Building Trust and Rapport in Globalised Virtual Teams - Liam Morkham

Building Trust and Rapport in Globalised Virtual Teams,
An Exploration of Gamification and Virtual Icebreakers
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Bachelor of

Communications (Honours).
Liam Morkham, Bachelor of Communications (Media), RMIT University
Supervised by: Dr. Lisa Dethridge

2018
an Exploration of Gamification and Virtual Icebreakers
Abstract:
This paper explores the challenges in building trust and rapport between team members
of a globalised virtual environment. By exploring the constraints to traditional
teambuilding activities in a digital setting, I outline that Gamification is a viable
solution to key challenges faced by virtual teams. These key challenges are derived
from Bradley Kirkman’s writing in “Five Challenges to Virtual Team Success: Lessons
from Sabre, Inc.”. These five challenges are used as a framework for modelling an
effective solution to virtual teambuilding to gauge if Gamification actually addresses
each challenge. This is achieved through critical analysis, evidence from statistics and
academic studies into the relevant fields of study. In this thesis I propose the term
Virtual Icebreaker, referring to exercises to relieve inhibitions and tensions between
people who primarily work with teams through online interactions. I explore what
constitutes an icebreaker, how gamification can be used to formulate an icebreaker for
Virtual Teams, and how such icebreakers can foster trust and rapport in a globalised
virtual working environment.
Liam Morkham
RMIT University 2018
Page 2 of 38 Liam Morkham (14-Oct-2018)

Declaration
I certify that except where due acknowledgement has been made, the work is that of the author
alone; the work has not been submitted previously, in whole or in part, to qualify for any other
academic award; the content of the thesis is the result of work which has been carried out since
the official commencement date of the approved research program; any editorial work, paid or
unpaid, carried out by a third party is acknowledged; and, ethics procedures and guidelines
have been followed.

Acknowledgements
This year has been one of a great personal and professional growth for me.
To my parents Campbell and Joanne, as well as my brother Sean. I wish to thank you for your
ongoing support through this process. You have always shown such devotions and
unconditional love towards me, supporting all my goals and dreams in life. Thank you for
always providing me with perspective and assistance when I’ve needed it, while still respecting
my freedoms as an individual to walk my own path.
To my supervisor Lisa. I wish to thank you for helping me grow as a writer through this year.
Your calm and collected demeanour always helped me to see a different point of view. Your
dedication to helping me achieve the best possible outcome has not gone unnoticed. Thank you
for putting priority on helping me understand the style and tone of writing required for my
fields of interest, rather than providing an oversaturation of affirmation. Your expertise as a
supervisor and insights into various fields has helped me feel better prepared for the workforce
and taught me much more about my writing style than I ever thought possible.
I would also like to thank Dr. Allan Thomas. You are among the most influential and inspiring
teachers I have ever had. Your understanding and recognition of individual student needs,
respect for mental and physical wellbeing, and clear intellect has made my Honours year a truly
memorable experience.
To my Honours cohort of 2018, thank you for all your ongoing support and help in making this
year so wonderful for me, this has been my favourite academic year for many reasons, but all
of you have all been a large contributing factor to that. I especially have to thank Claudia and
Edward for our wonderful ‘business’ lunches and friendly (boarding on roasting) banter.
I dedicate this thesis to my grandfather Reginald John Morkham (1928 – 2018). Though several
decades between our degrees in Communications and clear differences between what
constitutes such a degree, I feel as if I am at least somewhat following in your footsteps. I
admire your rich and full life both professional and socially and hope that my journey ahead
can be one you would be proud of.

Table of Contents
Abstract: ..................................................................................................................................... 6
Description of Research: ............................................................................................................ 6
Research Questions and Methodology: ..................................................................................... 7
Rationale: ................................................................................................................................... 8
Literature Review: ................................................................................................................... 10
Traditional Icebreakers and Virtual Icebreakers: ................................................................. 10
Anthropology: ...................................................................................................................... 11
Trust: .................................................................................................................................... 12
Bradley Kirkman:................................................................................................................. 13
Chapter 1: How methods and techniques of Gamification may assist Virtual Teams............. 15
Chapter 2: How may we define and understanding Kirkman’s five key challenges
encountered by Virtual Teams ................................................................................................. 18
Kirkman’s First Key Challenge – Building Trust ................................................................ 19
Kirkman’s Second Key Challenge - Maximising process gains and Minimising process
losses .................................................................................................................................... 20
Kirkman’s Third Key Challenge - Overcoming feelings of isolation and detachment ....... 21
Kirkman’s Fourth Challenge - Balancing technical and interpersonal skills ...................... 21
Kirkman’s Fifth Challenge - Assessment and Recognition ................................................. 22
Chapter 3: How may we observe the methods and techniques of Gamification and Virtual
Teambuilding in three case studies of Collaborative Virtual Team Activity? ......................... 23
Case Study 1: Application of Virtual Icebreakers at Auckland University of Technology
and Uppsala University: ....................................................................................................... 24
Case Study 2: SAP and Roadwarrior ................................................................................... 26
Case Study 3: Slack and ‘Icebreakers’ by CareerLark ........................................................ 27
Case Studies vs Kirkman’s challenges ................................................................................ 29
Conclusion and Direction of Future Research: ........................................................................ 31
Bibliography: ........................................................................................................................... 33

Abstract:
This paper explores the challenges in building trust and rapport between team members of a
globalised virtual environment. By exploring the constraints to traditional teambuilding
activities in a digital setting, I outline that Gamification is a viable solution to key challenges
faced by virtual teams. These key challenges are derived from Bradley Kirkman’s writing in
“Five Challenges to Virtual Team Success: Lessons from Sabre, Inc.”. These five challenges
are used as a framework for modelling an effective solution to virtual teambuilding to gauge
if Gamification actually addresses each challenge. This is achieved through critical analysis,
evidence from statistics and academic studies into the relevant fields of study. In this thesis I
propose the term Virtual Icebreaker, referring to exercises to relieve inhibitions and tensions
between people who primarily work with teams through online interactions. I explore what
constitutes an icebreaker, how gamification can be used to formulate an icebreaker for Virtual
Teams, and how such icebreakers can foster trust and rapport in a globalised virtual working
environment.
Description of Research:
My research explores how Gamification — a term referring to “the application of game-design
elements and game principles in non-game contexts” (pg. 1)1, may present a solution to the
key challenges faced by Virtual Teams.
Virtual Teams are best defined by J. Lipnack and Jeffery Stamps 2 as “[groups of] people who
work interdependently with shared purpose across space, time and organization boundaries
using technology to communicate and collaborate.” As many industries including health,
education and business are becoming more and more globalised and interconnected due to the
advances in technology and online communication, it has become economical and efficient
for such areas to use virtual teams for projects and communications.
However, problems in effective and efficient communication in a virtual setting often arise
from a lack of trust and rapport. In “virtual organisations, trust requires constant face-to-face
interaction – the very activity the virtual form eliminates” (Jarvenpaa and Leidner, 1999) 3.
This presents a conundrum for the wide range of industries utilizing virtual teams, as Virtual
Teams are often restricted from meeting face to face but have the lure of offering a cheaper
and more efficient means of communication for many businesses.
This thesis, focus on the 5 key challenges faced by virtual teams outlined by management
theorist Bradley Kirkman. In addition, I examine theory from across the fields of management,
online communication and anthropology, to identify how challenges faced by virtual teams
could be solved through the use of teambuilding and icebreakers. I explore how such activities
utilize Gamification to passively foster trust and strengthen the rapport between workers.

Research Questions and Methodology:

This research explores how Virtual Icebreakers can assist managers in building trust and
rapport among workers. Each of my major research questions are contained in a separate
chapter followed by a conclusion. Each relate logically to the project description and
rationalise any claims or speculations made in the conclusion.
Question 1: How may we define and understand methods and techniques of

Gamification?
To answer Question 1, I examine the key methods and techniques of Gamification
with a focus on how they may help build trust and foster ongoing communication. This
chapter outlines the key elements and mechanics of Gamification by citing key authors
and texts written on Gamification and game theory. Through exploring the mechanics
of Gamification, we can attain a better understanding of how Gamification can affect
the user, and how this can be applied to Virtual Teams.
Question 2: How may we define and understand Kirkman’s 5 key challenges as

encountered by Virtual Teams
To answer Question 2, I will critically evaluate and explore the 5 key challenges
encountered by Virtual Teams according to the management theory of Bradley
Kirkman. Each of Kirkman’s challenges is discussed based on the effects each
challenge has on a team, and how resolving each challenge positively impacts virtual
teams.
Question 3: How may we observe the methods and techniques of Gamification and
Virtual Teambuilding in three case studies of Collaborative Virtual Team Activity?
To answer Question 3, I apply Kirkman’s five challenges as an analytic framework to
evaluate the methods and techniques of Gamification used in three case studies.
1) The first case study explores a series of international collaborative trials
between students of Auckland University of Technology and Uppsala
University. This study sought to establish relationships between peers before
undertaking a project in order to streamline communication through the
project. This study introduces the notion of a ‘cyber-icebreaker’ and utilized
several gamification mechanics to strengthen connection between teachers and
students as part of the trial.
2) The second case study focuses on German-based European multinational

software and solutions company SAP, who have already developed their own
application called Roadwarrior intended for internal training for their sales rep
team. This application provides an example of a company that has employed
Gamification techniques with quantifiable results on work output and

performance. This case study provides an example of what impacts integrating
Gamification can have on staff performance.
3) The third case study explores the cloud-based collaborative tool Slack, and the
application ‘Icebreakers’, created by CareerLark and hosted on Slack. This
case study highlights an existing example of a Virtual Icebreaker currently
available in the mainstream market to be used by businesses.
Each case study is evaluated on if it succeeded in addressing each of Kirkman’s five
key challenges by employing gamification mechanics and techniques. These case
studies have been selected to help identify if gamification provides an effective
solution to each of the challenges a virtual team may encounter.
Conclusions and Direction for Future Research:

