
gratification is an expectation, quite like a birth right. They show interest in the
allocation of tasks to complete as a team but the level of commitment among
members is very shallow (Twenge, 2013). With a low tolerance for delays,
millennials expect quick information, feedback, results, team achievements,
personal promotions, and ways of fostering intrapersonal and interpersonal
relationships in the fastest and easiest way possible (Bohl, 2009; Feiertag & Berge,
2008; Immerwahr, 2009; Skiba & Barton, 2006). Therefore, instant gratification
permeates practically every aspect of their lives and interactions. Skipping
processes, lack of consensus in group decisions, absence of conventional courtesies
and skirting on ethical issues are tolerated behaviours (Cleyle, Partridge, & Hallam,
2006; Gorman, Nelson, & Glassman, 2004; Meister & Willyerd, 2010; Sweeney,
2012; Wilson & Gerber, 2008). Millennials’ capacity to assimilate and manage
knowledge does not appear to be different from other generations. However, the
propensity and regularity to read emails and short bites of text on web pages is
much more than books (Twenge, 2013). Additionally, millennials demonstrate a
higher need for autonomy and less respect for hierarchies (Howe & Strauss, 1991).
4 South Asian Journal of Human Resources Management 6(1)
While millennials would prefer working hard, they also demonstrate a willing-
ness to forgo high incomes for leisure time or health. They demonstrate an affinity
for a good work–life balance. With diversity being part of the natural environment
of millennials, acceptance of diversity is demonstrated in their preference for
teamwork (Myers & Sadaghiani, 2010), but the expectation is for the team envi-
ronment to provide speed, convenience, flexibility and power (Connor & Shaw,
2008; Shaw & Fairhurst, 2008; Gorman et al., 2004; Twenge et al., 2010).
Table 1. Generation Classification and Typical Behaviours Associated with the
Generation
Generation Period Other Names
Typical
Characteristics/
Behavioural
Patterns
Traditionalists 1945 & before Veterans, Silent,
Radio Boomers, The
Forgotten Generation
Conformers,
dedication, sacrifice,
duty before pleasure,
discipline, patience,
loyalty
Baby Boomers 1946 to 1964 Moral Authority, “Me”
Generation
Anti-government,
equal opportunities
and rights, personal
gratification
Gen X 1965 to 1981 The Doers, Post
Boomers
Balance, diversity,
entrepreneurial, fun,
highly educated
Millennials 1982 to 2000 Gen Y, Gen Next,
Echo Boomers.
Digital Natives,
Net Generation
Self-confident,
sociability,
diversity,
extreme fun,
extremely techno
savvy, instant
gratification
Centennials 2001 onwards iGen, Gen Z, Gen Zee Vigilant outlook,
tempered
expectations, less
self-absorbed, more
self-assured
Source: Dutta & Jain (2016).
Millennials, Learning and Technology
The changing demographics at the workplace have created a crisis in organiza-
tions, who strive to attract, retain and engage the millennial generation (Eddy
et al., 2010). Some of the core traits that are argued to describe the millennial
Jain and Dutta 5
generation are special, confident, team oriented and achieving (Howe & Strauss,
1991). Meaningful work experiences, opportunities for advancement and a nur-
turing work environment constitutes some of the predominant expectations of the
millennial workforce (Eddy et al., 2010). Therefore, strong learning and develop-
mental opportunities would be expected to significantly support this strategy of
engaging the millennial cohort while enabling sustainable leadership develop-
ment for the organization. The distinct characteristics of millennials “are chal-
lenging the traditional classroom teaching structure, and faculty are realizing that
traditional classroom teaching is no longer effective with these learners” (Skiba &
Barton, 2006). To cater to the needs and expectations of the millennial cohort,
many learning practitioners and academicians are changing their instructional
styles or approach to be more engaging and experiential by nature.
The application and utility of various interactive technological features in
learning activities is synchronized with the millennial generation’s preferred
active learning styles and aligns with the generational preference of being techno-
logically friendly, team oriented and demonstrating achievement. A variety of
technology-based learning simulations can be implemented to create an enhanced
learning experience. Methods of training such as web-based interactions, videos,
computer-based activities, presentations, massive online open courses’ websites,
games or research, are all effective examples (Bedwell & Salas, 2010; Skiba &
Barton, 2006; Wilson & Gerber, 2008). Most of these techniques are designed for
individual-level consumption and available in a relatively simple format and so
many times do not include an interactive team or collaborative elements that will
involve multiple learners, thereby making learning fun. Thus, utilizing technol-
ogy-based learning techniques could create dissonance around the millennial
characteristic of team orientation. However, utilizing technology-based learning
techniques aligns well with the millennial characteristics of seeking feedback,
desire for clarity and structure, multitasking. This contradiction proposes that the
millennial cohort would prefer sacrificing some (if not all) interaction features or
team orientation of the activities in order to utilize or participate in a pure play
technology-based learning simulations.
