Obstacles for change: Support

Support

In the article I published last week, I mentioned 2 out of 4 most common obstacles that prevent organizations to transform challenges into change. In order to keep up with the 'ever-faster-changing'-world, every organization should start with eliminating these obstacles.

Can you remember what they were? If not... you learned nothing, but don't worry I will repeat them: (Organizational) Structures and the (procedural- or software) Systems that actually keep that structure in place!

This paragraph will be about the other two: (lack of) Support and the Social Structure (or culture) of your organization. As Peter Drucker said: Culture eats strategy for breakfast and I believe this is true...

The involvement of stakeholders can influence willingness to change enormously. If the involvement is low, then the potential for change is low - and vice versa. Every organization, of course, has other stakeholders who influence that capacity for change. That is why it is important to first map out who your strongest players are before you start influencing a particular target group.

Support is a specific factor. It cannot be forced, not even with a bribe. People choose for themselves whether they want to offer support or not. Organizations can only try to be as attractive as possible to recruit supporters. Compare it to supporters of a soccer club. You become a 'supporter' of a club, for example, because you are born in the city where they play, or because they're popular, or win a lot or play well. Every person has a different reason to support a club. Supporters will go to any length to show others who they are supporting by putting on club shirts and singing songs. They support the club financially and morally and are very involved, sometimes even a little too involved.

Many large organizations struggle with the #engagement of their employees. In some organizations, the influx is even equal to the outflow and usually, it’s the positive forces that voluntarily leave the organization early to join a new employer (or become self-employed). The annual #employeesatisfaction survey is often a gauge to see how emotionally involved employees are in the organization, but it doesn’t say much about supporting change. A relatively small organization, employees may still be flexible in their thinking and performing, but the bigger the organization and the more specialized the functions, the less agile it becomes.

So how can you develop support after all then? According to various change experts, this is a combination of the following elements. It has everything to do with involving people:

● ????make employees co-owners of the desired change;

● ????allow employees to bring ideas to the table themselves;

● ????offering employees choices and allowing them to make choices;

● ????initiate action;

● ????making employees aware of the possible impact and usefulness.

All these elements are reflected in the GameStorm methodology, which is briefly described in the introduction. If you do not remember, check out this three minute video.

Using a practical example, the impact of a few game elements is described. An international sneaker retailer with seven thousand employees in Europe has used the GameStorm method within their organisation's entire retail branch. Eight hundred store managers in Europe initiated a change themselves, which was also in line with the wishes of management.

To refresh your memory, we’ll follow the rules of GameStorm once more:

1. Define the most important players and choose who should be influenced.
2. Define the most urgent objective.
3. Determine which top 3 obstacles (challenges) will make achieving the goal difficult.
4. Choose the top 9 constructive and destructive actions, behaviours, or activities to bring about the desired change.
5. Calculate the potential performance (score) of that new behaviour for the organization.
6. ?Prioritize (1 to 9) what the game or gamification-system has to have, or who's going to take what action and when (if no game is being developed).

The power of the GameStorm lies primarily in the fact that managers and employees set their own top 9 priorities as a game-plan for change. As a result, there is not only support to set the change in motion but also nine concrete actions are created for the next nine weeks. The accompanying managers are at the same time engaged with the challenges that their teams are struggling with. You could say that these challenges are the homework for the accompanying management (board).

When all eight hundred store managers had completed the GameStorm, all output was shared with the five vice presidents responsible for each region. The three most important outcomes were set as 'challenges' concerning the main objective: profit maximisation by providing an optimal shopping experience for the consumer.

This example shows how game mechanics can lead to more involvement of employees in important matters such as managing a store. Also, the GameStorm gives a deeper insight into the obstacles that are present in each region, and with the various actions and activities that could lead to the same results. Thanks to the application, the management gained more insight into the status quo and necessary future actions. In this way, gamification can contribute to HR analytics.

In the year after the introduction of the GameStorm, this retail chain had the highest turnover ever and, even during the last (pre-COVID 19) crisis, achieved continuous growth year after year. This is exceptional at a time when a lot of large retail chains in Europe went bankrupt. Most of them were strong brands that remained static for too long and had not set up their feedback-loop properly.

Hopefully, the client example illustrates that a support base for change and improvement is the result of employees getting to work themselves and putting forward proposals for improvement, based on a formulated objective (mission, challenge, target). The GameStorm is playable within every level of an organization and can thus also ’spiral down’ in organizations that are still built like pyramids. That is how top-down change is started, but only by placing employees in the driving seat. (Send me a DM for more information or visit www.gamificationacademy.com): Gamification Academy

Game rules

The final obstacle that affects the capacity for change in organizations is formed by the externally imposed 'rules of the game' and the prevailing culture within an organization. The different types of rules will be mentioned briefly, without aiming for completeness. This obstacle can be subdivided into written and unwritten rules, within or outside of the organisation (internal or external).