Finally, the conclusion presents a summary of the above-mentioned research
questions, analysing the merits of a Virtual Icebreaker that uses Gamification
techniques for a Virtual Team. The conclusion argues that Gamification is an
accessible solution to the key challenges currently faced by Virtual Teams and that
mechanics and techniques of Gamification can be inserted into a Virtual Icebreaker to
be used in such teams.
Rationale:
In Virtual Teams, there is often an emotional disconnect between team members due to a lack
of face to face interaction, leading to an inability to see other team members as anything other
than a faceless entity behind a screen. 1 This bears on our most primal need for connection,
and without it, communication can become messy, with meaning and tone lost in translation.
Virtual Teams are often chosen over face-to-face projects because of geographical disparities
between workers, the desire to work asynchronously and cost and time constraints, however
this is often at the expense of the trust and social interactions experienced through face-to-
face interaction, resulting in a lack of trust and rapport in Virtual Teams.
The process of building trust in a professional setting is difficult for a range of reasons.
Foremost “trust implies both the ability to cope in situations where trust is lacking and the
ability to build trust in situations where [it] is possible.” 4 In a corporate setting (the type of
environment that frequently use virtual teams), trust building becomes difficult as it is often
the responsibility of management or team leaders to initiate and organise opportunities for
1
Based on interpretation of “swift trust” and the temporal relationships of teams outlined in “Jarvenpaa, Sirkka L., and
Dorothy E. Leidner. “Communication and Trust in Global Virtual Teams.” Organization Science 10, no. 6 (1999): 791–
815.

teambuilding. The ground level team members have no obligation nor priority or recognition
for creating opportunities to build rapport and trust with other workers.
The proposed solution in this thesis to building stronger and more frequent interpersonal
connection in Virtual Teams is through an observation of Virtual Icebreakers. These are
exercises and activities conducted online that foster trust, that encourage bonding and operate
without a monetary or time related cost factor.
According to Friefeld 5, telecommuting (to work from home, utilizing the internet, email and
telephone for productivity) is on the rise. He asserts that between 2005 and 2009,
telecommuting grew by 61 percent with a projected 69 percent increase by 2016. The latest
telecommuting statistics released in July of 2018 by Global Workplace 6 also highlights a
growing rate of working in a digital environment. Based on the American Community Survey
(US Census Bureau) that Global Workplace has used, “4.3 million employees (3.2% of the
workforce) now work from home at least half the time [in the U.S]”. Such data indicates a
growing portion of the workforce currently work from home or in virtual teams, with this
trend likely to continue as technology continues to create an accessible and globalised
workplace for communication.
This thesis outlines the benefits to both the managers and members of a Virtual Team that
correctly anticipates the challenges they may face, and pre-emptively address these through
using Virtual Icebreaker that employ Gamification at the beginning of a project. By delivering
a focused activity that builds interpersonal connection between workers, the drawbacks of a
Virtual Team such as the difficulty in communicating tone and understanding, as well as a
lack of understanding of the personality and professional and personal skills of other members
within their teams can be diminished.
This study is useful as it helps us focus on how the problems encountered by virtual teams
can be addressed. For managers this study provides insight and evidence to suggest the merits
and applications of gamification, and that it can and should be utilized in their own virtual
teams. For members of a virtual team, this study provides insights into the problems that their
team may encounter, making them more aware of the value on interpersonal connection and
trust in their workplace. As the workforce and many businesses are likely to become more
globalised and reliant on technology for communication, the problems faced in such
environments will require more attention and focus in order to be combatted.

Literature Review:
There are key concepts related to both technology and anthropology that are important to
explore before delving into the bulk of the thesis topic and discussion. I explore Icebreakers
(both traditional and virtual) in order to contextualise what is an Icebreaker and why they are
important for Virtual Teams. I also explore the Anthropological rationale of why trust and
rapport are so integral in driving performance. I also explore the concept of the effects Trust
has on performance and interpersonal relationships in Virtual Teams. Finally I devote a
section to a brief introduction to Bradley Kirkman and his influence in the field of
Management theory in order to identify why his work has been chosen for this thesis.
Traditional Icebreakers and Virtual Icebreakers:

The concept of a social icebreaker as described by Oxford Dictionary as “something that
serves to relieve inhibitions or tension between people”, can be a powerful tool for building
rapport. We use social icebreakers when we meet new people, or to start a conversation in
order to alleviate stress or tension, and it helps in building relationships in a personal or
professional setting. However, in a virtual setting, social icebreakers aren’t as simple or
nuance as a practice.2 For such teams, a Virtual Icebreaker that allows for social interaction
would ultimately serve as a better environment to create a first impression, rather than an
email that might not impart any tone or insight into the person behind it.
Social Icebreakers are also explored by theorists Chlup and Collins (2010) 7 whose piece
explored the application of social interaction to adult learning in education and the merits of
icebreakers as a “strategy that can help [blend] into the fabric of [each other’s] lives” (pg. 34).
However, because of the constraints of time, the disparities in location between workers, and
other cultural and social differences such as language and project roles within a virtual team,
traditional teambuilding activities do not afford the same results or mitigate the problems
faced in virtual teams.
As virtual teams operate in a different medium to face-to-face teams, with it, comes a new
range of problems to be overcome. Therefore, a different series of teambuilding activities that
are geared specifically towards the key problems faced by virtual teams are required, and thus
the term Virtual Icebreaker becomes separate from that of a traditional Social Icebreaker.
2
Assertion based on reading Bailey, Diane E., Leonardi, Paul M., and Barley, Stephen R., “The Lure of the Virtual”
Organization Science 23,no. 5 (2012) 1485-1504.

Anthropology:
As Virtual Teams operate entirely in a digital environment, it is often difficult to discern
behaviours beyond a screen. However, there is research to suggest that behavioural cues play
a more important role in building relationships then verbal interaction, with the former
behavioural cues being something difficult to apply in a digital setting.
Albert Mehrabian’s 1971 publication “Silent Messages” 8 argues that verbal interactions make
up only 7% of how we credibly assess someone (in other words, trust them), while the other
93% is made up of non-verbal interaction such as body language, tone and presentation. 9 Yet
Virtual Teams operate almost entirely through verbal interaction (this includes emails, skype
and other e-verbal communication). Already this puts virtual teams at a disadvantage in
conveying tone and meaning as Virtual Teams are restricted to the 7% outlined by Mehrabian
while teams that meet face to face have the affordance to perceive the non-verbal interactions.
Most people should be able to recount such a situation or interaction where someone’s
exhibited body language and behaviour influenced their perception more than their words.
This phenomenon is referred to as prima facie, meaning ‘based on first impressions” and a
key factor to consider in virtual teams where the first impression might be as simple as an
email or skype call.
In a virtual setting, the prima facie is often characterised entirely on how one presents
themselves in (including but not limited to): conversations via phone, spelling or vocabulary
for messaging and formality in email. The dilemma with tone and behaviour in a digital
context is that one’s image is formed in the eyes of the receiver based on how they interpret
information, rather than how it was initially conveyed. Tone can easily get misinterpreted in
a digital setting, even more so with unacquainted individuals. This makes conversing digitally
a difficult and ambiguous process.
Beckman 10 author of “The Fifth Language Arts: Non-Verbal Communication” asserts that
“[non-verbal communication] should be respected for the emotional tone it imparts to the
whole area of language arts” (pg. 218). However, a substitute is required for virtual teams, as
they cannot access this non-verbal component of communication. The notion of a Virtual
Icebreaker acts as a substitute for the non-verbal, by familiarising virtual team members with
one another, and personalising those on the other side of the screen without the necessity of
physically viewing the behaviour and “sensing” (pg. 218) aspects of “speaking and listening
for reading and writing” (pg. 218).

Trust:
Sirkka Jarvanpaa 11, author of “Communication and Trust in Global Virtual Teams” explores
the challenges in maintaining and creating trust. Similar to other scholarly publication on trust
such as Vagnen and Huxham 12 who identify trust is a critical part of the “process of nurturing
the collaboration processes" (pg. 5)”, Jarvanpaa argues that “[communication behaviours] and
actions on the part of members of global virtual teams might help foster a climate conductive
to the existence of trust” (pg. 813). There are several statistics to suggest trust is a key
contributing factor in building relationships, some of which have been listed below to outline
trusts impact on performance and relationships.
• A CBS/New York Poll asked readers to evaluate “what percentage of the population
did they deem trustworthy”, which yielded an interesting and insightful result. The
answer returned with a result of 30% of the population, with a follow up poll asking
“what percentage of the people that you [personally] knew were [deemed]
trustworthy”, with this returning a result of 70%. This poll highlights the disparity in
trust between the known and the unknown, and within the context of this thesis the
intent of a Virtual Icebreaker is to aid Virtual Teams from shifting those around them
from the unknown to the known, allowing for an environment where trust can form.
• Forbes’ outlines that after a 2016 survey of CEOs by PWC, 55% of business leaders
outlined a “belief [that] a lack of trust in the workplace constitutes a foundational
threat to their company” 13
• AIMs 2010 Trend Report 14 outlined that 65% of Virtual Team Members “prefer face-
to-face communication [as] a way to improve relationships” (pg.2) and “21% [felt]
that conflict is caused by a lack of information sharing” (pg. 2).
• The McKinsey Global Institute 15 suggests that “productivity improves by 20-25

percent in organisations with connected employees” and as such by connecting
members of a virtual team effectively, work output could be improved.
Such statistics suggest that trust and trust building is heavily tied to the “level of connection
between individuals and [their] familiarity, and that this is something currently lacking in
most virtual teams.” 16 The best course of action when developing a teambuilding exercise for
a virtual team is to create opportunity for connection so trust can form organically. As such,
social icebreakers can assist in building genuine and organic trust in virtual teams.

