The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0969-6474.htm

Gamification
A systematic review of in
gamification in organizational
learning
organizational learning
Rouhollah Khodabandelou 251
Department of Instructional and Learning Technologies,
College of Education, Sultan Qaboos University, Al-Khodh, Oman Received 18 May 2022
Revised 1 November 2022
Accepted 2 November 2022
Parastoo Roghanian
Department of Management, Islamic Azad University, Electronic Branch, Tehran, Iran
Hamed Gheysari
Department of Management, Islamic Azad University,
Tehran North Branch, Tehran, Iran, and
Azadeh Amoozegar
Department of Instructional and Learning Technologies,
College of Education, Sultan Qaboos University, Al-Khodh, Oman

Abstract
Purpose – Gamification appears to be one of the most important levers for improving performance and
engagement in training programs. Moreover, gamification has been considered as critical to researchers in
organizational learning. The main purpose of this study is to provide a general overview of gamification
studies in the organizational context.
Design/methodology/approach – This systematic literature review has been synthesized by reviewing the
majority of literature reviews as well as carefully selected primary research studies published between 2010 and 2020.
Findings – The result of the study revealed that gamification has become a popular technique to improve
employee and organizational capabilities. The features of the gamification have been reviewed from three
mechanics, dynamics and aesthetics perspectives. Additionally, three primary, middle and optimal
affordances and core functions of gamification in organizational learning have been identified and examined.
Originality/value – This paper fills a gap in the literature regarding the gamification field for systematic
review results in an organizational learning context.
Keywords Systematic review, Gamification, Organizational learning, Affordances, Core functions
Paper type Literature review

Introduction
Nowadays, performance improvement is known as one of the critical issues (Bugvia et al.,
2021; Sutomo, 2022). In this regard, organizations look forward to the best way, which
ensures to approach to their goal in a short time along with acceptable cost. The
organization’s progress is based on its methodologies for producing, training and retaining
skilled employees (dos Santos & Pedro, 2020). Those skillful employees cause positive, The Learning Organization
growing change in the organization (Bibi, Ahmad, & Majid, 2018; Sun, Liu, Law, & Zhong, Vol. 30 No. 2, 2023
pp. 251-272
2017) and are considered as a competitive advantage. In this regard, the most challenging © Emerald Publishing Limited
0969-6474
task for the organization is to apply efficient techniques and develop career paths to describe DOI 10.1108/TLO-05-2022-0057
TLO business processes in detail (Obaid, Farooq, & Abid, 2020; Van der Aalst, 2013).
30,2 Organizations attempt to map their employees’ learning plans consistent with the state-of-
the-art methodologies to keep them engaged, motivated and productive. Accordingly,
gamification in the workplace is one of these modern learning tools that are becoming
increasingly popular in a variety of fields such as health (Devar & Hattingh, 2020), business
(Kalafatog
lu, 2020), production process (Warmelink, Koivisto, Mayer, Vesa, & Hamari, 2020)
252 and marketing (Xi & Hamari, 2020). It has been found as a useful approach in the training
and engagement of employees (Dubey, Chavan, & Patil, 2017; Ergle, 2015; Jabagi, Croteau,
Audebrand, & Marsan, 2019; Obaid et al., 2020; Ruhi, 2015) and consumers (Xi & Hamari,
2020). Therefore, gamification has been paid attention to as a way to maximize employees’
performance in the workplace (Colasanti, Fiori, & Frondizi, 2020; Obaid et al., 2020).
Gamification provides an environment in which users can see their progress and
achievements. Pozo Sanchez, Lopez Belmonte, Fuentes Cabrera, and Lopez Núñez (2020)
showed that gamification might provide great potential in improving performance.
Organizations should use gamification because it provides an environment in which users
can see their progress and achievements. This approach increases the engagement and
motivation of employee performance by incorporating elements such as challenges and
emotions (Alcivar & Abad, 2016). According to Kolb and Kolb (2010), game-based learning
has been deemed beneficial because it provides an enjoyable learning environment on a
relaxed, safe and controlled platform. Hence, it would be beneficial for organizations to
prepare a creative and self-exploration environment by using gamified systems to improve
the effectiveness of organizational commitment.
To map the existing “intellectual territory” (Weed, 2006) on the gamification field of
research, there is a need to conduct a comprehensive literature review. Literature review
enables researchers to build edifices of undiscovered knowledge. Reviews, according to
Tranfield, Denyer, and Smart (2003), highlight “undiscovered public knowledge” in a particular
field. Additionally, a review of literature is one of the best ways to develop researcher as well as
public imagination and understanding of the particular discipline. To identify knowledge
circulating in a domain, it has been identified different typologies of reviews (Grant & Booth,
2009). Among them, systematic literature reviews (SLRs) play a critical role.
As the field of gamification has progressed since the 2000s, its fundamental base has
gradually expanded. Landers, Auer, Collmus, and Armstrong (2018) reported over 30,000
papers on Google Scholar and over 700 publications indexed by the Web of Science.
Currently, over 160,000 papers have been found in an initial search on Google Scholar. In this
respect, a large amount of research has contributed to mapping gamification research from
the theoretical and methodological perspectives (Asadzandi, Sedghi, Bigdeli, & Sanjari, 2020;
Dalmina, Barbosa, & Vianna, 2019; Darejeh & Salim, 2016; Fathian, Sharifi, & Nasirzadeh,
2020; Hamari, Koivisto, & Sarsa, 2014; Kamel, Watfa, Lobo, & Sobh, 2017; Murawski, 2020).
A quick review of the literature shows that gamification has been a frequently studied field,
and using this approach in organizations was embraced by several scholars, but these
researches represented a solid contribution to our understanding of the field, and each of
them has its limitations. Da Silva, Verschoore, Bortolaso, and Brambilla (2019) attempted to
understand how to use gamification features in managing cooperation networks. Further,
Araújo and Pestana (2017) investigated the effects of gamification features on employees’
behavior. However, these efforts have been limited, and the features and the main
contributors to gamification, particularly in organizational learning, are unknown. As such,
there exists a gap in gamification in the organizational learning literature.
From the theoretical perspective, gamification can be considered as a new practice –
among new pedagogies and theories are emerging in the field of educational technology
research (Oliveira, Souza, Reis, & Souza, 2021). Recently a comprehensive review of the Gamification
literature was performed in gamification from the theoretical perspective. Krath, in
Schürmann, and von Korflesch (2021) found that self-determination theory, flow theory,
experiential learning theory and constructivist learning theory are most popular theoretical
organizational
foundations of gamification research. They also identified that there are 118 theories used to learning
explain gamification.
As mentioned above, a considerable amount of literature has been paid on gamification
as a new evolving landscape. One of the main landscapes of gamification is its affordances 253
and core functions. Abu-Dawood (2016) has sought to explore the social and cognitive
motivational aspects of gamification to find factors that promote learning success. In the
other study, Zeng, Tang, and Wang (2017) identified motivational affordances in
gamification to enhance learners’ engagement. More recently, Huang and Zhou (2020)
studied the social affordances of gamification. Although extensive research has been carried
out on social, motivational and cognitive affordances of gamification, no single study exists
that covers general affordances and core functions of gamification in organizational
learning. Hence, a systematic understanding of what affordances and core functions
contribute to successful gamification is still lacking.
By reviewing the existing literature – particularly SLRs, this study found that there are
some limitations in the time feature of the studies, meaning that most of the studies have
been focused on a specific period (Rodrigues, Oliveira, & Rodrigues, 2019; Obaid et al., 2020).
Moreover, review studies conducted by scholars in the area of organizational learning, such
as Warmelink et al. (2020) and Murawski’s (2020), addressed only a very narrow area of
research as “production and logistics” and “human resources management”.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In the next section, the methodology is
formulated. The following section result presents the results, and finally, the conclusion is
highlighted.