Millennials characteristics of impatience, quick feedback, growth, achievement
recognition and ability to multitask imply need for engaging learning solutions
that match and align with their behaviours and characteristics. Millennials, also
called as Digital natives, are usually the early adopters of any new technology
devices or gadgets that enters the market. They are often not so concerned about
the device itself, but what the device allows the user to do (Feiertag & Berge,
2008; Shaw & Fairhurst, 2008; Skiba & Barton, 2006). These are a few of the
influencing factors that must be seriously considered while determining ideal
learning simulations or activities for the millennial cohort.
6 South Asian Journal of Human Resources Management 6(1)
Gamification
Gamification is an application of game-based mechanics or elements (point-based
system, competition with others and game rules), game thinking and aesthetics to
engage people, motivate action, promote learning, enable decisions and solve
problems in a simulated environment. Gamification essentially involves the usage
of a variety of game elements such as badges, levels, points, challenges, leader
boards or even rewards in a non-game environment or for business objectives
(Deterding, Dixon, Khaled, & Nacke, 2011). Learner-centred environments tend
to be more fun and appealing and within these, games have been found to
demonstrate a strong correlation with the learning outcomes (Ebner & Holzinger,
2007; Prensky, 2010). Increasing number of on-the-job training programmes and
induction trainings are encouraging the use of game-based learnings to make
work and study more engaging, comprehensive, rewarding and applicable
(Pappas, 2013). The whole purpose of gamification is to support learners move
from point A to point B in their lives—be it for functional or behavioural
development, societal development or even marketing engagements.2 Gamification
is particularly useful for encouraging immersive learning experiences. Examples
of gamification by organizations include diverse applications such as LinkedIn,
which uses progress bars to encourage users to complete their profiles; Epic Win,
in which users get points for completing items from their to-do lists; and apps like
Daily Mile, which rewards the users with points for exercising every day
(Cheong, Filippou, & Cheong, 2014).
All these gamification examples illustrate the phenomenon of flow, which
results in the right combination of e-learning content, gamification, and balanced
tasks and activities to engage and motivate participants to learn and explore new
content as and when results in high levels of sustained motivation. As per
McGonigal (2011), “feeling of flow is triggered by four elements that good games
have in common: goals, rules, feedback, and voluntary participation.”
Well-designed and developed e-learning modules that use gamification
strategies generally incorporate elements of flow that increase engagement,
satisfaction, module effectiveness and efficiency of learners.
The present research sees gamification in educational context focusing pri-
marily on learners’ interest, engagement and achievement, the impact of various
game elements used and differences across different demographics and learner
styles and types.
The use of gamification for demonstrating better learning outcomes has been
well documented in research. Online games have been used for training people on
tasks, taking risks and also learning from their mistakes (Colbert, Yee, & George,
2016). Ibáñez, Di-Serio, and Delgado-Kloos (2014) reported that gamified
learning elements were associated with moderate improvement in the learning
outcomes in a college coursework focused on teaching C programming language.
Many such undergraduate programmes have shown similar positive impact on
student performance and achievement (Xiang, Ann, Hui, & Yew, 2014). Meanwhile
another study compared the performance of millennial students enrolled in a
gamified college programme with that of students in a non-gamified version of
the same programme (Barata, Gama, Jorge, & Gonçalves, 2013). They found that
Jain and Dutta 7
the students enrolled in the gamified course which had badges, levels, challenges,
rewards, leader boards, etc. reduced discrepancies among the programme takers
and help them improve their scores.
Theoretical Background
We anchor on multiple theoretical premises to argue for our frameworks.