Bradley Kirkman:
Bradley Kirkman is an author and contributor of many works on leadership, global virtual
teams and enhancing team effectiveness. 17 18 19 20 He has been selected as a person of interest
within the field of virtual teams as he has identified some of the more frequent problems
virtual teams face and has summarised these in his works. In “Five Challenges to Virtual
Team Success: Lessons from Sabre Inc.”, Kirkman creates this compendium through
empirical evidence that identifies the key issues within such teams. These five challenges are
informed by surveys on 65 Virtual Teams working for global travel Technology Company
Sabre Inc. Kirkman outlines that teams that aren’t first acquainted and assimilated into a
coordinated team often face the following challenges:
1. “Building trust within virtual teams” (pg. 69); the interpersonal connection between
team members. Kirkman outlines that the lesson learned through his studies into
Virtual Teams at Sabre Inc. was that “building trust requires a rapid response to
electronic communications from team members, reliable performance, and consistent
follow-through” (pg. 71).
2. “Maximizing process gains and minimising process losses on Virtual Teams” (pg.
71); the synergy of the work process. In this scenario, Kirkman argues that the second
problem to overcome is “creating synergy without daily physical encounters” (pg. 71).
In the case of Sabre Inc., they remedy this problem by having bi-yearly meetings to
establish a group identity and “a common set of goals, expectations and operating
principles” (pg. 72). This was combined with encouragement to have informal social
interactions in a virtual setting as “often a company’s best ideas are born out of a
chance [encounter] in a hallway or around a water cooler” (pg. 72), with such informal
conversations often inhibited due to the physical constraints of a virtual environment.
3. “Overcoming feelings of isolation and detachment associated with virtual

teamwork (pg. 72). Kirkman cites Emery 21 to support his claim that “conventional
wisdom suggests that virtual team members will be less productive and satisfied than
people working face-to-face due to feeling isolation and detachment” (pg. 72). This
claim is also supported based on the results of Sirkka and Leidner’s 1998 study in
“Communication and Trust in Global Virtual Teams” 22 which saw “[350] master’s
students from 28 universities participate in a global virtual collaboration [project]”.
They outlined that around 10% of the study group did not feel as if they were
“considerate of one another’s feelings on this team”. 3 The way such a problem was
overcome by Sabre was by “recogni[sing] the individual needs for social interaction
or lack of it” (pg. 73). This can be achieved by increasing social interaction for team
members. Sabre sought to survey which team members preferred or desired less or
3
Statistics based on the inverse result of 0.91 of students believing they did consider feelings of others in their team.
This result is based on Table 1: II. Final Items Used to Measure Trust in: Jarvenpaa, Sirkka L., and Dorothy E. Leidner.
“Communication and Trust in Global Virtual Teams.” Organization Science 10, no. 6 (1999): 791–815.

more interaction on a case-by-case basis and accommodated for their members
preferences to ensure this problem of isolation was mitigated for those most affected.
4. “Balancing technical and interpersonal skills among Virtual Team members”

(pg. 73); creating and gauging strengths and weaknesses of team members and teams
as a whole. In a face-to-face setting this process is often completed in the hiring
process or team assembling stage, however, in a virtual team this becomes more
muddled as strengths and weakness in such a setting become difficult to gauge until a
project begins. The dilemma to be overcome in this scenario is gauging a team’s
strengths and weaknesses properly so management can ensure the team is well
equipped to complete a project with maximum success and quality.
5. “Assessment and Recognition of Virtual Team Performance” (pg. 74). Kirkman

aptly summarises this challenge by imploring “how do [we] measure productivity,
build trust, and manage people who are physically out of sight?” (pg. 76). This process
is difficult as recognition is integral to not only individuals within a team, but for
performance review during and post project for analysis and preparation for future
tasks. Kirkman outlines that Sabre overcame this problem through a comprehensive
performance review system that collected data and surveys from peer-review and
direct reports. The merits of this in any virtual team are evidently clear not only from
a management perspective in highlight strong and weaker team performances within
a team, but also for team members to outline their contributions in a virtual setting
where authorship and contribution are often difficult to trace back to the source.
Kirkman’s challenges as listed above will be used as a rubric to gauge if a Virtual Icebreaker
that employs methods and techniques of Gamification can address each of these problems.

Chapter 1: How methods and techniques of Gamification may

assist Virtual Teams
This chapter examines the key methods and techniques of Gamification with a focus on how
they may help build trust and foster ongoing communication. This chapter outlines the key
elements and mechanics of Gamification as well as the key authors and texts written on
Gamification. By exploring the mechanics of Gamification, we can attain a better
understanding of how Gamification can affect the user, and how this can be applied to Virtual
Teams.
In recent years, gaming and the culture of play have been the focus of many studies by
theorists for the purposes of understanding the dangers and benefits to social development,
both personally and interpersonally. Studies such as Steinkuehler’s 23 ethnographical
investigation into the “relationship between games and education, highlighting the potential
for such technologies to transform not only the means of education but also [the goals]” (pg.
10), Liboriussen’s 24 studies into games as cultural objects and reflections of personal goals
and desires, and Alahäivälä’s 25systematic analysis of applying gamification in the health
industry, have all helped to shape the perceptions of games and their benefits and applications
in a range of settings. These studies also outline the far reaching and versatile applications of
games for a range of industries that all use team building. For the industries utilizing virtual
teams (often corporate or large-scale businesses where social interaction is part of the daily
work routine), what makes gaming an important focus point, is its ability to foster trust and
promote collaboration between team members. Kappen 26suggests that games achieve this as
they “[employ] rewards, competition, goal setting, challenge, self-monitoring, feedback and
entertainment” (pg. 52) in a way that other mediums struggle to do so organically.
Games are one of the oldest forms of competitive and/or cooperative social interaction and
more so, an exemplification of play. Historically, games have been used for cultural and social
bonding as well as being a teaching tool for tactics, critical and abstract thing, and personal
development. 4 Their evolution since then into various mediums such as video games, card
games, board games, sports and roleplaying, at its core, all games maintain the core elements
of social bonding and participation. However, a hindrance of the workplace, and how humans
interact both on a primal and sociological setting is that “play is often [in] opposition to work”
(Libouriusen, pg. 273), and this perception needs to change.
Business owners on both a small and larger scale would agree that if you were to see staff
conversing or acting in a non-professional way, that it would be against the contracts and
obligations of what is expected of a worker, and that would be correct. However, while
gaming might not appear a professionally acceptable practice in a work environment without
any kind of purpose or practical application, the positives effects it can have, when used
correctly, in and out of the office justifies its merits as a tool to build social rapport and trust
4
The historical applications of games are based on reading Heinzen, Tom, “The Ancient Impulse: A Brief History of
Play and Games”, (2015), https://nobaproject.com/blog/2015-08-20-the-ancient-impulse-a-brief-history-of-play-and-
games

between workers. While businesses will often allocate time for staff parties or social
gatherings to build relations between workers outside of traditional work hours, virtual teams
do not have the same affordance, and yet it is equally if not more important. As games in a
virtual setting (e.g video games, phone apps and augmented reality) often operate
asynchronously with the ability to be adjusted based on the language of the user and other
requirements, such applications offer the perfect substitute for a traditional staff party or social
gathering for a virtual setting.
Multiplayer video games are a key example of a medium that require cooperative and
sometimes competitive play, sharing many similarities with virtual teams. In both
circumstances, team members have a shared goal, this may be some kind of objective or
outcome. The stakes for such games often result in either a victory or a loss depending on the
performance of the team, in the same way a virtual team’s project might succeed or fail based
on the collaborative and individual performance of each member. In both cases,
communication is key to achieving victory. 5
A common practice in many popular video games such as Guild Wars 27, World of Warcraft
28
, Overwatch 29, Call of Duty 30 and Fortnite 31, is the ability to form clans or multiplayer
teams through in-game social hubs or pre-game menus. For psychologist Marcel Martoncik
32
, this element of collaborative gameplay not only allows for a more unified and ‘team
oriented’ gaming environment, but in the case of their 2016 study into loneliness in online
and real-world environment for players of popular online video games World of Warcraft, the
results outlined that participants of the study who joined a virtual guild experienced less
loneliness then those who did not. This correlates that there is at least some connection
between connectivity in a virtual environment, and an emotional impact in the real world. In
a non-game context, many elements of games such as the collaborative and competitive
elements of the games listed above, are grouped under the term Gamification.
The term Gamification is best described by Huotari and Hamari 33 as “the application of game-
design elements and game principles in non-game contexts.” (pg. 1). The term has attracted
more attention in recent years for its merits and applications in the professional workplace for
“increasing user activity, social interaction, or improving quality and productivity of action
[through the] positive intrinsically motivating ‘gameful’ experience” (pg. 3025). 34
Several theorists and websites have identified a range of gamification mechanics, which
describe elements of play that result in the participant “tak[ing] agency” 35 within a play
experience. In other words, the mechanics of gamification refer to the types of interactions
and experiences in play that result in movement or progression in the experience for the user.
5
Speculation that communication is a key aspect to heightened performance based on reading Lee, H. J,
“Communication, opponents, and clan performance in online games: a social network approach.” Cyberpsychol Behav
Soc Netw. 2013 Dec;16(12):878-83. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2011.0522. Epub 2013 Jun 7
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23745617