Methodology
This paper emphasized providing a comprehensive SLR of existing reviews and some
empirical studies that explicitly describe the adoption of gamification features and
contributions which arose across organizations and were deployed to solve organizational
learning problems from 2010 till 2020. consequently, to approach our goals, the following
research questions are presented:

RQ1. What are the gamification features in organizational learning studies?

RQ2. What are the main contributors to gamification in the reviewed literature?
RQ3. What are the affordances and core functions of gamification in organizational
learning?
SLRs have emerged to cover the limitations of traditional literature reviews, such as a lack
of scientific rigor (Noblit, Hare, & Hare, 1988), different and often unclear aims (Briner &
Walshe, 2014) and lack of reliability, validity and extent of research bias (Grant & Booth,
2009). In this regard, the significance of the SLR is to improve the quality and transparency
of research by reducing researcher biases (Pahlevan-Sharif, Mura, & Wijesinghe, 2019).
Briner and Walshe (Briner & Walshe, 2014) articulate that SLR is a type of literature review
in which applies a range of methods to provide a comprehensive overview of existing
research. Along the same line, one of the main characteristics of the SLR concerns
methodical procedures which provide an unbiased and higher quality of academic
production. The other fundamental advantage of SLRs is having a research protocol that
TLO clearly describes the research steps. In this study, we used a guideline that was proposed by
30,2 Hallinger and Chen (2015).

Search strategy
A comprehensive search strategy was conducted on December 2021 to identify the relevant
studies (gamification in the organizational context) using the preferred reporting items for
254 systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) protocol (Page et al., 2021). The protocol
for the review is shown in Figure 1. Our initial search strategy contains a body of literature
on gamification in organizational learning, including research production records located in
international databases. The keywords including “gamification”, “game-based learning”,
“games”, “organizational learning” and “business”, were searched in international
databases.
The following databases were included in this study to search the selected keywords,
Web of Science, Scopus, Emerald, Google Scholar, Taylor & Frances, EBSCOhost, IEEE,
Elsevier and Wiley Online Library. The reason for choosing the above research databases
was their wide and comprehensive coverage of the required information. The inclusion and
exclusion criteria were guided us to create our data set. Our comprehensive database search
has found a total of 3,088 literature records published in the scope of gamification in
organizational learning.

Figure 1.
PRISMA flow
diagram detailing the
steps in the
identification and
screening of sources
Inclusion/exclusion criteria Gamification
As mentioned above, a total number of 3,088 records were found from the initial search and in
imported into the systematic review software EPPI Reviewer. In the first step, 236 duplicate
records were removed automatically using EPPI Reviewer (Social Sciences Research Unit,
organizational
2019). Then, the abstracts and titles of the other 2,765 records were screened, applying the learning
inclusion/exclusion criteria (Table 1).
255
Data extraction
After applying all inclusion and exclusion criteria’s 27 articles remained for data analysis.
The details of the included papers are reported in Table 2. An Excel spreadsheet was
designed to collect and summarize the common features of each study. In this stage, we
enter the information of each included paper in separate columns (e.g. title, journal,
limitations, sample, population, etc.).

Data analysis
In this study, both qualitative and quantitative analyses were used. First, the basic features
of our “dataset” were described by identifying the “year”, “Author”, “country”, “aim”,
“framework”, “methodology” and “findings” of the selected papers to provide a descriptive
analysis of papers. Second, a content analysis method was conducted to obtain an in-depth
understanding of the topic to examine the research questions of the study.

Quality assessment of studies

All 27 included papers were also evaluated based on their methodological quality. To do so,
we implemented the mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT) checklist (Hong et al., 2018).
Historically, the MMAT was developed for undertaking the methodological quality

Inclusion criteria Exclusion criteria

Published between 2010 and 2020 Published before 2010

English language Not in English
Primary research Not primary research (report, book chapter and letter)
Main focus on organizational learning Organizational learning is not the main focus of the study Table 1.
Gamification was the main focus Gamification was not the main focus Inclusion and
Full text was available Not full text was available exclusion criteria

No. Database No. of articles for data analysis

1 WOS 4
2 Scopus 6
3 Emerald 5
4 Google Scholar 2
5 Taylor & Frances 2
6 EBSCOhost 1
7 IEEE 2
8 Elsevier 3 Table 2.
9 Wiley Online Library 2 The details of the
Total 27 included papers
TLO assessment of published papers in health science. This wide range used tools was developed
30,2 to evaluate all research methodologies (qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods). It has
one common part (screening questions for all types, the researcher needs to respond to the
two screening questions) and five separate parts, including qualitative, quantitative
randomized controlled trials, quantitative non randomize quantitative descriptive and
mixed methods. For each included paper, the researcher should choose the appropriate
256 category and respond to the category’s questions. As mentioned above, only one of the
categories is applicable to each included research (it depends on the methodology of the
selected studies). By responding “Yes” (1) and “No” (0) to each question indicates the quality
of the selected paper. Finally, we calculated the overall score for each selected study from the
ratings of each criterion. Then the overall scores were converted to the percentage (see
Table 2 for more details).

Results
Characteristics of studies
The concept of gamification has emerged from the digital area. Although the effectiveness of
gamification, particularly in performance and engagement, has been highlighted by the
literature, however, many topics (motivation, etc.) have not been studied. For instance, there
is little understanding of how gamification can be best used in organizational learning for
positive behavior change. In this vein, the current study was conducted to synthesize
research findings on gamification in the organizational context. Table 3. illustrates the
characteristics of 27 included articles in this review. As the table shows the majority (n = 12;
44.45%) of the selected papers are in the review format. The second top research method is
the Case Study with (n= 7; 25%) followed by Experimental (n = 3; 11.11%). In regard to the
theoretical background, the majority of the selected papers are using self-determination
theory (n = 7) as the foundation for the study. As Table 3 shows, 22 different countries have
contributed to produce these 27 papers. Among them, Canada and the USA produced 4
(14.82%) papers, followed by UK (n = 2; 11.11%). The table also shows the year of
publication for the selected papers. Surprisingly, the majority of the selected papers have
published in 2020 (n = 12; 44.45%), followed by 2019 (n = 6; 22.22%) and 2018 (n = 3;
11.11%), respectively. Additionally, studies listed in Table 2 scored based on the MMAT
quality checklist. The studies fell within the quality range from 64.28% (Darejeh & Salim,
2016; Kamel et al., 2017; Oprescu, Jones, & Katsikitis, 2014) to 92.8% (Colasanti et al., 2020;
Ruhi, 2015; Warmelink et al., 2020). The average quality of all the included studies is
76.44%. Based on our findings, most of the studies have a high-quality methodological
background for the study. However, some of the studies did not mention the theoretical
background of the research.