McClelland’s theory of needs or Achievement Theory of Motivation has been
basis of explaining motivation and behaviour changes of employees. The theory,
which revolves around three important aspects, achievement, power and affilia-
tion (McClelland, Atkinson, Clark, & Lowell, 1953), forms a strong premise for
explaining millennial behaviour and learning mechanisms. The need for achieve-
ment drives an individual to work, strive and even struggle for the objective that
he wants to achieve, which will provide a sense of accomplishment. The need for
power is the desire within a person to hold control, authority and demonstrate
power over another person/situation and is explained by the desire to enhance
their self-esteem and reputation. The need for affiliation emanates from wanting a
desire to be part of a group and seem to be collaborating with others. Within this,
the desire to compete with the affiliated group and the urge to be liked is based on
the need to reinforce the interpersonal and social relationships within this set of
people. We argue that millennials prefer gamification platforms, since they pro-
vide an opportunity for them to demonstrate their individual accomplishments
(need for achievement), enhance self-esteem within the learning group (need for
power) and the need for collaboration is also met by the group learning activities.
We observe a close relationship between various millennial characteristics and
gamification tenets/features correlating with the three needs as defined by Mc
Cleland’s theory of motivation.
According to the theory of Achievement Motivation and Millennial
Characteristics, need for power relates to the choices a millennial learner has in
terms of what (subject or topic), when (time), where (place) and how (method/
style) s/he wants to learn. The level of control and flexibility offered to them by
the gamified learning platform to conveniently take up the course at an aptitude
level relevant to them. Hence, the sequential unlocking of the course that will
allow them to summarize their learning over a period of time.
Need for affiliation is all about socializing learning within the community of
learners with similar learning objectives. Peer challenges is a wonderful feature
that allows a learner to challenge the other about his/her knowledge/expertise
about a specific subject/topic. A cycle of constant feedback is put in place with
peer evaluation done by each other among learners.
As mentioned earlier, badges, levels, points, virtual certification and leader
dashboard plays the role of appreciating learners and boosting their need for
achievement in multivariate ways.
The interactionist perspective, founded on the similarity-attraction paradigm,
suggests that attraction is stronger when there is a perceived fit between consum-
ers’ needs, values and those espoused by the organization (Tews, Michel, &
Bartlett, 2012). Therefore, relative to other learning mechanisms, the millennial
8 South Asian Journal of Human Resources Management 6(1)
cohort find learning through gamified platforms to be more attractive, as the
tenets of the platform fit with their needs and values.
Self-Determination theory is another theory that closely connects to the entire
context of learner/participant engagement. The theory speaks about intrinsic
motivation and extrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation refers to the internal
desires and individual motivation to do or not do something. Whereas, extrinsic
motivation is about external rewards that motivate an individual to pursue a goal
or complete a task. This indeed triggers an individuals’ intent to get onboard to a
gamified platform and thereafter go through the entire gamified learning experi-
ence (Hamari, Koivisto, & Sarsa, 2014).
The unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) is
a technology acceptance model formulated to explain user intentions to use the infor-
mation technology devices and subsequent usage behaviours. The theory holds that
there are four key constructs such as performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social
influence and facilitating conditions. (Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, & Davis, 2003)
The UTAUT argues that technology adoption hinges on ease of use, pleasure pro-
vided, perceived usefulness (PU) and perception of compatibility of innovation
with needs (Venkatesh et al., 2003). PU dimension of technology is “the degree to
which a person believes that using a particular system would enhance his or her
job performance” (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000). Perceived ease of use (PEOU) is
defined as “the degree/ extent to which a person believes that using a particular
system would be free from effort” (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000). As “digital natives,”
millennials naturally gravitate to technology platforms and would prefer learning
on these platforms, since these are easier to understand and provide greater pleas-
ure and satisfaction. UTAUT & Technology Acceptance Model both explain the
importance of user usefulness as a result of which gamified learning platforms
become a great opportunity for learning practitioners to create immersive learning
experiences thereby giving learners and opportunity to apply the same wherever
need be.
Millennials Learning, Motivation and Gamification
Contemporary theories of effective learning suggest that learning is most
impactful when it is active, problem-oriented, experiential, situation-based, and
provides constructive, frequent and immediate feedback (Boyle, Connolly, &
Hainey, 2011). Technology-enabled gamification platforms supported by system
of recognition and awards for decisions taken in a multifaceted learning
environment augment motivation (Kapp, 2012).
Well-contrived and executed educational games are expected to unlock
learners’ potential and channelize development through massive feedbacks that
integrate with artificial intelligence and allow the learning interface to change in
response to learners’ actions (Garris, Ahlers, & Driskell, 2002).