The Interaction Design Foundation have established a curated and comprehensive list of game
mechanics which provide some of the most prevalent and commonly encountered game
mechanics. As such they have been chosen as the primary reference for a list of mechanics,
however Gamified’s “52 Gamification Mechanics and Elements”36 as well as online corporate
training company YourTrainingEdge’s 37 list of gamification mechanics have also provided
detailed lists and definitions of each mechanic and element of gamification.
Below is a summarised list of the most applicable and most commonly encountered game
mechanics of Gamification within the context of the case studies discussed in Chapter 2 and
the constraints of this thesis. This list serves as a reference of each term to be returned to if
needed for the thesis:
Gamification Description:
Mechanic:
Arguably the most commonly encountered form of gamification

mechanic. IDF outlines that points “provide instant feedback to the
Points Scoring
player, and thus address the feedback motivational driver. Players may
also [be] motivated by collection [of points]”.
A form of virtual achievement for a player, badges often reflect an
achievement or progression for the player involved. Like Point Scoring,
Badges
IDF argues that Badges provide “positive reinforcement for the targeted
(Rewards)
behaviour” as well as “address the motivational driver of collection and
achievement”.
“Leaderboards bring in the social aspect of points and badges, by
displaying the players on a list, typically ranked in descending order with
the greatest number of points at the top”. As this gamification mechanic
requires comparison between participants, it serves as a motivator for
Leaderboards good performance, and helps to provide comparative and self-reflexive
results based on a player’s score compared to others. Within the context
of teambuilding it can be speculated this might even assist in prompting
interaction between participants and a topic of conversation, influencing
participant’s perceptions of one another based on results.
ADF outlines that “relationships are game mechanics based on the
motivational driver of connection”. Applicably relevant to this thesis
Relationships ADF cites Janaki Kumar’s 2010 study into personal sustainability
outlining that “a trusted person in a participant's network had more
impact on his or her day-to-day choices than the media.”
Motivating action, Challenge is among the most common forms of game
Challenge mechanics and according to ADF acts as an achievement based
motivational driver.
Constraints “such as deadlines, when combined with urgent optimism,

motivate people to action. Urgent Optimism refers to extreme self-
Constraints
motivation. It is the desire to act immediately to tackle an obstacle
combined with the belief that we have a reasonable hope of success.
Table 1, Gamification Mechanics and Descriptions
Chapter 2: How may we define and understanding Kirkman’s

five key challenges encountered by Virtual Teams
In this chapter, I critically evaluate and explore the five key challenges encountered by Virtual
Teams according to Bradley Kirkman. Each of Kirkman’s challenges are discussed based on
the effects the challenge has on a team, and how resolving each challenge positively impacts
virtual teams.
Townsend 38 reports that the emergence of virtual teams is a “potent response to the challenges
associated with today’s downsized and lean organisations, and to the resulting geographical
dispersion of essential employees” (pg. 17). The very notion of a virtual team has a lure of
being exciting and opportunistic from a business perspective, with the “greatest potential to
change work’s historically tight coupling to physical objects” 39 However, without fully
understanding the challenges faced with this emerging medium for communication and ways
to address them, virtual teams cannot be used as effectively as they have the potential to. By
understanding the challenges such teams may face, managers can be equipped to effectively
evaluate what potential solutions can be used to combat the problems their teams may
encounter.
Bradley Kirkman’s “Five Challenges to Virtual Team Success: Lessons from Sabre, Inc.” has
been selected as a focus of this thesis for two main reasons. First, Kirkman has been a key
contributing theorist within the field of management theory and as such has been cited and
referenced in many other works. Secondly, this piece unlike others that sought to identify the
challenges faced by Virtual Teams such as Levasseur 40 or Bell & Kozlowski 41, cites actual
accounts and statistics rather than speculation based on the results of Kirkman’s studies.
Kirkman’s piece is centred on the actual results and experiences from Sabre Inc.’s attempts to
address the challenges their business faced.
Listed below are each of Kirkman’s five key challenges faced by Virtual Teams, each is
explored in isolation to outline why each challenge is important to overcome, why they occur
and how they can be overcome. Each challenge is also briefly discussed in relation to how
gamification addresses each.

Kirkman’s First Key Challenge – Building Trust

In relation to the first of Kirkman’s challenges, “building trust within virtual teams”, it is
important to distinguish how trust is formed and why. Fishbein & Ajzen 42 discuss this in great
depth through the ‘Theory of Reasoned Action’, which explores how one’s belief that a
situation will be beneficial to the individual will often influence their willingness to perform
at a higher standard. The belief itself can be based on an individual’s intrinsic strengths,
however, in the case of team-based tasks, it is commonly based on the competency of others
and the risk/benefit analysis of being involved with that team. In other words, the more you
trust in others, the more convinced you will be that you can perform at a standard to contribute
to that project.
It is not difficult to assess exactly why trust is important. In the case of e-commerce, Liu
outlines that “high trust in online retailer websites results in high online purchase intention,
while low trust in online retailer websites decreases consumers’ willingness to purchase
online” (pg. 130) 43. Trust is a powerful tool in maintaining relationships in almost any setting,
whether it be consumer/business, interpersonal or professional. A fracture in trust often has
negative consequences to the relationship. This can be applied to team performance, in the
case of recreational activities such as gaming and sports, trust is a key contributing factor to
both performance and morale. 6
Both videogames and sports that require team participation inherently require trust on some
level for a positive and ongoing development of skill. Though it is a fair assertion to make
that a team can still perform at a high standard without necessarily having a high level of trust.
It is only if one is to attempt to actively improve a team’s overall competency, this is where
trust becomes a larger factor. Bilbao, author of “Cooperative Games on Combinatorial
Structures” 44 postulates that “the classical hypothesis in cooperative game theory is that all
coalitions of players are possible” (pg. viii), however because of “cultural, ideological and
structural issues [some coalitions are prevented from forming]” (pg. viii). In the case of virtual
teams, this pertains to the constraints of time, location and cross-cultural communication that
must be overcome. However, using gamification to create an activity that operates
asynchronously with the ability to be edited or adjusted to compensate for cultural, language
or geographical disparities can be tailored to foster trust.
6
Based on interpretation of Table 3 and 4 (pg. 135) and the “salient beliefs” on performance (pg. 137) in Liu’s “The
Effects of Trust and Enjoyment on Intention to Play Online Games” (2007)

Kirkman’s Second Key Challenge - Maximising process gains and Minimising

process losses
Kirkman’s second key problem, “Maximizing process gains and minimizing process losses
on Virtual Teams” (pg. 71), is another challenge that can be addressed through gaming
elements and mechanics. Ergonomist and Computer Scientist Dr. Carlo Fabricatore 45
explores the notion of lurid play and learning as a relationship that promotes and fosters
synergy. His 1999 qualitative induction model was applied to a study that saw expert Chilean
players communication methods during both pre and post-game session interviews.
Fabricatore identifies that “information management process [were] crucial in terms of the
game-playing, during which the players receives and manages two kinds of data: ambiance
and functional information” (pg. 7). Ambience in this context referring to “perceptual
elements that contributes to create an atmosphere capable of drawing and maintaining player’s
attention on an emotive basis”, while functional was “inherent to whatever is needed to
understand and control the game-play, (i.e., what can be done during the game-playing, and
the purposes to do it)” (pg. 7).
Fabricatore assesses that efficiently employing both of these means of communications were
an integral part of the gaming experience for players, however, they served different functions
but ultimately have a positive impact on team performance. Applying Fabricatore’s findings
to Kirkman’s second challenge, it is clear that both ambient and functional communication is
required for cooperation. In a virtual team, a virtual icebreaker such as playing a videogame
or activity that includes both ‘functional’ and ‘ambience’ communication might assist to
strengthen individual and group performance.
This claim is also backed by Fabricatore’s own study in “Using gameplay patterns to gamify
learning experiences”46. In this study Fabricatore curated a series of activities that employed
gamification and playing games in an educational course for students. Fabricatore’s studies
results in 40% of students indicating that the implementation of games in the learning
curriculum motivated their performance compared to the start of the semester. 7
Whether it is as simple as creating objectives for virtual teams to complete milestones to create
a competitive/reward-based activity as a Virtual Icebreaker, or an email chain between co-
workers in a virtual team that outlines a key hobby or interest of each member, ongoing
communication in conjunction with connection between workers can assist in maximizing the
process gains and minimizing the process losses of the work process, something a gamified
virtual icebreaker can generate an opportunity for.
7
Outlined on Table 2 of Fabricator’s Research, and through quote “At the end of the semester, nearly 40% of students
indicated that the gamified strategy made completing milestones fun and more than half of students felt motivated to
perform at their best.” (pg. 6)

Kirkman’s Third Key Challenge - Overcoming feelings of isolation and

detachment
For Kirkman’s third key challenge, “Overcoming feelings of isolation and detachment
associated with virtual teamwork,” the implementation of a virtual icebreaker provides a
simple social interaction that could nurture and accommodate dialogue, resulting in strong
rapport between co-workers. Business Professor’s Ozcelik and Barsade explore isolation in
their 2011 survey of 672 workers and 114 supervisors across 143 work teams and 2
organisations in both the private and public sector. 47 Concluding that “greater employee
loneliness led to poorer task, team role and relational performance.” (pg. 4). A virtual
icebreaker can overcome this loneliness by allowing for more interaction. An initial icebreaker
towards the beginning of the work process allows for a chance for workers to get to know one
another, but ongoing communication heightens this further.
The use of an online game where workers can have a chance to work together and informally
communicate provides an environment to overcome this loneliness, or even more simply
ongoing connection between workers whether that be through email, skype, phone calls or
social media. Anderson and Martin’s 1995 study outlines that the frequency of meetings
between groups has an impact on level of loneliness and inclusion which supports the rational
that ongoing communication is paramount in order to combat feelings of isolation by workers
in virtual teams. 8
Kirkman’s Fourth Challenge - Balancing technical and interpersonal skills

The fourth challenge, “balancing technical and interpersonal skills among Virtual Team
Members” (pg. 73), parallels the commonly used practice in many competitive games of ‘team
compositions’ both in video games and in sports, referring to having players fill roles such as
certain players prioritising defensive or offensive play. Popular video games such as
Overwatch, League of Legends and DOTA are examples of games where each player often
fills a specific role or purpose within a match. This has led to many terminologies such as
“supports’, or players who focus on helping others rather than personal performance or
‘carrys’ which refer to those that prioritise offensive play or completing objectives
themselves, are key examples of roles within a team composition. Such games allow players
to identifies their strengths and weaknesses within a team and find roles best suited for their
play style and ability. This reflexive way of playing paired with collaborative and competitive
play offers key insights into how games and gamification could combat challenge 4.
As observed in the case studies discussed in Chapter 2, the intention of a virtual icebreaker is
only partly concerned with gauging and highlighting the technical prowess of each team
member, with more emphasis being on establishing connection and ongoing conversation.
8
Based on interpretation of Figure 1, (pg. 130) of Anderson, Carolyn M., and Matthew M. Martin. “The Effects of
Communication Motives, Interaction Involvement, and Loneliness on Satisfaction: A Model of Small Groups.” Small
Group Research 26, no. 1 (February 1, 1995): 118–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496495261007.