RQ1. What are the gamification features?

To explore the gamification features, we used the mechanics, dynamics, aesthetics (MDA)
framework (Zichermann & Cunningham, 2011). MDA is defined as the basic settings of a
game, motives and nature of interactions between the users and effects (Robson, Plangger,
Kietzmann, McCarthy, & Pitt, 2015; Zeng et al., 2017). Gamification tools, elements and
features have been used interchangeably by researchers (Alcivar & Abad, 2016; Da Silva
et al., 2019; Khan, Boroomand, Webster, & Minocher, 2020; Nivedhitha & Manzoor, 2020).
They are mostly defined in line with existing gamification frameworks and identified in the
form of rules. By reviewing the selected papers, common features have been integrated and
grouped in terms of the MDA framework shown below as a modified MDA framework
(Figure 2).
No. Author/year Country Journal Aim Framework Methodology Main findings MMAT score (%)

1 Fathian et al.
(2020)
2 Colasanti et al.
(2020)
3 Groening and
Binnewies (2019)
4 Hyypiä and
Parjanen (2015)
5 Kamel et al.
(2017)
6 Khan et al. (2020)
7 Warmelink et al.
(2020)
8 Van der Heijden
et al. (2020)
9 Suh and Wagner
(2017)
10 Spanellis et al.
(2020)
11 Ruhi (2015)
Iran, UK IEEE Access To identify major roles of Self-determination Mixed-method Conceptualized the role of 85.71
gamification in the theory (SDT) gamification in
enterprises contemporary enterprises
Italy Library Management To investigate the impact of Nudge theory Case study The gamification strategy 92.8
gamification on the implemented can be
promotion and enhancement considered successful
of knowledge circulation
Germany Computers in Human To identify the impact of Goal-setting theory Experimental Achievements do benefit 85.71
Behavior gamification element on motivation and performance
motivation and performance if designed properly
Finland International Journal of To explore gameful Theory of play and Case study Gamification enhances 71.42
Innovation and experiences through creativity creativity and interaction
Technology innovation activities
Management
UAE IEEE Transactions on To expose some of the Not mention Mix method Presented an insight into the 64.28
Professional hidden dynamics that take current use (or lack of use) of
Communication place behind the scenes gamification in the enterprise
whenever gamification is
proposed in the enterprise
context
Canada, USA European Journal of To provide a general Adaptive Review Help guide future 78.57
Information Systems overview on using Structuration organizational gamification
gamification in organizations Theory research
Netherland, Journal of Business To understand the status Management theory Meta-Analysis Motivation, enjoyment and 92.8
Finland Research quo and provide suggestions flow, are the main
for future research on psychological outcomes of
gamification gamification
Netherlands, Sage Open To investigate gamification Self-determination Case study Gamification can be a 85.71
Belgium, China, in working organizations in Theory (SDT) promising path for working
UK the Netherland organizations and can be
beneficial to both employers
and employees
Hong Kong Journal of Knowledge To examine how Affordance lens Quantitative Gamification increased 78.57
Management gamification increases knowledge contribution
employees’ knowledge
contribution
UK Expert Systems with To provide how gamification Knowledge work Case study It has been identified some 85.71
Applications is used in knowledge work benefits of gamification in
organizations
Canada Technology Innovation To determine the factors that Mechanics, Case study A conceptual framework has 92.8
Management Review led to the success or failure of dynamics and been presented in the paper
enterprise gamification aesthetics (MDA)
initiatives

(continued)
organizational

Characteristics of
Table 3.
in

257
Gamification

included studies
learning
 30,2

258
TLO

Table 3.
No. Author/year Country Journal Aim Framework Methodology Main findings MMAT score (%)

12 Rodrigues et al. Portugal Heliyon To map emerging relevant Not mention Review Researchers identified eight 71.42
(2019) themes and concepts in themes (gamification; game;
gamification research use; users; business; points;
engagement; learning) and 28
related concepts
13 Prasad et al. India International Journal of To determine the outcome of Yusuff model Case study The gamification improved 78.57
(2019) Management the application of the quality of work and made
gamification and its benefits employees more engaged in
in the eCommerce industry work
14 Park et al. (2019) South Korea, Computers & To evaluate GAMESIT a Malone’s theory Design-based GAMESIT as a theory- 85.71
USA Education gamified e-training system research driven and systematic
gamification design
improved learning and
engagement
15 Oprescu et al. Australia Frontiers in Psychology To provide some principles Not mention Literature review I PLAY AT WORK stands 64.28&
(2014) to support gamification for 10 principles
efforts
16 Obaid et al. Pakistan IEEE Access To identify gamified Gamified Learning SLR A taxonomy of gaming 78.57
(2020) solutions for recruiting and elements has been proposed
job training problems
17 Nivedhitha and India Behaviour & To explore the significance Social cognitive Survey research The results showed the 85.71
Manzoor (2020) Information of game elements, and to theory impact of the proposed game
Technology investigate the effect of game dynamics on creativity
dynamics on creative
ideation
18 Murawski (2020) Germany German Journal of To explore areas of Not mention SLR (1) Motivation, engagement 71.42
Human Resource application and outcomes of and performance, (2)
Management the use of gamification in improving training
HRM outcomes, (3) supporting
talent management measures
and (4) fostering knowledge
management activities have
been as an area of
gamification application
19 Maheu-Cadotte Canada, USA BMJ Open To identify, appraise and Not mention SLR and Meta- This is a protocol to conduct 71.42
et al. (2018) synthesize gamification on Analysis systematic review and
engagement and educational metanalysis
outcomes of healthcare
professionals

(continued)
No. Author/year Country Journal Aim Framework Methodology Main findings MMAT score (%)