Jain and Dutta 9
Figure 1. Conceptual Model Correlating Motivating Factors and Gamification Elements
Source: The author.
Gamified e-learning model for learning and development purpose is designed
to optimize learners’ engagement, motivation, effectiveness, efficiency and
satisfaction. Modern theories and practices of education have been considered in
creating this model. A theoretical analysis of gamification has been proposed as a
tool for increasing the engagement levels on the e-learning platforms (Muntean,
2011). Technology-enabled gamified platforms have the power to unlock the
potential to increase learner intent, motivation and engagement, however, it is not
insignificant to achieve that effect, and tremendous efforts are required in the
design and implementation of such immersive learning experiences for it to be
fully motivating for participants (DomíNguez, De-Marcos, FernáNdez-Sanz,
PagéS, & MartíNez-HerráIz, 2013) (Figure 1).
The main objectives of gamification in e-learning is that it should be divided
into several smaller objectives. Invariably, it is easier to achieve multiple smaller
objectives, which can reinforce the sense of achievement and result in increased
learner motivation and satisfaction. Features like progress and status of learners’
activities clearly and graphically displayed enhances the feeling of progress and
motivates learners for future work. A good balance of well-designed and
10 South Asian Journal of Human Resources Management 6(1)
developed learning material and learner skills can lead into the state of “flow,”
and learning in this state of “flow” is the most effective and efficient way of inter-
nalizing everything learnt or being learned. Every success of the learner, because
of different activities, must be properly recognized and rewarded in the form of a
positive and constructive feedback. Positive feedback which is the foundation of
gamification, raises the users’ self-esteem and motivation. Offering autonomy to
individuals increases their intrinsic motivation. The prime purpose of gamifica-
tion in e-learning is to encourage millennial learners to continue learning at their
place, pace, level of interest and time of their convenience and their respective
learning styles.
Positive reinforcement and action is enabled through feedback can be in the
form of accumulating points, awards and badges, and negative reinforcement can
be in the form of losing the earned points, awards and badges. With immediate
feedback and the satisfaction of being rewarded, individuals feel competent and
effective enough to deal with their environment. This increases their motivation,
enables competency building and fulfils need for instant gratification. Need for
competition, power and achievement fuels the competitive spirit in the individu-
als and increases their confidence, thereby being more responsible, optimistic and
independent. Individuals are highly motivated when they understand the conse-
quences of their action in each situation and can improve upon the same. Goals
that are specific and challenging by nature are more likely to motivate an indi-
vidual than goals that are too easy or not specified.
With content pushed in smaller bites, followed by quick assessments,
competitive leader boards calling out peer performance and instant e-recognition
through e-certificates makes the learning a more social and collaborative
exercise. The guerilla tactics of driving key learning outcomes insidiously
through games without letting the learner feel the pressure of learning, helps
offer developmental learning interventions and align with the organization needs
(Blunt, 2007; Erenli, 2016).
Few popular ways of popularly gamifying learning are on an online platform:
1. Make choices: A wide variety of choices like difficulty level of learning
challenge (beginner, intermediate or advanced), language, types of assess-
ments based on their interest and preferences.
2. Gamified assessments: Conventional assessments are changed into short
learning activities that take less than 2 to 3 minutes to complete (quizzes,
video role-plays, simulations, multiple choice questions, picture quizzes,
audio/visual-based questions and more).
3. Performance/Participation-based points/badges/levels for motivation: Create
badges for crossing a specific level of participation in the learning module
and based on performance.
4. Collaboration: Motivates and encourages learners to work together on
problem statements or questions, a very common practice of gamers who
team up to achieve an epic score.
5. Leader boards for status update and feedback: Essentially gives a quick
overview of performance of all the learners on the platform. It also gives
Jain and Dutta 11
the individual performance dashboard for greater understanding of the way
one must improvise.
6. Reward mastery: Get extra bonus points for excellent performance (Figure 2).
Discussion
Over the years, HR and learning and development practices have evolved to
align with shifts in technology, economy, globalization, talent diversity and
business strategy (Stone & Deadrick, 2015), with practices intended to solve
business problems (Ulrich & Dulebohn, 2015). The latest of these trends is the
leveraging of technology solutions and embracing digitization of various HR
processes. Attracting, developing and motivating millennial is emerging as a key
challenge for organizations and HR functions, who often have to develop systems
and processes to address multi-generation needs (Hershatter & Epstein, 2010).