When such teams are comprised, it should already be assumed that each team member has
been selected because they possess skills suited to their role in that team. However, what
cannot be assumed is the level of effort or responsibility each member will undertake in
communicating effectively and frequently with other members of their team. In the same way
communication in a competitive video game heightens a team’s coordination, a virtual
icebreaker that connects virtual teams together can help to balance out the technical strengths
of each member in a team, with the interpersonal skills required to communicate.
Kirkman’s Fifth Challenge - Assessment and Recognition

The Final of Kirkman’s Key Challenges, “Assessment and Recognition of Virtual Team
Performance” (pg. 74), could be combatted through gamification mechanics of rewards.
Condly, Clark & Stolovitch 48 through their study into incentive in the workplace, outlined
“a 22% gain in performance” (pg. 46) through their meta-analysis of approximately 600
studies on motivation performance.
However, in a contemporary setting many businesses are currently not using rewards and
incentives effectively. Forbes 49 found that “87% of the recognition programs focus on tenure”
and yet the US Bureau of Labor Statistics outlines that “the median tenure of workers aged
55 to 64 is 10.4 years.” 9 While 25 to 34-year-old workers had on average three years of tenure,
suggesting that tenure-based rewards create an uneven and discriminant form of incentive for
younger workers. Furthermore, in a virtual team setting, such projects require incentives that
incentivise workers based on contribution rather than amount of tenure (for a project in a
virtual team this would most likely equate to the number of hours logged).
Contrary to the other four key challenges, workers believe that gamification is not the solution
to Kirkman’s fifth challenge, as Globoforce’s 2014 Spring Report 50 outlined that “[70% of
employees [did] not believe that gamification (badges and leaderboards) is a positive addition
to recognition (Figure 12 and pg. 4). Instead employers should turn to more tangible rewards
for recognition and assessment. This, however, is not to say that Gamification cannot serve as
a tool for gauging and collecting data on performance. Mencher 51 outlines “when you're
analysing team performance, use an objective, quantitative measurement system” (pg. 1),
which in itself (objective) is an element of play and gamification.
This is not however to suggest that gamification is without merit for addressing “assessment
and recognition of Virtual Team Performance”. Instead gamification could be used simply to
communicate to virtual teams on their performance through leaderboards and/or point scoring,
combined with physical incentives to drive up performance. From the aspect of a virtual
icebreaker, by creating opportunity for connection in a competitive working environment,
there are noticeable effect of individual performance, as “employees who are engaged [with
one another] are 27% more likely to report ‘excellent performance.” 52
9
Quote from Sabrina Son in https://www.tinypulse.com/blog/sk-employee-recognition-stats referencing
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/tenure.nr0.htm

Chapter 3: How may we observe the methods and techniques

of Gamification and Virtual Teambuilding in three case
studies of Collaborative Virtual Team Activity?
During this chapter, I apply Kirkman’s five challenges as an analytic framework to evaluate
the methods and techniques of Gamification used in three case studies.
Gamification is already being utilised to create opportunity for social bonding by many
companies. Within Australia, employment assessment companies such as ArcticShores and
KPMG are using Gamification to create psychometric testing applications designed to assess
candidates during job applications. These applications appear on the surface like video games
such as SkyRiseCity and YellowHookReef which tasks players with simple numerical and
logical challenges that collect information on aptitude, behaviour and thinking styles of the
user based on their interactions with the game. Such applications provide a cost-effective and
efficient process for employers and an interactive and engaging experience for the user. The
2018 Digital Australian Report from Bond University and the Interactive Games and
Entertainment 53Association presents statistics and figures conducted between 2005 – 2018
that support the applications of games and by extension gamification within the workplace.
The study found that 34% of workers had used games at work for either social bonding
experiences or relaxation. While this statistic on its own does little other than to highlight a
percentage of workers playing games, when combined with the large amount of studies 54 55
56 57
correlating a positive correlation between the playing of games and a generation of
rapport, results in a boost to workplace productivity, a statistic of 34% is far lower than what
it should and could be if businesses recognise the value of gamification and games in their
workplace.
Justin Ferriman reports in his article on ‘Gamification in Education Stats’ 58 that since “2010
[more than] 350 companies have launched major gamification projects” (pg. 1), which has
yielded tangible statistics that outline gamification’s effects in education and work
performance. Ferriman provides infographics that highlight “over 60^ of learners would be
motivated by leaderboards and increased competition”, that “80% of [students of universities]
say that they would be more productive if their university/institution or work was more game-
like” and finally that “adults who participated in gamified eLearning experiences scored 14%
higher in skill-based knowledge assessments”, which is “11% higher in terms of factual
knowledge [and a] 9% increase in retention rate”. These statistics outline the informed and
empirically-backed rational many businesses have collected by utilizing gamification in their
workplace.
Within the context of this thesis, the fact that many companies 10 are already utilizing
gamification in the workplace should be justification enough that it is a useful tool and yet
undervalued in most mainstream contexts. Global research firm Gartner 59 projected in 2012
that by 2015 “40% of Global 1000 organizations will use gamification as the primary
10
Such as the three case studies being referred to in this chapter.

mechanism to transform business operations”, however this number was not reached as hype
around gamification declined between 2012-2015. This identified decline in attention to
gamification is supported by Belgian consultant and gamification expert An Coppens who
stated that “Gartner, who predicted at the peak of the hype that most gamification projects
would fail due to bad design, is now saying it sees companies introduce gamification as part
of a larger digital transformation and innovation program [but in smaller numbers].” 60 In
other words what is suggested is that the hype around gamification that gained momentum in
2010 (based on Google Trends and popularised partly by Gabe Zichermann 11) is now over,
but the value it has in a workplace has not diminished.
In a global context there are many key examples of where gamification has been used to great
effect and benefit of the companies who have used it. Below are three case studies which have
all demonstrated a practical application of gamification in creating a Virtual Icebreaker. The
three case studies are followed by a rubric outlining which of Kirkman’s challenges were
addressed, and what Gamification element were used in each case study, to address them.
Case Study 1: Application of Virtual Icebreakers at Auckland University of

Technology and Uppsala University:
The first case study explores Daniels and Clear’s study which sought to establish relationships
between peers before undertaking a project. This study introduces the notion of a ‘cyber-
icebreaker’ and utilized several gamification mechanics to strengthen connection between
teachers and students as part of the trial.
Daniels and Clear 61 in 2001 conducted a series of international collaborative trials between
students at Auckland University of Technology and Uppsala University. The trial saw
students from both universities collaborate virtually. This case study explores their process in
creating what they refer to as a ‘cyber-icebreaker’ and what effects it had on the work process.
The icebreaker primarily employed the gamification element of ‘motivational design’

(meaning aligning an organisation, or in this case the teachers, with the intrinsic motivations
of the students).12 Within this context ‘motivational design’ operates similar to that of point
scoring or the leaderboard which are two commonly encountered gamification mechanics,
however instead rather than a motivation of competition (leaderboard) or points (point
scoring), the motivation was through success and aligned goals of the teachers and students.
This aligned goal became both parties wanting to be assimilated and acquainted first before
beginning their project.
11
Gabe Zickerman is a renowned public speaker on the subject of gamification, user engagement and behavioural
design. He is also the author of “The Gamification Revolution” (2013), Gamification by Design (2011) and Game-
Based Marketing (2010).
12
Based on the interpretation of motivational design as outlined by Hemley, Debbie, “The 26 Elements of a
Gamification Marketing Strategy”, https://www.socialmediaexaminer.com/26-elements-of-a-gamification-marketing-
strategy/

The icebreaker required students to introduce themselves to other members of their virtual
teams by placing facts and information about themselves online and anonymously in a ‘virtual
envelope’. The first task for these groups as part of this icebreaking exercise was to “[post] an
introductory statement, the contents of which were hidden in a virtual envelope” (pg. 2),
followed by “posting clues to the content of their own envelopes – as phrases and images”
(pg. 2). The second stage was designed with the intention of highlighting facts about each
student to help guide students into guessing whose envelope was whose. However, in order
to achieve this, students required to learn more about each other in order to make a more
educated guess. While the social icebreaker encouraged students to do this, it was on the
students’ own accord that conversation began to occur. This part of the process is where
Daniels and Clear intended to have students’ bond and interact, which worked to great effect.
The third step was to “[post] guesses for each of their team members based upon their clues”
(pg. 2). Finally, the participants were to “[score] the guesses against [their] own clues, with
these scores being ranked and an overall winner identified” (pg. 2). For this step Daniels and
Clear utilized the mechanics of the leaderboard and scoring in order to keep participants
engaged and motivated to contribute in the activity. Daniels and Clear outlined that “the steps
in this activity occurred serially, interpedently and asynchronously” (pg. 2). This environment
and activity allowed students to learn facts about their team members, which assisted in
establishing connection between students, which ultimately led to a more efficient and
effective work process when the actual projects of the cohort began.
According to Daniels and Clear, not only did this activity demonstrate “that an introductory
exercise such as this, can improve the effective of virtual groups” (pg. 4), but also highlight
the practical application of gamification techniques.
Daniels and Clear’s study demonstrates a successful address to each of Kirkman’s challenges.
For challenge one: (Building Trust within Virtual Teams), Daniels and Clear outlined in their
analysis that their intention of the cyber-breaker was “developing trust by addressing [the]
need for initial social communication (pg. 123), concluding in their Regression Analysis that
there were “increas[ed] degrees of correlation between success in subsequent steps in the
icebreaker and ranking processes and the eventual outcome” (pg. 123), in other words, group
performance increased. This statement also outlines that the cyber-icebreaker addressed
Kirkman’s second and fifth challenge as both the ranking through leaderboards addressed
challenge fifth (Assessment and Recognition of Virtual Team Performance) and challenge 2
(Maximizing process gains and minimising process losses in Virtual Teams) through driving
up performance through competition in the activity.
Challenge four (Balancing technical and interpersonal skills among Virtual Team members)
was addressed successfully in this activity. Daniels and Clear outlined that after their study
they found students were more likely to submit “joint-entries on behalf of their subgroup” for
assignment submissions “instead of individual entries as required by the task” (pg. 123),
alluding to a stronger sense of connection and collaboration between students.