Written rules (compliance / procedures)

The external written rules are of course the laws of a country or region. They can be considered as the borders of the playing field within which an organization must find its freedom of movement. Within these borders it is possible to draw up one's own rules - consider general terms and conditions of purchase and sale - and to fix how the organisation differentiates its method (strategy) of delivering its services. These written rules give organizations, for example, the government, suppliers or franchise-licensors, a feeling of manageability or control. Moreover, on the other hand, if done right, they give the players (consumers, franchise-licensees or employees) clarity about which behaviour is desirable or undesirable.

In particular, the government is trying to keep the game manageable by setting rules for it for the players within their country borders. Some governments are more successful than another. Some are making breakthroughs in setting up more and more rules to achieve an optimally functioning government. The question is whether more rules lead to a better functioning government and society, or if the number of written rules must be reduced. Many organisations complain that the game rules set by the government are very restrictive. Within the banking world, entire compliance departments have been set up, which exist to provide government officials with continuously prepared reports to comply with the law.

Game designers try to make the rules of a game as simple and unambiguous as possible so that the game is understandable and fair to all players. The construct of a singular goal, three obstacles and six different possible actions can quickly result in a very entertaining game. Let alone if you have three goals, nine obstacles and eighteen different actions possible on a playing field. In the Netherlands, the Criminal Law Code alone has almost five hundred articles. And within Europe, there are more than 2,500 different forms of contract possible with employees within the same retail organization. You may wonder if every country - and certainly the EU as a whole - isn’t just better off with fewer written rules instead of more.

The internal rules include the general terms and conditions of an organisation, as well as the job or task descriptions. Also, often processes and procedures are fixed. To improve the controllability and to increase a sense of control, some organisations have a hand in internally laying down as many rules of the game as possible in various documents that no one ever reads. Also, it is often a legal obligation to establish certain procedures, processes or a code of conduct when an organization goes to the stock market, for example.

A major cable operator had a game developed for the 2012 IPO, to bring to life the code of conduct and various compliance documents of the organisation. The game covered rules on subjects as theft, intimidation and abuse of power, relationships with third parties and social media.

Each organisation must decide for itself which rules it will or won’t define. It is advisable, however, during the drafting and laying down of these rules to think about the following: what purpose do they serve? Who will read them and apply them? How can these rules be maintained and brought to life? Rules can tremendously restrict an organization's freedom and ability to change. If an organization is aware of it, then the first step can be taken in reducing the number of rules and striving towards simplicity and clarity.

Unwritten rules (culture / values)

In addition to the written rules, many people - and therefore many organizations - also use unwritten rules. They are often methods or principles that certain people think are ‘normal’. Within a country we call these unwritten rules 'culture' and with a person or organization you could say 'character', this is often based on norms and values. Acting unequivocally per these norms and values is referred to as 'integrity'. The case study of the superhero game is specifically related to this.

People often work together in a more or less organized context. It is therefore not surprising that the norms and values of these individuals determine how an organisation and other stakeholders work together. If an organization wants to strengthen its culture, then it’s useful for employees to be hired that fit in with the prevailing culture, otherwise, the culture becomes obscured. But how do you find people with the right character? Oddly enough this is not explicitly mentioned in a resume or on LinkedIn. And all while the correct character traits determine whether there is a good click, and thus trust, between the two parties. And this how an organisation brings cultural values to life through a game is the next case study example of a serious game.

But in what way do game rules form an obstacle for transformation - or change issues? Usually, this has to do with how organizational members were used to working. Especially the - based on processes and procedures - written rules that stopped change. The characteristic statements you would then hear are: "That's how I always did it” Or: "That's not on my business card.” The more things an organization puts down on paper, the more often people will refer to what is written down. But organizations have to keep up with the times, because the world around them is changing all the time, with ever-increasing speed. To increase the ability for change within organizations, the number of written game rules should be minimized. Also, they need to be simplified and made unambiguous.

Change is difficult to bring about due to the combination of obstacles, in the form of structures, systems, lack of support and the abundance of game rules. Because organizations only change the culture and rules of the game, and not the organisational structures and support systems, and because there's no support, change simply just doesn’t happen.

But what does all this have to do with gamification? How can game mechanics help to ensure that the obstacles identified within organisations can be conquered? Can serious games support organizational goals? If so, how? And what are the results then? What is the secret power of game mechanics when motivating people and which mechanics are there already?

Tomorrow I will share two case studies that delivered this promise.

PS Don't forget to comment below if you spotted the easter egg in the animation!