HR functions are evolving to adopt an “outside/inside” approach practices,
Millennial Gamification Mapping Model
Millennial Gamification Outcome
Characteristics Tenets
My Interest,
My Time, My
Pace, My
Place, My
St
y
les
Choices,
Control &
Flexibility
Expect
Immediacy,
Attention
Sponges, Instant
Gratification
Immediate
Feedback,
Remediation,
Automated
Su
gg
estions
Peer
Learning,
Constant
Feedback,
Collaboration
Peer
Challenges &
Evaluations,
Leader
Dashboards
Immersive
Learning
Experience
Story Telling,
Interactive,
Social Connect
Sequential
unlocking of
Courses
Achievement
Oriented,
Rewards, Self
Focussed
Badges, Levels,
Points, Virtual
Certificates,
Leader
Dashboards
Figure 2. Conceptual Model Millennial Gamification Mapping Model
Source: The author.
12 South Asian Journal of Human Resources Management 6(1)
where “HR creates value by making sure that services HR offers inside the
company align to expectations outside the company” (Ulrich & Dulebohn, 2015).
The importance of understanding and addressing needs to millennials and
customizing HR practices around this is a key need for organizations, so that they
are in sync with the changing demographics at the workplace.
Technological advances have allowed organizations to move to web-based
activities for many of its processes and functions (Stone & Deadrick, 2015).
An understated benefit of leveraging gamification will be the reduction in
instructor-led training interventions and demand on training resources. Technology
has been found to increase efficiency and reduce administrative burden in HR
(Stone & Deadrick, 2015). Gamification can thus support enhancement efficiency
metrics of improved productivity, reduced costs and improved coverage of
training across a larger population. Agility is a key pillar of dynamic capability of
organizations to gain competitive advantage (Corte-Real, Oliveira, & Ruivo,
2017). Gamification allows delivery of training to millennials at quicker speed
and is not constrained by availability of training resources (trainers, physical
training rooms, etc.). Additionally, analytics from the gamification platforms can
throw up interesting insights about gaps in understanding, assessment of training
performance and sustained learning impact. These provide avenues for future
research.
For the millennial generation, who are known as “digital natives,” acceptance
of HR practices which hinge on technology solutions find greater acceptance.
Gamification, as both a learning and digital platform, meets the basic acceptance
and engagement criteria to meaningfully be relevant for the millennial generation.
As argued earlier, the tenets of gamification map onto the behaviours and need
attributes of millennials.
Our research article has argued for the congruency of gamification as a tool for
effective learning among the millennial population. Empirical studies on engage-
ment, learning retention and efficacy, and impact on other organizational citizen-
ship behaviours could be explored in future studies on this domain.
Theoretical and Practice Implications
The current demographics of students are heavily skewed with millennial
representation. For most of this cohort lacking real world experience, avenues for
action learning are limited. This study gives a broad framework to academics on
how to create interest, engage and lead millennials in academic institutions.
Depending upon the requirements be it functional or behavioural development,
societal development or even marketing engagement, academicians can design
learning elements to engage this cohort and be able to make their involvement
substantial and enable better learning. In the academic arena, with technology
integrated learning increasingly being introduced on various fronts, there is an
ongoing effort to make learning more fun and engaging.
Jain and Dutta 13
Given a perennial scarcity in investment in learning and development, practi-
tioners are constantly challenged to demonstrate efficacy of learning invest-
ments, either through return on investment or cost-benefit approach. We argue
the congruence of millennial characteristics with tenets of gamification to
amplify learning outcomes. To understand the clear outcome of gamification on
learning efficacy, engagement and return on investment, empirical research in
industry to is recommended.
Conclusion
The success of the millennials in the workforce is contingent on understanding
what makes them learn and work effectively within organizations. Our article
highlights how learning mechanisms also need to change to adapt to the
millennials preferences and styles basis various motivating factors that play its
role. Based on multiple theoretical pillars, we propose a gamification conceptual
model for millennials which allows millennials to control what they learn, when,
where and how they learn. The needs for instant gratification, success and
recognition at workplace are met by tools like gamification, competitive leader
board, social learning and quick feedback mechanisms incorporated within the
gamified platform.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conicts of interest with respect to the research, author-
ship and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no nancial support for the research, authorship and/or publication
of this article.
