The Problem of Engagement

Okay, here's my first dose of turbonerd game studies coming at you-

The problem in our society with engagement. And no, I don't mean the romantic kind, I mean the kind that we lack in our everyday lives- in our jobs, our assignments, and our activities. Engagement is the sense of involvement and active desire to participate in an activity, thought, or process. Engagement is imperative for "flow," which is the phenomenon in which we lose track of time due to how engrossed we are in what we're doing.

Flow happens when we dabble in our passions. We experience flow when we're with friends having a good time, or lovers wasting away the night, or playing games we love. Flow is the absolute experience of immersion in what you're doing. It's felt a little differently by each person and it's caused by something different for each person as well. What makes you experience flow and how is unique to you and you alone.

As a result, engagement isn't quite the same with everyone. To be truly engaged isn't exactly generalizable.

However, there are some ways that our bodies' are hardwired to be more likely to experience engagement. Meaningful work, social collaboration, awe-inspiring work, and voluntary work are just some of them. Humans have been coded to respond positively to these types of work because they help us on an evolutionary level to propagate our species and advance as a collective. With that in mind, there are certain ways that we can predispose activities to be more likely to engage people. It's not an easy task, but thanks to the direction gaming is headed, it's becoming easier to see the most efficient path forward.
Why gaming?

Games contain all four of the previously described elements. In abundance.

Think of the popular tag game, Humans Vs. Zombies. In it, a dwindling force of very mortal humans attempt to fend off an ever-increasing mob of zombies that cannot truly be killed- only temporarily stunned. A game like this inspires the very roots of teamwork on both sides of the fence. Working alone provides no advantage (beyond stealth). The work is perceived as meaningful because there are quantifiable rewards and benefits to doing well for either team. The work is also perceived as meaningful because of the dire context that the game is put in. Humans are being killed off- crushed under the weight of a zombie outbreak. Obviously, it's voluntary. You have to opt into the game, and you can opt out at any time.
And the sense of awe. Awe is an interesting element because it can be mustered up from ideas as much as actual sights and objects. Seeing a massive collective of people working towards the same ends for what seems like no valuable purpose? That inspires some level of awe. Watching people in what is meaningfully a "desperate" situation gives us goosebumps.

Games can inspire us to get absolutely lost in a way that is incredibly difficult otherwise. Games make us engaged with little to no effort at all. Think about it- all you're doing is running around playing "Tag" with a bunch of arbitrary rules and some team-indicators tied to your shoulders. Why does that make our hearts race? Why does that make us want to connect and bond with other people? Why is that meaningful? Why does that make us feel like something important is on the line?

To give you an idea, let me backtrack and describe something seemingly unrelated; Kittens.
Kittens learn to hunt in a very peculiar manner. They don't actually learn by doing, rather, they learn by playing. Kittens imitate hunting with siblings and parents in order to learn how to hunt. It's a game. It teaches them necessary skills while they have fun. Their lives depend on their ability to learn in a safe environment.

Obviously, humans don't need the same kind of treatment since our environments have been sterilized from birth. However, we still evolutionarily thrive in conditions in which we play games to learn. Engagement has become something that people don't want, since it doesn't appear to necessarily add dollars to arbitrary quotas, especially for the cost. However, in a roundabout way, that's exactly what it does. When we're engaged, we're happier. When we're happier, we're more productive, more invested, and better at what we do. This includes the tedium of corporate work.

Up until this point, managerial standards have been more about punishment and an iron fist in order to get results. In the rare instances that this practice is sidestepped in favor of positive reinforcement, it's usually in the form of simple competition with a prize, or extra goodies just for participating. (Donuts in the breakroom?)
But it's largely an unused practice to actually turn the work itself into a game. Partially because we've been culturally suggested to believe that games and play are what children do. They're not something adults should engage in. Reinforcing that behavior in adults would be catastrophic! Of course, no one takes the necessary step back to ask why it would be a problem. Games are proven to make us incredibly engaged, collaborative, and productive. So, if you can turn what you need done into a game, it stands to reason that the same thing would happen. Why would we suddenly decide to be lazy or unproductive if work became a game? Could we really be much more lazy and unproductive than we are now?
http://www.gallup.com/poll/165269/worldwide-employees-engaged-work.aspx

Technically, yes. But not by much. A mere 13% of workers worldwide are engaged in what they do.
Almost double that are actively disengaged.

What would we really have to lose by trying something new? Something that is evolutionarily suggested to work? I suppose we could theoretically lose that last 13% of people, but somehow, I find that a difficult pill to swallow...

-
Waddles