20 Shpakova et al. Scotland World Journal of To investigate the impact of Self-determination Literature review Use of gamification can go 85.71
(2017) Science, Technology gamification on knowledge theory far beyond the motivational
and Sustainable management aspects it supports
Development flexibility, facilitate
transparency, improve trust,
visualize skills and
competences
21 Passalacqua et al. Canada, USA Industrial To study the impact of Self-determination Experimental Gamification can 85.71
(2020) Management& Data gamification on user theory [SDT] and successfully increase
Systems engagement and goal-setting theory employee engagement
performance
22 Alcivar and Ecuador Computers in Human To design and evaluate a Not mention Design-based The design system improved 71.42
Abad (2016) Behavior gamified system research user learning satisfaction
levels
23 Asadzandi et al. Iran Medical Journal of the To review gamification Not mention SLR physical activity and 71.42
(2020) Islamic Republic of Iran used in the field of diabetes nutrition were the most
frequent diabetic subgroups
in diabetes gamification
24 Da Silva et al. Brazil European Business To analyze how gamification Cooperation Case study Gamification can increase the 85.71
(2019) Review used to manage cooperation networking motivation and engagement
networks
25 Dalmina et al. Brazil Behaviour & To characterize the state of Not mention SLR The most used gamification 71.42
(2019) Information the art of gamification, and mechanics and elements
Technology to identify gaps and were Badges/achievements
tendencies for further and Points/experience Points
research
26 Darejeh and Australia, International Journal of To identify the gamification Not mention SLR A large number of 64.28
Salim (2016) Malaysia Human-Computer solution at solving user gamification solutions are
Interaction engagement problems relatively simple and require
improvement
27 Dikcius et al. Lithuania Journal of Marketing to predict the effects of social Social exchange Experimental Identified factors that effect 78.57
(2020) Education interactions and gamification theory, cognitive and Survey on course dropout
rewards on the process of evaluation theory
studies
organizational

Table 3.
in

259
Gamification

learning
TLO
30,2

260

Figure 2.
Modified MDA
framework

After reviewing the articles, 12 items have been found in the Mechanics feature (Table 4),
including “Points”, “Levels”, “Progression bar”, “Leader boards”, “Badges”, “Avatars”,
“Score”, “Virtual good”, “Certificate”, “Flag”, “Quest” and “Reward”. Among them, “Points”
with 14 papers (52%) stood at the top mechanics subset. It was followed by badges 11 (41%)
and levels 10 (37%), respectively. Fathian et al. (2020) point out that mechanics are the data
algorithms and shape the game functional components. “Points” and “Badges” have been
highlighted by Ruhi (2015) as the components’ determinants. These components encourage
users to play as the drive engine during the game. The importance of these elements is so
great that they are known as PLBs (points, leader boards and badges), which has been
emphasized by Khan et al. (2020). On the other hand, Fathian et al. (2020), Groening and
Binnewies (2019), Kamel et al. (2017), Spanellis, Dörfler, and MacBryde (2020), Ruhi (2015),
Prasad, Rao, and Vaidya (2019), Obaid et al. (2020), Alcivar and Abad (2016), Da Silva et al.
(2019), Dalmina et al. (2019) and Darejeh and Salim (2016) have demonstrated that badges
are collectable awards that sign activity completion. As Table 3 shows, “Flags”, “Virtual
goods” and “Certificates”, with only 1 (2%) were placed as the least components of
mechanics element by researchers. Obaid et al. (2020) demonstrated that certificates cause
employees to progress and improve through continuous feedback.

No. Mechanics as elements # Papers (%) References (based on Table 2)

1 Points 14 (52) (1); (2); (4); (20); (11); (12); (13); (16); (26); (19); (22); (24); (25); (27)
2 Badges 11 (41) (1); (3); (5); (10); (11); (13); (16); (22); (24); (25); (26)
3 Reward 10 (37) (2); (3); (4); (5); (10); (13); (16); (22); (26); (27)
4 Avatars 5 (18 ) (11); (14); (16); (22); (26)
5 Leader boards 5 (18 ) (1); (11); (16); (22); (25)
6 Levels 5 (18) (11); (16); (22); (24); (26)
7 Progression bar 4 (15) (5); (16); (22); (26)
8 Quest 2 (7) (10); (11)
9 Score 2 (7 ) (5); (16)
10 Virtual good 1 (4 ) (11)
Table 4. 11 Certificates 1 (4 ) (16)
Mechanics elements 12 Flags 1 (4) (16)
There is not clear why these “mechanics” components are repetitive and why some are Gamification
preferred over others. Besides the easy integration of those elements, there are critics of such in
applications. The critics emphasize that using these features without considering the usage
area would be mere “pontification” (Obaid et al., 2020) and in, most of the time, make gaps to
organizational
get desirable targets. Therefore, answers to the following questions pave the way for learning
mechanics’ subsets selection and shed light on how to choose the appropriate components
consistent with the goals:
261
Q1. How do to encourage employees to play?
Q2. How do to get stuck employees to the sequential stages of the game?
Q3. Which job levels are involved in learning?
Q4. How long should the learning goals be achieved?
Q5. What is the organization’s culture?
Q6. What is the organizational learning culture?
Moreover, to define the mechanic’s subsets, entry, during and the end of the game should be
mentioned. To do this, regarding the above questions, when the gamification will
be designed in the organization to get learning goals, the mechanics component would be
considered as below:
 Entry; providing attractive entrance with prizes, including tangible and intangible
awards.
 During the game; providing an environment with clear encouragement and
punishment rules such as points, scores and badges.
 End of the game; providing conditions that make good sense for employees to
continue their learning plan.

Table 5 illustrates the Dynamics subsets. Dynamics subsets include “Constraint”,

“Surprise”, “Choice”, “Gifting”, “Chance”, “Achievements”, “Feedback”, “Story”,
“Competition”, “Cooperation”, “Completion” and “Time”. As the table shows, the most
frequent element goes to feedback with 7 (26%), and the “story” is mentioned as the second
subset by 4 (15%). Gifting, completion and chance have been proposed as the least repetitive

No. Dynamics as elements # Paper (%) References (based on Table 2)

1 Feedback 7 (26) (4); (14); (16); (19); (21); (22); (26)

2 Story 4 (15 ) (8); (16); (22); (26)
3 Time 3 (11) (16); (17; (26)
4 Cooperation 3 (11 ) (1); (11); (22)
5 Constraint 2 (7 ) (11); (26)
6 Surprise 2 (7 ) (8); (10)
7 Choice 2 (7 ) (8); (11)
8 Achievements 2 (7 ) (3); (5)
9 Competition 2 (7 ) (1); (11)
10 Gifting 1 (4 ) (10) Table 5.
11 Completion 1 (4 ) (1) Dynamics elements
12 Chance 1 (4 ) (11) of the selected papers
TLO items 1 (4%). In our review, feedback has been highlighted as a way of simplification in the
30,2 new idea generation among players (Hyypiä & Parjanen, 2015). In other words, this
component aids the view that games are a practical approach to create new ideas in the
innovation process. In addition, if feedback is to be provided at a multisensory level, as
Warmelink et al. (2020) pointed to “multimedia feedback” enhances the quality of the
training programs. Although the “story” is the mainstream (Obaid et al., 2020) and consists
262 of mission, evolution stages and game board (Van der Heijden et al., 2020), it stimulates the
employees’ fantasy in social networks with their colleagues and is considered as dynamics
components besides the progress (Alcivar & Abad, 2016).
Most of those dynamics illustrated corporate organizational learning and help training
systems. But, some of them might have side effects if they are not positioned in the right
place. For instance, in a game that is designed to comply with exercises, setting the
constraint in terms of time could cause negative points to the learning process. In this
situation, some employees forward the learning plan and neglect the time limitation.
However, some employees like to complete the game, and time is preferred for them, and
consequently, the gamification cannot work properly. In the other case, if the game process
makes employees isolate and play lonely without interacting in the social network, it leads
to defeat.
Table 6 shows the Aesthetics elements. This category includes “Sensation”, “Fantasy”,
“Narrative”, “Challenge”, “Discovery”, “Confidence”, “Creativity” and “Curiosity”.
According to Table 5, Challenge is the top sub-element of aesthetics with 4 (18%), followed
by Fantasy 2 (7%). The rest of the elements are in the down list with only 1 (4%). Our review
showed that challenges could be applied in motivating employees forward to higher levels in
a short time (Da Silva et al., 2019). Moreover, it has been found that to create proper
“motivational drivers”, including challenges and fantasy, levels and avatars as gamification
elements may be integrated with the training programs (Park, Liu, Mun, & Santhanam,
2019). Because they support players by providing opportunities to promote their
competencies with respect to their career path (Ruhi, 2015). Hence, game designers seek to
attain some competencies, including problem-solving and decision-making skills.
In such training programs, behavioral and functional competencies are placed as the core
of gamification goals. Those competencies cover both self and social-oriented
characteristics. Strategic thinking, problem-solving, decision-making, creativity, critical
thinking and more are considered as self-oriented competencies, along with teamwork,
resource management, communication, cooperation and so on as social ones. On the other
side, in terms of functional competencies, workplace and occupation-specific competencies
can be defined in this vein. Our review showed that some employers follow the traditional
belief in games, which causes employees to have “hedonic” (Ruhi, 2015). However, some
other organizations seek to apply gamification with an instrumental focus in their strategic

