The Corporate Game

In ‘Are You Game’ earlier this year, the concept of ‘gamification’ in business and daily life was introduced. Whether designed by third parties or self-imposed through autotelism, gamification has the potential to generate powerful motivational forces.

If roles and objectives in a corporate environment can function as games, understanding how employee-players behave becomes central to gamification. In a 1996 seminal paper, Richard Bartle, a researcher on online multiplayer domains, proposed a taxonomy of player behavior based on four categories.

Achievers are motivated by progress. They seek measurable advancement such as points, rankings, and promotions. Their sense of identity is shaped by crossing thresholds faster than others. The challenge is their fuel. Games designed for Achievers emphasize visible milestones and the promise of ‘next levels.’

Explorers focus on discovery. They want to map the game and understand its mechanics. For them, the attraction is not the leaderboard but uncovering its hidden architecture. Designs that appeal to Explorers emphasize trial-and-error and the accumulation of knowledge.

Socializers care about connection. They treat the game as a medium for interaction, belonging, and story co-creation. They value shared experiences over outcomes. Games for Socializers put value on collaboration, alliances, chats, guilds, and rituals that reinforce a sense of collective identity.

Killers derive meaning from pure competition and disruption. They seek to influence, dominate, or reshape the system. Properly harnessed, they can be catalysts for innovation or necessary confrontation; without guardrails, they become destructive.

These four types interact in well-established patterns. Achievers primarily benchmark themselves against other Achievers. Explorers find Achievers narrow-minded, while Achievers exploit Explorers’ knowledge. Socializers are often dismissed as non-serious, yet they are the central carriers of sociocultural intelligence and cohesion. Socializers appreciate Achievers’ drive but deeply resent Killers’ anti-social behavior. Killers target Achievers to satisfy their urge to disrupt and avoid one another. Explorers have a low tolerance level for underperforming members of their own group.

To create an incentive architecture that is culturally engaging, fair, productive, and inherently stable, game designers or, in a corporate context, executives, must establish a balance of participant behaviors. Indeed, a game designed only for Achievers results in burnout. One designed only for Socializers lacks content. One built for Explorers risks drift. One dominated by Killers becomes self-destructive.

In an enterprise, strategic frameworks, operational objectives, career ladders, compensation systems, committees, and cultural rituals are all parts of game design. Many firms unintentionally over-index on Achievers (overemphasizing KPIs), tolerate too many Killers (overrating politics), neglect Explorers (undervaluing knowledge and creativity), and under-serve Socializers (underestimating community).

The question for corporate leadership is not whether their organization represents a game. Instead, it is: what kind of game are management designing, considering models such as ‘Call of Duty’ (attracting Achievers), ‘Minecraft’ (Explorers), ‘The Sims’ (Socializers) and ‘EVE Online’ (Killers)?