While challenge three (overcoming feelings of isolation and detachment associated with
virtual teamwork) is implicitly addressed as it could be assumed that the social bonding
activity assisted with familiarising team members with one another, there is no conclusive
evidence to suggest this.
Case Study 2: SAP and Roadwarrior

This case study focuses on SAP, who have already developed their own application called
Roadwarrior intended for internal training for their sales rep team. This application provides
an example of a company that has employed Gamification techniques with quantifiable results
on work output and performance. This case study provides an example of what impacts
integrating Gamification can have on staff performance.
German-based European multinational software and solutions company SAP is one of the
largest vendors of enterprise resource planning, but more importantly, a clear case study into
the positive applications and implementations of Gamification in a larger professional
environment. SAP outline their recognition of Gamification and its application in their article
detailing the process in creating an application called Roadwarrior, and implementing it into
their workplace.62 In order to “motivate and ensure sales professionals [were] prepared for
complex consultative sales meetings with potential clients”.
SAP’s application Roadwarrior saw “sales reps for SAP take part in simulated meetings with
clients and sales prospects”. Reps that answered questions successfully could “earn badges,
compete against others in a virtual leaderboard and unlock higher levels within the game”.
Already the gamification mechanics of scoring, badges and the leaderboard have been
identified by SAP and the practical purpose each serves. Providing a tool for education for
staff not only allowed SAP to ensure their sales reps were knowledgeable, but also provided
incentives for staff to use the application (sometimes multiple times) as SAP integrated a
leaderboard that logged staff performance on the app. The Roadwarrior app allowed staff to
compare their score and compete with other staff, all while passively putting into practice
their skills and learning more about SAP’s clients while playing.
SAP’s application Roadwarrior, like that of Daniels and Clears study, employed gamification
mechanics for their application. As outlined by Deterding, Dixon, Khalid and Nacke 63,
Roadwarrior uses the game interface design patterns that is referred to as “Successful
interaction design components and design solutions” (pg. 12) of the leaderboard to score sales
reps, use badges to measure achievement and success and points to quantify performance.
SAPs application also used a level progression system that increased in difficulty to ensure
reps were still being challenged as time went on. This increasing difficult in itself is a
Gamification mechanic of “challenge” and assisted SAP in creating an app that remained fresh
and engage to users. SAP also utilized the Gamification mechanic of constraints, by making
each level have a time constraint on the player.
Mario Herger, CEO of Enterprise Garage Consultancy and the author of SAP’s article on
“Roadwarrior: How SAP Trains Its Sales People on Mobility” fulfilled three purposes for the

company. The three purposes were that “it turn[ed] learned about SAP’s mobile applications
and technologies into fun it [put] sales reps into simulated meetings with customers, and it
[let] players socialise and compete with each other.” This resulted in a sales team that were
more experienced and knowledgeable, all thanks to the merits of using gamification in a
professional workplace.
As SAP’s application was designed with the intention of improving individual and team
performance, in accordance with Kirkman’s challenges, the application Roadwarrior
successfully addresses challenge two, (Maximizing process gains and minimising processes
losses in Virtual Teams) challenge four (Balancing technical and interpersonal skills among
virtual team members) and challenge five (Assessment and Recognition of Virtual Team
Performance). This is observed through the resulting impacts the application had on
performance for individual workers on both a technical and interpersonal level. It achieved
addressing challenge five through inbuilt leaderboards and scoring.
However, there is no discernible evidence based on Mario Hedger’s piece or from the results
of Roadwarrior’s effects on SAP workers to suggest it addressed challenge one and three.
However, as this application was not designed with the intention of building interpersonal
relations between workers, but instead for team and individual performance, this can justify
why this application may not have addressed these challenges based on the evidence and
results of the study.
Case Study 3: Slack and ‘Icebreakers’ by CareerLark

The final case study on the application ‘Icebreakers’ hosted on the cloud-based collaborative
tool Slack, highlights an existing example of a Virtual Icebreaker currently available in the
mainstream market that can be used by businesses.
Cloud-based collaborative tool Slack launched in 2013, and is a widely used communication
and collaboration application that assists businesses in working more effectively and
efficiently. Slack has a comprehensive open-source app directory containing applications
useful for improving business productivity and process. IDC’s research and studies report
‘The Business Value of Slack’ 64 has suggested that the application allows for up to “16%
faster execution of marketing campaigns [for teams]” (pg. 15) as well as outlining that 86%
of the sales leaders surveyed stated that “it’s easier to share key learnings with Slack” (pg. 7)
and that it is “24% faster [in attaining] full employee productivity” (pg. 14).
The application Icebreakers 65 developed by CareerLark is an example of an app developed

to assist teambuilding and co-worker relations. Icebreakers selects other co-workers (known
by the user on Slack) and prompts each user to answer short questions about themselves.
These questions are then published to public channels of the user’s choice on slack such as
certain projects, roles or departments. CareerLark bases their application on the notion that

“open communication and clear, continuous feedback are proven to increase employee
satisfaction and engagement”. 13
CareerLark’s application bases its design principles around three main philosophies: that
“teams build better relationships”, “new team members feel welcome” and creating a “friendly
and collegial culture”. These three philosophies summarise not only the Icebreaker app’s
intended purpose, but what the intended outcome of any icebreaker should strive to achieve.
CareerLark’s application employs a quiz-style design that promotes gamification elements of
‘relationship’, which ADF outlined as the motivational driver for connection. It is a prime
example of an application currently accessible on the market for any business looking to
prompt connection between team members, and can easily be applied to a virtual team to assist
in building relationships between workers, which ultimately could impact trust and a better
work performance.
Utilizing a platform such as Slack, CareerLark has targeted a mainstream application within
the business market. For managers and teams considering the use of any kind of virtual
icebreaker, mirroring CareerLark, a virtual icebreaker should focus efforts on establishing
connection.
Unlike Case Study 2 (SAP’s Roadwarrior), CareerLark’s application Icebreakers was

designed with the intention of addressing the interpersonal connection between workers
through the gamification technique of ‘relationships’. CareerLark also applied the
Gamification technique of ‘constraints’, as the application prompted users to provide a
specific number of responses, limiting their answers to a more specific and focused response.
This notion of ‘constraints’ also applies to the fact that “Icebreakers” restricts users to send
their results to specific groups, once again providing a filtered and focused experienced
through constraints.
As such this application has been designed with the intention of indirectly addressing
challenge one (Building Trust within Virtual Teams) and three (Overcoming feelings of
Isolation). As the gamification technique of relationships is a motivational driver to connect
users through the application, it makes sense that it would address the more interpersonal
challenges outlined by Kirkman. However, there is no evidence based on CareerLark’s
application design to suggest it addresses the other three challenges (two, four and five). It
could be argued that if CareerLark’s application incorporated other gamification elements and
design elements to improve performance that it might address the other of Kirkman’s
challenges, however this application was not designed with this intention.
13
From the “Icebreaker” application description published here: https://slack.com/apps/A1VDEKJFQ-icebreakers

Case Studies vs Kirkman’s challenges

Detailed below in Table 2 are the gamification techniques evident in each of the three case
studies. This has been crossed referenced with each of Kirkman’s challenges. This has been
created to summarise as outlined in each case study, which challenges were addressed, and
which Gamification techniques were applied in each situation. The table has been created to
correlate which Gamification techniques may be most applicable in addressing specific
challenges.
Case Study 1: Case Study 2: Case Study 3:
Auckland SAP and CareerLark’s

University and Roadwarrior “Icebreakers”
Uppsala
University
Leaderboards
Leaderboards
Scoring
Gamification Techniques Scoring Relationships
Badges
Used Badges Constraints
Challenge
Relationships
Constraints
✔ ✔
Challenge 1: Building
Trust
Challenge 2: Maximizing
✔ ✔
Kirkman’s 5 Key Challenges
Process Gains and

Minimizing Process Losses
Challenge 3: Overcoming
Feelings of Isolation and ✔ ✔
Detachment
Challenge 4: Balancing
Technical and ✔ ✔
Interpersonal Skills
Challenge 5: Assessment
and Recognition of Virtual ✔ ✔
Team Performance
Table 2, Summary of which challenges each case study overcame through gamification

From the summary outlined in Table 2 and based on each case study, it can be outlined that based on
which case study applied certain gamification technique, that the two case studies that applied the
gamification technique of ‘Relationships’, were able to overcome challenge one and three. However,
in the case of challenges two, four and five it appears that leaderboards, scoring and badges were the
common thread for both case study one and two in addressing those challenges. Based on this, we
can conclude that different Gamification techniques can address different challenges faced by virtual
teams, and perhaps, as exemplified in case study one, that it is a combination between Gamification
elements that assist in fostering driving performance (e.g.: leaderboards, badges, scoring) in
conjunction with elements that foster communication (e.g.: relationships, constraints), that all five
challenges can be addressed.