Notes
1. http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/hr-management-services/pdf/pwc-nextgen-study-2013.pdf
2. https://www.forbes.com/sites/oreillymedia/2011/05/04/gamification-applications-and-
implications/#58931e022c01
References
Autry, A. J., & Berge, J. (2011). Digital natives and digital immigrants: Getting to know
each other. Industrial and Commercial Training, 4(7), 460–466.
Barata, G., Gama, S., Jorge, J., & Gonçalves, D. (2013). Improving participation and learn-
ing with gamification. First International Conference on Gameful Design, Research,
and Applications. Tampere, Finland: ACM Press.
Bedwell, W. L., & Salas, E. (2010). Computer-based training: Capitalizing on lessons
learned. International Journal of Training and Development, 14(3), 239–249.
14 South Asian Journal of Human Resources Management 6(1)
Blunt, R. (2007). Does game-based learning work? Results from three recent studies.
Proceedings of the Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation, & Education Conference,
945–955.
Bohl, J. C. (2009). Generation X and Y in law school: Practical strategies for teaching the
‘MTV/Google’ generation. Loyola Law Review, 54(1), 1–37.
Boyle, E., Connolly, T. M., & Hainey, T. (2011). The role of psychology in understanding
the impact of computer games. Entertainment Computing, 2(2), 69–74.
Buzzard, C., Crittenden, V. L., Crittenden, W. F., & McCarty, P. (2011). The use of digital
technologies in the classroom: A teaching and learning perspective. Journal of Market-
ing Education, 33(2), 131–139.
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.
Cleyle, S., Partridge, H., & Hallam, G. (2006). Educating the millennial generation for
evidence based information practice. Library Hi Tech, 24(3), 400–419.
Colbert, A., Yee, N., & George, G. (2016). The digital workforce and the workplace of the
future. Academy of Management Journal, 59(3), 731–739.
Connor, H., & Shaw, S. (2008). Graduate training and development: current trends and
issues. Education+ Training, 50(5), 357–365.
Corte-Real, N., Oliveira, T., & Ruivo, P. (2017). Assessing business value of Big data
Analytics in European firms. Journal of Business Research, 70, 379–390.
Culiberg, B., & Mihelic, K. K. (2016). Three ethical frames of reference: Insights into
millennials’ ethical judgement and intentions in the workplace. Business Ethics,
25(1), 94–111.
Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). Gamification: Toward a defini-
tion. In CHI 2011 gamification workshop proceedings (Vol. 12). Vancouver BC, Canada.
DomíNguez, A. S.-D.-N., De-Marcos, L., FernáNdez-Sanz, L., PagéS, C., & MartíNez-
HerráIz, J. J. (2013). Gamifying learning experiences: Practical implications and out-
comes. Computers & Education, 63, 380–392.
Dutta, D., & Jain, A. (2016). Effective learning methodologies for the millennial genera-
tion. L&T|LDA|Journal of Management, (8), 11–18.
Ebner, M., & Holzinger, A. (2007). Successful implementation of user-centered game
based learning in higher education: An example from civil engineering. Computers &
Education, 49(3), 873–890.
Eddy, S. N., Schweitzer, L., & Lyons, S. T. (2010). New generation, great expectation:
A field study of millenial generation. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(2),
281–292.
Erenli, K. (2016). Generation I (mmersion)—How to meet learner expectations of
tomorrow. International Journal of Automation & Computing, 9(1), 19–25.
Farell, L., & Hurt, A. (2014). Training the millennial generation: Implications for organi-
zational climate. E Journal of Organizational Learning & Leadership, 12(1), 47–60.
Feiertag, J., & Berge, Z. (2008). Training generation N: How educators should approach
the Net Generation. Education + Training, 50(6), 457–464.
Garris, R., Ahlers, R., & Driskell, J. E. (2002). Games, motivation, and learning: A research
and practice model. Simulation and Gaming, 33(3), 441–467.
Gorman, P., Nelson, T., & Glassman, A. (2004). The millennial generation: A strategic
opportunity. Organizational Analysis, 12(3), 255–270.
Jain and Dutta 15
Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Sarsa, H. (2014). Does gamification work? A literature review
of empirical studies on gamification. Paper presented at the System Sciences (HICSS),
2014 47th Hawaii International Conference. Hawaii, USA: IEEE.
Hershatter, A., & Epstein, M. (2010). Millennials and the world of work: An organization
and management perspective. Journal of Business Psychology, 25, 211–223.
Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (1991). Generations: The history of America’s future, 1584 to
2069. New York, NY: William Morrow & Company.
Ibáñez, M. B., Di-Serio, A., & Delgado-Kloos, C. (2014). Gamification for engaging
computer science students in learning activities: A case study. IEEE Transactions on
Learning Technologies, 7(3), 291–301.
Immerwahr, J. (2009). Generational differences. TeachPhilosophy101 (TF101), Vil-
lanova University, Villanova, PA. Retreived from http://www.teachphilosophy101.
org/Default.aspx
Kapp, K. M. (2012). The gamification of learning and instruction: Game-based methods
and strategies for training and education. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
McClelland, D. C., Atkinson, J. W., Clark, R. A., & Lowell, E. L. (1953). The achievement
motive. Century Psychology Series.
McCrindle, M. (2015). Superannuation and the under 40‘s: Summary report—Research
report on the attitudes and views of Generations X and Y on superannuation. McCrin-
dle Research, 1965–1981.
McGonigal, J. (2011). Reality is broken: Why games make us better and how they can
change the world. London, United Kingdom: Penguin.
Meister, J., & Willyerd, K. (2010). Mentoring millennials. Harvard Business Review,
88(5), 68–72.
Miller, R., Shapiro, H., & Hilding Hamann, K. (2008). School’s over: Learning spaces in
Europe in 2020: An imagining exercise on future of learning. Seville, Spain: Institute
for Prospective Technological Studies.
Muntean, C. I. (2011). Raising engagement in e-learning through gamification. Proceed-
ings of the 6th International Conference on Virtual Learning ICVL, 42, 323–329.
Myers, K. K., & Sadaghiani, K. (2010). Millennials in the workplace: A communication
perspective on millennials’ organizational relationships and performance. Journal of
Business and Psychology, 25(2), 225–238.
Pappas, C. (2013). Gamify the classroom. Retrieved from https://elearningindustry.com/
gamify-the-classroom
Prensky, M. (2010). Teaching digital natives: Partnering for real learning. New York, NY:
Corwin Press.
Rodriguez, A., & Rodriguez, Y. (2015). Metaphors for today’s leadership: VUCA world,
millennial and “Cloud Leaders.” Journal of Management Development, 34(7), 854–866.
Shaw, S., & Fairhurst, D. (2008). Engaging a new generation of graduates. Education+
Training, 50(5), 366–378. Retrieved from https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/
abs/10.1108/00400910810889057
Skiba, D., & Barton, A. (2006). Adapting your teaching to accommodate the net generation
of learners. Online Journal of Issues in Nursing, 11(2), 15.
Stone, D. L., & Deadrick, D. L. (2015). Challenges and opportunities affecting the future of
human resource management. Human Resource Management Review, 25(2), 139–145.
Sweeney, R. (2012). Millennial behaviors and higher education focus group results: How
are millennials different from previous generations at the same age? NJIT Journal.
Retrieved from http://library1.njit.edu/staff-folders/sweeney/
16 South Asian Journal of Human Resources Management 6(1)
Tews, M. J., Michel, J. W., & Bartlett, A. (2012). The fundamental role of workplace fun in
applicant attraction. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 19(1), 105–114.
Twenge, J. M. (2013). Teaching generation me. Teaching of Psychology, 40(1), 66–69.
Twenge, J. M., Campbell, S. M., Hoffman, B. J., & Lance, C. E. (2010). Generational
differences in work values: Leisure and extrinsic values increasing, social and intrinsic
values decreasing. Journal of Management, 36(5), 1117–1142.
Ulrich, D., & Dulebohn, J. H. (2015). Are we there yet? What’s next for HR. Human
Resource Management Review, 25(2), 188–204.
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoritical extension of the Technology Acceptance
Model: Four longitudnal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of
information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.
Wesner, M., & Miller, T. (2008). Boomers and millennials have much in common.
Organization Development Journal, 26(3), 89–96.
Wilson, M., & Gerber, L. (2008). How generational theory can improve teaching: Strategies
for working with the “millennials.” Currents in Teaching and Learning, 1(1), 29–44.
Xiang, O. C., Ann, T. T., Hui, C. Y., & Yew, L. T. (2014). Effectiveness of gamification in
vocational technical education. In European Conference on Games Based Learning
(Vol. 2, pp. 636). Academic Conferences International Limited.