No. Aesthetics as elements 3 papers (%) References (based on Table 2)

1 Challenge 5 (18) (11); (14); (22); (24); (26)

2 Fantasy 2 (7) (14); (26)
3 Narrative 1 (4) (11)
4 Sensation 1 (4) (22)
5 Discovery 1 (4) (11)
Table 6. 6 Confidence 1 (4) (11)
Aesthetics elements 7 Creativity 1 (4) (11)
of the selected papers 8 Curiosity 1 (4) (14)
activities. Therefore, to attain sustainable organizational learning, game designers must Gamification
devote themselves to look at the competencies besides the combination of both game styles in
(traditional game and also instrumental gratifications).
organizational
RQ2. What are the main contributors to gamification in the reviewed literature?
learning
Figure 3 summarizes the main contributors to gamification in the organizational context. As
the figure shows, “engagement” and “performance” are the topmost frequently referred 263
contributions with 20%. For example, Fathian et al. (2020), Colasanti et al. (2020), Murawski
(2020), Groening and Binnewies (2019) and Alcivar and Abad (2016) emphasize these factors
as outcomes of gamification application in their studies.
We identified “Knowledge management (KM)” (13.3%) as the second top contributor to
gamification in organizational learning. This factor has been highlighted as one of the main
factors to a successful workplace from different perspectives as well. Our review showed
that KM plays a critical role in both the quality and quantity of knowledge contribution

Figure 3.
Main contributors to
gamification in
organizational
learning
TLO through applying an enterprise collaboration system (Murawski, 2020; Nivedhitha &
30,2 Manzoor, 2020; Park et al., 2019; Shpakova, Dörfler, & MacBryde, 2017). According to
Figure 3, satisfaction, user experience, creativity, enjoyment, team building, recruitment,
talent management, HRM and promoting well-being stand in the same place with only 2.2%.
After identification of the contributors, we classified these contributors into three main
categories to provide a general overview of the gamification research (Figure 4). According
264 to the framework, three outcomes would be defined as the main outcomes of gamification in
the organizational context, including business, educational and psychological outcomes,
which are grouped by their relative sub-outcomes. To do this, Business outcomes are
composed of optimal design and implement, team building, user experiences, recruitment,
HRM, talent management and KM. Learning, engagement and performance are grouped as
educational outcomes of gamification in organizational learning. And the last category goes
to Psychological outcomes in which motivation, satisfaction, user experience, enjoyment,
promoting well-being, optimal design and implementation and creativity are considered as
its subsets.

RQ3. What are the affordances and core functions of gamification in organizational
learning?
Our review showed that gamification had become a popular technique to enhance
performance in organizational learning. By reviewing the selected papers, we provided a
framework using Attride-Stirling’s (Attride-Stirling, 2001) proposed method to identify what
are the affordances and core functions of gamification in the organizational learning context.
After reviewing, coding and labelling the extracted affordances and core functions from the

Figure 4.
Classification of main
gamification
contributions in
organizational
learning
studies we identified three main levels, namely, primary, middle and optimal affordances Gamification
and functions of gamification (Figure 5). in
As Figure 5 shows the primary affordances and core functions of gamification including,
“providing safe environment for learning and practice” (Colasanti et al., 2020; Murawski,
organizational
2020; Oprescu et al., 2014; Park et al., 2019; Shpakova et al., 2017; Van der Heijden et al., 2020; learning
Warmelink et al., 2020), “providing instant feedback” (Nivedhitha & Manzoor, 2020; Van der
Heijden et al., 2020; Warmelink et al., 2020), “creating learning challenges” (Dikcius,
Urbonavicius, Adomaviciute, Degutis, & Zimaitis, 2020; Nivedhitha & Manzoor, 2020; Park
265
et al., 2019; Prasad et al., 2019; Ruhi, 2015), “facilitating organizational capability”
(Darejeh & Salim, 2016; Fathian et al., 2020; Murawski, 2020; Oprescu et al., 2014; Prasad
et al., 2019; Ruhi, 2015; Shpakova et al., 2017; Suh & Wagner, 2017; Van der Heijden et al.,
2020), “enhancing motivation, and creativity” (Dalmina et al., 2019; Darejeh & Salim, 2016;
Groening & Binnewies, 2019; Hyypiä & Parjanen, 2015; Murawski, 2020; Park et al., 2019;
Passalacqua et al., 2020; Prasad et al., 2019; Rodrigues et al., 2019), “visualizing skills and
competences” (Asadzandi et al., 2020; Nivedhitha & Manzoor, 2020; Shpakova et al., 2017;
Van der Heijden et al., 2020), “employee participation in learning” (Alcivar & Abad, 2016;
Asadzandi et al., 2020; Da Silva et al., 2019; Dalmina et al., 2019; Darejeh & Salim, 2016;
Murawski, 2020), “turning training into entertainment” (Asadzandi et al., 2020; Darejeh &
Salim, 2016; Shpakova et al., 2017), “offering innovative solution” (Alcivar & Abad, 2016;
Murawski, 2020; Obaid et al., 2020; Shpakova et al., 2017) and “promoting collaborative
environment” (Alcivar & Abad, 2016; Dalmina et al., 2019; Dikcius et al., 2020; Shpakova
et al., 2017).
In our proposed framework (Figure 5), it can be said that gamification has primary
and short-term benefits for organizational contexts. Organizational learning
emphasizes on effective learning of employees and managers to increase customer
satisfaction. The basic strategy of gamification is to use rewards for people who
perform their assigned tasks properly. In fact, rewarding is a means of encouraging
individuals to compete and show their abilities. To develop the vision of the

