Students were randomly selected to study how leadership styles affect on academic performance. (The population of the participating schools ranges between 57 and 68 students. 48 students from each of the ten schools were selected to make up the sample for the study. This selection was done by writing "yes" on 48 pieces of paper and "no" on the rest. The papers were shuffled then picked by the students, and those who received a "Yes" on their paper were involved in the research.)

Seems like a good way to randomize the research population.

Of the multiple theories, I feel like my style applies mostly to the following: "The situational theory stipulates that leaders are the product of given situations. Thus, leadership is strongly affected by the situation from which the leader emerges and in which he/she operates." (Adeyemi, 2010)

The following quote is talking specifically about teachers, but I think all people can relate: "It is generally known that teachers learn to adopt positive or negative attitudes toward their work in accordance with whether they perceive the leadership behavior of the principal as supportive or harmful to their sense of personal worth and expectation.

"A leader is an individual who excercises positive acts on others." Agenta (2005) cited in Uwaifo (2012)

Yes, I cannot agree more. I've slowly won some respect in my workplace by helping out by getting my hands dirty more than by telling an employee how to get their hands dirty. Action and exercising energy/authority/knowledge/etc. to have a positive affect on others is crucial to be a leader.

"A leader is one who is looked up to, whose personal judgement is trusted, and who can inspire and warm the heart of those he/she heads or leads, gaining their trust and confidence and explaining what is needed in a language which can be understood." Agenta (2005) cited in Uwaifo (2012)

As I'm reading this I'm thinking about my own interaction with everyone in my place of employment. I'm a scheduling manager at a fairly small manufacturing company. We make office products and I'm over 50+ people. Am I someone who is looked up to? I hope so, and try to be. Can my personal judgement be trusted? Can in inspire and warm the heart of those I head or lead? Am I able to gain their trust? Gain their confidence? Am I capable to explain what is needed in a language which can be understood. I try to speak Spanish every day, but realize I need to make it a point to learn more technical Spanish. "Can we change the flow of these pallets in a different direction to allow a "First In, First Out" route?" These are the hard types of things to translate, and fulfill understanding in all parties. (*noted "to do" next week)

Really good questions to ask yourself, whether you own your own business, are just starting in the work place, or anywhere in between.

I thought it may be worthwhile to look at this from a different angle than just trying to get workers to increase production numbers. If a gamified process increases the quality of work experience or engagement, it may allow the worker to WANT to increase numbers/quality/etc.

Very cool, and gives me hope to be able to improve conditions for my employees.

Great point. This would be another reason to "update" the game from time to time with new content.

I'm glad they addressed this, as I noted this earlier in the paper.

I am all for replacing monotonous repetitive tasks with robots, BUT in the meantime why not give manufacturing employees a better work life?

I hadn't thought of this as a way to improve employee confidence in management, but this is so important that it's worth trying to always improve on!

Great point. Machine operators may be using machines that are 30-40 years old, while in IT the computers were most likely built within the last 5 years.

True, and generally the employees may have many differences in IT versus in manufacturing.

This will be important to implement and track.

I have seen this a lot, as when we do time studies then production improves. As soon as no one is measuring, then production seems to stagnate or revert to a slower state.

Very important!

Any competition has to be "healthy" and I've thought about that the prize cannot be too big otherwise people could manipulate the rules to win.

This thought runs through my head a lot. Would the "best" gamification turn each workers tasks into something that would relate well in a fantasy type world? Or how about a futuristic world? Perhaps it could change every year to ensure everyone is satisfied.

This is a larger sample size than I would be able to attain at my workplace, so I will say it's a sample size worthy of study.

This is interesting, and something one could rate each position/job in manufacturing.

So true. The game has to be good enough that people WANT to play it, and see not playing as not utilizing everything their employer is offering.

This goes back to ensuring that whatever "game" is implement, it appeals to the masses and not just one type of worker/player.

Very interesting, and good to keep in mind as I work to implement an incentive plan at my job.

Csikszentmihalyi is a genius, and his "flow" is so important. He also describes a "finger tip" feel, where once you get so good at your task that you no longer have to think about it. You can just tell when its running good, or when there is an issue that needs to be resolved.

Yes! From many years of reading Game Design textbooks, most "players" are motivated by one of several main objectives in games. Exploring, Conquering/Mastery, Socializing, and ... I'm drawing a blank but a "good" game will appeal to all types of players.

Wow! I wonder how this compares to North America or Europe?

This is a little bit scary, as reliance on China-made products seems to make sourcing challenging when many products/raw materials are no longer produced in North America. We become bound to shipping costs, which many increased up to 10X in the past two years. With no alternative, manufacturers and consumers are forced to pay if they want the goods.

This makes sense, as IT and the service sector rely heavily on user interfaces that would make transitioning to a "gamified" version simpler. Many operators in manufacturing are not required to use a computer/tablet throughout their day.

Very interesting that job motivation increased, but job satisfaction and performance showed no positive correlation. (No negative either!)

For my proposal, I am weighing the pros and cons of trying to turn the proposal into an app or software. Due to wanting to actually do this at work, most likely initially it will not require an app.

This is incredible and exciting, as for a fairly low cost of entry (Maybe $1000 worth of gift cards to start?) we could really see some increased output!

A fairly small sample size, but still significant enough to be valuable.

61% of respondents felt bored when training was not "gamified"! Wow!

This was quite important, as this is the initial thought of improving production in manufacturing. People love the feeling of being rewarded for working harder!