Conclusion and Direction of Future Research:

Using Kirkman’s five key challenges to evaluate the application of games and Gamification
in creating a Virtual Icebreaker model. We can conclude that gamification is an important
area of focus for fostering trust and rapport for workers. It also provides insight for managers
so they can address the key challenges faced within virtual teams. As such teams operate
asynchronously, often in geographically disperse locations, virtual teambuilding activities that
incorporate elements of play are an ample solution as they can be applied in such settings
while being enjoyable for staff.
To conclude, Gamification does not provide the only possible solution to the challenges faced
by Virtual Teams. However, what Gamification does provide, is a series of techniques that
can be used in developing a Virtual Icebreaker that may assist in building social rapport and
trust in Teams. Different Gamification techniques appear to addressed certain challenges (as
outlined in Table 2), than others, and it is the responsibility of managers of Virtual Teams to
first identify what problems their team is facing, and then select Gamification techniques that
are best suited for helping solve those problems. Based on the evidence of anthropological,
trust and management theory, there is a discernible link between trust and performance,
highlighting the value for companies and industries to devote time into building trust between
their workers, as it can positively impact their teams’ performance.
Whether this be in the form of less structured, already established mediums like multiplayer
online games for building social rapport, or through development of new applications that
employ gamification techniques, such Virtual Icebreakers provide a hospitable environment
for team building during the early stages of virtual team project timelines based on the
management and anthropological theory cited in this thesis. However, concluding based on
three case studies, a Virtual Icebreaker only serves to build initial trust and connection, and
ongoing connection is required in building upon this initial connection, to build a more
heightened and long-term trust and rapport between workers.
What the three case studies do identify, through an analysis of each, using Kirkman’s
challenges, is that there may be certain Gamification techniques that address certain
challenges more effectively and efficiently than others. The result of this study demonstrates
that managers of Virtual Teams have an affordance of options in selecting Gamification
techniques, however only when a Virtual Icebreaker is curated, based on the challenges their
team is facing, and which Gamification technique is best suited to combat that challenge, that
a Virtual Team might seem result.
This research on Virtual Teams suggests the evolving and increasingly digital globalized
workforce benefits from the methods and techniques of Gamification. For example, a Virtual
Icebreaker that uses Gamification can assist managers of Virtual Teams in understanding their
workers needs and requirements. The current statistics and results from companies using
Gamifications such as the ones listed in the case studies should help convince businesses of
the value that Gamification can have in their own business. The merits of Gamification should

also inspire more research and studies to further develop evidence to suggest a positive trend
between teambuilding to foster trust, and heightened performance outcomes.
The limitations of research into gamification in a corporate setting can be measured by how
many companies show interest in using gamification, as outlined by Google Analytics, the
trend and focus on the term has fallen since 2013. We may conclude that if more companies
show interest in gamification, and use it in the work process for virtual teams, research in the
field can develop a more grounded and rationalized report into when gamification does and
doesn’t work, what are the best ways of using it and how.
As outlined in chapter 1 to 3, the merits of gamifications effect on individual and group

performance, as well as developing interpersonal relations between workers is evident in the
research of management and game theorists, and rationalized through our understanding of
human behaviour. The direction of future research should be focused on how to properly
maximize the effects and applications of games and gamification in a corporate environment.
By focusing more on developing applications and activities to be used by businesses, this can
result in more statistics and development in the field of management, rather than the current
state where most theory is speculatory. Though it can be argued there is still a stigma around
the use of games in a professional workplace, there are already many companies using the
power of play and gamification in their work process, and companies that are not are missing
out on a cheap and effective way of driving performance and satisfaction of their workers.
Virtual teams and telecommuting are economical for businesses, good for the environment,
and desirable for workers who prefer not to commute or travel for work. A typical business
can save up to $11,000 per person per year through substituting face-to-face business practice
with working from home. 14 For the U.S, this presents “national savings of a projected 700
billion dollars and a reduction [of greenhouse gases] equivalent of taking the entire New York
state workforce permanently off the road” (Global Work Analytics, 2016). These findings
suggest there are many benefits in finding ways of addressing the problems faced by Virtual
Teams could become increasingly relevant and desired as the globalised workforce continues
to grow and businesses begin to preference virtual teams and working from home.
14
Statistic taken from “What Is the Potential Bottom Line Impact or Return on Investment of the Widespread Adoption
of Telework in the U.S.?” (Updated March 2016) from Global Work Analytics 2016 report.

Bibliography:
1
Huotari, K, and Hamari, J. “Defining Gamification – A Service Marketing Perspective”
Proceedings of the 16th International Academic MindTrek Conference 2012, Tampere, Finland,
October 3-5. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259841647_Defining_Gamification_-
_A_Service_Marketing_Perspective
2
Lipnack, Jessica, and Stamps, Jeffrey, “Virtual Teams : People Working Across Boundaries
with Technology” / J. Lipnack, J. Stamps., 2000.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/31744711_Virtual_Teams_People_Working_Across_B
oundaries_with_Technology_J_Lipnack_J_Stamps
3
Jarvenpaa, Sirkka L., and Dorothy E. Leidner. “Communication and Trust in Global Virtual
Teams.” Organization Science 10, no. 6 (1999): 791-815.
4
Vangen, Siv, and Huxham, Chris. “Nurturing Collaborative Relations: Building Trust in
Interorganizational Collaboration.” The Journal of Applied Behavioural Science 39, no. 1
(March 1, 2003): 5-31. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886303039001001
5
Friefeld, Lorri. “3 Steps to Support Virtual Teams” (2012), https://trainingmag.com/content/3-
steps-support-virtual-teams
6
Global Workplace, “Telecommuting Trend Data (updated July, 2018)”
https://globalworkplaceanalytics.com/telecommuting-statistics, (2016-2018)
7
Chlup, Dominique T., Collins, Tracy E., “Breaking the Ice: Using Ice-Breakers and Re-
Energizers with Adult Learners.” Adult Learning 21, no. 3-4 (June 1, 2010): 34-39
8
Mehrabian, Albert, “Silent Messages: Implicit Communication of Emotions and Attitudes
(1971) CA: Wadsworth. ISBN 0-534-00910-7
9
Yaffe, Philip, “The 7% Rule, Fact, Fiction or Misunderstanding”, (2011),
https://ubiquity.acm.org/article.cfm?id=2043156
10
Beckman, Darold R., “The Fifth Language Arts: Non-Verbal Communication.” Elementary
English 40, no. 2 (1963): 191-218.
11
Jarvenpaa, Sirkka L., and Dorothy E. Leidner. “Communication and Trust in Global Virtual
Teams.” Organization Science 10, no. 6 (1999): 791–815.

12
Vangen, Siv, and Chris Huxham. “Nurturing Collaborative Relations: Building Trust in
Interorganizational Collaboration.” The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 39, no. 1 (March
1, 2003): 5–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886303039001001.
13
Craig, William, ”Further Evidence That Trust is the No. 1 Ingredient for a Strong Company
Culture, (2017), https://www.forbes.com/sites/williamcraig/2017/01/10/further-evidence-that-
trust-is-the-no-1-ingredient-for-a-strong-company-culture/#35ee9b4816f2
14
AIM Strategies, “Virtual Teams Trends Report”, (2010), http://aim-
strategies.com/AIMVTTrendsReport.pdf
15
McKinsey Global Institute, “The Social Economy: Unlocking Value and Productivity through
social technologies”, (2012), https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/high-tech/our-insights/the-
social-economy
16
Workstar, “The Customer Experience Game Changer – Empathy & Rapport”,
http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/403016/white_papers/Empathy_and_rapport21DecUpdate.pdf
(Date Accessed: 03/05/2018)
17
Triana Carmen, María del, and Bradley L. Kirkman, and María F Wagstaff, “Does the Order
of Face-to-Face and Computer-Mediated Communication Matter in Diverse Project Teams? An
Investigation of Communication Order Effects on Minority Inclusion and Participation.” Journal
of Business and Psychology 27, no. 1 (2012): 57–70.
18
Triana Carmen, María del, and Bradley L. Kirkman, and María F Wagstaff, “Does the Order
of Face-to-Face and Computer-Mediated Communication Matter in Diverse Project Teams? An
Investigation of Communication Order Effects on Minority Inclusion and Participation.” Journal
of Business and Psychology 27, no. 1 (2012): 57–70.
19
Kirkman, Bradley L., Benson Rosen, Cristina B. Gibson, Paul E. Tesluk, and Simon O.
McPherson. “Five Challenges to Virtual Team Success: Lessons from Sabre, Inc.” The Academy
of Management Executive (1993-2005) 16, no. 3 (2002): 67–79.
20
Kirkman, Bradley L., Benson Rosen, Paul E. Tesluk, and Cristina B. Gibson. “The Impact of
Team Empowerment on Virtual Team Performance: The Moderating Role of Face-to-Face
Interaction.” The Academy of Management Journal 47, no. 2 (2004): 175–92.
https://doi.org/10.2307/20159571.
21
Emery, F. E, “Characteristics of Sociotechnical Systems” (1959),
http://moderntimesworkplace.com/archives/ericsess/sessvol2/STS_Emery.pdf
22
Jarvenpaa, Sirkka L., and Leidner, Dorothy E., “Communication and Trust in Global Virtual
Teams.” Organization Science 10, no. 6 (1999): 791–815.
23
Steinkuehler, Constance. “Massively Multiplayer Online Games as an Educational
Technology: An Outline for Research.” Educational Technology 48, no. 1 (2008): 10–21.
24
Liboriussen, Bjarke. “Craft, Creativity, Computer Games: The Fusion of Play and Material
Consciousness.” Philosophy & Technology 26, no. 3 (September 1, 2013): 273–82.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-013-0120-0.
25
Alahäivälä, Tuomas, and Harri Oinas-Kukkonen, “Understanding Persuasion Contexts in
Health Gamification: A Systematic Analysis of Gamified Health Behavior Change Support
Systems Literature.” Health Behavior Change Support Systems 96 (December 1, 2016): 62–70.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2016.02.006.
26
Kappen, Dennis L., and Rita Orji. “Gamified and Persuasive Systems As Behavior Change
Agents for Health and Wellness.” XRDS 24, no. 1 (September 2017): 52–55.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3123750.
27
ArenaNet, “Guild Wars”, (2005), (Online Video Game)
28
Blizzard, “World of Warcraft”, (2004), (Online Video Game)
29
Blizzard, “Overwatch”, (2016), (Online Video Game)
30
Treyarch, Nokia, Infinity Ward, Sledgehammer Games, Activison, “Call of Duty”, (2003-
2018), (Online Video Game Franchise)
31
Epic Games, “Fortnite”, (2017), (Online Video Game)
32
Martončik, Marcel, and Ján Lokša. “Do World of Warcraft (MMORPG) Players Experience
Less Loneliness and Social Anxiety in Online World (Virtual Environment) than in Real World
(Offline)?” Computers in Human Behavior 56 (March 1, 2016): 127–34.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.035.