Figure 5.
Outcomes of
gamification in
organizational
learning
TLO organization, it is necessary to pay attention to increase employees’ motivation,
30,2 particularly those who have the least participation in their work activities. Moreover,
learner participation has been found as another core function and affordance of
gamification. Gamification can motivate employees to participate in work activities
that are not internally motivating by providing interactive and entertainments
methods and offering innovative ways to solve learning challenges. By doing this,
266 employees will learn the benefits of goal-oriented behavior and will continue to
participate willingly, even in the absence of outside intermediaries.
The figure also highlighted the middle affordances and functions of gamification. In this
model, gamification has middle-term benefits or features for any organization. “Positive
behavioral changes”, “Social interactions” and “Employee satisfaction” have been considered
as the main mid-term or intermediate functions of gamification. In this model,
gamification can improve an individual’s ability to understand the content of
organizational work. This technique has been developed to improve traits and skills
such as socialization and a sense of accomplishment in employees. A major challenge
that organizations face is employee performance and behavior. In middle-level
affordances, gamification seeks to improve social interactions, develop a sense of
accomplishment through rapid encouragement and ultimately positively influence
employee behavior.
Finally, in this study, sustainable learning has been ladled as the optimal affordance and
function of gamification. Organizations can influence the behavior of employees by
improving their learning level by using gamification techniques. Gamification enhances the
learning process and creates better effectiveness; because the process of mental engagement
increases by creating interaction and learning enthusiasm for the staff. Gamification injects
fun elements into very serious and often boring topics and encourages employees to search,
learn and, thus, get closer to their optimal goal of continuous learning. Obviously, the long-
term success of any organization depends on whether its employees are constantly learning
and using new information to improve their job performance, which is beneficial to the
organization.

Discussion
The result of the study revealed that gamification has become a popular technique to
improve employee and organizational capabilities. In accordance with extracted results, we
conducted two main streams of results. The first is based on descriptive analysis of data, we
characterized and shaped the studies in the gamification field during a decade, and the other
one attempts to uncover the deficiencies and gaps in studies that have led to the presentation
of practical frameworks which play as guidelines for employers to design appropriate
games.
With RQ1, it aimed at identifying the features of gamification in organizational
learning. The information presented in Tables 4–6 shows that features can be
classified into three main categories, namely, mechanics, dynamics and aesthetics.
Some gamification features need to be highlighted and given more attention from
game designers, as they have more potential to motivate employees rather than other
ones. In this vein, certificates and badges can play a greater role to motivate
employees to promote a higher level of performance. First, making a superior sense of
competition among employees and building confidence by having the knowledge
gained in the business environment is mentioned as the second reason. As such,
gifting and chance, with less attention than other dynamics subsets, need to be taken
into account because of their effects on aesthetics subset design. Both of those factors
could promote and move employees involved in the learning process. In this situation, Gamification
employees are encouraged to continue and move to the next step, where more learning in
will be gained. In addition, some critical points have been neglected in presenting the
comprehensive models or frameworks in reviewed articles, which probably are
organizational
brought side effects after gamification accomplishing in the organization. The learning
novelty of the study is implementing Zichermann and Cunningham (2011) framework
to classify features of gamification in organizational learning. The results obtained in
this study are consistent with some other studies. For example, Sanchez,
267
Lampropoulos, and Lopez-Belmonte (2022) compared gamification models in the
Higher Education context. Additionally, Huiting (2022) identified key features of
gamification in mental health.
With RQ2, it aimed at exploring the main contributors to gamification in organizational
learning. By reviewing the articles in the field, we found that there is no comprehensive
classification of studies’ contributions. In this vein, the present study provided a unique
classification of contributions. We categorized them into three main themes, including
educational psychological and business outcomes. This classification may help stakeholders
to determine their ultimate goals and then design their gamification and its determinants.
Business, educational and psychological divisions open a window to identify the proper
learning plan.
With RQ3, it aimed at identifying the affordances and core functions of
gamification in organizational learning. The classification provided in Figure 5 shows
that there are several primary affordances for gamification in organizational learning.
Among them, a safe environment for learning and practice, along with instant
feedback, has been identified as top affordance. The importance of a safe learning
environment (Thompson & Brown, 2021) is that it provides an optimized interaction
among the employees. Hence, it can have tremendous effects on performance (Hardie,
O’Donovan, Jarvis, & Redmond, 2022). In this regard, all employees should feel that
the learning environment is safe for them. A learning environment should be safe not
only from a physical perspective but also from psychological and emotional
perspectives. Instant feedback is also highlighted as one of the main primary
functions of gamification in organizational learning. It has been proven that the lack
of instant feedback may reduce the quality and quantity of training programs (Chen,
Li, Chang, & Chen, 2021). Therefore, instant feedback has to take a considerable
amount of attention from researchers and stakeholders in the organizational context.
Finally, sustainable learning has been found as the ultimate and main affordance of
gamification in organizational learning.

Conclusion
It is already known that gamification plays a critical role in organizational learning.
Managers and designers involved in organizational learning activities should take
educational, psychological and business factors while designing the gamification
phases and could be investigated in more detail in future research. We highly
recommend that employers and designers pay attention to applying the appropriate
gamified systems during the planning and development of gamification initiatives.
Besides the aforementioned points in game design, some facts are rarely noticed in
studies to the best of our knowledge. Practitioners, particularly managers, are
required to plan and implement strategies to improve performance by incorporating
the key features of gamification in training modules.
TLO Overall, this systematic literature supports the growing consensus that gamification
30,2 opportunities matter. We recommend that to provide effective gamification, instructional
design principles should be integrated with training content. Given the significant impact of
gamification on the affective domain, it is possible that the content is supported by the
psychological aspects to provide high-quality training programs. Additionally, the review
showed that there are studies on the psychological, educational and effects of implementing
268 gamification in organizational learning; however, there is still room for empirical research,
particularly on business effects. This research can pave the way for further investigation of
the topic. Gamification appears to be an important lever for improving performance and
engagement in training programs. However, the limitation in resources, as well as
difficulties in designing effective training in organizations, has led to having non-effective
game-based training in organizations.

