In a capitalist model like the current one, the dream of many entrepreneurs is to increase the productivity of the workers so that their organizations generate more profits. And, although there is no definitive answer to how to increase the company’s profits, the ways to do it or the tools that exist to do it, one of the methods on which the business system has been based in recent decades has been (and, unfortunately, mostly is) control over the workers (Jódar and Alós, 2008).

However, there is evidence that the way to improve productivity is, in fact, the opposite: empowering staff .

Control and productivity in companies

Many authors (e.g. Peña, 2004) agree that as humans we always seek to eliminate insecurities , maintain our self-image in good condition or simply feel less dependent on factors outside ourselves, which often converges into a tendency to control the environment and ourselves. In psychology, this is called the “need for control”. Of course the feeling of control or, in this work context, of being controlled, affects a lot how a worker perceives an organization.

Today we can talk about a degree or scale of control in companies. E n one extreme would be those very controlling companies , in which the worker normally feels that he or she is obliged not to go outside the rules and is only there out of necessity (mainly economic) and is limited to following orders from “above”, whether he or she wants to or not.

On the other hand, at the other extreme we find those companies that leave and distribute control to the workers, increasing their autonomy (e.g. companies like Zappos, Google and Twitter).

At this point, certain basic premises can be established by relating the level of control and productivity.From the clear daily examples that reflect the reality of our day-to-day life, where we see that if we do something that comes from ourselves we do it in a much more efficient way than if we are ordered to do it, to empirical studies that already in their day showed that transformational leadership (Mendoza et al., 2007), in comparison with other more authoritarian leadership styles, is associated with a greater feeling of control on the part of the person (locus of internal control), as well as a significant improvement in performance at work (Howell and Avolio, 1993).

The way of perceiving the different organizations is key in the productive process , since the intrinsic motivation (the primary motor for productivity) is usually reduced in the first case explained above in the scale level, that is, the more control there is.

Unfortunately the world has been built under this construct and a large percentage of companies still have a hierarchical pyramidal model where the one who commands is the one who is above, has more control and the power to make decisions. In this type of companies, it is clear that the workers “work for” and do not feel committed to the values of the company.

The importance of motivation

With the evolution of the market and human resource systems, we have seen the need to give more value to the user and to give him more power and motivation , both by right and by comfort in the workplace (in addition to eliminating certain psychosocial risks at work that could pose a problem for the company).

But what we are also seeing is that the more autonomy or control the user has, the more productive he is and the greater his sense of belonging, as many authors theorized. It is worth noting Deci and Ryan, who in 1985 already explained with their theory of self-determination (TAD) that there are three psychological needs that must be satisfied in order for individuals to develop both personally and professionally: autonomy, feeling competent and relating.

To give the importance it deserves to the worker’s motivation linked to their productivity, we bring you the latest survey State of the Global Workplace (O’Boyle and Harter, 2013) from the prestigious firm Gallup, stating that 63% of employees worldwide, a majority, are unmotivated , and this means that they will devote less effort to achieving the objectives of organizations. Moreover, another 24% of the total are actively unmotivated, indicating that in addition to being unmotivated and unproductive they are also likely to spread negativity to their colleagues.

Enhancing innovation: the GAMeeP case

However, there are already numerous success stories where it is proposed that the company provides the worker with self-management tools or reinforces and motivates him/her in an additional way, not only with economic resources, following the multiple theories related to the increase of productivity and work satisfaction.

This is where an applied research project in the area of quality of working life comes in, co-financed by the Centre for the Development of Industrial Technology, CDTI (2015-2017) within the framework of research and development projects and by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) linked to the ERDF 2014-20 intelligent growth programme. The project is called GAMeeP (Gamified Employee Engagement) and has been developed by Compartia, a small Spanish company.

GAMeeP, following the line of argument, proposes a gamified system of team management whose objective is to improve the quality of working life and increase the general productivity of teams and organizations, as well as to simplify the management of human resources, while increasing the sense of well-being and commitment of employees.

The power of gambling

In the context of gaming, a study by Ryan, Rigby and Przybylski (2006) concludes that individuals are attracted to computer games (video games, but extendable to gamification) in part because we experience autonomy, competence and interrelationship while playing (precisely the three psychological needs mentioned above for a person to develop optimally).

In the virtual platform already developed a system of tasks and incentives has been designed , giving the worker the power and autonomy to choose and perform the tasks that are desired freely always within a time frame. Not content with just developing the platform, research (pre-post test model) was carried out to really demonstrate how the innovative gamma system improved worker behaviour. The indicators measured were, on the one hand: Autonomy, Competence and Interrelationship (Spanish version of the Scale for Satisfying Basic Psychological Needs at Work; Vargas Tellez and Soto Patiño, 2013; Deci & Ryan, 2000) and on the other hand, performance indicators (Involvement/Commitment, Collaboration, Efficiency, Productivity).

The conclusions were very clear: thanks to the GAMeeP system, users are more committed, collaborate more and are more productive , as well as increasing the levels of competence in certain contexts.

Conclusion

With the data on the table and previous research, we can conclude that the world is evolving and with it the companies and leadership styles. Moreover, with the change in management methods in organizations come changes in people’s behavior . Having more control over tasks, being more motivated or having more flexibility in time are just some of the changes that enhance the feeling of job satisfaction that we see today.

With the change seen and expected in leadership styles and business management models of human resources, current and future market needs are glimpsed (especially in certain sectors such as entertainment, technology, content, etc.).

At present, when the information age is giving way to the age of people and talent , workers identify skills (of a creative nature) and companies identify new models such as GAMeeP to promote humanity and certain business values that lead to greater job satisfaction and productivity.

Bibliographic references:

  • Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M., (1985). Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior. Boston, MA: Springer US.
  • Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (2000). The ‘What’ and ‘Why’ of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the Self-Determination of Behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11 (4), 227-268.
  • Howell, J. M. and Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational Leadership, Transactional Leadership, Locus of Control, and Support for Innovation: Key Predictors of Consolidated-Business-Unit Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78 (6), 891-902.
  • Mendoza, M. I. A., Ortiz, A. M. F. and Parker, R. H. C. (2007). Two decades of research and development in Transformational Leadership. Research Center Journal, 7 (27), 25-41.
  • Jódar, P. and Alós, R. (2008). Business strategies, employment and labour relations. Gaceta sindical: reflexión y debate, 11, 221-241.
  • Ryan, R. M., Rigby, C. S. and Przybylski, A. (2006). The Motivational Pull of Video Games: A Self-Determination Theory Approach. Motivation and Emotion, 30 (4), 344-360.
  • O’Boyle, E. and Harter, J. (2013). State of the Global Workplace: Employee Engagement Insights for Business Leaders Worldwide. Washington, DC.
  • Peña, M. D. (2004). Need for control: conceptual analysis and experimental proposal. Revista Profesional Española de Terapia Cognitivo-Conductual, 2, 70- 91.
  • Vargas Tellez, J. A. and Soto Patiño, J. C. (2013). Preliminary validation of the Basic Need Satisfaction at Work Scale for its Spanish version. In: XVII INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS ON ADMINISTRATIVE SCIENCES. Guadalajara, Mexico.