33
Huotari, K, and Hamari, J. “Defining Gamification – A Service Marketing Perspective”
Proceedings of the 16th International Academic MindTrek Conference 2012, Tampere, Finland,
October 3-5. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259841647_Defining_Gamification_-
_A_Service_Marketing_Perspective
Hamari, J, and Koivisto, J, and Sarsa, H, “Does Gamification Work? – A Literature Review of
34
Empirical Studies on Gamification”. (2014),

https://people.uta.fi/~kljuham/2014-hamari_et_al-does_gamification_work.pdf
35
Bryant Nielson, “Gamification Mechanics vs. Gamification Dynamics”, (2017)
http://www.yourtrainingedge.com/gamification-mechanics-vs-gamification-dynamics/
36
Gamified UK, (2017) , https://www.gamified.uk/user-types/gamification-mechanics-elements/
37
Bryant Nielson, “Gamification Mechanics vs. Gamification Dynamics”, (2017)
http://www.yourtrainingedge.com/gamification-mechanics-vs-gamification-dynamics/
38
Townsend, Anthony M., DeMarie, Samuel M., and Hendrickson, Anthony R., “Virtual Teams:
Technology and the Workplace of the Future.” The Academy of Management Executive (1993-
2005) 12, no. 3 (1998): 17-29.
39
Bailey, Diane E., Leonardi, Paul M., and Barley, Stephen R., “The Lure of the Virtual”
Organization Science 23,no. 5 (2012) 1485-1504.
40
Levasseur, Robert E. “People Skills: Leading Virtual Teams—A Change Management
Perspective.” Interfaces 42, no. 2 (2012): 213–16.
41
Bell, Bradford S., and Steve W. J. Kozlowski. “A Typology of Virtual Teams: Implications for
Effective Leadership.” Group & Organization Management 27, no. 1 (March 1, 2002): 14–49.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601102027001003.
42
Fishbein, M., and Ajzen, I, “Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behaviour: An Introduction to
Theory and Research, MA, Addison-Wesley, 1995.
43
Liu, De., Wu, Jiming “The Effects of Trust and Enjoyment on Intention to Play Online
Games”, 2007), pg. 128- 140
44
Bilbao, Jesús. Cooperative Games on Combinatorial Structures, 2000.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-4393-0.
Fabricatore, C “Learning and videogames: an unexploited synergy”, (2000).

45
www.learndev.org/dl/FabricatoreAECT2000.pdf, accessed 14 April 2018.
46
Fabricatore, C., & Lopez, X. (2014). Using gameplay patterns to gamify learning experiences.
In Proceedings of the European Conference on Games-based Learning (Vol. 1, pp. 110-117).
Dechema e.V..
http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/id/eprint/22100/1/Using_Gameplay_Patterns_to_Gamify_Learning_Expe
riences_v1.1_post_peer_rev.pdf
47
Ozcelik, Hakan., Barsade, Sigal., “Work Loneliness and Employee Performance
https://faculty.wharton.upenn.edu/wp-
content/uploads/2012/05/Work_Loneliness_Performance_Study.pdf
Condly, Steven J., Clark, Richard E., Stolovitch, Harold D, “The Effects of Incentives on
48
Workplace Performance: A Meta-analytic Review of Research Studies,
49
Josh Bersin, “New Research Unlocks the Secret of Employee Recognition”, (2012), Forbes,
https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbersin/2012/06/13/new-research-unlocks-the-secret-of-
employee-recognition/#2491834b5276
50
Globoforce, “Adapting to the Realities of our changing workforce”, (2014)
http://go.globoforce.com/rs/globoforce/images/Spring2014MoodTrackerGloboforce.pdf
51
Mencer, Mark, “Building a Great Game Team: Measuring Progress”,
https://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3817/building_a_great_game_team_.php?print=1
52
Witters, Dan, & Agrawal, Sangeeta, “Well-Being Enhances Benefits of Employee
Engagement, (2015), https://www.gallup.com/workplace/236483/enhances-benefits-employee-
engagement.aspx
53
Bond University and Interactive Games and Entertainment Associaton, “DA18 Summary”,
(2018), https://igea.net/category/research-2/igea-research-reports/
54
King, Dominic, Felix Greaves, Christopher Exeter, and Ara Darzi. “‘Gamification’:
Influencing Health Behaviours with Games.” Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 106, no. 3
(March 1, 2013): 76–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/0141076813480996.
55
Liboriussen, Bjarke. “Craft, Creativity, Computer Games: The Fusion of Play and Material
Consciousness.” Philosophy & Technology 26, no. 3 (September 1, 2013): 273–82.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-013-0120-0.
56
Steinkuehler, Constance. “Massively Multiplayer Online Games as an Educational
Technology: An Outline for Research.” Educational Technology 48, no. 1 (2008): 10–21.
57
Schrope, Mark. “Solving Tough Problems with Games: Online Communities Are Using the
Power of Play to Solve Complex Research Problems.” Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States of America 110, no. 18 (2013): 7104–6.
58
Ferriman, Justin, “Gamification in Education Stats, (2016),
https://www.learndash.com/gamification-in-education-stats/
59
Orlando, F, “Gartner Reveals Top Predictions for IT Organizations and Users for 2013 and
Beyond”, (2012), https://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2211115
60
An Coppens, “Gamification Trends for 2018”, (2018),
https://www.gamificationnation.com/gamification-trends-2018/
61
Clear, Tony, and Mats Daniels. A Cyber-Icebreaker for an Effective Virtual Group? Vol. 33,
2001. https://doi.org/10.1145/377435.377662.
62
Herger, Mario, “How SAP trains its sales people on mobility”, http://enterprise-
gamification.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=71:roadwarrior-how-sap-
trains-its-sales-people-on-mobility&catid=13&Itemid=17&lang=en (Date Accessed:
01/08/2018)
63
Deterding, Sebastian, Dan Dixon, Rilla Khaled, and Lennart Nacke. “From Game Design
Elements to Gamefulness: Defining ‘Gamification.’” In Proceedings of the 15th International
Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments, 9–15. MindTrek ’11.
New York, NY, USA: ACM, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1145/2181037.2181040.
64
IDC, “The Business Value of Slack”, https://cfr.slack-
edge.com/eaf4e/marketing/downloads/resources/IDC_The_Business_Value_of_Slack.pdf
65
CareerLark, ‘Icebreakers,’ https://slack.com/apps/A1VDEKJFQ-icebreakers

Building Trust and Rapport in Globalised Virtual Teams - Liam Morkham

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Building Trust and Rapport in Globalised Virtual Teams - Liam Morkham

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Building Trust and Rapport in Globalised Virtual Teams,

An Exploration of Gamification and Virtual Icebreakers

Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Bachelor of

Liam Morkham, Bachelor of Communications (Media), RMIT University

Supervised by: Dr. Lisa Dethridge

RMIT University 2018

Page 2 of 38 Liam Morkham (14-Oct-2018)

Page 3 of 38 Liam Morkham (14-Oct-2018)

Page 4 of 38 Liam Morkham (14-Oct-2018)

Page 5 of 38 Liam Morkham (14-Oct-2018)

Page 6 of 38 Liam Morkham (14-Oct-2018)

Research Questions and Methodology:

Question 1: How may we define and understand methods and techniques of

Question 2: How may we define and understand Kirkman’s 5 key challenges as

2) The second case study focuses on German-based European multinational

Page 7 of 38 Liam Morkham (14-Oct-2018)

Conclusions and Direction for Future Research:

Page 8 of 38 Liam Morkham (14-Oct-2018)

Page 9 of 38 Liam Morkham (14-Oct-2018)

Traditional Icebreakers and Virtual Icebreakers:

Page 10 of 38 Liam Morkham (14-Oct-2018)

Page 11 of 38 Liam Morkham (14-Oct-2018)

• The McKinsey Global Institute 15 suggests that “productivity improves by 20-25

Page 12 of 38 Liam Morkham (14-Oct-2018)

3. “Overcoming feelings of isolation and detachment associated with virtual

Page 13 of 38 Liam Morkham (14-Oct-2018)

4. “Balancing technical and interpersonal skills among Virtual Team members”

5. “Assessment and Recognition of Virtual Team Performance” (pg. 74). Kirkman

Page 14 of 38 Liam Morkham (14-Oct-2018)

Chapter 1: How methods and techniques of Gamification may

Page 15 of 38 Liam Morkham (14-Oct-2018)

Page 16 of 38 Liam Morkham (14-Oct-2018)

Arguably the most commonly encountered form of gamification

Constraints “such as deadlines, when combined with urgent optimism,

Chapter 2: How may we define and understanding Kirkman’s

Page 18 of 38 Liam Morkham (14-Oct-2018)

Kirkman’s First Key Challenge – Building Trust

Page 19 of 38 Liam Morkham (14-Oct-2018)

Kirkman’s Second Key Challenge - Maximising process gains and Minimising

Page 20 of 38 Liam Morkham (14-Oct-2018)

Kirkman’s Third Key Challenge - Overcoming feelings of isolation and

Kirkman’s Fourth Challenge - Balancing technical and interpersonal skills

Page 21 of 38 Liam Morkham (14-Oct-2018)

Kirkman’s Fifth Challenge - Assessment and Recognition

Page 22 of 38 Liam Morkham (14-Oct-2018)

Chapter 3: How may we observe the methods and techniques

Page 23 of 38 Liam Morkham (14-Oct-2018)

Case Study 1: Application of Virtual Icebreakers at Auckland University of

The icebreaker primarily employed the gamification element of ‘motivational design’

Page 24 of 38 Liam Morkham (14-Oct-2018)

Page 25 of 38 Liam Morkham (14-Oct-2018)

Case Study 2: SAP and Roadwarrior

Page 26 of 38 Liam Morkham (14-Oct-2018)

Case Study 3: Slack and ‘Icebreakers’ by CareerLark

The application Icebreakers 65 developed by CareerLark is an example of an app developed

Page 27 of 38 Liam Morkham (14-Oct-2018)

Unlike Case Study 2 (SAP’s Roadwarrior), CareerLark’s application Icebreakers was

Page 28 of 38 Liam Morkham (14-Oct-2018)

Case Studies vs Kirkman’s challenges

Case Study 1: Case Study 2: Case Study 3:

Auckland SAP and CareerLark’s

Process Gains and

Page 29 of 38 Liam Morkham (14-Oct-2018)