References
Abu-Dawood, S. (2016). The cognitive and social motivational affordances of gamification in e-learning
environment. 2016 IEEE 16th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies
(ICALT), 373–375, doi: 10.1109/ICALT.2016.126
Alcivar, I., & Abad, A. G. (2016). Design and evaluation of a gamified system for ERP training.
Computers in Human Behavior, 58(2016), 109–118, doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.12.018.
Araújo, J., & Pestana, G. (2017). A framework for social well-being and skills management at the
workplace. International Journal of Information Management, 37(6), 718–725, doi: 10.1016/j.
ijinfomgt.2017.07.009.
Asadzandi, S., Sedghi, S., Bigdeli, S., & Sanjari, M. (2020). A systematized review on diabetes
gamification. Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic Of Iran, 34(4), 168–182, doi: 10.47176/
mjiri.34.168.
Attride-Stirling, J. (2001). Thematic networks: an analytic tool for qualitative research. Qualitative
Research, 1(3), 385–405, doi: 10.1177/146879410100100307.
Bibi, P., Ahmad, A., & Majid, A. H. A. (2018). The impact of training and development and supervisor
support on employees retention in academic institutions: the moderating role of work
environment. Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business, 20(1), 113–131.
Briner, R. B., & Walshe, N. D. (2014). From passively received wisdom to actively constructed
knowledge: Teaching systematic review skills as a foundation of evidence-based management.
Academy of Management Learning & Education, 13(3), 415–432, doi: 10.3316/INFORMIT.
569509524542345.
Bugvia, S. A., Hameeda, K., Jamila, M. F., Irfana, A., Murtazaa, S., Qaisera, M., & Bilala, M. (2021).
Performance improvement through value stream mapping – A manufacturing case study. Jurnal
Kejuruteraan, 33(4), 1007–1018, doi: 10.17576/jkukm.
Chen, C.-M., Li, M.-C., Chang, W.-C., & Chen, X.-X. (2021). Developing a topic analysis instant feedback
system to facilitate asynchronous online discussion effectiveness. Computers & Education, 163,
104095.
Colasanti, N., Fiori, V., & Frondizi, R. (2020). Promoting knowledge circulation in public libraries: the
role of gamification. Library Management, 41(8/9), 669–676, doi: 10.1108/LM-04-2020-0064.
Da Silva, L. F. S., Verschoore, J. R., Bortolaso, I. V., & Brambilla, F. R. (2019). The effectiveness of game
dynamics in cooperation networks. European Business Review, 31(6), 870–884, doi: 10.1108/
EBR-06-2018-0118.
Dalmina, L., Barbosa, J. L. V., & Vianna, H. D. (2019). A systematic mapping study of gamification
models oriented to motivational characteristics. Behaviour & Information Technology, 38(11),
1167–1184, doi: 10.1080/0144929X.2019.1576768.
Darejeh, A., & Salim, S. S. (2016). Gamification solution’s to enhance software user engagement – A Gamification
systematic review. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 32(8), 613–642,
doi: 10.1080/10447318.2016.1183330.
in
Devar, T., & Hattingh, M. (2020). Gamification in healthcare: Motivating South Africans to exercise.
organizational
Responsible Design, Implementation and Use of Information and Communication Technology, learning
12067, 108, doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-45002-1_10.
Dikcius, V., Urbonavicius, S., Adomaviciute, K., Degutis, M., & Zimaitis, I. (2020). Learning marketing
online: the role of social interactions and gamification rewards. Journal of Marketing Education, 269
43(2), 159–173, doi: 10.1177/0273475320968252.
dos Santos, J. R., & Pedro, L. (2020). Reinventing human resource management to increase
organizational efficacy. In Entrepreneurship and organizational innovation, Springer, (23–36).
10.1007/978-3-030-19289-1_2
Dubey, D. M., Chavan, D. V., & Patil, D. D. Y. (2017). A conceptual study of selected companies using
gamification for employee training & development as engagement approach. Amity Global
HRM Review, September, 73–80.
Ergle, D. (2015). Fostering employee engagement through gamification: AirBaltic forecaster tool.
Management (18544223), 10(3), 219–234.
Fathian, M., Sharifi, H., & Nasirzadeh, E. (2020). Conceptualizing the role of gamification in
contemporary enterprises. IEEE Access, 8, 220188–220204, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3043144.
Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated
methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91–108, doi: 10.1111/j.1471-
1842.2009.00848.x.
Groening, C., & Binnewies, C. (2019). “Achievement unlocked!” – The impact of digital achievements as
a gamification element on motivation and performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 97,
151–166, doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2019.02.026.
Hallinger, P., & Chen, J. (2015). Review of research on educational leadership and management in Asia:
a comparative analysis of research topics and methods, 1995–2012. Educational Management
Administration & Leadership, 43(1), 5–27, doi: 10.1177/1741143214535744.
Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Sarsa, H. (2014). Does gamification work? – A literature review of empirical
studies on gamification. 47th HI International Conference on System Sciences, 3025–3034,
doi: 10.1109/HICSS.2014.377
Hardie, P., O’Donovan, R., Jarvis, S., & Redmond, C. (2022). Key tips to providing a psychologically safe
learning environment in the clinical setting. BMC Medical Education, doi: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-
1754352/v1.
Hong, Q. N., Fabregues, S., Bartlett, G., Boardman, F., Cargo, M., Dagenais, P., Gagnon, M.P., Griffiths,
F., Nicolau, B., O’Cathain, A., & Rousseau, M.C. (2018). The mixed methods appraisal tool
(MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers. Education for Information,
34(4), 285–291.
Huang, J., & Zhou, L. (2020). Social gamification affordances in the green IT services: perspectives from
recognition and social overload. Internet Research, 31(2), 737–761, doi: 10.1108/INTR-03-2020-
0121.
Huiting, X. (2022). A scoping review of gamification for mental health in children: Uncovering its key
features and impact. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, doi: 10.1016/j.apnu.2022.07.003.
Hyypiä, M., & Parjanen, S. (2015). Gamification as an intervention method in practice-based innovation.
International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 12(04), 1550018, doi: 10.1142/
S0219877015500182.
Jabagi, N., Croteau, A.-M., Audebrand, L. K., & Marsan, J. (2019). Gig-workers’ motivation: Thinking
beyond carrots and sticks. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 34(4), 192–213, doi: 10.1108/JMP-
06-2018-0255.
TLO Kalafato
glu, Y. (2020). Gamification in business: A review of the studies. In Eurasian business
perspectives, 1 ed. pp. 53–73. Springer, doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-52294-0_4
30,2
Kamel, M. M., Watfa, M. K., Lobo, B., & Sobh, D. (2017). Is enterprise gamification being cannibalized
by its own brand? IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 60(2), 147–164,
doi: 10.1109/TPC.2017.2656598.
Khan, A., Boroomand, F., Webster, J., & Minocher, X. (2020). From elements to structures: An agenda
for organisational gamification. European Journal of Information Systems, 29(6), 621–640,
270 doi: 10.1080/0960085X.2020.1780963.
Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2010). Learning to play, playing to learn: A case study of a ludic learning
space. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 23(1), 26–50, doi: 10.1108/
09534811011017199.
Krath, J., Schürmann, L., & von Korflesch, H. F. O. (2021). Revealing the theoretical basis of
gamification: a systematic review and analysis of theory in research on gamification, serious
games and game-based learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 125, 106963, doi: 10.1016/j.
chb.2021.106963.
Landers, R. N., Auer, E. M., Collmus, A. B., & Armstrong, M. B. (2018). Gamification science, its history
and future: Definitions and a research agenda. Simulation & Gaming, 49(3), 315–337, doi:
10.1177/1046878118774385.
Maheu-Cadotte, M.-A., Cossette, S., Dube, V., Fontaine, G., Mailhot, T., Lavoie, P., Cournoyer, A.,
Balli, F., & Mathieu-Dupuis, G. (2018). Effectiveness of serious games and impact of
design elements on engagement and educational outcomes in healthcare professionals
and students: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol. BMJ Open, 8(3), doi:
10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019871.e019871
Murawski, L. (2020). Gamification in human resource management – Status quo and quo vadis.
German Journal of Human Resource Management: Zeitschrift Für Personalforschung, 35(3),
337–355, doi: 10.1177/2397002220961796.
Nivedhitha, K. S., & Manzoor, A. K. S. (2020). Gamification inducing creative ideation: A parallel
mediation model. Behaviour & Information Technology, 39(9), 970–994, doi: 10.1080/
0144929X.2019.1635646.
Noblit, G. W., Hare, R. D., & Hare, R. D. (1988). Meta-ethnography: Synthesizing qualitative studies, 1st
ed., 11, Sage.
Obaid, I., Farooq, M. S., & Abid, A. (2020). Gamification for recruitment and job training: Model,
taxonomy, and challenges. IEEE Access, 8, 65164–65178, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2984178.
Oliveira, R. P., Souza, C. G. D., Reis, A. D. C., & Souza, W. M. D. (2021). Gamification in e-
learning and sustainability: A theoretical framework. Sustainability, 13(21), 11945, doi:
2071-1050/13/21/11945.
Oprescu, F., Jones, C., & Katsikitis, M. (2014). I play at work – Ten principles for transforming work
processes through gamification. Frontiers in Psychology, 5(1), 1–5, doi: 10.3389/
fpsyg.2014.00014.
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., . . . Moher, D.
(2021). Updating guidance for reporting systematic reviews: Development of the PRISMA 2020
statement. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 134(6), 103–112, doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.02.003.
Pahlevan-Sharif, S., Mura, P., & Wijesinghe, S. N. R. (2019). A systematic review of systematic reviews
in tourism. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 39, 158–165, doi: 10.1016/j.
jhtm.2019.04.001.
Park, J., Liu, D., Mun, Y. Y., & Santhanam, R. (2019). GAMESIT: A gamified system for information
technology training. Computers & Education, 142, 103643, doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103643.
 Lin, X., . . . Senecal, S.
Passalacqua, M., Leger, P.-M., Nacke, L. E., Fredette, M., Labonte-Lemoyne, E.,
(2020). Playing in the backstore: Interface gamification increases warehousing workforce
 engagement. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 120(7), 1309–1330, doi: 10.1108/IMDS-08- Gamification
2019-0458.
in
Pozo Sanchez, S., Lopez Belmonte, J., Fuentes Cabrera, A., & Lopez Núñez, J. A. (2020). Gamification as
a methodological complement to flipped learning – An incident factor in learning improvement.
organizational
Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 4(2), 12, doi: 10.3390/mti4020012. learning
Prasad, K. D. V., Rao, D., & Vaidya, D. R. (2019). Gamification and resource pooling for improving
operational efficiency and effective management of human resources: a case study with an
ecommerce company. International Journal of Management, 10(6), 76–87. 271
Robson, K., Plangger, K., Kietzmann, J. H., McCarthy, I., & Pitt, L. (2015). Is it all a game?
Understanding the principles of gamification. Business Horizons, 58(4), 411–420, doi: 10.1016/j.
bushor.2015.03.006.
Rodrigues, L. F., Oliveira, A., & Rodrigues, H. (2019). Main gamification concepts: A systematic
mapping study. Heliyon, 5(7), e01993, doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e01993.
Ruhi, U. (2015). Level up your strategy: Towards a descriptive framework for meaningful enterprise
gamification. Technology Innovation Management Review, 5(8), 5–16.
Sanchez, S. P., Lampropoulos, G., & Lopez-Belmonte, J. (2022). Comparing gamification models in
higher education using face-to-face and virtual escape rooms. Journal of New Approaches in
Educational Research, 11(2), 307–322, doi: 10.7821/naer.2022.7.1025.
Shpakova, A., Dörfler, V., & MacBryde, J. (2017). Changing the game: A case for gamifying knowledge
management. World Journal of Science, Technology and Sustainable Development, 14(2/3), 1–17,
doi: 10.1108/WJSTSD-01-2017-0002.
Social Sciences Research Unit. (2019). EPPi Centre. University College London.
Spanellis, A., Dörfler, V., & MacBryde, J. (2020). Investigating the potential for using gamification to
empower knowledge workers. Expert Systems with Applications, 160(12), 113694, doi: 10.1016/j.
eswa.2020.113694.
Suh, A., & Wagner, C. (2017). How gamification of an enterprise collaboration system increases
knowledge contribution: An affordance approach. Journal of Knowledge Management, 21(2),
416–431, doi: 10.1108/JKM-10-2016-0429.
Sun, S., Liu, Z., Law, R., & Zhong, S. (. (2017). Exploring human resource challenges in china’s
tourism industry. Tourism Recreation Research, 42(1), 72–83, doi: 10.1080/02508281.
2016.1253199.
Sutomo, D. (2022). Literature review competency and performance improvement: Training and learning
organization analysis. Dinasti International Journal of Education Management and Social
Science, 3(5), 768–780, doi: 10.31933/dijemss.v3i5.1288.
Thompson, H., & Brown, C. (2021). 150 ‘A safe learning environment’: Simulation-Induced stress
literature review. International Journal of Healthcare Simulation, 1(1), A75–A76, doi: 10.54531/
CADQ3440.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed
management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14(3),
207–222, doi: 10.1111/1467-8551.00375.
Van der Aalst, W. M. P. (2013). Business process management: A comprehensive survey. ISRN
Software Engineering, 2013(1), 1–37, doi: 10.1155/2013/507984.
Van der Heijden, B., Burgers, M. J., Kaan, A. M., Lamberts, B. F., Migchelbrink, K., Van den Ouweland,
R., & Meijer, T. (2020). Gamification in dutch businesses: An explorative case study. SAGE
Open, 10(4), 1–13, doi: 10.1177/2158244020972371.
Warmelink, H., Koivisto, J., Mayer, I., Vesa, M., & Hamari, J. (2020). Gamification of production and
logistics operations: Status quo and future directions. Journal of Business Research, 106(1),
331–340, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.09.011.
TLO Weed, M. (2006). Sports tourism research 2000–2004: a systematic review of knowledge and a meta-
evaluation of methods. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 11(1), 5–30, doi: 10.1080/1477508
30,2 0600985150.
Xi, N., & Hamari, J. (2020). Does gamification affect brand engagement and equity? A study in online
brand communities. Journal of Business Research, 109, 449–460.
Zeng, Z., Tang, J., & Wang, T. (2017). Motivation mechanism of gamification in crowdsourcing
projects. International Journal of Crowd Science, 1(1), 71–82, doi: 10.1108/IJCS-12-2016-
272 0001.
Zichermann, G., & Cunningham, C. (2011). Gamification by design: Implementing game mechanics in
web and mobile apps, 1st ed., O’Reilly Media.

Corresponding author
Rouhollah Khodabandelou can be contacted at: r.bandelou@squ.edu.om

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com